Obama's looking for Rodney

Well, sort of. The White House sent out a mass e-mail targeted at congressmen who voted no on health care reform the first time around, and Rodney is one of them. Here is part of what it says:

“Your representative, Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen, voted last fall to allow insurance companies to continue to jack up rates, drop coverage when folks need it the most, and discriminate against people with pre-existing conditions.

Now, we’re in the final march for reform and there’s one last chance to do the right thing. Please call Rep. Frelinghuysen today and let them know there is a political price to favoring big insurance companies over the American people — OFA supporters in New Jersey have pledged 258,616 volunteer hours to fight for candidates who support reform. “

Advertisements

About fsnowflack
Fred Snowflack was editorial page editor and a political columnist for the Daily Record of Morristown for almost 12 years. He has won numerous awards for editorial and column writing from the New Jersey Press Association and has written a blog on county and state politics for the last three years. He lives in Ledgewood in Morris County.

70 Responses to Obama's looking for Rodney

  1. P says:

    More FUD from the Obama administration.

    How about addressing the real cost drivers:

    * More drugs, tests and procedures than ever before – This stuff isn’t FREE.

    * Defensive medicine driven by a lack of Tort Reform.

    * A total disconnect between services rendered and payment (imagine if you had “insurance” for your grocery store purchases – pay a $20 copay and go wild!).

    Does Obama’s plan really address any of these issues?

    So keep Voting “No” Rodney and you’ll have our votes in November. America needs REAL Health Care Reform, not ObamaCare.

    P.S. When are we going to have truth in advertising applied to political organizations – OFA should be OFO – Organizing for Obama!

    Insert lame rebuttal from OFO Spokesperson Nedd below

    ———————————————-

  2. Ted says:

    Pbrain, you just described the reforms in the Democratic plan. Are you sure you’re not a progressive. lol

  3. P says:

    Here we see Problem #1 with HCR – No one really knows what’s in the bills.

    Tell us how the Senate bill (which is what is about to become law) addresses each of my three issues (which, BTW, are not inclusive of everything that is wrong, just three major issues off the top-of-my-head).

    Just saying “they’re there, TRUST me,” doesn’t cut it. “I’m from Missouri.”

  4. Ted says:

    So Pbrain, “no one really knows what’s in the bills” but you can drag on about what’s wrong with them?

    Had you listened to proponents of the bills unstead of blathering you’d have the answer to your own question

  5. P says:

    Teddy – I was trying to be kind by not singling you out, but, just to be clear, No One = TED. Please demonstrate where in the Senate bill any of the above is addressed.

    P.S. I won’t be holding my breath whilst you thumb through the 2,000 or so pages.

  6. Ted says:

    Pbrain, it’s been done many times by the proponents. With your google powers you’ve found the talking points of the detractors now do some productive work.

    If this is another lame attempt at the socratic method, go back in your hole and take a nap.

  7. P says:

    The answer I expected – No proof, and a challenge to prove that something doesn’t exist. Typical Obama-ite smoke and mirrors. Any wonder why the negatives on this turkey are at 50% and rising? O-OFA

  8. Ted says:

    No Pbrain, I know proof exists. You’re just oo lazy to search anything but Republican talking points

  9. Kevin Nedd says:

    Fred,

    Your statement the ” The White House sent out a mass e-mail…” is wrong. The email you referenced was sent out by Organization for America, a project of the Democratic National Committee. It was not issued by the White House. Thus your headline is incorrect and misleading as well.

  10. No Kevin, the White House wrote to me .directly … I’m important

  11. P says:

    I guess Mr. OFA (Lost Valley Division) got his marching orders too. Nice to see that the Obama permanent campaign never went away. It is the one thing he is good at. Also see that he’s decided to stick around DC for a few extra days to see if he can push HCR across the finish line. Chances that it gets completed next week ~0%.

    Ted – How do you search for something that doesn’t exist??? It would be like trying to find your sense of humor.

  12. Kevin Nedd says:

    P,
    I was Co-Chair of NJ for Obama in Morris County. My guy won. The economy is improving. My IRA has fully recovered. Health care is going to pass. Iraq and Afghanistan are more stable. I am pleased at the direction we are heading.

    And while YOU continue to be a “hater”, try reading Mr. Brook’s op-ed. You might learn something.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/12/opinion/12brooks.html?ref=opinion

  13. P says:

    Libs love to call conservatives “haters” when they are losing a fight. Conservatives are Lovers, not Haters. Although we are not fond of Libs’ kooky ideas.

