Speaker 1: Last night on the Senate floor, New Jersey Senator Bob Menendez,
Speaker 1: it is our solemn duty to put aside our ideology,
Speaker 1: to turn off Rush Limbaugh and leave politics in the cloakroom.
Speaker 1: Our vote on this groundbreaking legislation comparable to Social Security
Speaker 1: and medicare. That's all we need to hear from. The
Speaker 1: guy is just a buffoon. But here we are. They
Speaker 1: got their rolling, I mean they have. They're on track
Speaker 1: now for their Christmas Eve at nine pm vote. And
Speaker 1: still Senator Bob Menendez of New Jersey has to tell
Speaker 1: the Republicans stop listening to me, stop being ideological, ideological,
Speaker 1: which is all the Democrats are being here, pure ideology.
Speaker 1: I got a I got an email note from a
Speaker 1: friend today. Is it hopeless? Is it over? What do
Speaker 1: we do? I I'd like to go out and raise
Speaker 1: some money, but everybody's tapped out? Is it? Raising money
Speaker 1: is not what's necessary? Right now? We've had two rallies
Speaker 1: in Washington. It's obvious that that that members of the
Speaker 1: Democrat Party in about the House and Senate don't care
Speaker 1: one way or another about what the public opinion of
Speaker 1: this is. That's been obvious for a long time. I
Speaker 1: still think, folks, what you ought to do is just
Speaker 1: pound these people with emails, phone calls, facts is whatever,
Speaker 1: Pound every damn one of them at their offices from
Speaker 1: now until health freeze is over, Before, during, and after
Speaker 1: all of this. Just keep pounding them. Uh that it
Speaker 1: will make you feel better, and who knows, it may
Speaker 1: have some effect at some point down the road. But
Speaker 1: this is just outrageous. What is all happening. What we
Speaker 1: are learning there are unrepealable aspects of the bill, particularly
Speaker 1: a medical exchange plan that really sets the stage for
Speaker 1: the government takeover of health care. It cannot be repealed.
Speaker 1: There's no a rule has been violent, constitution has been violated.
Speaker 1: There is so much of this that is illegal, and
Speaker 1: somebody is going to have to bring the charge. And
Speaker 1: I expect that if it's if it's if it's done,
Speaker 1: If somebody does challenge this, it's And I have to
Speaker 1: come from some of these states that are being left
Speaker 1: out of all the goodies. In New York, Bloomberg is
Speaker 1: fit to be tied, Patterson's fit to be tied. Uh,
Speaker 1: And in in a lot of Georgia, I mean they're
Speaker 1: being left out. A lot of states are being left
Speaker 1: out of this so a lot more detail in this
Speaker 1: as the as the program unfolds. But ideology. The reason
Speaker 1: Menendez goes to the floor. The sent I says, do
Speaker 1: not listen to Rush Limbaugh is because ideology is the
Speaker 1: only way we're gonna beat this. Ideology is the only
Speaker 1: way people in mass numbers are gonna be made to
Speaker 1: understand just what this is and what it's about. Now,
Speaker 1: we can go through individual aspects of the bill, which
Speaker 1: we will do today, but that's been done at infinitum. Uh,
Speaker 1: and it just it ends up sounding like mishmash people
Speaker 1: here it all runs together. Uh, the ideological approach, this
Speaker 1: is liberals. This is what liberalism is. Liberalism means the
Speaker 1: loss of economic prosperity and individual freedom and so forth.
Speaker 1: That's the message. Menendez knows it, and that's why he
Speaker 1: is asking people to to not listen to me. DINGI
Speaker 1: har Re invoked Rodney King on the Senate floor this morning.
Speaker 1: There's a lot of tension in the Senate. I would
Speaker 1: hope that everyone would go back to their gentlemanly ways,
Speaker 1: and I would hope that I was trying to figure
Speaker 1: out how to say this gentlemanly ways. I've said to
Speaker 1: a number of people, Rodney King, let's just all try
Speaker 1: to get along. So we really need to do this
Speaker 1: is a very difficult time the next day or so,
Speaker 1: and let's try to work through this, which is a
Speaker 1: which is a laugh. We're dealing with some of the
Speaker 1: most hand handed, hard handed ideologues, mean spirited extremists to
Speaker 1: come down the pike, and this is what they always
Speaker 1: do when the going gets tough. Can't we all just
Speaker 1: get along? Can't we just can't we just stop all
Speaker 1: this partisanship little Obama was going to handle. Let Mitch
Speaker 1: McConnell agreed with him. Let me just add to my
Speaker 1: good friend the majority later. He and I have an
Speaker 1: excellent relationship. We speak a number of times in the
Speaker 1: course of every day and have no animosity whatsoever. And
Speaker 1: we are working on an agreement that will give certainty
Speaker 1: to the way to end this session, and hopefully the
Speaker 1: two of us together can be recommending something that makes
Speaker 1: sense for both sides in the not too distant future.
