Dec 22 2009

Democrat Lemmings Head Over The Cliff

Boy, you really have to be a zealot to vote for something the public disapproves of by huge margins:

As the Senate prepares to vote on health care reform, American voters “mostly disapprove” of the plan 53 – 36 percent and disapprove 56 – 38 percent of President Barack Obama’s handling of the health care issue, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today.

Voters also oppose 72 – 23 percent using any public money in the health care overhaul to pay for abortions, the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University poll finds.

American voters also disapprove 51 – 44 percent of President Obama’s handling of the economy and disapprove 56 – 37 percent of the way he is creating jobs.

Goodness, these Democrat Lemmings are determined to show the American people how stubborn and dumb they are (‘they’ being Democrats). As I noted yesterday, the 2010 elections will be a wipe out of the Dems, since they clearly require the 2×4 across the forehead to get the message about We The People – and all that stuff.

Update: Also as I said yesterday, President Obama is heading to be a classic one term disaster, like Carter before him:

Overall, 44% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President’s performance. Fifty-six percent (56%) now disapprove.

Seventy-seven percent (77%) of Democrats approve while 88% of Republicans and 62% of unaffiliated voters disapprove.

These numbers might bounce around but I would wager they are about to set into cement for the coming years. The fact independents now disapprove of Obama (the most popular of Democrats) by 62% means they are now around 2 to 1 against the President. And once they decide to oppose him they will not be coming back. That is the way independents are.

19 responses so far

19 Responses to “Democrat Lemmings Head Over The Cliff”

  1. apache_ip says:

    AJ wrote, “Boy, you really have to be a zealot to vote for something the public disapproves of by huge margins”

    You may want to take a look in the mirror before calling people names.

    –quoting Rasmussen–
    “Public support for the Senate immigration reform bill has slipped a bit over the past week. A Rasmussen Reports poll conducted Monday and Tuesday night found that just 23% of voters now support the bill while 50% are opposed. Last week, 26% supported the Senate bill while 48% were opposed.”
    –end quote–

    source of the above quote -
    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/immigration/support_for_senate_immigration_bill_falls_49_prefer_no_bill_at_all

    Weren’t you a BIG TIME advocate of the McCain immigration reform bill?

    It had even less public support than the current health care reform. Does that make you a zealot?

  2. Mike M. says:

    A 2×4 won’t do it. We tried that in 1994.

    This time, we use a 12-inch steel I-beam.

  3. MarkN says:

    I estimate the losses of House seats for the democratic party in 2010 at 30 currently. That all can change depending on how many solid or safe democrats retire next year.

    However, I was talking to a friend at a Christmas party who is quite the conservative fanatic. He was energized for 2010 and so I asked him to estimate the Houses losses for Pelosi. The number he gave me was unbelievable. His number ….. wait for it (I think I had too much to drink), …. Eighty six (86). Where he got that number, I do not know.

  4. Aitch748 says:

    Our would-be overlords just will not let this go, will they? “Consent of the governed” is no longer operative, I guess.

    Civil disobedience is starting to look more and more like a civic duty.

  5. However, Reid has tried to make it unrepealable:
    http://www.redstate.com/erick/2009/12/21/we-are-no-longer-a-nation-of-laws-senate-sets-up-requirement-for-super-majority-to-ever-repeal-obamacare/

    AJ, I know Redstate’s been off your good lit for a while, but this is something worth looking at.

    It’s worth it to them – they have made it as unrepealable as possible. This is NOT going to end well.

  6. mbabbitt says:

    To summarize: Obama profited from being given the benefit of the doubt. I think that benefit just ran out.

  7. MarkN says:

    Harold: Usually the courts do not intervene in Senate rules. But something as blatant and egregious as this the courts may take the plunge to overturn. Anyway GDP in 3rd quarter was revised down to 2.2%, all of which is related to cash for clunkers, home buyers credit, and federal spending. With first time unemployment claims still running at 450,000 per week, the economy may be in for some stagflation next year. Welcome back Carter.

    By the way, REP. Parker Griffith has just switched parties.

  8. Frogg1 says:

    Health Secretary Sebelius Praises Mandatory Abortion Funding In Dem’s Nationalized Health Care Bill (Video)
    http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2009/12/health-secretary-sebelius-praises-mandatory-abortion-funding-in-dems-nationalized-health-care-bill-video/

    The list of payoffs that got Reid his cloture vote
    http://hotair.com/archives/2009/12/22/the-list-of-payoffs-that-got-reid-his-cloture-vote/

    Left Now Admitting Obamacare Full of Budget Gimmicks
    http://blog.heritage.org/2009/12/21/left-now-admitting-obamacare-full-of-budget-gimmicks/

    Legislators Ask Attorney General To Seek Protection From Healthcare Bill
    http://www.chattanoogan.com/articles/article_165401.asp

  9. MerlinOS2 says:

    In other new Representative Parker Griffth jumped parties to us this morning which out to pucker up queen Pelosi a bit.

    Bet old Reid won’t let him within a mile of Nelson over on the Senate side if the two want to sit down for a chat.

