.jpg)
If you're going to trample the Constitution to illegally nationalize an entire industry that you are unmistakably forbidden to touch, then why stop there? Why not break other laws in the process of shoving it down America's throat?
That seems to be the rhetorical question being asked by Democrats at this point as they regroup from repeated flip flops and prepare to deliberately misuse "reconciliation"--a procedural maneuver from the 1970s which is reserved strictly for budgetary measures--to railroad their lawless assault on health care through Congress without the added complication of long-established rules or actual dissent.
Even veteran Democrat Senator Robert Byrd, who the "Byrd Rule" was named after, has freely acknowledged that this measure cannot be legally used to force through ObamaCare.
This must be more of that "post-partisan" transparency and "open debate" Obama campaigned on.
Interestingly, liberals, including the ones who apparently run the Associated Press from top to bottom, are now frequently using the absurd "Republicans wouldn't work with us" excuse for this latest attack on the rule of law. They say this as if Republicans hadn't been stripped of basic minority rights from the very beginning, excluded from virtually the entire process, and eventually just handed a plateful of ultra-liberal legislation with zero concessions.
Of course Democrats are the only ones now making any compromises...their starting point was extremely left-wing and contained nothing for anyone else. There was no other direction in which things could move. You don't just get to declare yourselves the reasonable ones for finally "compromising" by barely involving the other side for a change.
As with nearly everything else liberals have revealed about themselves in this "debate," this attempt to smear their opponents as partisans for not giving Democrats everything they want thoroughly demonstrates how completely un-concerned these people are with anything other than Democrat power.