Prostitute
Pronunciation [pros-ti-toot, -tyoot] verb, -tut⋅ed, -tut⋅ing.
–noun
1- A woman who engages in sexual intercourse for money; whore; harlot.
2- A man who engages in sexual acts for money.
3- A person who willingly uses his or her talent or ability in a base and unworthy way, usually for money.
In another Saturday night, special session of Congress (there seems to be a lot of those these days), the Senate voted to allow Harry Reid’s version of the healthcare bill to proceed to debate. For a President and Congress that promised unparalleled “transparency” in government, there have been far more closed door meetings and midnight votes than during any previous administration; essential requisites for “ladies and gentlemen of the evening”. That coupled with the fact that the healthcare bill is a staggering 2000 page document that the senate was given a mere 72 hours to digest before a vote was taken spells a total disconnect between the actions of government and the expectations of the governed.
By comparison, Tolstoy’s “War and Peace” is a mere 1275 pages, in hardcover, containing a total of more than 560,000 words. We are now being asked to believe that every one of our elected Congressmen possess the unique ability to be able to read the equivalent of “War and Peace” twice in a 72 hour period. In Senator Mary Landrieu’s speech, she made mention of the time she was granted to do just that. She applauded the work of Senator Blanche Lincoln in assuring that the Senate received the time required to read the legislation and to “attend the necessary meetings”.
We can now surmise that at least one of those meetings was with Harry Reid and the subject of that meeting was just how much taxpayer money it was going to take to purchase her vote to proceed. On page 432 of the Reid bill, there is a section increasing federal Medicaid subsidies for “certain states recovering from a major disaster.” The section spends two pages defining which “states” would qualify, saying, among other things, that it would be states that “during the preceding seven fiscal years” have been declared a “major disaster area.”
This section applies to exactly one state: Louisiana, the home of Democrat Mary Landrieu, who has been playing hard to get on the health care bill. In other words, the bill spends two pages describing what could be written with a single phrase: In exchange for Mary Landrieu’s vote, Louisiana will receive the equivalent of one-hundred million dollars in increased Medicaid subsidies. While she will claim this settlement is “doing the good work” for her home state, it is clear to us that this is only intended to strengthen her position in the 2010 election. Since hurricane Katrina devastated Louisiana in 2005, the payoff will expire in five years leaving her state, by 2015, to contend with the same increased financial mandates that the healthcare bill will impose on all other states.
There is no doubt that Mary Landrieu will deny that she personally gains from this “provision” and since the bribe was crafted in general language that provides relief to any state that has been declared a major disaster area, Harry Reid can and will deny that it had anything to do with Louisiana specifically, but words are words and deeds are deeds. The facts are that Mary Landrieu withheld her support of the healthcare bill knowing that her bid for re-election would be in jeopardy if she voted for the bill. The estimated one-hundred million dollars Louisiana will receive from the bill will go along way in mitigating the negative effects the rest of the states will suffer if this monstrosity passes, in effect, anesthetizing the voters in her state from the pain of the full effects of this bill until the elections are well over.
Mark my words; knowing the way that politics works in Washington, she will distance herself from this bill later. Reid needed 60 votes to bring the bill to the floor for debate but if he uses reconciliation, as has been threatened; he will only need 51 votes to pass the final version. All the Democratic Senators that are facing election difficulties in 2010 including Mary Landrieu, will be allowed to vote no on the final vote and it will squeak by with the minimum number of required votes just as it did in the House of Representatives.
John Kerry looked ridiculous when he made his famous “I voted for it before I voted against it” statement referencing the $87 billion dollar appropriation for the Iraq war. No one believed John Kerry and no one will believe Mary Landrieu either. It is obvious that the Democrats need some new strategists because they keep using the same idiotic plays over and over. We’ve seen this before and no one is buying it. Congress is at its lowest approval rating in decades and these deceitful tricks only serve to deepen our distrust and distain for career politicians. Mary Landrieu, Blanche Lincoln, George Voinovich, etc. can try the “Kerry Play” but who will believe them now?