Speaker 1: All right, there's the Republican leader in the in the Senate.
Speaker 1: What Mr Snurdle, What well? I I played that not
Speaker 1: to just infuriate you. I played it to to inform you. Uh,
Speaker 1: I'll go back to this email that I got. Um.
Speaker 1: In fact, you know, I want to print out the reply.
Speaker 1: I'm trying to remember to reply. The email I got
Speaker 1: was from somebody who has really been invested financially and
Speaker 1: trying to stop this, has been raising a lot of
Speaker 1: money and was asking me if if, if all is lost.
Speaker 1: And I'll find the reply to the email after the
Speaker 1: break and share it, share it with you. Um. Now,
Speaker 1: here's let's let's go ahead and stick with this. Let's
Speaker 1: go to soundbites four or five and six. Uh, this
Speaker 1: is yesterday on this program. This is me. Now, certainly
Speaker 1: just send me. Violate the rules, violate the rules. They've
Speaker 1: just stood the Constitution upside. Don't you think I give
Speaker 1: a rat's rear end about violating a Senate rule on
Speaker 1: when reconciliation cannon can't be used here? Senator Jim Dement's
Speaker 1: Republican South Carolina last night on the Senate floor. There's
Speaker 1: one provision that I found particularly troubling, and it's under
Speaker 1: a section see title limitation on changes to this subsection,
Speaker 1: and I quote it shall not be in order in
Speaker 1: the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any
Speaker 1: bill resolution, amendment, or conference report that would repeal or
Speaker 1: otherwise change this subsection. This is not legislation. It's not law.
Speaker 1: This is a rule change. It's a pretty big deal.
Speaker 1: We will be passing a new law and at the
Speaker 1: same time creating a Senate rule that makes it out
Speaker 1: of order to amend or even repeal the law. And
Speaker 1: this is not how Senate rules are made. Now, this
Speaker 1: is um You know, the language is tough, but this
Speaker 1: is how dictators operate. This is how people who know
Speaker 1: that nobody wants what they're offering operate. People who have
Speaker 1: power and who do not, and who are very well
Speaker 1: aware that they're running against the wishes and against the
Speaker 1: grain of the people they supposedly governed, make it impossible
Speaker 1: for those people to do anything about it in any
Speaker 1: illegal way. This is not how you change the rules
Speaker 1: of the Senate. De Mint continued, I'm not even sure
Speaker 1: that it's constitutional, but if it is, it most certainly
Speaker 1: is a Senate rule. I don't see why the majority
Speaker 1: party wouldn't put this in every bill. If you like
Speaker 1: your law, you most certainly would want it to have
Speaker 1: force for future Senates. I mean, we want to bind
Speaker 1: future Congresses. This goes to the fundamental purpose of Senate
Speaker 1: rules to prevent a tyrannical majority from trampling the rights
Speaker 1: of the minority or of future Congresses. Okay, that's gim
Speaker 1: de mint on the floor of the Senate last night. Now,
Speaker 1: why are they making this provision unrepealable. It's what we're
Speaker 1: talking about here, is the Independent Medicare Advisory Board making
Speaker 1: it impossible or difficult for future congress is to legislate
Speaker 1: in that area to to to change this. Because Bill
Speaker 1: Crystal points it out, the heart of the bill is
Speaker 1: the attempt to get control of health care permanently in
Speaker 1: the hands of federal bureaucrats who would allegedly know better
Speaker 1: than doctors and patients what's good for them, and who
Speaker 1: would cut access to care and the quality of care.
Speaker 1: So there's more money left over for various big government
Speaker 1: liberal social programs down the way. But this is just outrageous.