  10. MarkN says:

    Parker Griffith is just the start. I think there will be four (4) more switches. The big ones will be in the safe or solid districts. Right now the dems are at 218 for safe and likely races. If say Boucher of Virginia switches that would be huge.

  11. crosspatch says:

    Griffth is a doctor. He’s an oncologist. According to what I have read, he plans to come out with both barrels blazing against the health care bill.

    Look, we all want real reform in health care but we don’t want government taking it over. That isn’t exactly “reform”. There is a federal role to play but it isn’t one of “owning” health care.

    We want:

    1. Individuals with their own policies not provided by employers to be given the same tax treatment as people who do have their policies provided by an employer.

    2. Individuals and small business being able to pool together to get better group rates.

    3. Standardize mandated coverage across the states and allow insurance companies to operate across state lines thereby increasing competition and giving people more choice.

    4. Cap malpractice award amounts.

    Those three simple items would greatly increase the number of insured in this country. Your employer writes off their portion of your health care premium. If you pay your entire premium, why can’t you deduct it? Why can’t your neighborhood or town pool together and get a great rate from a company as a group? Why does your state drive up insurance costs by mandating that hair transplants and viagra be covered while the state next door gets lower rates because they don’t require those things be covered? Why should a family in their 20′s with small children be forced to mollify some guy’s hair loss insecurity through higher health insurance costs? Why can’t they get a policy that more closely matches their needs and costs less? Why do we all have to pay higher costs and pay for unnecessary procedures because a few people like to play “litigation lotto” and sue for outrageous sums? John Edwards is personally responsible for the skyrocketing of cesarean deliveries due to his specializing in litigation against Ob-Gyn doctors.

    Those things would be “reform” and don’t require a government takeover of the industry.

  12. Flint says:

    The future movements of the people who voted for Obamamandelavelt are no more predicable than a school of minnows. Who knows where they’ll be come the next general election, with artful “stimulation.” Their political philosophy reduces to “What’s in it for me?”

  13. oneal lane says:

    This is so depressing that I am in a lack for words. It’s hard to believe that it’s happening. Hopefully, between the time the Senate pass this and the time the house reconvines, the chance for the public to read and vomit on their house members again, perhaps we can sto it.

    Very sad. I search for encouragment on the web today but find none. Sad day for the Republic.

  14. Flint says:

    Just listened to a radio interview of Patrick Caddell, Jimmy Carter’s pollster. He claimed the “progressives” have set the stage for a devastating reversal. He also said there’s a new Zogby poll out that shows 84% of the participants agreed with the proposition that the polititians are trying to conceal what they are doing from the people.

  15. Alert1201 says:

    If all the Republicans are doing is looking for a 2010 and 2012 victory they had better start planning on how they are going to undo this. Andrew McCarthy has a good analysis of the difference between the dem and repub outlook on this. Here is the money quote: “…Democrats have their eyes on a different end-game than our guys do: namely, the establishment of permanent, European-style socialism in the U.S. Our guys are focused on converting Obama radicalism into big-time electoral success in the next election cycle. The Dems have already factored in that likelihood and are betting — over the long haul — that even if the GOP cuts deeply into Dem majorities or takes over Congress (and even takes over the White House in 2012), Republicans will lack the commitment (and perhaps the numbers) to roll back what the Left is accomplishing now.”

    I’m not trying to be pessimistic here but based on their past performances I doubt the Republicans will have the strategy nor the testicular fortitude to carry it out even if the did.

  16. kathie says:

    I don’t know what will happen in 2010, but I do know that when the Federal Government gets rich, the people get poor. If Obama cared for the people he would let the earners spread the wealth. Obama is ideologically against that concept.

  17. Terrye says:

    apache:

    Yep and when all those folks decided they would sit home and let the Democrats win so that they could send a message, look at the message we got….Reid and Pelosi and together with Obama they support an immigration policy that makes the one McCain supported look downright draconian…so I would say that a lot of people on both sides of that issue made some tactical errors, and that includes the right.

    Now here we are stuck with these loons…and whatever mistakes the GOP might have made they were downright sane compared to the people running things now.

  18. apache_ip says:

    Terrye wrote, “Yep and when all those folks decided they would sit home and let the Democrats win so that they could send a message, look at the message we got…”

    Assuming you are right that some in the conservative base did sit home, the lesson learned should be -
    Don’t alienate a couple million voters from your base in order to pick up couple hundred thousand independents. You can’t lose 5 conservative voters for every 1 independent you pick up and expect to win. The math just doesn’t work.

    But we’ll never know if you were correct in your assertion that people stayed home. For starters, over 4 million more people voted in 2008 than in 2004. The 2004 Presidential election had 121,069,054 votes cast, and the 2008 Presidential election had 125,181,481 votes cast. So if all other variables were constant (and they weren’t), you would have a difficult time arguing that people stayed home.

    But this election saw waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too many variables to be able to make a case that Republicans stayed home. If anything, President Obama generated a historic turnout of the black vote.

  19. Neo says:

    The Democrats in DC (an many elsewhere) have gone absolutely insane