Skip to main content
  • CNSNews.com
  • MRC TV
  • Biz & Media
  • Culture & Media
  • TimesWatch
  • Take Action!

Join Us @:
Facebook
Twitter
Amazon Kindle

Free email alerts!

NewsBusters logo
May 24, 2013
  • Home
  • Blogs
  • About
  • Forum
  • Take Action
  • Contact
  • Donate
  • Search
  • RSS

Hot Topics

  • Obama Targets Fox News
  • IRS Targets Tea Party
  • Censoring the News
Home » Blogs » Kyle Drennen's blog
  • Chris Matthews Trashes 'Morning Joe' for Being 'Open to All People's Points of View'
  • Thursday Morning: Fox Gives 15 Minutes to Latest IRS Scandal Details; NBC and ABC Ignore
  • On Taxpayer-subsidized PBS, Liberal Reporters Lament Benghazi Won't Go Away
  • No Mention of IRS Scandal on NBC's 'Today,' But Plenty of Time for Obama Prom Photo
  • MSNBC’s Chris Hayes Hypes ‘LGBT Injustice’ During Interview With 18-year Old Woman Charged With Sex With Minor
  • Lisa Myers: 'For a Year the IRS Essentially Knowingly Lied to Congress and No One Came Forward'
  • Network Evening Shows Don’t Name Islam in London Terror Attack
  • MSNBC’s Finney On IRS Scandal: ‘Why Didn't Romney Make More Of A Big Deal Of It?’

CBS 'Early Show': Republicans Want to 'Wipe Out' Dem 'Signature Achievement' of ObamaCare

By Kyle Drennen | January 03, 2011 | 17:38

A  A
Kyle Drennen's picture

Reporting on Monday's CBS Early Show, congressional correspondent Nancy Cordes decried House Republicans attempting to repeal ObamaCare: "...they made it clear they'll try to use their 49-vote advantage to wipe out key Democratic legislation from 2010. Including the President's signature achievement, health care reform."

Following Cordes's report, co-host Erica Hill asked political analyst John Dickerson about the likelihood of repeal. After Dickerson explained that repeal could not pass, a relieved Hill declared: "So, folks who like it may not have to worry about it? Because there are certain provisions that have actually gone over well with a fair number of Americans. Things like keeping your adult children on you're insurance and of course those lifetime coverage limits." Dickerson agreed: "And new things that people will like are coming on line with the new year. Middle income seniors will see – get some relief in the prescription drug prices."

On Sunday's Face the Nation, substitute host Harry Smith dismissed GOP goals of "dismantling health care" as merely a "fool's errand."

Concluding her report, Cordes noted how newly elected Tea Party Republicans might make Congress feel "uncomfortable": "37 new House members consider themselves part of the Tea Party and they'll be looking to make their mark in ways that make both parties a little uncomfortable." Later, Hill repeated the talking point in her discussion with Dickerson: "...a lot of people are watching this as potential political theater in Washington. As Nancy pointed out, some things that the Tea Partiers may want to do could make both parties uncomfortable."  

The overall tone of the segment portrayed Republicans as on the attack. At the top of the show, Hill proclaimed: "Republicans vow to take on Mr. Obama, with everything from health care to government spending at stake. But the President's not backing down." After describing how the GOP wanted to "wipe out" ObamaCare, Cordes added: "And they won't be stopping there. The Republicans now have the power to launch investigations into the White House, the chairman of the oversight committee says he will hold hearings on everything from Wikileaks to federal spending."

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

Here is a full transcript of the January 3 segment:

7:00AM ET TEASE:

ERICA HILL: Back to work. As the President and members of Congress return to Washington, Republicans vow to take on Mr. Obama, with everything from health care to government spending at stake. But the President's not backing down. We're live on Capitol Hill for the big showdown.

7:03 AM ET SEGMENT:

ERICA HILL: Turning our attention now to politics. It is a new year and it's also a new era in Washington, with Republicans taking control of the House for the first time in five years. CBS News congressional correspondent Nancy Cordes has more this morning on the looming battle between the GOP and President Obama. Which promises to be a heated one, Nancy.

NANCY CORDES: Erica, good morning. That's right, the President is enjoying his final full day of his Hawaiian vacation, knowing that when he comes back to Washington he'll be returning to a very different city.

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Back to Work; Obama, GOP Return to Changed Political Landscape]

When Republicans take control of the House this week, they'll have their largest majority in 70 years. On Sunday, they made it clear they'll try to use their 49-vote advantage to wipe out key Democratic legislation from 2010. Including the President's signature achievement, health care reform.