Speaker 1: What is happening? I was I was telling Snargely this morning,
Speaker 1: usually on our last day of the last show of
Speaker 1: the of the year, we're not dealing with this kind
Speaker 1: of stuff. The Congress has gone home. Nobody's messing around
Speaker 1: with liberty or freedom and not there not passing new laws,
Speaker 1: and we yuck it up and we have some jollys,
Speaker 1: and it just doesn't seem the whole jolly time here,
Speaker 1: given what is at stake. But nevertheless, we're gonna try
Speaker 1: to combine elements in the in the program today. But
Speaker 1: Jim demand Is is upset. But of course this doesn't
Speaker 1: get carried much outside the Senate floor by the state
Speaker 1: controlled media. So aside from people like you in this
Speaker 1: audience and UH and readers of various conservative blogs and
Speaker 1: so forth, vast majority of American people have no clue
Speaker 1: about this. Yet It's very simple. Folks win, Barack Obama
Speaker 1: and the Democrats win. America loses big time. Now here's
Speaker 1: the Here's the email that I that I received ere rush.
Speaker 1: I still think with sufficient public outrage, we could stop
Speaker 1: the vote in the House, but it's proving an incredibly
Speaker 1: hard to raise the money we need to reach and
Speaker 1: mobilize the people who are not in your audience. Everybody's
Speaker 1: tapped out and resigned. Do you still think we will prevail?
Speaker 1: Here's what I wrote back, and it was a stream
Speaker 1: of consciousness reply. I said, dear such and such, I
Speaker 1: said yesterday that no amount of public outrage would matter.
Speaker 1: And I believe that we've never seen this before, We've
Speaker 1: never been involved in anything like this before. The main
Speaker 1: reason public outrage won't work is not the public's fault.
Speaker 1: It's a combination of mainly a dictatorial frame of mind
Speaker 1: the Democrats all have now and the Republican Party just
Speaker 1: refuses to get emotionally engaged. Here are outraged by it.
Speaker 1: Their responses are barely above a flat line. And I
Speaker 1: can point you to Mitch McConnell's a very gentlemanly remark
Speaker 1: and reply to Harry Reid who asked if we can
Speaker 1: all just be like Rodney King and just get along
Speaker 1: in the midst of the destruction of the US health
Speaker 1: care system. We're obsessed with being polite. And I know why.
Speaker 1: It's because we don't want to anger the moderates. The moderates,
Speaker 1: you're afraid that if we start criticizing Democrats are Obama,
Speaker 1: that they'll run away to the Democrats when they're fleeing
Speaker 1: Democrats in droves. Now. Now, there have been two attempts
Speaker 1: to rally people at the Capitol in opposition to this,
Speaker 1: and the and the reason was that emails, phone calls
Speaker 1: and faxes were not having an impact. It was theorized
Speaker 1: that bodies on the ground, boots on the ground, people
Speaker 1: in the faces of members of the House and Senate
Speaker 1: was what it would take to make a difference. But
Speaker 1: those two rallies failed because they essentially didn't happen. Who
Speaker 1: knew about it. The mainstream media didn't report them. Nancy
Speaker 1: Pelosi made sure that the vast majority of people showed up,
Speaker 1: and these rallies never got anywhere near the capital. The
Speaker 1: Democrats knew that all these protesters are being asked and
Speaker 1: cajole to show up, so they were able to tell
Speaker 1: themselves it wasn't genuine and the and the numbers reported
Speaker 1: were not all that repressive. I mean that the peasants
Speaker 1: didn't show up with any pitchforks. And so the Democrats
Speaker 1: they listened to all this and they hear all this hubbub,
Speaker 1: and they listened to all this opposition, and they know
Speaker 1: they're getting it, but they didn't see a whole lot
Speaker 1: of it in Washington. And it's it's because it wasn't
Speaker 1: permitted to get close to them. I'm not do not
Speaker 1: misunderstand me. The people showed up did a great thing.
Speaker 1: I'm just saying that the game was rigged before they
Speaker 1: even got there. And I told this person to send
Speaker 1: me the email. I'm gonna urge people to day to
Speaker 1: continue to flood members offices, especially their local ones when
Speaker 1: they go home for the Christmas break. But we we're
Speaker 1: we're we're dealing here, essentially with people who have a
Speaker 1: dictatorial frame of mind. The public opinion is irrelevant, It
Speaker 1: doesn't matter. The election to them is still a year away.