What Mary Landrieu failed to anticipate was the degree of attention this “bribe” for her vote would receive. I’m sure she was aghast after she finally left the chamber and saw her name plastered all over the news. To the American people and to her constituency, she has been singled out in the press as the one Senator who prostituted herself by placing her vote on the auction block. That tells anyone that follows politics that she has no foundation; no fundamental beliefs. Even though I oppose this hideous government takeover of the American healthcare system, I wouldn’t have blamed her if she voted her conscience, stood proud of what she had done and could tell us why. The fact is you cannot publically place your vote up for sale and not be accused of being a political whore.
The funny part is that she believed the Senate “pimp” (Harry Reid) and signed her soul away for something that will probably not make it into the final bill anyway. If the Medicaid savings for Louisiana represents $100 million over the next five years, what costs will be forced on more populace states as this bill shifts more of the burden for Medicaid to them? Does Mary Landrieu not realize that her “spiff” will probably disappear in the final version as other Senators demand similar provisions because of the equally catastrophic fiscal disasters in their own states? Since the government cannot provide that relief for all states, it is doubtful they can honor the agreement to do it for only one.
Not possible? Well the House version only passed the vote because of the last minute passage of the Stupak amendment, eliminating any possible use of public funding for abortion. Nancy Pelosi agreed to allow that amendment to come to a vote to gain the support of pro-life Democrats. As a resolute pro-choice advocate, she only agreed to the Stupak Amendment because she knew the Reid bill would strip that protection and the final version will invariably not provide the iron clad prohibitions that the pro-life Democrats sought. In their haste to pass “something”, they missed the one opportunity they would get to stop this lousy bill in favor of legislation that guaranteed the prohibitions against public funding for abortion could not be removed at a later date.
I am making the prediction now that if the healthcare bill fails, Mary Landrieu only has a 50/50 chance of being re-elected in 2010 because of the publicity associated with selling her vote. Let’s face it. If she were actually representing the will of her constituents, their voices would have guided her vote and not what her pimp promised her. If the healthcare bill passes, her political career will go down in flames and she can spend the next couple of years trying to rebuild her law career in a nation that won’t have the money to hire her services. I intend to use this forum regularly so that we do not forget those members of Congress that are so blatantly corrupt that they would sell their vote for another shot at being reelected. On the bright side, Mary won’t be homeless…ACORN still offers some fantastic housing options for “Ladies of the Evening”.
Paul
Pronunciation [pros-ti-toot, -tyoot] verb, -tut⋅ed, -tut⋅ing.
–noun
1- A woman who engages in sexual intercourse for money; whore; harlot.
2- A man who engages in sexual acts for money.
3- A person who willingly uses his or her talent or ability in a base and unworthy way, usually for money.
In another Saturday night, special session of Congress (there seems to be a lot of those these days), the Senate voted to allow Harry Reid’s version of the healthcare bill to proceed to debate. For a President and Congress that promised unparalleled “transparency” in government, there have been far more closed door meetings and midnight votes than during any previous administration; essential requisites for “ladies and gentlemen of the evening”. That coupled with the fact that the healthcare bill is a staggering 2000 page document that the senate was given a mere 72 hours to digest before a vote was taken spells a total disconnect between the actions of government and the expectations of the governed.
By comparison, Tolstoy’s “War and Peace” is a mere 1275 pages, in hardcover, containing a total of more than 560,000 words. We are now being asked to believe that every one of our elected Congressmen possess the unique ability to be able to read the equivalent of “War and Peace” twice in a 72 hour period. In Senator Mary Landrieu’s speech, she made mention of the time she was granted to do just that. She applauded the work of Senator Blanche Lincoln in assuring that the Senate received the time required to read the legislation and to “attend the necessary meetings”.
We can now surmise that at least one of those meetings was with Harry Reid and the subject of that meeting was just how much taxpayer money it was going to take to purchase her vote to proceed. On page 432 of the Reid bill, there is a section increasing federal Medicaid subsidies for “certain states recovering from a major disaster.” The section spends two pages defining which “states” would qualify, saying, among other things, that it would be states that “during the preceding seven fiscal years” have been declared a “major disaster area.”
This section applies to exactly one state: Louisiana, the home of Democrat Mary Landrieu, who has been playing hard to get on the health care bill. In other words, the bill spends two pages describing what could be written with a single phrase: In exchange for Mary Landrieu’s vote, Louisiana will receive the equivalent of one-hundred million dollars in increased Medicaid subsidies. While she will claim this settlement is “doing the good work” for her home state, it is clear to us that this is only intended to strengthen her position in the 2010 election. Since hurricane Katrina devastated Louisiana in 2005, the payoff will expire in five years leaving her state, by 2015, to contend with the same increased financial mandates that the healthcare bill will impose on all other states.
