The Contrarian

Rabbit season...

Duck season

Good depiction of the level of debate these days.

"I won!"

I find it very interesting that after all the squawking he did over the past few weeks, Joe Lieberman voted in favor of bringing the Senate version of health care legislation to the floor for debate.

This in no way means that he is in favor of the bill in it's current state, but at least he understands that stonewalling debate on health care reform is completely counter-productive, a concept that seems to be completely lost on the part of Republicans.

More than a few Democrats understood that if they continued to resist any discussion of health care reform, that they would most definitely be putting their future reelection bids in dire jeopardy.

Republicans did what they do best and voted straight down the line against moving the bill forward for discussion. Don't you just love 'em?

But fear not, all you Republican rubber stampers...for there are no less than thirteen more steps that health care reform will go through before it will land on the President's desk, and Republicans will have plenty of opportunity to vote against health care reform, before it will be passed in some form.

Ah...I can hear it all now. Republican contenders will be elevating their voices when asked to defend their votes against health care reform measures a couple of years from now;

"Thank you, that is an excellent question. You see, I was against health care reform, before I was for it..."

Just when you think you have heard or seen it all, along comes Clay with another 'look'.

Of course, you realize, even a talented person like Mr. Bennett can't make this 'stuff' up. But as long as there is a congress, presidents, presidential-hopefuls, Liberals and Republicans, or a state legislature like our own he'll have plenty of 'fodder' for future cartoons.

Keep up the good work Clay. Your work, and the resulting commentary, helps keep my mind active, even on slow days.

Thank you for "YOUR" time and attention to detail, Woody

I think this is what you were referring to, Alprova.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34080216/ns/health-health_care/

The 13 steps were listed in the article on the first page, but could not be accessed without the article.

Not to belabor the obvious but it could just as easily be "You Democrats disagree with everything I say". Perspective eh?

There was once a cartoonist named Clay Who was deaf in one ear for his pay. He could not hear the right 'Cause he shut his mind tight Lest he know the true things that they say. Remember James Thurber's parable with the moral "He who hesitates is sometimes saved"? Republicans, and I, have offered various improvements in the current health care system. Conservatives say such things as: whatever the merits of Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid, they are going broke, which shows strategic mismanagement on a scale of tens of trillions of dollars. Is another such program what we need? The House bill cuts Medicare/aid by 400 billion over ten years. Where's that going to come from? If it's all waste, that's tactical mismanagement by the tens of billions. We want those people saving money for us? Democrats mistrust Republicans, and vice versa; and independents, who tended to mistrust Republicans the last couple of election cycles, seem to be leaning to distrust Democrats now. So we ALL distrust government one way or another, with varying good reasons. So shrink government; it's a lot easier to go from a bad business to a good one than from a bad government to a less bad one.
Health is a personal matter. We need D.C. bureaucrats running our lives? ('He has sent hither swarms of officials to harrass us and eat out our substance'--Declaration of Independence from memory.) Granted little bureaucracies can be bad enough, but can their problems be solved by a big one, harder to compete with or to sue? Health is personal, so connect insurance with people instead of companies. (It's connect with companies because the government during World War II forbade wage increases, so companies competed for workers by offering benefits such as health insurance. Government interference cause the problem.)
Health is personal, so reward good conduct (let people keep medical savings account money they don't spend) and charge higher rates for risky behaviors such as smoking, drunkenness, gluttony and fornication. Face facts! Government, insulated by taxes from having to earn money, tends to be an exercise in fantasy. Read the constitution; it does not list health care among the powers of Congress. Read the Bible. It does not list health care among the duties of government. Look at Jesus Christ. He healed people himself; He didn't set up a bureaucracy. (And healings in the name of Jesus continue; my wife's family has seen a couple--we could use more--or read MEGASHIFT by James Rutz for lots of modern testimonies.) Drink some tea, Mr. Bennett, instead of (or along with) that liberal purple cool-aid.