FRED UPTON [REP. R-MI]: We'll look at these individual pieces to see if we can't have the thing crumble.

CORDES: And they won't be stopping there. The Republicans now have the power to launch investigations into the White House, the chairman of the oversight committee says he will hold hearings on everything from Wikileaks to federal spending.

DARRELL ISSA [REP. R-CA]: Time and time again what we've seen with the Obama administration is they played fast and loose with the walking-around-money Congress gave them.

CORDES: Both parties say debt reduction is a top priority. One of their first tests of bipartisanship will come this spring, when Congress must vote to raise the nation's debt ceiling, which currently stands at $14.3 trillion. The vote is normally a routine matter, but the new Tea Party contingent might balk. The White House warned a no vote could be disastrous.  

AUSTAN GOOLSBEE [CHMN., WHITE HOUSE COUNCIL OF ECONOMIC ADVISERS]: The impact on the economy would be catastrophic. I mean, that would be a worse financial economic crisis than anything we saw in 2008.

CORDES: 37 new House members consider themselves part of the Tea Party and they'll be looking to make their mark in ways that make both parties a little uncomfortable. Erica.

HILL: Nancy Cordes this morning in Washington. Nancy, thanks. And joining us, also from Washington this morning, CBS News political analyst John Dickerson. John, good morning to you.

JOHN DICKERSON: Good morning, Erica.

HILL: As we know – as we know and as Nancy pointed out, the number one issue for Republicans as they move into power is health care reform. And ideally, getting rid of it. What is the likelihood of that happening?

DICKERSON: The likelihood is that it's not going to happen. It's not going to be repealed. Even if House Republicans can pass a repeal, the Senate would have to bring it up, still controlled by Democrats. That's not going to happen. If it somehow miraculously did happen, then the President would probably veto it and both houses would have to override that veto and the votes just aren't there for that.

HILL: So, folks who like it may not have to worry about it? Because there are certain provisions that have actually gone over well with a fair number of Americans. Things like keeping your adult children on you're insurance and of course those lifetime coverage limits.

DICKERSON: And new things that people will like are coming on line with the new year. Middle income seniors will see – get some relief in the prescription drug prices. But there are other parts that people don't like and those are tied to the economy, particularly an onerous paperwork process that small business has to go through and that's something Republicans are targeting. For Republicans, the key is to link anything they do to health care to the economy. That is still the central issue and Republicans have to focus anything they want to do on health care and say, 'This is how this hurts the economy and that's why we're trying to get rid of it.'

HILL: And Republicans have promised to keep their focus on spending. There's going to be a big challenge, though, to that focus coming up very quickly in the new year here because, of course, in February, there's going to be – Congress is going to have to pass a resolution basically to keep the government running and that could mean raising the debt ceiling. How are they going to agree – make that work for them in terms of what they promised and what may have to be done?

DICKERSON: Well, Austin Goolsbee, the President's economic advisor, said it would be catastrophic not to raise the debt limit. Republican leaders say it would be catastrophic, as well. There's agreement on that. The question is, as they battle over maybe getting some spending reduction in order to raise that limit, what Republicans will try and do is say to their Tea Party backers, 'Look, we had to raise the debt limit, it would have been catastrophic not to, but we got spending reductions as a part of a deal to do so,' and they'll have to just hope that the spending reductions they get will be good enough for those Tea Party supporters.

HILL: And when it comes to Tea Party supporters, a lot of people are watching this as potential political theater in Washington. As Nancy pointed out, some things that the Tea Partiers may want to do could make both parties uncomfortable. How is this going to play out between the Republicans and Tea Partiers?

DICKERSON: Well, even in the moment of excitement when Republicans won that big victory in November, a lot of Tea Party activists and their leaders said Republicans are on probation, no time for celebration. Immediately they're on the hook. And the thing that Tea Party backers will be looking at is spending. Will the reductions be real? And they're angry already that the GOP in agreement with the President in the lame duck session of the last Congress, just spent a bunch of money and didn't behave in the way those Tea Party backers would like them to have behaved. So the question for Republican leaders will be to able to say, 'Look, we're doing what you sent us here to do but remember, we only control one of the two houses of Congress, we can't remake the city in a day.'

HILL: Can't remake the city. And it all comes back, as we just heard several times, John, to the bottom line and spending. John Dickerson, thanks.

CHRIS WRAGGE: Well, it sounds as though there's some storm clouds over Washington. I hope the weather was nice in Hawaii.

