Wednesday, December 16, 2009

Rush Limbaugh suspects Medicare expansion = negotiating ruse to give Lieberman cover to vote for Obamacare

Limbaugh:
Now, I also think that this Medicare expansion was a ruse from the start. In negotiations, if you've ever been in any involving, say, your compensation or representing a company or something, you always, in preparing for negotiations, you put in what are called throwaways, things that you demand be included in the deal that you secretly will throw away or give away in order to get a final deal, and both sides do this. Except our side. We don't do anything but accept the premise and needle with it around the margins. And I think that this Medicare expansion was a throwaway from the get-go. I don't think they were ever serious about this, and I'll tell you why. Simple logic. There's no way in a bill that cuts Medicare $500 billion you can expand it to cover people down to 55 years of age. The two just don't go together. So what they do, they raise the Medicare expansion as an issue at the last minute when Dingy Harry is having problems, and then they kill it a few days later on the desires of Lieberman.

This gives them cover to get Lieberman on their side, and then others say it's now okay to vote for this, since they got rid of the Medicare expansion [and since "moderate" Lieberman supports it].
h/t 1,2

Can one be a "moderate lion"? I don't think so. But, were it possible, Lieberman would be it.




I like Lieberman pretty well, and I'm glad he's a U.S. Senator. However, I don't trust him and I don't think he's a saint: he's a politician, and he will compromise his principles when he needs to. I danged sure don't think Lieberman is a "moderate". Lieberman is a lefty who is clear eyed about the existential threat posed by Islam. This is all well and good, but I'm not trusting Lieberman with the keys to the castle.




Limbaugh's theory of Lieberman and the Medicare Expansion reminds of Lieberman's actions around the time of Bill Clinton's impeachment trial.

Bill Clinton was impeached on two counts of perjury, one count of obstruction of justice, and one count of abuse of office.* Where, in these four counts of impeachment, is the count which impeaches Bill Clinton for sexual activity? Nowhere.

When things were darkest for Bill Clinton, when he was at his moment of maximum peril: Joe Lieberman announced that he would be making a statement of conscience on the Senate floor. At this time, Democrats were in lock-step in support of Clinton. Anticipation built for Lieberman's statement. Lieberman then took the floor and criticized Bill Clinton for engaging in sexual activity outside his marriage. Dems thence rushed to cameras with talking points:

1. A Democrat has criticized the President! The President has been punished enough(by the shame of being criticized by Senator Lieberman)!
2. This impeachment is all about sex.

Lieberman's "statement of conscience" was a coordinated ruse which was designed to help Bill Clinton look chastised, and to help Dems convince the American people that it was about sex. What did Lieberman's conscience think about perjury, obstruction of justice, and abuse of office? To this day, we do not know. Lieberman's conscience only addressed an issue which was not in play.



Last: I remember the campaign in 2000. Lieberman, in support of Al Gore, did a campaign 180 on seemingly every principle he cared about.



I like Lieberman pretty well, but he's a politician, and he will ditch his principles when he has too, and he is an oily operator when he needs to be - as he was during Clinton's impeachment, as he was during the 2000 Gore Campaign, as he easily might be - now - in an Obamacare/Medicare Expansion ruse.



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


This Obamacare thing is giving me the maximum heebie-jeebies. I thought it was killed off, last August, by the vehement crowds at town hall meetings. I never thought Dem Congresspersons would jeopardize their re-election chances in order to pass Obamacare. Now, I'm not so sure.




~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


* Clinton's 4 counts of impeachment:

1. Perjury
Clinton lied to a grand jury.

2. Perjury
Clinton lied in an affidavit in the Paula Jones case.

3. Obstruction of Justice
-Clinton filed a false affidavit
-Clinton verbally attempted to influence the grand jury testimony of Bettie Curry and of Monica Lewinsky
-Clinton attempted to influence the grand jury testimony of Monica Lewinsky via having Vernon Jordan get Monica Lewinsky a job in NYC
-Clinton engaged subordinates in a coordinated scheme to conceal evidence

4. Abuse of Office
-Clinton made false statements to members of his Cabinet, and to aides, for express purpose of having these Cabinet members and aides repeat the false statements in media.
-Clinton falsely asserted executive privilege
-Clinton refused to respond to legal requests for information.




`

4 comments:

Donna B. said...

Is anyone tracking the number of Dems who are saying they are resigning instead of running for re-election?

That scares me... they know they are falling on a sword and I can't figure out why it's so important.

gcotharn said...

I know. Worrisome. Very.

Paul_In_Houston said...

In a post on her blog ( The Obama administration: how tyranny could happen ) neo-neocon raises some disturbing possibilities, quoting from another commenter (emphasis mine)...

Politicians in a group when they act consistently and anomalously against what would seem to be their own interests, are usually operating on information not available to anyone else. One also has to add to the mix the question why the Republicans as a party are only offering token opposition to the Democrats, when standing up would rally support to them? What do they know?

When you rule out the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, has to be considered. The only thing that remains, that I can see, is that no matter what they do, they no longer have any fear of facing the voters in an honest election. The specific mechanisms and basis
for that confidence have yet to be determined
.

Are we seeing malice where we only need see stupidity?

-

gcotharn said...

malice vs. stupidity?

My answer is "yes". Malice AND stupidity. I think it's time we begin heavily suspecting malice. Malice, malice, malice. We need to be ready, so the malicious plans and schemes do not catch us unprepared. If it turns out to be stupidity: that is better. But we must be prepared to highlight and to try to stop the malice. If we are caught unaware, it might be too late.

We must prepare for malice, especially, re theft of elections.