Irreconcilable Differences

Convince the people that your opponents are lying about your lies by telling a bigger lie. If that isn't a bona fide part of the liberal/progressive playbook, it should be. Truth be told, I was too lazy to research the phrase's existence since I just made it up. If someone beat me to it, please advise in the comments section.

Nevertheless, it is becoming increasingly and abundantly clear that Obama and the Democrat-controlled Congress have nothing to fear from a media that once relished the prospect of exposing the lies of our government. It must be noted, too, that the fortunes of that media relic have turned south in direct correlation to their obsequious behavior regarding the system of which they have obviously dreamt. Talk about a veritable Monkey's Paw.

But I digress. Gloating over the self-inflicted demise of a once venerable institution such as journalism accomplishes nothing more than a brief and empty sense of vindication, with no real reward other than being proved right. Further, if no one steps up to accept culpability, the vindication is only imaginary, no matter how true.

So, casting aside the flotsam, lets examine the events leading to Obama's overhaul of America, and the subterfuge utilized to accomplish such a heinous goal.

He has complained bitterly of the "blatant misstatements of the facts" by his opponents, citing Congressional Budget Office (CBO) data as some form of certification of his own numbers. Yet the CBO analysis of Obama's policies on Friday predict that they will add more than $9.7 trillion to the national debt over the next decade.

He also accuses Republicans of misrepresenting the facts on his health care agenda, then blatantly attempts to trick the public into believing that reconciliation has been used in similar fashion many times in the past, which is an outright lie. (Where's Joe Wilson when we need him?)

There have been twenty-two instances since reconciliation was created that the practice has been used, true. But for Democrats to attempt its use in this instance is the equivalent of using a screwdriver to hammer nails. It was never intended to exclude the opposition party, first and foremost, and it was never intended to be used for anything other than budgetary measures, not sweeping overhauls to anything on the magnitude being proposed here.

Of the twenty-two times reconciliation has been used, only seventeen of the measures passed, and virtually all of them had true bi-partisan support, many of them in large numbers. It has never been used when one party is united in opposition. So for Obama - who, along with his fellow Democrats were vehemently opposed to the use of reconciliation just five years ago - to suggest that it would be a pretty good idea now is ludicrous, not that the media has noticed.

One must also wonder if Obama called Senator Robert Byrd - a co-author of the reconciliation process - after a letter he wrote to his colleagues just under a year ago was brought to light to demonstrate his then-opposition to the use of reconciliation. Of course, Byrd has recently come out in support of reconciliation, but his April 2009 letter clearly says otherwise.

The disingenuousness lies in that Byrd now claims he is still against reconciliation being used for health care reform, but it's perfectly legitimate to use it for the "fix" currently being promulgated. I'm reminded of a father telling his teen that he can't have the car, but he can have the keys, and then being shocked to see a fresh hundred miles on the odometer.

It shall be interesting in the coming weeks to see if these inglorious bastards inflict this travesty on the American people, and then watching the reaction in November.

Sphere: Related Content