Even among high-ranking and dependable veteran House Democrats, enthusiasm for ObamaCare is underwhelming. The Hill reports:
A handful of House committee chairmen are either undecided about or plan to reject the healthcare reform bill that is expected to be voted on as early as next week.
The prospect of several panel chairmen voting against the healthcare bill comes as the White House and Democratic leaders are ramping up their efforts to attract the necessary votes to move the Senate-passed bill. The White House wants the House to clear the bill by March 18 and then have the upper chamber amend the measure through reconciliation. … According to the survey conducted by The Hill. … there are already 11 firm “no” votes.
Needless to say, if committee chairmen are underwhelmed with the president’s arguments, it may be hard to corral the rank and file. Jake Tapper and Hotline are keeping tabs, and so far, there are a lot of noes and undecideds. But for now the Obama-spun (and media-favorite) storyline that “Republicans Obstruct ObamaCare!” has been properly tossed aside. The issue has never been whether Republicans oppose the monstrous tax-and-spend bill. They do. (The unanimity is perhaps a bit of a surprise.) The issue has been and remains whether moderate Democrats can be persuaded to vote for something their constituents hate and that, if they vote for it, will quite possibly end their careers. Stay tuned.
Vote present and take the credit later.
Maybe it’s my imagination but Obama seems frequently to fall back on the locution:
Why is that?
Actually, he speaks very clearly. His pronunciation and his grammar are excellent. His sentences are direct and straightforward. It is always easy to understand his meaning. Then why does he always worry that he is not being understood?
It is because he knows all too often that he is contradicting himself. The lack of clarity he wants to obviate is actually the knowledge that he is contravening what he has said elsewhere.
Which is why, whenever I hear him say, Now I want to be perfectly clear, I am inclined to assume he is about to confuse and becloud.
“Let me be clear” was also a rhetorical gambit of Nixon’s. The first objectionable thing is the faux politesse of “Let me . . . .” Well “who the hell’s stopping you?” I always think.
The phrase has a lot in common with “Let me be frank.” It usually means you are about to hear a bald-faced exaggeration. And besides, if he’s only now being “clear” or “frank” or whatever, what does that say about his prior remarks on a given subject? Opaque mendacity?