HILL: You – one would hope so.

WRAGGE: It's going to be a busy month.

HILL: Plenty of stuff to watch though, and it will give us a lot to talk about in 2011.

WRAGGE: You got that right.

About the Author

Kyle Drennen is a news analyst at the Media Research Center. Click here to follow Kyle Drennen on Twitter.
  • Campaigns & Elections
  • Conservatives & Republicans
  • Liberals & Democrats
  • Budget
  • 2010 Congressional
  • Congress
  • Health Care
  • Erica Hill
  • John Dickerson
  • Nancy Cordes
  • CBS
  • Early Show
  • ObamaCare
  • Kyle Drennen's blog
  • Login to post comments
  • Printer-friendly version
Stop Censoring The Gosnell Trial!

Comments

yep...those poor Russians

Submitted by donabernathy on Mon, 01/03/2011 - 7:14pm.

didn't want to turn back the clock in 1919, They wanted to wait for Ronald Reagan to free them decades later.

 

roflmao

  • Login to post comments

Wipe It Out?

Submitted by justbob223 on Mon, 01/03/2011 - 8:12pm.

Damn straight.

  • Login to post comments

YES!

Submitted by jon_torlin on Mon, 01/03/2011 - 8:25pm.

Hell yes the Republicans want to wipe it out, so does every free citizen in America who can think for themselves!  We are NOT all socialists!  Just those in namby pamby land and in the MSM!

-Jon

  • Login to post comments

Is that the same ' Signature

Submitted by Barack_must_go..... on Mon, 01/03/2011 - 9:01pm.

Is that the same ' Signature Achievement ' only one democrat, Russ Feingold, dare speak about leading up to the mid term elections? 

By the way, he ( Feingold ) didn't make it. His campaign for reelection was DOA.

Hopefully ObamaCare suffers the same fate.

Barack_Must_Go.....

  • Login to post comments

More a diaster then an achievement

Submitted by Fire Fighter CO on Mon, 01/03/2011 - 10:35pm.

Let the MSM scream bloody murder aboout this repeal try.  Very few other then purple kool-aide drinkers  listens to them anymore .

They know that the vote will keep this issue in the highlight and force the progressives hand.  Why else are the trying so hard to sell it as a waste of time.  The progressives passed this nightmare of a bill so they need to have their feet held to the fire.

"It's not that our liberal friends are ignorant, it's that they know so much that isn't so". ~ Ronald Reagan 



 
  • Login to post comments

Actually a lot of

Submitted by Jer on Mon, 01/03/2011 - 10:49pm.

Actually a lot of "progressives" don't like the bill.  No public option.

Jer

  • Login to post comments

Jer

Submitted by jon_torlin on Mon, 01/03/2011 - 11:46pm.

Say what?  Out of 2000 pages of this bogus bill with all its problems(especially dipping into bank accounts unfettered), this is the thing you are going to use?

Seriously?

-Jon

  • Login to post comments

jon...

Submitted by Jer on Mon, 01/03/2011 - 11:54pm.

What "thing" are you referring to?

Jer

  • Login to post comments

the thing

Submitted by jon_torlin on Tue, 01/04/2011 - 12:04am.

You said a lot of "progressives" didn't like the bill because of no public option.  There are far worse things to worry about with this than "no public option."

FYI, not trying to  be sarcastic or trying to catch you in a trap, just trying to make a point considering the nature and complexity of the bill.

-Jon

  • Login to post comments

jon...

Submitted by Jer on Tue, 01/04/2011 - 12:16am.

I didn't think you were being sarcastic or trying to trap me.  I honestly wasn't sure what you had in mind.  The only purpose of my initial post was to point out that a significant percentage of Progressives are not particularly overjoyed with the bill that passed, and the principal reason for their disaffection is the lack of a public option.  Perhaps their cause for concern is misplaced.

Question:  Did you support the health reform bill the Republicans put forward in 1993 as an alternative to HillaryCare?...because that GOP plan was a hell of a lot like Obamacare.

Jer

  • Login to post comments

To answer your question

Submitted by jon_torlin on Tue, 01/04/2011 - 12:24am.

I am unfamiliar with the contents of the bill the Republicans put forth.

However, I would not be in favor of anything that implies a mandate that violates the 10th amendment, as well as it should be between the doctor and the patient and not a government entity to decide your health and treatment.  I'm also not in favor of anything that forces someone else to pay for my treatment, whether or not I or they can afford it.  That's the public option.  As for "progressives," those are the types that tend to go backwards, which is the opposite of being "progressive" which is going forward.  Progressives tend to have Destructive tendencies.