There is no doubt that Mary Landrieu will deny that she personally gains from this “provision” and since the bribe was crafted in general language that provides relief to any state that has been declared a major disaster area, Harry Reid can and will deny that it had anything to do with Louisiana specifically, but words are words and deeds are deeds. The facts are that Mary Landrieu withheld her support of the healthcare bill knowing that her bid for re-election would be in jeopardy if she voted for the bill. The estimated one-hundred million dollars Louisiana will receive from the bill will go along way in mitigating the negative effects the rest of the states will suffer if this monstrosity passes, in effect, anesthetizing the voters in her state from the pain of the full effects of this bill until the elections are well over.
Mark my words; knowing the way that politics works in Washington, she will distance herself from this bill later. Reid needed 60 votes to bring the bill to the floor for debate but if he uses reconciliation, as has been threatened; he will only need 51 votes to pass the final version. All the Democratic Senators that are facing election difficulties in 2010 including Mary Landrieu, will be allowed to vote no on the final vote and it will squeak by with the minimum number of required votes just as it did in the House of Representatives.
John Kerry looked ridiculous when he made his famous “I voted for it before I voted against it” statement referencing the $87 billion dollar appropriation for the Iraq war. No one believed John Kerry and no one will believe Mary Landrieu either. It is obvious that the Democrats need some new strategists because they keep using the same idiotic plays over and over. We’ve seen this before and no one is buying it. Congress is at its lowest approval rating in decades and these deceitful tricks only serve to deepen our distrust and distain for career politicians. Mary Landrieu, Blanche Lincoln, George Voinovich, etc. can try the “Kerry Play” but who will believe them now?
What Mary Landrieu failed to anticipate was the degree of attention this “bribe” for her vote would receive. I’m sure she was aghast after she finally left the chamber and saw her name plastered all over the news. To the American people and to her constituency, she has been singled out in the press as the one Senator who prostituted herself by placing her vote on the auction block. That tells anyone that follows politics that she has no foundation; no fundamental beliefs. Even though I oppose this hideous government takeover of the American healthcare system, I wouldn’t have blamed her if she voted her conscience, stood proud of what she had done and could tell us why. The fact is you cannot publically place your vote up for sale and not be accused of being a political whore.
The funny part is that she believed the Senate “pimp” (Harry Reid) and signed her soul away for something that will probably not make it into the final bill anyway. If the Medicaid savings for Louisiana represents $100 million over the next five years, what costs will be forced on more populace states as this bill shifts more of the burden for Medicaid to them? Does Mary Landrieu not realize that her “spiff” will probably disappear in the final version as other Senators demand similar provisions because of the equally catastrophic fiscal disasters in their own states? Since the government cannot provide that relief for all states, it is doubtful they can honor the agreement to do it for only one.
Not possible? Well the House version only passed the vote because of the last minute passage of the Stupak amendment, eliminating any possible use of public funding for abortion. Nancy Pelosi agreed to allow that amendment to come to a vote to gain the support of pro-life Democrats. As a resolute pro-choice advocate, she only agreed to the Stupak Amendment because she knew the Reid bill would strip that protection and the final version will invariably not provide the iron clad prohibitions that the pro-life Democrats sought. In their haste to pass “something”, they missed the one opportunity they would get to stop this lousy bill in favor of legislation that guaranteed the prohibitions against public funding for abortion could not be removed at a later date.
I am making the prediction now that if the healthcare bill fails, Mary Landrieu only has a 50/50 chance of being re-elected in 2010 because of the publicity associated with selling her vote. Let’s face it. If she were actually representing the will of her constituents, their voices would have guided her vote and not what her pimp promised her. If the healthcare bill passes, her political career will go down in flames and she can spend the next couple of years trying to rebuild her law career in a nation that won’t have the money to hire her services. I intend to use this forum regularly so that we do not forget those members of Congress that are so blatantly corrupt that they would sell their vote for another shot at being reelected. On the bright side, Mary won’t be homeless…ACORN still offers some fantastic housing options for “Ladies of the Evening”.
Paul
No comments:
Post a Comment