    Also note that for all the yelling and screaming about “Republican obstructionism,” (I saw the whining Reid memo on your website. P.S. – the DNC says their check is in the mail), it’s the Dems who are blocking Obama’s agenda. They have the votes, but not the willpower. And the longer it takes, the more time they have to think about jumping off the cliff together (or not).

    Also, it’s interesting to see Obama in full campaign mode after he scolded John McCain at the HC Summit for essentially doing the same thing – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXudI0ibo-k

    It made for a great sound bite, but also exposed Obama as a HYPOCRITE. He loves to lecture (Let me be PERFECTLY CLEAR), but never holds himself to the same standard.

    It’s also nice that Obama’s team continues to pretend that he re-wrote our Iraq and Afghanistan strategy, but as the article you linked to notes – Eighty (80%) percent of Obama’s foreign policy was lifted directly from the Bush administration – especially Iraq & Afghanistan. Not exactly the Bold Change that Libs voted for, or something that you should brag about as an “Obama success.”

    As for the state of the economy, my favorite video from 2010 (so far) – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LC211h9AY-4

    Re: The rest (HCR, education, Guantanamo, Financial Reform), Obama hasn’t actually accomplished any of those major objectives, so until we have signed legislation to judge, it’s hard to say where he is – Left, Center-Left, Center or just a guy who wants a presidential legacy.

  14. Kevin Nedd says:

    P,

    As the WT GOP discovered in 2005, I am far from liberal. As only a bunch of “liberals” could vote for an 11.1% municipal tax increase. However, it’s no secret I am a PROUD Obama supporter.
    I hope you clear your calendar for March 20th, because that’s when it appears the HCR debate will come to an end.

    Your Obama vs., McCain comment is ridiculous. Obama’s comment with respect to McCain pertained to the context of the forum in which they were participating at that moment. The President would be doing a disservice to his own agenda if he didn’t aggressively campaign for it now as a meant increase public support and convince Democratic lawmakers to support the bill.

    I agree the President has followed the prior administrations script on Iraq, but to say he has done the same for Afghanistan is a stretch. His thoughtful, strategic approach has turned around a situation that for 8 years floundered under Bush. In addition, he has fostered an unprecedented degree of cooperation with Pakistan, which has led to the killing or capture of a significant number of Taliban and Al Qaeda leaders.

    As for the “economy” video. I have no interest in watching it.

  15. P says:

    So Obama can “campaign” when he fells it is appropriate, but Republicans can’t. I believe that still falls under HYPOCRISY.

    As for March 20th (and you did mean 3/20/2010, right? 🙂 ), isn’t that like the 700th “deadline” that Obama’s set for “action?” How did the first 699 work out?

    When push comes to shove, because the whole process has become such a mess (and it actually makes either of the “reform” bills look reasonable!), it will collapse under its own weight. I’ll check back on this at 00:00 on the 21st.

  16. Actually, P, all deadlines in politics are fluid …
    The bottom line is that reform is likely to pass, and it will be a watershed moment in the history of the United States … …

  17. P says:

    As Fred noted – deadlines are just artificial constructs that politicians use to pretend that there is some real urgency to what they are doing. I just made a “big deal” of it since the Supercilious Nedd guaranteed action on the 20th.

    As for the bill’s likelihood of passage, I would still rate what’s currently on the table – House, Senate, Obama’s of some merger of the three – as less than 50% and dropping by the day.

    If one of the above does pass, it will be a watershed moment for the careers (or soon to be former careers) of many Democratic legislators.

  18. I don’t know, P, much of what I read tells a different story

    As I have said before, the politics should not matter. This is one of those times when Congress has to do what’s right and necessary.

  19. P says:

    Everyone is posturing and trying to project a strong hand. I just don’t see how they can use reconciliation, and I’m not talking about whether it’s “legal”, just practical.

    As far as “what’s right and necessary,” that’s a political argument, not a fact.

    What’s your date for passage or total collapse?

    And if this does collapse, what’s Obama’s strategy then? Does he do a Clintonian “the era of big government is over,” to retake the upper hand, or does he just sulk?

  20. Kevin Nedd says:

    What is so hard to understand?

    1. The House will pass the existing Senate Bill as is.

    2. The President will sign this bill into law.

    3a. Both the House and Senate will immediately take up a separate bill that with respect to health care, ONLY contains a fixes to the already passed and signed HCR bill.