I could go on, but that's just a part of it.

-Jon

  • Login to post comments

Yet again...

Submitted by Unsane on Tue, 01/04/2011 - 2:53pm.

"SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!" 

"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)

  • Login to post comments

Good God, Unsane...

Submitted by Jer on Tue, 01/04/2011 - 3:01pm.

Get help.

Jer

  • Login to post comments

Help?

Submitted by Unsane on Tue, 01/04/2011 - 3:13pm.

Don't blame me, blame your responses, Microsoft Word and the cut-and-paste option. 

The door opens, the tools are at hand, and the need to use is too damn great. 

"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)

  • Login to post comments

What are the names of those

Submitted by Beukeboom on Tue, 01/04/2011 - 11:15am.

What are the names of those "progressives" in Congress that don't like Obamacare? And did those "progressives" in Congress who allegedly don't or didn't like Obamacare vote for it or not?

  • Login to post comments

Beukeboom...

Submitted by Jer on Tue, 01/04/2011 - 12:01pm.

There were many lib/progressive members of Congress who vigorously supported a public option.  Heck, Obama favored one.  So did Pelosi.  But the final version was a compromise in order to gain the support of "blue dog" Dems and hopefully a fair number of Republicans.  Regrettably, it became clear the GOP was going to stonewall it virtually to a man [and woman], and so even the "progressive" Dems who were not particularly happy with the end product because it lacked a public option rather reluctantly voted "yea" [since, especially in the Senate, practically every one of their votes was crucial to passage].

Polls showed that something like 10-12% of [general public] respondents flatly opposed the bill because it didn't go far enough, again primarily citing its lack of a public option.  As I indicated earlier, this "commie/socialist" bill was similar in many respects  to the one the GOP had proposed in the early 90's.

Jer

  • Login to post comments

Please answer the questions directly, Jer.

Submitted by Beukeboom on Tue, 01/04/2011 - 1:24pm.

Jer, you claimed "a lot of progressives don't like the bill" (e.g. -- "Obamacare") so I asked you:

What are the names of those "progressives" in Congress that don't like Obamacare? And did those "progressives" in Congress who allegedly don't or didn't like Obamacare vote for it or not?

You failed to answer these questions even though the questions were straightfoward. Instead, as expected, you chose to bloviate and equivocate. I didn't ask you which progessives didn't/don't like portions of Obamacare since that was not your initial claim nor did I ask you if it was a compromise or not. Those points are irrelevent to your initial claim. Please cease with the red herrings.

Therefore I humbly request again that you please provide a complete list of those "progressives" in Congress who didn't/don't like Obamacare and also indicate whether they voted for or against the bill. After all, actions speak louder than words, especially in Congress. If they didn't like it as you claimed then they should not have voted for it otherwise their current objections ring very, very hollow. After all, the Dems held the majority in both sides of Congress and could have passed it quite easily if they were as unified as claimed.

Something else I would be most interested in, but realize there is no way of knowing for sure (this gets you off the hook, Jer, since I know no one can accurately nor adequately answer): how many Congresscritters actually read the bill BEFORE voting on it and how many Congresscritters even know what's in the thing today?


 

  • Login to post comments

Beukeboom...

Submitted by Jer on Tue, 01/04/2011 - 2:12pm.

I answered the question directly.  And there was no bloviation or equivocation in my response.  Please do not lecture me or bark orders.  My assertion was that many progressives in general objected to the bill and that contention was borne out by poll results, the percentages of which I stated as well as the basis for the opposition.

As far as Senators who supported the public option--and would have preferred its inclusion in the final bill--were Schumer, Feingold, Boxer, Feinstein, Kerry, Franken, as well as a number of others who would fall into that category.

Do a little research on your own, and please cease with the condescending, professorial remonstrances and smartass derision.  We'll get along much better. 

Jer

  • Login to post comments

No, Jer, it is clear you did

Submitted by Beukeboom on Tue, 01/04/2011 - 3:39pm.

No, Jer, it is clear you did not and apparently will not answer my two simple questions directly and you did indeed bloviate and equivocate. Although you accuse me (falsely) of lying, it seems that you are the one guilty of stretching the truth beyond the breaking point. Again your response here fails to answer my questions. Let me restate them here:

What are the names of those "progressives" in Congress that don't like Obamacare? And did those "progressives" in Congress who allegedly don't or didn't like Obamacare vote for it or not?