AndrewLohr and Sailorman, I'm with you. And thank God for the other 13 steps. Healthcare reform is needed but fix the broken part. Don't break it all and then try to fix it later.

alprova wrote: "Republicans did what they do best and voted straight down the line against moving the bill forward for discussion. Don't you just love 'em?"

I know I do. Voting against moving forward on bad legislation is the right thing to do. On the other hand, voting for moving forward on bad legislation because a $100 million bribe was snuck into the bill for your state is just disgusting and says everything about Mary Landrieu and Harry Reid.

You are always griping about Republican hypocrisy. Watch this and try to defend it:

http://janeqrepublican.wordpress.com/2009/11/18/breitbart-tv-%25c2%25bb-flashback-pelosi-says-not-giving-members-three-days-to-read-bill-is-%25e2%2580%2598absolute-outrage%25e2%2580%2599winning-means-never-having-to-say-i-read-it/

Good catch, eeeeeek. I love Warner Brothers cartoons, and the exchange between Bugs Bunny and Daffy Duck that you referenced, is a classic.

I'll second Woody's praise and appreciation of Clay's work. His cartoons are the first thing I look for when I bring in the morning paper. Even on day's like today, when my paper is a bit waterlogged from sitting in a puddle on my driveway.

As much as I like seeing Clay's cartoons here every day (and the discussion that they inspire), I still prefer to see them in print. There's just something about the tactile experience of reading a newspaper that the internet doesn't provide. I know it might sound funny, but seeing these cartoons on newsprint just seems more personal to me, or maybe a step closer to the actual creative process.

In these days of instantaneous news just a mouse click away, my love of newspapers is a bit old-fashioned, I suppose. The way I see it, though, is that anybody, from anywhere in the world, can call up this web site and see Clay's cartoons, but I get them delivered right to my house, five days a week.

That's how newspapers used to be. Each one had its own columnist or cartoonist who became the voice of the newspaper, or became synonymous with the newspaper itself. If you lived in San Francisco, you'd pick up the Chronicle to see what Herb Caen had to say. If you were a Chicagoan, it was Mike Royko, and for New Yorkers it was Jimmy Breslin. If you got the Washington Post, you'd look forward to the cartoons of Herblock. It you were in Los Angeles, you followed the work of Paul Conrad.

Whether you agreed with them or not, these journalists became a touchstone for a reader. They became a part of your routine, your community, and a part of your life. You didn't need any fancy machinery or complex technology to find them, either. All you needed was a few coins and a newspaper box.

AndrewLohr would log on every day, "The Bible is clear", he would say. He would talk about hell, and the fate, not too swell, that awaited our cartoonist Clay.

Excellent link and video on Perky Pelosi Lightnup. Shows their abject hypocrisy in living color. I love when they're caught on video/audio and the apologizers/deniers find another creative way to deny what everyone else has seen and heard. "progressives" also love to point out that we never criticized Bush or the Republicans when they were in power. Shows how dimwitted a cadre of people can become when their eyes and ears are closed along with their minds, wits and sense of humor.

Ollie, I applaud your commentary. Mostly because it had little to do with today's cartoon, but a lot about reasons we read and enjoy various papers around the country.

Boy, do I miss Royko......

And you are right, the "Real Thing" is always better than even the availability and ease of the electronic substitute. However, since my Tennessean delivery person regarded me and others as not worthy of home delivery anymore and the fact I would have to drive a roundtrip of 30 miles to read an actual Times-FreePress whenever I wanted to, I'm glad the internet brings Clay and all the best of the TFP into my home on a daily basis.

Woody

the door swings both ways

canaryinthecoalmine wrote, "Excellent link and video on Perky Pelosi Lightnup. Shows their abject hypocrisy in living color."

What hypocrisy? The 2005 video of Nancy Pelosi (posted by Lightnup) showed her on the House floor (when the Democrats were in the minority) insisting on a three-day-period to read legislation before a vote.

H.R. 3962 (Affordable Health Care for America Act) was posted online on October 29th. The House vote didn't take place until November 7th. Unless my math is bad- that's MORE than three days.

