But I’m not really sure yet – its complicated. The word is that his version of the obamacare bill is going to allow states to opt out. The little weasel is taking this approach to offset resistance in Nevada so he can get re-elected.

“We’ve spent countless hours over the last few days in consultation with senators who’ve shown a genuine desire to reform the health-care system,” Reid said. “And I believe there’s a strong consensus to move forward in this direction.” The Senate provision would give states the right to opt out of a government plan, though Reid spokesman Jim Manley was unable to provide further details, describing the legislative language as a work in progress that has yet to be scrutinized by the Congressional Budget Office.

Even though the little weasel is doing it for all the wrong reasons, he is opening the door to a big Obama failure and putting this issue smack-dab in the laps of the states – where it belongs in the first place, if it belongs anywhere at all.

In a, surprisingly, clear view into the mind of a liberal writer, a Washing Post article by David Broder is titled “Damaging option for liberals – Harry Reid’s self-serving bow to states’ rights.”

There is an air of desperate improvisation to Sen. Harry Reid’s scheme to pass a “public option” as part of health-care reform but at the same time provide an easy exemption for any state that objects to it. The warning flags ought to be flying for anyone who can count to three — let alone 60. The Democratic majority leader embraced this odd idea in hopes of satisfying two conflicting imperatives. On the one hand, he is under relentless pressure to satisfy the labor-left of his party in Washington, where a government-sponsored insurance plan has become the symbolic prize in the game, and back home in Nevada, where he needs union support to survive a scary election next year.

Now that is one fine example of speaking out of “both sides of ones mouth” isn’t it? It really does smack of desperation.

Broder goes on to pose the questions “Consider the precedent that would be set if a major piece of social legislation were to be passed with a states’ rights provision. Imagine, for example, if Franklin Roosevelt had signed the first Social Security law with the proviso that any states with Republican governors and legislatures could exempt themselves from its coverage.”

Just imagine. States exercising their rights. What an outrageous concept!

The problem, of course, is that even if states opted out, the coverage for the ones that didn’t opt out would be paid for, in part, by the the residents of the states that did opt out.

On the other hand, imagine all the moochers and illegaliens who would move out of the opted out states to the states which didn’t opt out. There’s a benefit to consider. It might even be a big enough benefit to offset the disproportionate taxation. If the moochers and illegaliens moved out, they would take their welfare, healthcare, free housing, etc with them. Those of us left would no longer be burdened with meeting all of their needs. That cost saving might offset the lost taxes. And, without the free healthcare given to the moochers and illegaliens healthcare costs would drop dramatically in the opt-out states making healthcare in those states more affordable. Hmmmm. That sounds like a plan to me.

Go Harry!

Yet, I see and hear both conservatives and liberals, Democrats and Republicans every day demanding that government step on other peoples individual rights.

A current example of the point I’m attempting to make is the move towards the legalization of marijuana. Christians, conservatives and Republicans have their panties in a wad over this issue. Why? Because they don’t like it, that’s why. The fact is the use of marijuana should be an individual decision and interference in an individuals use of it by government is as much a nanny-state tactic as obamacare.

Before you get all wound up, let me go on the record as stating unequivocally that I am not a user of marijuana. I tried it once about ten years ago and it was not for me. However, I have had a few friends over the years who did use it. In some cases, I was in their presence while they were smoking it. I can’t say that I’ve ever seen any effect on them except a “mellowing out.” That is not so say they couldn’t have been dangerous to themselves or others if they were driving or something – I just don’t know. Further to that point, I do use (and have mis-used) alcohol on occasion and have been in the presence of others who have mis-used alcohol on many occasions. They are almost always a danger to themselves and others. Look at the number of deaths associated with drunk driving. How many deaths are you aware of due to pot-smoking. Personally, I am aware of none. In fact I can’t even recall ever hearing about one. I am using the marijuana issue to illustrate the point I’m trying to make.

Back to my point now.

Even MADD doesn’t advocate a ban on alcohol. They advocate for safe driving. I think if they advocated for a ban they would be out of business so to speak. If someone wants to smoke pot and “mellow out” why should it matter to government? If someone wants to sell pot and not pay the taxes on it that’s another story. Do you see the difference? One person sells something which is supposed to be taxed (a proper use of government authority) and should be dealt with accordingly for his violation of the law and another person wants to mellow out and in the process violate no law other than an inappropriate law which violates his personal freedom.