Now apparently either the questions were confusing to you or you just decided to play dumb on them so I felt it necessary to clarify, part of which read, "Therefore I humbly request again that you please provide a complete list of those "progressives" in Congress who didn't/don't like Obamacare and also indicate whether they voted for or against the bill. After all, actions speak louder than words, especially in Congress. If they didn't like it as you claimed then they should not have voted for it otherwise their current objections ring very, very hollow. After all, the Dems held the majority in both sides of Congress and could have passed it quite easily if they were as unified as claimed."

Now if you are unable to support your initial claim that "a lot of 'progressives' don't like the bill" [note: no misrepresentation] just admit that you are unable to do so and move on. Thus far your childish rants, ad hominem attacks and other fallaciousness merely places shame on yourself.

 

  • Login to post comments

Beukeboom: When I said many

Submitted by Jer on Tue, 01/04/2011 - 3:55pm.

Beukeboom:

When I said many "progressives" don't like the bill, I WAS NOT REFERRING TO CONGRESSIONAL DEMOCRATS.

I was referring to that segment of the electorate which comprises the progressive wing of the Democratic party--probably most of whom have considered themselves to be--or at least were in the past--Obama's ideological base.  They are the ones who are likely to post most frequently at dKos, Huffpo, etc. and tune into Olbermann, Maddow, Schultz and the like.

Many of those progressives are lukewarm about the bill yet support it, while, as I noted earlier, about ten per cent flatly oppose it [according to the polls], primarily because it failed to include a public option.

I hope that helps.  Maybe we simply misunderstood one another.

Jer

  • Login to post comments

By the way, I will agree to

Submitted by Jer on Tue, 01/04/2011 - 2:14pm.

By the way, I will agree to research the position of each and every Democratic Senator and submit the complete list per your instructions, as well as providing you with a representative sampling of the views of Democratic members of the House, if...

You will provide me a thorough analysis of the GOP health reform proposal of 1993-94, including, but not limited to, a point by point comparison of the provisions thereof with the present bill commonly referred to as "Obamacare".  I would also ask you to submit a list of every Republican member of Congress who supported the 1993 proposal but objected to the current bill and the grounds for his or her objection.

Finally, please submit a summary of the legislative process with respect to the Patriot Act, the number of hearings held, the length of time it was debated, when it was posted on the internet for public review, an itemization of the pork and earmarks contained in said bill, and the names of each Republican who admitted to never reading the entire bill.

Thanks,

Jer

  • Login to post comments

Good evening Jer

Submitted by cocodrie on Tue, 01/04/2011 - 2:28pm.

I didn't know you were a snipe hunt enthusiast.

Have a blessed year.

 

Jesus Loves You so much He died for you

  • Login to post comments

Indeed, cocodrie...

Submitted by Jer on Tue, 01/04/2011 - 2:43pm.

A veteran of many snipe hunts spanning nearly half a century.  And still trying to bag my first one!

Hope you have a very blessed 2011, too.

Jer

  • Login to post comments

No, Jer, your red herrings

Submitted by Beukeboom on Tue, 01/04/2011 - 2:41pm.

No, Jer, your red herrings will not work. You made the claim and the onus rests upon you to support your claim. You know how that works especially since you hold others to that standard. Or is this just an example of another one of your double-standards.

I believe it is another such example.

Therefore since all you are doing is mere bloviation and equivocation I will have to conclude that you are unwilling and/or unable to back up your initial claim. As expected.

Also, the wording of your initial claim implied strongly that you already knew those who didn't like the bill but in your most recent response you now admit you will have to research it thus indicating you didn't know "lots of 'progressives'" didn't like that bill. Interesting.

TYFYT

  • Login to post comments

Beukeboom...Please stop lying

Submitted by Jer on Tue, 01/04/2011 - 3:00pm.

This was my original verbatim claim:

"ACTUALLY A LOT OF "PROGRESSIVES" DON'T LIKE THE BILL.  NO PUBLIC OPTION."

YOU were the one who then revised it and attached further conditions and qualifications including red herring assignments demanding I submit complete lists of Congressmen, etc.

So please put a lid on your blatant misrepresentations and your pitiful whining.  I thougt maybe you had grown up a bit   Obviously I was wrong about that.

Jer

  • Login to post comments

No misrepresentation, Jer.

Submitted by Beukeboom on Tue, 01/04/2011 - 3:24pm.