    3b The Senate will move this “separate” bill through a process called reconciliation, which only allows issues that impact the budget or deficit to be included. This process only requires a simple 51 vote majority for passage. To ensure there are no funny games, the Senate Parliamentarian will rule on the particulars of this bill to ensure they meet the necessary budget/deficit impact requirements.

    3c. Once the Senate passed this “separate bill”, the House will vote on it and send it to the President for signature. Once he signs, the then existing HCR bill will be modified as such.

    So what is so hard to understand?

  21. P says:

    What happens after Step 2 if the Senate says – “We’re done!” How many House members who voted “yes” for their bill are already wondering about that scenario?

    And everyone seems to agree that you can’t fix the abortion issue via reconciliation because it has no budget impact. So that requires yet another after-the-fact fix predicated on promise. If you’re Bart Stupak and his Gang of Nine/Twelve/whatever, do you agree to that?

    In a town where no one trusts anyone, this all hinges on TRUST. See ya on the 21st. Bring plenty of towels to wipe the egg off our face.

  22. P says:

    Here’s another question – Why is an overhaul of the Student Loan program now also slated to be part of HCR? Maybe we should also add Nationalizing the Banking system, or making Obama’s Birthday a National Holiday. Both have as much to do with HCR as the SL program.

  23. Kevin Nedd says:

    P,

    1. I hear a deal may be in the works where at least 51 Senators have agreed to sign a letter indicating they will take action on the reconciliation fixes that will be announced next week. While not binding, this will help ease the fears of the House Democrats you now seem so concerned about.

    2. Stupak’s bluff has been called. The Senate language, which I have read is very explicit in preventing federal funds from being used to pay for abortion. Stupak is the only person on record who is saying otherwise. The votes he claims to have standing behind him are minimal at best and at this point do not appear to be worth pursuing. The Dem leadership has made the right call in ignoring him going forward.

    3. The reason for including the Student Loan changes in the reconciliation bill is twofold. First, it is part of the President’s domestic agenda and can be addressed in this manner. Second, it makes the bill more attractive to those who would like to see these changes as well. It also gives the Democrats a hammer for the fall when they tell the American people the GOP voted against making college more affordable. This is smart politics.

  24. P says:

    Key phrase – “not binding.” It’s like “the check is in the mail.”

    As for abortion, the Dems are trying a new dodge, they’re trying to pretend that the law doesn’t change existing law. It does, or will when a federal judge decides it gray enough to cover abortions. Dems will be applying pressure to the holdouts with both carrots and sticks. If this passes we’ll see new “incentives” that will make the Nebraska and Florida deals look like peanuts.

    It’s great that this bill is soooo popular that the Dems now have to add a “hammer” to get it passed. Might be great politics, but it is definitely bad policy.

    When you say you “heard,” did Nancy Pelosi call you up and fill you in?

  25. A Cute Observer says:

    I’m sending Rodney a check today. We’re lucky to have him representing us against the Obama war against taxpayers.

  26. Kevin Nedd says:

    1. It is called trust; a foreign concept for Republicans.

    2. Your “It does, or will” hedge is pretty lame. Instead of wimping out, point to the specific language in the Senate bill that deviates from present law.

    3. I guess you didn’t get the memo where the President told the Majority Leader and the House Speaker to remove all side “deals” present in the Senate bill via reconciliation, with no new ones added.

    4. Try watching something other than FOX. The letter has been talk about for the past 2 days on MSNBC.

  27. Kevin Nedd says:

    P – Let me help you out here. Below is the full text of Section 1303 of the Senate bill that speaks to abortion. Please tell where it allows FEDERAL TAX DOLLARS TO BE USED TO PAY FOR ABORTION?

    Fred – I apologize for the length of this post, but this is an important aspect of the bill that has been misrepresented. I would like for P man up and show us how his interpretation is correct.