Those same Christians, conservatives and Republicans (including myself) are all wound up about President Obama trying to jam his demented obamacare plan down our throats because, for one thing, it impinges on our right not to have health care by fining those who don’t choose to buy health insurance. There are other considerations, of course, but this one serves for my analogy.

The issue is not obamacare or legalization of marijuana – it is allowing our rights as individuals and citizens of the United States to be diminished. The issue of maintaining our rights as individuals and doing what we choose to do as long as it doesn’t harm others is what is important. We should ALL be able to agree on that.

There are many, many videos on the net of President Obama telling ACORN leaders that they will have a “seat at the table”.  Couple that with the fact that he actually worked with them and you have a real “game-changer” as Obama would say.  My guess is the the White House staff is working full-time, to the exclusion of EVERYTHING else to find a way to spin what Obama has said and to distance him from this bunch of lying, cheating miscreants.

He, through his solid connections to ACORN, is now tainted with tax evasion, slavery, prostitution, gaming the system, fraud, voter fraud(they’re currently being investigated in about 14 states), and who knows what else.  How is he going to get out of this one?  Claim he didn’t know?  Too late, he’s already used that “get out of jail free” care with Jeremiah Wright.  No one believed him then, and trying to pull that again will only certify him as a liar.  His only real choice is to throw them under the bus like he did with Van Jones and Wright.  However, they don’t seem like the types to go quietly.  And, there you have the Obama conundrum.

What to do?  What to do?  Well obviously he has to distance himself from them somehow.  And then, I predict, the whole thing will become yet another “distraction” from obamacare formulated by the Republicans (code for whites).  This is going to turn into a huge oboner.

Presidential aides have promised Obama will take back the reins after allowing Congress to work its will on his idea, without one specific plan for Democratic lawmakers to defend back home. We’re entering a new season,” senior adviser David Axelrod said in an interview Tuesday. “It’s time to synthesize and harmonize these strands and get this done. We’re confident that we can do that. But obviously it is a different phase. We’re going to approach it in a different way. The president is going to be very active.”
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0909/26700.html#ixzz0Q26QqLTu From Politico, read more here..

If he lays out specific plans, he has no wriggle room. If it doesn’t pass It is his huge oboner. He owns it. This doesn’t seem like his normal strategy so I think its unlikely he’ll lay our specific plans without a lot of wriggle room. If he chooses this route the “plans” will seem specific but leave all his options for denial or taking the credit in place while leaving it up to Congress to compromise the bill to such an extent that none of them will survive the wrath of the voters.

If he “urges” Congress to get the job done it will be seen as weak by his constituents because they believe he has the power to do anything and will see this as going back on, or not fulfilling, a campaign promise. Congress will see it for what it is – a lame attempt to set Congress up for the fall when it doesn’t pass while immediately taking credit for it if it does. And reserving the option of wriggling, if after passing it, all goes bad.

This is a risky, desperate move. For his political career it has the potential to be the “mother of all oboners” until now and could lameduckize the balance of his presidency. It also has the potential to take down Pelosi and if you think she doesn’t see that…

If he was thinking smart rather than arrogant he’d sit quietly right now let Congress take the fall.

• Current Massachusetts law prohibits the governor from appointing a replacement. Ironically it was Kennedy himself who instigated the change while Mitt Romney was governor in order to prevent Romney from appointing a replacement in the event that Kerry won the 2008 Presidential Nomination. Kennedy recently sent a letter urging a change back so that Deval Patrick, the current governor, would be able to appoint Kennedy’s replacement if he died in office. Pretty hypocritical, but that’s politics.
• This issue is very hot and one vote really counts. So much so that the senate is considering the very slippery manuever of reconciliation in order to get around the possibility that the peoples elected Republican Senators and a few “blue dog” democrats might be successful in defeating it.
• The summer recess has demonstrated clearly that an awful lot of vociferous voters are adamantly opposed to obamacare and self-serving politicians want nothing more than to keep there seats and stay in positions of power, influence and free lunches from lobbyists.
• Senator Kennedy was a champion for national healthcare. In fact, you could say he was the face of healthcare. Without his indefatigable support and tremendous political influence some senators who might otherwise have reluctantly been on board with it may waiver in their support.

Logically, to me anyway, the above factors put an end (for now) to obamacare. Lets watch and see if I’m correct.