Speaker 1: If this were next September October and all this is happening,
Speaker 1: you'd have a entirely different dynamic going on. Uh. The
Speaker 1: inside the Beltway commentary it still doesn't see this as
Speaker 1: anything other than just another day at the political office.
Speaker 1: I was watching the Fox News All Stars last night
Speaker 1: during the roundtable discussion, and you had you had uh
Speaker 1: uh Steve Hayes from the Weekly Standard, Charles Crowdhammer and
Speaker 1: Mara Liasson, and Hayes and Crowdhammer were involved in the
Speaker 1: guts and the gory details in the imdeology and they
Speaker 1: were spelling out exactly how atrocious all this deal making was,
Speaker 1: all this whorring, all the bribery, all the prostitution that
Speaker 1: was going on, all the buying of votes, all the
Speaker 1: buying off states, all the buying of governors and so forth,
Speaker 1: and they are making, I mean, the scoring big time points.
Speaker 1: There's Mara Liasson, who I think I like her. I've
Speaker 1: met her a couple of times, but she's typical of
Speaker 1: the inside the Beltway media crowd. There's nothing special about
Speaker 1: this other than it's a huge piece of legislation for Obama.
Speaker 1: But there's nothing going on here that doesn't always happen.
Speaker 1: This is what legislation is. Senators by votes, they trade votes,
Speaker 1: they do so this is It was perfectly understandable to
Speaker 1: her that legislation had nothing to do with constituents. It
Speaker 1: was perfectly understandable to her that legislation had nothing to
Speaker 1: do with the substance of it. Legislation was all about process.
Speaker 1: And the people studying this and reporting on this in
Speaker 1: the state control media, that's their obsession, the process of it.
Speaker 1: Will Obama in Ken Obama secure a victory, Ken Obama
Speaker 1: reform health care. They haven't dug into the guts of this,
Speaker 1: and they ignore people who have. This will destroy the
Speaker 1: country as you and I know it. This will destroy
Speaker 1: the greatest health care system in the world. As you
Speaker 1: and I are aware, this will forever change the relationship
Speaker 1: that you and I have with our doctors because the
Speaker 1: government's going to be a very powerful middleman. There are
Speaker 1: death panels back in this bill, and that this is
Speaker 1: what Harry Reid says, cannot be repealed. We are going
Speaker 1: to ration care. We're gonna make sure that's only the
Speaker 1: approved people get the kind of care that might prolonged life.
Speaker 1: It's all in there. None of this matters. It's all
Speaker 1: about the process. It's all about the political victory. Can
Speaker 1: Obama bring it home? Meanwhile, the country is undergoing one
Speaker 1: of the most major transformations since its founding. I went
Speaker 1: and looked up a number of things, things that the
Speaker 1: founding fathers found outrageous, and there were the tipping point
Speaker 1: for them, and they weren't, I mean, the things that
Speaker 1: caused them to rebel and found this country. And they
Speaker 1: were nothing compared to what is happening in this piece
Speaker 1: of legislation alone. I know people think money fundraising is important,
Speaker 1: and it always is. But if you have to raise
Speaker 1: and spend money right now, if you have to raise
Speaker 1: and spend money to raise temperatures on this after all
Speaker 1: this time and all this effort that it seems unnecessary,
Speaker 1: seems like money would would not be necessary. If you
Speaker 1: look at all the polling data, you don't need to
Speaker 1: make more people aware. There's not one poll that shows
Speaker 1: a majority anywhere in favor of this. I've always thought
Speaker 1: pounding the individual provisions in the bill is okay, but
Speaker 1: it's the wrong way to go because it all becomes
Speaker 1: a blur. I hit this idiot logically at all times.
Speaker 1: H And what Harry read has done in limiting CEO
Speaker 1: salaries of insurance company exects limiting shareholder profits and operating expenses.
Speaker 1: And if you're just joining us, you need to miss that. Yesterday,
Speaker 1: David Axelrod assuring the left that are that are upset
Speaker 1: that they're gonna be forced to buy insurance from a
Speaker 1: private sector insurance companies, don't worry about it, he said,
Speaker 1: we have running there and we've limited CEO salaries in
Speaker 1: this legislation. Or really that they didn't take TARP money.