    SEC. 1303. SPECIAL RULES.
    (a) Special Rules Relating to Coverage of Abortion Services-
    (1) VOLUNTARY CHOICE OF COVERAGE OF ABORTION SERVICES-
    (A) IN GENERAL- Notwithstanding any other provision of this title (or any amendment made by this title), and subject to subparagraphs (C) and (D)–
    (i) nothing in this title (or any amendment made by this title), shall be construed to require a qualified health plan to provide coverage of services described in subparagraph (B)(i) or (B)(ii) as part of its essential health benefits for any plan year; and
    (ii) the issuer of a qualified health plan shall determine whether or not the plan provides coverage of services described in subparagraph (B)(i) or (B)(ii) as part of such benefits for the plan year.
    (B) ABORTION SERVICES-
    (i) ABORTIONS FOR WHICH PUBLIC FUNDING IS PROHIBITED- The services described in this clause are abortions for which the expenditure of Federal funds appropriated for the Department of Health and Human Services is not permitted, based on the law as in effect as of the date that is 6 months before the beginning of the plan year involved.
    (ii) ABORTIONS FOR WHICH PUBLIC FUNDING IS ALLOWED- The services described in this clause are abortions for which the expenditure of Federal funds appropriated for the Department of Health and Human Services is permitted, based on the law as in effect as of the date that is 6 months before the beginning of the plan year involved.
    (C) PROHIBITION ON FEDERAL FUNDS FOR ABORTION SERVICES IN COMMUNITY HEALTH INSURANCE OPTION-
    (i) DETERMINATION BY SECRETARY- The Secretary may not determine, in accordance with subparagraph (A)(ii), that the community health insurance option established under section 1323 shall provide coverage of services described in subparagraph (B)(i) as part of benefits for the plan year unless the Secretary–
    (I) assures compliance with the requirements of paragraph (2);
    (II) assures, in accordance with applicable provisions of generally accepted accounting requirements, circulars on funds management of the Office of Management and Budget, and guidance on accounting of the Government Accountability Office, that no Federal funds are used for such coverage; and
    (III) notwithstanding section 1323(e)(1)(C) or any other provision of this title, takes all necessary steps to assure that the United States does not bear the insurance risk for a community health insurance option’s coverage of services described in subparagraph (B)(i).
    (ii) STATE REQUIREMENT- If a State requires, in addition to the essential health benefits required under section 1323(b)(3) (A), coverage of services described in subparagraph (B)(i) for enrollees of a community health insurance option offered in such State, the State shall assure that no funds flowing through or from the community health insurance option, and no other Federal funds, pay or defray the cost of providing coverage of services described in subparagraph (B)(i). The United States shall not bear the insurance risk for a State’s required coverage of services described in subparagraph (B)(i).
    (iii) EXCEPTIONS- Nothing in this subparagraph shall apply to coverage of services described in subparagraph (B)(ii) by the community health insurance option. Services described in subparagraph (B)(ii) shall be covered to the same extent as such services are covered under title XIX of the Social Security Act.
    (D) ASSURED AVAILABILITY OF VARIED COVERAGE THROUGH EXCHANGES-
    (i) IN GENERAL- The Secretary shall assure that with respect to qualified health plans offered in any Exchange established pursuant to this title–
    (I) there is at least one such plan that provides coverage of services described in clauses (i) and (ii) of subparagraph (B); and
    (II) there is at least one such plan that does not provide coverage of services described in subparagraph (B)(i).
    (ii) SPECIAL RULES- For purposes of clause (i)–
    (I) a plan shall be treated as described in clause (i)(II) if the plan does not provide coverage of services described in either subparagraph (B)(i) or (B)(ii); and
    (II) if a State has one Exchange covering more than 1 insurance market, the Secretary shall meet the requirements of clause (i) separately with respect to each such market.
    (2) PROHIBITION ON THE USE OF FEDERAL FUNDS-
    (A) IN GENERAL- If a qualified health plan provides coverage of services described in paragraph (1)(B)(i), the issuer of the plan shall not use any amount attributable to any of the following for purposes of paying for such services:
    (i) The credit under section 36B of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (and the amount (if any) of the advance payment of the credit under section 1412 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act).
    (ii) Any cost-sharing reduction under section 1402 of thePatient Protection and Affordable Care Act (and the amount (if any) of the advance payment of the reduction under section 1412 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act).
    (B) SEGREGATION OF FUNDS- In the case of a plan to which subparagraph (A) applies, the issuer of the plan shall, out of amounts not described in subparagraph (A), segregate an amount equal to the actuarial amounts determined under subparagraph (C) for all enrollees from the amounts described in subparagraph (A).
    (C) ACTUARIAL VALUE OF OPTIONAL SERVICE COVERAGE-
    (i) IN GENERAL- The Secretary shall estimate the basic per enrollee, per month cost, determined on an average actuarial basis, for including coverage under a qualified health plan of the services described in paragraph (1)(B)(i).
    (ii) CONSIDERATIONS- In making such estimate, the Secretary–
    (I) may take into account the impact on overall costs of the inclusion of such coverage, but may not take into account any cost reduction estimated to result from such services, including prenatal care, delivery, or postnatal care;
    (II) shall estimate such costs as if such coverage were included for the entire population covered; and
    (III) may not estimate such a cost at less than $1 per enrollee, per month.
    (3) PROVIDER CONSCIENCE PROTECTIONS- No individual health care provider or health care facility may be discriminated against because of a willingness or an unwillingness, if doing so is contrary to the religious or moral beliefs of the provider or facility, to provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions.
    (b) Application of State and Federal Laws Regarding Abortion-
    (1) NO PREEMPTION OF STATE LAWS REGARDING ABORTION- Nothing in this Act shall be construed to preempt or otherwise have any effect on State laws regarding the prohibition of (or requirement of) coverage, funding, or procedural requirements on abortions, including parental notification or consent for the performance of an abortion on a minor.
    (2) NO EFFECT ON FEDERAL LAWS REGARDING ABORTION-
    (A) IN GENERAL- Nothing in this Act shall be construed to have any effect on Federal laws regarding–
    (i) conscience protection;
    (ii) willingness or refusal to provide abortion; and
    (iii) discrimination on the basis of the willingness or refusal to provide, pay for, cover, or refer for abortion or to provide or participate in training to provide abortion.
    (3) NO EFFECT ON FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS LAW- Nothing in this subsection shall alter the rights and obligations of employees and employers under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
    (c) Application of Emergency Services Laws- Nothing in this Act shall be construed to relieve any health care provider from providing emergency services as required by State or Federal law, including section 1867 of the Social Security Act (popularly known as `EMTALA’).