Dear fellow bloggers,

Did you open the link Lightnup gave us at 10:52am yesterday?

Didn't it seem to you that Alinsky's rules were what Lightnup and his cohorts were following and that he shot himself in the mouth when he posted it?

You guys crack me up. Lightenup says tomato you say tomahto and vice versa. Neither of the parties is without guilt. Isn't that the root of the problem? They both play the games, screeching misleading crap at each other, and us, while spending our country into oblivion. Are the dems paragon of virtuous transparency? Of course not - remember the cap & trade bill fiasco? BUT the repubs hardly have any room to criticize. I find the entire Washington scene disgusting.

As you know, back in July, Queen Nancy orignally had no intention of posting or allowing the reading of the bill. If she had her way, it was going to be passed right away, reading and posting be damned.

There is no denying that she wanted to ignore the 3-day rule right from the get go.

That's the hypocrisy.

Fortunately, she did not get her way and, in the end, the much revised (but still horrendous) version was posted. But, what does it matter, this unbelievably expensive program is going to be forced upon a country that already has a $1.4 trillion annual deficit and $13 trillion federal debt, even though most people are not for it, mainly because the dems are drunk on power. Barack, Nancy and Harry would rather drive this country straight into bankruptcy, and take small businesses down with it, than consider any private sector solutions.

sailorman wrote: "....remember the cap & trade bill fiasco?"

Remember it? Heck, the worst of it hasn't even happened yet.

And for those of you who don't think this country is flat broke and dependent on the kindness of the rest of the world, there is this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/23/business/23rates.html?_r=2&hp=&pagewanted=all

The NY Times, of all people, reports what we "loons" have been saying all along. Yet Washington continues to do everything it can to deepen the hole and kill the economy.

Lightnup, so you and Nanci Pelosi have something in common.

Both of you believe that adequate time should be granted to assess a bill.

I saw the video link. I frequently don't agree with Nancy Pelosi, either, but I have to say that I agree with her 100% on this.

So I'm not sure what do expect alprova to defend here?

I too, think congressmen and women should have reasonable time to read and debate points within a bill.

Having said that (to quote Curb Your Enthusiasm) Republican/Conservatives have made it abudantly clear that they are opposed to the bill without reading it.

++++++++++++++++++++++++ In fairness to Conservatives, it is usually the party which is not in power that votes the party line. When Democrats were not in power, they were much more likely to vote the party line. When a group is in power, they can afford to stray from the party line, to appeal to people within their district especially if the party in power has the votes to pass legislation without them.

++++++++++++++++++++++++ AndrewLohr.... "Look at Jesus Christ. He healed people himself; He didn't set up a bureaucracy."

No, but he did charge us each to take care of each other.

Frankly, I'm not sure what you are suggesting here, but don't expect the national health care system to move to the Christian Science model. That WOULD be unconstitutional!

"Both of you believe that adequate time should be granted to assess a bill."

Pelosi, as would any politician, only "believes" it when she thinks it's politically advantageous to say so. Once again I point to the cap & trade bill.

Sailorman, you and I agree on the political expediency of politicians, for sure. I have never liked Nancy Pelosi, even when she and I agree on issues, I don't like her. I have always liked George Bush, even when he and I strongly dissagree on issues.

moonpie wrote: "So I'm not sure what do expect alprova to defend here?"

You're kidding, right? Once in charge, Pelosi had every intention of ramming her bill through without time for posting or reading, even though 4 years earlier she was sanctimoniously trumpeting the importance of the 3-day rule. H-y-p-o-c-r-i-s-y.

I was wrong and I want to apologize. I said that Harry Reid had snuck a $100 million bribe into the Senate version of health care in order to buy Mary Landrieu's vote Saturday night. That was wrong. Turns out it took $300 million of our money to bribe her.

Lightnup,

I too, have never liked Pelosi. I think she's sneaky.

I have my suspicions about Pelosi's intentions.

Do you have proof about your suspicions?

If so, please share.