ObamaKennedyDeathCare Update

Yes, the name keeps getting longer. Today's addition comes via the fact that more people will die earlier and more painful deaths if ObamaKennedycare becomes the law of the land. You know me, I call it like it is. Thus, I decree: ObamaKennedyDeathCare.

It's just taken a bizarre turn:

By the way, the biter was a MoveOn.org thug who is still on the loose. Watch an interview with the victim here.

But the bass-ackwardness doesn't stop there. Get a load of this:

You may recognize Elston McGowan. He is the Public Service Director of SEIU Local 2000 and a local Baptist minister.

He is also one of the SEIU thugs who beat Kenneth Gladney after the Russ Carnahan town hall meeting in St. Louis last month. McGowan said Gladney, who is half his size, actually attacked him. He claims he was the victim even those he was hauled to jail for the attack.

** 24th State is reporting tonight that Elston McGowan is asking the SEIU for workman's comp for the injury he suffered at the Carnahan rally while beating Ken Gladney's a$$.

Un-flippin'-believable! I guess the question of whether or not this was an officially-sanctioned union action has been answered, huh?

One of the big talking points of the Left is that we just have to provide health care for all those 47 million people who don't have it. We've already discussed how that number is wildly inaccurate, but here's another consideration (emphasis mine):

Let me for the moment play devil’s advocate. Let’s take Obama and company at their word and assume that 40-odd million Americans lack health insurance and that all of them want to be insured. In fact, let’s say all are desperate to be insured. Let’s imagine, finally, that H.R. 3200 were currently the law of the land, public option and all. It stands to reason that every uninsured American would be beating a path to the government’s door to claim their prize, right?

Maybe not. Not if we extrapolate findings from a report published by the Urban Institute titled “Medicaid-Eligible Adults Who Are Not Enrolled: Who Are They and Do They Get the Care They Need?” In the interest of full disclosure, let me note at the outset that the report was published October 1, 2001. Most of the data, moreover, were gleaned from the 1997 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS), a large, nationally representative sample of the U.S. noninstitutionalized civilian population. That means the findings are at least 12 years old.

Nevertheless, the report contains comprehensive statistics on the number of Medicaid-eligible adults who are enrolled in the program and those who are not. And the findings are surprising, to say the least. Of more than 3.2 million Americans surveyed, 51.4 percent who were eligible for Medicaid coverage not enrolled in the program.

This report is limited to adults, but children fare no better. A second study, completed more recently, in September, 2007, indicates that better than 6 out of 10 uninsured children qualify for Medicaid or the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) but are not enrolled.

So, even in a best-case scenario where all 47 million of those uninsured people suddenly have the availability of 'free' health care, it's a virtual certainty that not all of them would utilize it. So much for that argument, too, huh?

Remember how I mentioned that government-controlled health care was a moral imperative for the Left? They're not backing down:

What would Jesus do? Well, Ed Schultz thinks he knows – that is on health care reform at least.

Schultz, on his Sept. 2 MSNBC program, “The ED Show” told viewers he believed Jesus would vote for a government public option. That, he said, was to the dismay of some on religious right, or what he used the pejorative “Bible thumpers” to describe.

Funny...I thought there was supposed to be a separation of church and state! I guess that only counts in the case of right-wing 'Bible thumpers'.

So how about the polls? RedState has the proper perspective, I think, given what's happened over the August recess:

I would like to thank the pro-health care rationing folks for their help.

Thanks in large part to your activities - and according to Rasmussen:

* 49% “have a favorable opinion of those opposing the health care reforms at town hall meetings” (41% last month).
* 59% “say the town hall protesters are citizens reflecting the concerns of their neighbors (49% last month).
* 56% “say that it’s more important for Congressmen to hear the view of their constituents rather than explain the proposed health care legislation.”

And, best of all? While Democrats disagree on all three of those - Republicans and independents don’t.

So. Speaking for the Republican party: much obliged. Can we count on your invaluable assistance, if and when the Democrats in Congress find the courage to again address cap-and-trade?

Ever noticed how, just when the Left finally has a super-majority in both houses of Congress, and the most radically Left President in the history of the country, they can't seem to get the most important pieces of their agenda passed? I mean, sure, they've spent untold trillions of dollars that don't exist...but they've so far failed on ObamaKennedyDeathCare, and the battle over cap-n-tradetax was sufficiently brutal as to scare the Senate from even debating it. Why? Because, now that the American people are truly seeing what the Left is all about, they reject it.

Now the only question remains: will the radical Leftist government in America overrule the people they supposedly represent?