  28. Kevin Nedd says:

    P,

    One point of clarification. Section B(ii) where it says “ABORTIONS FOR WHICH PUBLIC FUNDING IS ALLOWED” refers to Medicaid coverage of abortion in cases of rape, incest, and life endangerment, which the current Hyde Amendment allows. The Senate HCR bill maintains the status quo.

  29. Kevin Nedd says:

    P,

    This just hit the wires a few minutes ago. I don’t think abortion is going to be an issue when it comes to passing the bill as this makes Stupak’s false position even more lame….btw, I am Catholic, so it’s not like I woudn’t know.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/13/AR2010031301114.html?hpid=moreheadlines

  30. P says:

    MSNBC . . now there’s the place to get your “News!” Who’s your favorite “newscaster” – Matthews, Olbermann or Maddow?

    As for judicial rewriting of the law, I’d refer you to a little known decision – Roe v. Wade.

  31. Kevin Nedd says:

    P,

    Roe vs. Wade made abortion legal.

    The Hyde amendment restricts the use of federal funds for abortion.

    Ths Senate HCR bill maintains the standard in accordance with the Hyde amendment.

    If this is not the case, then you need to provide evidence beyond your opinion that it does not.

    You are beginning to sound an awful lot like a guy in my town by the name of Greg Jones who would say all sorts of things he could not prove. It finally got to a point where people pretty much ignore anything he said. I am about there with you as well.

  32. P says:

    Thanks for the link, unfortunately (for you), this is the nut graf from that story – “Major anti-abortion groups, including the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and the National Right to Life Committee, are adamantly opposed to the legislation, preferring stricter restrictions passed last November by the House.” Last time I checked, Catholics don’t put much stock in what Catholic Hospitals have to say on matters of faith.

    Go back a reread the thread and maybe you can figure out the Roe v. Wade reference.

    I doubt you can go more than a day ignoring what I write. Maybe you can give up fighting (and losing to) me for Lent.

  33. Kevin Nedd says:

    I won’t waste my time on your references. As for winners and losers, talk to me after the bill passes.

  34. P says:

    Call us when the bishops change their position.

    I guess you decided against giving up your masochistic ways for Lent.

  35. Kevin Nedd says:

    P,

    Also, try not to make jokes about how I should practice my faith.

  36. P says:

    http://www.usccb.org/healthcare/

    http://www.usccb.org/healthcare/030410facts.pdf

    http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2010/03/catholics-health-care-and-the-senatersquos-bad-bil

    It might be time to go to confession . . Forgive me Father for I have sinned . . “I tried to get people to believe that the Catholic Church was for the Senate bill and its pro-abortion language . . “

  37. P says:

    It’s interesting that you expect all to read your links, but you prefer to be ignorant of any information that might rebut your “well informed” position.