No misrepresentation, Jer. You continue to equivocate & bloviate which isn't surprising since that's your habitual M.O. whenever you make claims you cannot or will not substantiate. And you now accuse me falsely to try to engage in character assassination, ad hominem and poisoning the well. Let me know when (or if) you are willing and able to actually substantiate your claim with the list of all "progressives" who didn't like the bill. And then research how those "progressives" voted on the bill (and post the voting record of each of those "progressives" on that bill). After all, actions speak louder than words.

BTW, I never requested you provide "complete lists of Congressmen" but a list of those "progressives" whom you claim didn't like the bill. And I requested you show us how those "progressives" (of which you claim didn't like the bill) voted on that bill. Simple. But it stands that you are guilty of that which you falsely accuse me (i.e. -- misrepresentations).

TYFYT

  • Login to post comments

Public MANDATE

Submitted by Unsane on Tue, 01/04/2011 - 2:54pm.

No public MANDATE, you mean? 

There was nothing "optional" about the public "option".  You know it and I know it. 

"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)

  • Login to post comments

Obamacare? "Significant

Submitted by Beukeboom on Tue, 01/04/2011 - 11:13am.

Obamacare? "Significant achievement"?!?

'Scuse me for a moment...

 

BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Sorry...

Just how can anyone make that claim with a straight face is beyoond me. Must take lots of practice and preparation.

  • Login to post comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Stop Censoring The Gosnell Trial!

Editors' Picks

  • Deputy kills PBS NewsHour staffer (Washington Examiner)
  • Oklahoma disaster was tragic, but larger ones have occurred (USA Today)
  • Mainstream Media Scream: Today’s Savannah Guthrie questions GOP ‘overreach’ (Paul Bedard, Washington Examiner)
  • Desperate Carney complains asking about scandals like asking about birth certificate (RCP)
  • Look at NYT's partisan-hack rewrite of the IRS hearing (Draw and STRIKE!)
  • Study: Christians who tithe have better finances than those who don't (TGC)
  • The media are willing accomplices to Obama (PolitiChicks)
  • FBI has suspects in mind in Benghazi; Obama prefers to try them in court (AP)
Ann Coulter's picture
Ann Coulter
Ann Coulter Column: When Did We Vote to Become Mexico?
Chuck Norris's picture
Chuck Norris
Chuck Norris Column: Why Tim Tebow Is an Ultimate Clutch Player
Walter E. Williams's picture
Walter E. Williams
Walter E. Williams Column: Hating America
Michelle Malkin's picture
Michelle Malkin
Malkin Column: Obama's Emptiest Benghazi Talking Point
Ann Coulter's picture
Ann Coulter
Coulter Column: Sorry, Sen. Rubio, But Your Immigration Plan Is Still Problematic
More >

RSS FeedAmazon KindleFacebookTwitter

Stop Censoring The News!

Gosnell's Just the Tip of the Iceberg
more cartoons
  • Leno: ‘Not Looking Good for Obama - Today His Teleprompter Took the Fifth’
  • Robert Redford Blasts America's Belief System, Tech Advancements
  • Dennis Miller: 'Nixonian' Obama Will Need Teleprompter to Say 'I Am Not a Crook'
  • Leno: Obama Knows Nothing Because They Moved ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ to the White House
  • IRS Charged With Unfair Scrutiny of Pro-Life Groups' Prayer Events, Protest Signs
More >
NewsBusters

Executive Editor
Matthew Sheffield

Editor at Large
Brent Baker

Senior Editors
Tim Graham
Rich Noyes

Managing Editor
Ken Shepherd

Associate Editor
Noel Sheppard

Contributing Editors
Tom Blumer
Geoffrey Dickens
Dan Gainor
David Limbaugh
Mithridate Ombud
Clay Waters
Scott Whitlock

Senior Contributor
Mark Finkelstein

Contributing Writers
Matthew Balan
Michael M. Bates
Erin R. Brown
Jack Coleman
Kyle Drennen
Douglas Ernst
P. J. Gladnick
Stephen Gutowski
Matt Hadro
D. S. Hube
Kathleen McKinley
Dave Pierre
Amy Ridenour
Julia A. Seymour
Terry Trippany
Rusty Weiss
Brad Wilmouth

Publisher
Brent Bozell

Site Design
Dialog New Media

 

  • Home
  • Blogs
  • About
  • Forum
  • Contact
  • Donate
  • Search
  • Account
  • rss
  • CNSNews
  • MRC TV
  • Biz & Media
  • Culture & Media
  • Take Action!
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Amazon Kindle
  • Advertise
  • Jobs

Copyright © 2005-2013 NewsBusters.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use