« Thugocracies shooting down their own citizens in the streets | Is the taboo on reporting about the ineffectiveness of MAD and Iran beginning to crack? »
February 19, 2011
Dem wants to ban the term 'ObamaCare' from floor debates
"You would think he wants his name attached to his signature legislation."
That's a quote from Denny Rehberg (R-MT) who sponsored the bill that would defund ObamaCare. He has a great point - especially after loony liberal Deborah Wasserman-chultz suggested that all references to "ObamaCare" be banned from debate.
The Hill:
House Republicans and Democrats started Friday morning's debate over whether to defund last year's healthcare law, and as part of this debate sparred over whether members should be allowed to call that law "ObamaCare."After two House Republicans called it "ObamaCare," Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) asked the chairman whether these "disparaging" remarks should be allowed on the House floor."That is a disparaging reference to the president of the United States; it is meant as a disparaging reference to the president of the United States, and it is clearly in violation of the House rules against that," she said.Because Wasserman Schultz only asked if it would be appropriate to curb the use of the term "ObamaCare," the chairman said he would not rule on a hypothetical. But he did urge members to "refrain from engaging in personalities or descriptions about personalities in general."
If Obama and the Democrats believe that health insurance reform is such a marvelous - "historic" they called it - achievement, how can it be "disparaging" to attach the president's name to it? By their lights, it is the ultimate compliment.
Except, of course, the gargantuan monstrosity of a bill is wildly unpopular and the Dems don't want the president's name associated with it. Too bad. They made their legislative bed, now let them lie in it.
To comment on this or any other American Thinker article or blog, you must be a subscriber to our ad-free service. Login to your subscription to access the comments section. You can subscribe on a monthly basis for $6.79 a month or for a year at $69.99
Login
Subscribe / Change PwdAd Free / Commenting Login
FOLLOW US ON
Recent Articles
- From Churchill to Vance...Sounding Off About Tyranny
- Globalist Games: They Play, We Pay
- Scorched-Earth Disease Control
- NATO, Ukraine, and the War Hawks’ Pixie Dust Playbook
- On XY in XX’s Sports, Whoopi G. Opens Her Mouth—and Removes All Doubt
- Donald Trump’s Return: A Foreign Policy Reset After Biden’s Weakness
- The Danes and the Greenlanders: How They See Trump's America
- The USAID Case: Judge Amir Ali’s $2 Billion Defiance Escalates
- Terrifying Tariffs: Tax Policy as Back-Door Foreign Aid
- Dr. Marty Makary’s ‘Blind Spots’ Book Is At Odds With Established Findings
Blog Posts
- We’re not living in a Smoot-Hawley world, and smart tariffs will benefit America
- Full-throated support for DOGE comes from an unexpected quarter
- A conversation with the BBC about Mahmoud Khalil
- Transgender activists disrupt detransitioners’ event at Vermont statehouse
- Trump signals that action, not soft power, is the way to go
- ‘Conservative influencers’ host OnlyFans girl on their podcast, immediately exploit her trauma… while wearing Jesus shirts
- The Trump presidency and the return of courage
- District judge orders Trump to reemploy recently fired bureaucrats
- Schumer caves on shutdown after Dem private lunch erupted in a shouting match
- It's amendment-decorating season in Oregon
- UN climate change conference to be held in Amazon rainforest, trees sacrificed
- I’m all broken up about Mahmoud Khalil’s rights
- Destruction's defenders
- Go away, Randi
- After blowing $9 billion on 'free' health care for illegals, California's Gov. Gavin Newsom asks for a bailout