    As for your compalint about how you practice your faith, get over yourself. You love to trash others but can’t take a criticism or joke when it’s about you.

  38. Kevin Nedd says:

    P,

    P,

    You would think by now you would have learned about your inferences. I did not state that the “Catholic Church” supported the bill. I said their was “Catholic support” for the bill. There is a difference. Based on the two links I provided earlier, I am correct. As I said earlier, you and Greg Jones have a lot in common!

  39. Kevin Nedd says:

    P,

    Two points:

    1. I didn’t say you had to read the links. Unlike you, I could care less if you don’t.

    2. It’s not about me. It’s about anyone who practices their faith. It’s simply not something to joke about.

  40. P says:

    There’s “Catholic” support for abortion (see Kennedy, Ted; and dozens of other Catholic legislators), so what. Only the Pope and Bishops have the authority to speak about faith, not Catholic Hospitals or you. And on this matter the bishops (who BTW are for HCR BIG TIME), have made their position crystal clear. Read it, it might change your mind.

    Someone who WANTS to be informed reads all sides of any argument being made, someone who wants to remain BLISSFULLY IGNORANT, only reads things that support his position. It’s called living in an echo chamber.

    As for the rest, in the words of HST – If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

  41. Kevin Nedd says:

    P,

    I make it a point not to discuss ones views on abortion, religious or otherwise.

    Your naming of Catholics who support abortion per se is irrelevant to this discussion. The issue regarding HCR is solely whether or not the Senate Bill maintains the status quo, which it does.

    Lastly, having read the actual bill, I don’t need, nor do I care to read the “other” side’s argument.

  42. P says:

    So first you drop “Catholics” support into the discussion, and now you run away from it?? It’s a good thing that all of our posts are documented for all to see.

    Glad to see you remain consistent on one point – Your willful ignorance. Bravo!

  43. Kevin Nedd says:

    P,

    I made a statement of fact to counter Stupak’s bogus argument. You decided to joke about religion as a whole.

  44. Kevin Nedd says:

    P,

    I made a statement of fact to counter Stupack’s bogus argument. You decided to joke about religion as a whole.

  45. P says:

    Wrong, again.

    I pointed out the fallacy in your implication, and then suggested you should repent for misleading the nice folks who follow us on MP.

    But rather than argue the point of contention – the abortion language in the bill, you’ve once again feigned injury looking to divert the conversation and seeking sympathy.

    Regardless of how much you whine and protest, you’ll get neither from me.

    Get back to me when you’ve actually read the post from the bishops. I can’t have a conversation with someone who won’t avail himself of the facts.

    P.S. While Obama’s fixing everything with his OmnibusObamaCareStudentLoanMegaBill, why not throw in Social Security as it is now official BROKE – http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100314/ap_on_bi_ge/us_social_security_ious

    Sure glad we have those IOUs in the Al Gore Memorial Lock Box.

  46. Kevin Nedd says:

    P,

    You continue to make inferences; Don’t hold your breath waiting for me to “get back to you”.

  47. P says:

    Nedd – Don’t go away angry, just go away.

    For Everyone Not Named Nedd – Please note how quickly Libs retreat when you call them on their childish games. Also note how un-inquisitive the “Enlightened” Ones are. And they call Conservatives closed minded!

    While we’re all waiting for the Dems to figure out to “Vote without Voting,” (TM) you can track a couple of “prognosticators” here –

    http://www.intrade.com/

    and

    http://www.slate.com/id/2247673/

  48. I don’t know, P, before you attack kevin, how about showing some guts and stating your name.

  49. Kevin Nedd says:

    Fred – It will never happen because you gotta have “guts” to show “guts”.

    P – There you go again with your lame inferences. No one is “retreating”. When you have a point that’s worth commenting on, I’ll be happy to add my two cents.

  50. P says:

    Since it has nothing to do with the debate, nope. I prefer to let my words stand on their own without the distraction of who I am, what I do, etc.

    Just the Unvarnished P.

  51. Kevin Nedd says:

    Spoken like a true coward!

  52. P says:

    When the going get tough, the Libs let their testosterone do the talking -“Guts” Nedd and “Tough Guy” Ted.

    I’d also note that’s it’s been two full days since Nedd added anything of value to the topic of the thread.