Speaker 1: What gives you the right to do that. They're just
Speaker 1: doing it. They are going to limit shareholder profits and
Speaker 1: police operating expenses. Eventually that drive them out of business,
Speaker 1: which is the ultimate aim here. Now that is there's
Speaker 1: no other definition for this than pure fascism, which is ideological,
Speaker 1: and it needs to be called as such. Harry Reid
Speaker 1: has has written language saying many of the provisions of
Speaker 1: the bill cannot be repealed. This whole thing is un American,
Speaker 1: it is unconstitutional, and it's not time to be polite
Speaker 1: with this. It's not time to be gentlemanly and let
Speaker 1: the Democrats have their sway on this. There would have
Speaker 1: been people with pitchforks at the Capitol if elected officials
Speaker 1: had felt and expressed the same degree of outrage and
Speaker 1: anger that their constituents feel and are expressing. In the end, however,
Speaker 1: I still think, I still think there's a chance for
Speaker 1: defectors somewhere along the line, and I think at some
Speaker 1: point they're going to have to resort to a mechanism
Speaker 1: whereby they get fifty one votes instead of sixty, because
Speaker 1: I think at some point and Senate they're not gonna
Speaker 1: be able to get sixty in the House is a
Speaker 1: whole another ballgame, But the fight is not over even
Speaker 1: if it does pass. Our guys ought to be leading
Speaker 1: the protests carrying the pitchforks. Instead, they're saying things like
Speaker 1: they're concerned, disappointed, surprised. That doesn't cut it, because that
Speaker 1: doesn't provide leadership, and leadership is necessary. People need an
Speaker 1: outlet and a vessel for their anger in their own party.
Speaker 1: Not one Democrat senator with integrity or courage, not one.
Speaker 1: He would only take one Democrats senator out of sixty
Speaker 1: to object to all this, this horrendous piece of legislation,
Speaker 1: and it would die. Just one Democrats senator out of
Speaker 1: sixty to show some integrity, show some courage, and nobody
Speaker 1: anywhere thinks it will happen. It's not even being discussed. Now.
Speaker 1: What does that tell you about Democrats? And yet it
Speaker 1: is always the Republicans who are portrayed. Is closed minded,
Speaker 1: walking in lockstep? What a laugh. We now see what
Speaker 1: walking in lockstep is really all about, and we see
Speaker 1: what actually is important, and it's not the country. And
Speaker 1: this takes me into yet another fear that I have
Speaker 1: about all this. There are a lot of things that
Speaker 1: worry me about about the transformation of country with this
Speaker 1: health care, whether the relationship between uh US and our
Speaker 1: doctors and the relationship between US and our government. But
Speaker 1: there's also another aspect of this, and that is the
Speaker 1: relationship between US and us between citizens. We will from
Speaker 1: now on be rivals. We will be competitors for federal
Speaker 1: money for health care for our children, uh permission from
Speaker 1: federal powers that be for each medical visit and procedure.
Speaker 1: And this is going to destroy folks, the traditional American
Speaker 1: live and let live attitude towards everybody, because it will
Speaker 1: inevitably become me against you when services are fewer, when
Speaker 1: costs go higher, and it's your kid, You're going to
Speaker 1: become competitive with your neighbor when you have to go
Speaker 1: in and negotiate with some federal bureaucrat to see that
Speaker 1: it's your kid that gets treated. And that's where we're headed. This, this,
Speaker 1: this massive new entitlement, is going to obliterate tolerance, this
Speaker 1: whole notion of live and let live. The way to
Speaker 1: summarize that as tolerance, and there isn't gonna be any
Speaker 1: more of that. Every American is gonna be looking at
Speaker 1: neighbors with jealousy, resentment, and anger at whatever medical care
Speaker 1: he or she receives. That cause not everybody's going to
Speaker 1: get the same. That's the way socialism works. It never
Speaker 1: ends up that way. There is never equality of outcome.
Speaker 1: There is never sameness, even though that's the objective. There
Speaker 1: are going to be differences and it's gonna lead to big,
Speaker 1: big problems. Every American is gonna end up being very
Speaker 1: extremely judgmental about the behavior of fellow citizens that would
Speaker 1: in any way be considered risky, because the attitude will be,
Speaker 1: you're taking money from my family's future medical care.