This whole battle is eerily reminiscent of the 1994 Hillarycare battle:

A President, intent on socializing the American Health Care System goes to Congress for a very rare Joint Session of Congress. Normally, Presidential addresses to Joint Sessions of Congress occur only for States of the Union or first time visits. But this, like the attack on September 11th, 2001, which prompted George W. Bush to convene and speak to a Joint Session, is a unique circumstance. There is a health care crisis in American.

He has a 1,000+ page bill. Americans are skeptical. But Democrats control both Houses of Congress.

No, I’m not talking about Barack Obama this coming September 9, 2009. I’m talking about Bill Clinton on September 22, 1993. This is history repeating itself. Only history is repeating itself as a bookend.

A significant problem for Obama is that there already exists legislation and it is legislation he has blessed. If he backtracks now and throws members of Congress under the bus, he will foster ill will among his congressmen. If he pushes forward with the present plan, he will be out of step with the American public. In either case, we can see more and more that a silver tongue and a fully armed and operational teleprompter are no substitute for leadership.

As I said earlier today, when President Bush convened a Joint Session outside of the normal time parameters, it was because of an act of international terrorism.

Barack Obama is doing the same because of tea party activists and concerned senior citizens, all of whom his political machine, Organizing for America, has labeled “right-wing domestic terrorists.” Really. Barack Obama’s political machine did, in fact, label the tea party activists and concerned senior citizens as domestic terrorists.

Now he will reap his harvest of discontent.

Cool. We can hope so. Nancy Pelosi isn't backing off of the public option, so there's certain to be tension in the Leftist ranks:

There was a point in the last comprehensive health care reform debate (The Great Hillarycare War) when the House Ways and Means Committee passed out its health care reform bill despite what was an obvious revolt in the country.

It was irrational political behavior. For about five minutes, the opponents of Hillarycare were stunned.

And then the opposition decided to pull out all the stops.

That moment in The Great Obamacare War arrived yesterday, when the Speaker of the House stood firm on the public option, essentially telling the White House to go pound sand.

In effect, Speaker Pelosi just called in an air-strike on her own position.

This is not going to be pretty.

Larry Sabato, one of the best election prognosticators in recent times, is predicting electoral doom for the Democrats. How good is he?

In 2006, for example, a forecasting model that I developed predicted more than two months before Election Day that Democrats would gain 29 seats in the House of Representatives–a much larger pickup than most pundits and commentators were expecting at that time. The actual result was a 30 seat Democratic gain. A similar model that I developed for presidential elections has correctly predicted the winners of last five presidential contests more than two months before Election Day with an average margin of error of one percentage point.

So what's he saying about 2010?

Under what might be considered a worst case scenario for Democrats, if President Obama’s approval rating sinks into the low 40s next year, which would produce a net approval rating of around -10, and Republicans take a 5 point lead on the generic ballot, the GOP would still be expected to gain only 4 seats in the Senate. However, such a scenario would put Republicans in position to come very close to regaining control of the House with an expected pickup of 41 seats. On the other hand, if the President’s approval rating rebounds into the mid 60s, producing a net approval rating of around +30, and Democrats have a 10 point lead on the generic ballot, the GOP would be expected to lose one seat in the Senate and gain only 15 seats in the House. Based on the latest results (as of August 24) for the President’s net approval rating in the Gallup Poll (+16 percent) and the Democratic lead or deficit on the generic ballot (+6 percent), the predictions would be a Republican pickup of 1 seat in the Senate and 23 seats in the House.

RedState provides some perspective:

...the idea of a big Republican wave is starting to become conventional wisdom, and for the most part it doesn’t matter whether people expect a 20 seat or 40 seat gain. Either one is enough to encourage strong Republican candidates to run this cycle, as opposed to a few years from now. Either is enough to make swing-seat Democrats worry about being associated with the liberal Obama agenda. And either is enough to make deep-pocketed donors wonder if it’s wise to bet on the Democrats this time around.

And there’s likely to be another notable effect: if Democrats start to think that their window for bold action is closing, many may choose to push extreme legislation now, rather than wait for a better opportunity that will never come. Right now government-run care, Card Check, cap-and-trade, immigration reform, much higher taxes, gay rights, and other issues - all seem to be largely off the table. If the liberal base of the Democratic party believes that it will be impossible to make progress on those in 2011, it will push many to pursue a more extreme agenda now.

It's a dangerous situation either way.

So that's where we are right now. The heat is still rising, and the soul of America is still at stake. Something's gotta' give...but will it be the radical Leftist government, or will it be the freedom that makes America unique in this world?

There's my two cents.