  53. P says:

    as my mother told me, “stick and stones . . . “

  54. Kevin Nedd says:

    P,

    When the “going gets tough”, cowards like you hide behind their “monikers” and feel the need to keep score.

    Tell you what P, why don’t you come out of hiding and agree to meet me and Fred at a pub/bar of your choosing for a friendly discussion/debate on ANY topic(s) you choose? I know Fred likes the Brew Pub in Long Valley. Once you agree, we can post the details so anyone else can stop by to observe. Can’t wait to hear your excuse why you can’t make it.

  55. P says:

    Hope you guys have a nice time. Topic 1 – Why does “P” always beat us like a drum? 😉

    I, as I’ve noted before, prefer to remain Anonymous (I thought I’ve been pretty clear on that). Having a drink together would kinda defeat that idea. But nice try, I almost fell for the free beer thing.

    Oh, and while you’re there, maybe you can come up with a plausible explanation as to why the House is now trying to find a way to vote on the plan without voting on the bill; whether the $500B that is earmarked for “saving” Medicare should used for that, or covering half the cost of HCR (but obviously not both as the President is trying to claim), and finally, why with soooooo many Democrats in Congress, they still can’t get their signature piece of legislation passed? We look forward to hearing the results of your conversation.

    I was going to to say don’t drink too much, but looking at your task I’ll change that to “drink early and drink often!” And catch a cab home.

  56. Kevin Nedd says:

    P,

    Any man who won’t put his name behind his opinions is simply a coward.

  57. P says:

    see #54, and if you don’t like it, go back to talking to yourself on I’mLostintheValleyof Darkness.com.

  58. P says:

    P.S. looking at this thread, it’s hard to imagine why anyone would want their identity to be known – http://www.dailyrecord.com/comments/article/20100315/OPINION01/100313004/The-difficulty-of-ethical-reform

    Fred – Apology accepted.

  59. P says:

    After this announcement, twenty Democratic representatives announced that they were switching their votes to “NO,” and fifty said they were going from “No” to “Hell No!”- http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/7450237/Barack-Obama-threatens-to-withdraw-support-from-wavering-Democrats.html

  60. Kevin Nedd says:

    What was that? Did I hear a “coward” say something?

  61. Kevin Nedd says:

    Until I read the police report, it was “hard to Imagine” why anyone would drive across town (on a snowday) and assault a janitor in in the parking lot of a public school. But once you consider the source, it all makes sense.

  62. P says:

    If he can cut my employer’s health care costs as promised, I’ll vote for him in 2012. In fact, I’ll co-chair his campaign in Morris County with Nedd.

    The video has the “good’ news at the 1:20 mark – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUd-slJc-GY&feature=player_embedded#

  63. Kevin Nedd says:

    P,

    As much as I would cherish your debate and research skills working on behalf of the president in 2012, a White House press spokesman later said the president misspoke; he had meant to say annual premiums would drop by $3,000.

  64. P says:

    Nice to see that you do look at some links that I post. 🙂

    I’ll tell my employer not to expect the $300,000 check from Obama for my HC coverage (I think that’s what a 3,000% reduction would mean), and I’ll tell the spouse to stop looking at the Porsche catalog.

    I was looking forward to working together, maybe Obama will eventually propose/promise Change that I Can believe In!

    P.S. I don’t believe the $3,000 number either, but I’m writing down his Promise and will be holding him to it.

  65. P says:

    One other question – When will we see the actual language of the bill (or deeming) that Congress will be voting on, and, the CBO score? This stuff was due days ago. Wonder what’s up.

  66. Kevin Nedd says:

    P,

    My sources tell me the holdup is getting the language tight so the strict rules for reconciliation are adhered to. Basically, the actual changes to the Senate Bill must in and of themselves result in at least $1B in savings within 5 years of enactment. The bill will be out NLT tomorrow to meet the 72 hour “reading” requirement for Congress to review prior to voting on it.

  67. Kevin Nedd says:

    P,

    While keeping this out of the weeds of religion, I would like to note the Stupak coalition appears to be crumbling.

    http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/17/stupak-ally-in-house-approves-senate-abortion-restrictions/?hp

  68. P says:

    Answer to my earlier question about the CBO score – http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/16/AR2010031604106.html

    and

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/17/AR2010031701588.html

    Plenty of time for this whole thing to collapse under a mountain range of Hubris.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: