Fidel Castro likes Obama

Fidel Castro apparently complimented Obama today on finally getting the US up to speed with other communist countries.

Cuban revolutionary leader Fidel Castro on Thursday declared passage of American health care reform "a miracle" and a major victory for Obama's presidency, but couldn't help chide the United States for taking so long to enact what communist Cuba achieved decades ago.

"We consider health reform to have been an important battle and a success of his (Obama's) government," Castro wrote in an essay published in state media, adding that it would strengthen the president's hand against lobbyists and "mercenaries."

But the Cuban leader also used the lengthy piece to criticize the American president for his lack of leadership on climate change and immigration reform, and for his decision to send more troops to Afghanistan, among many other things.

Oh don't worry Fido, we're well on our way. See the rest of the story

Cicero on Healthcare reform

I couldn't have said it better myself.

For if ignorant and unskillful men have prescribed deadly poisons instead of healing drugs, these cannot possibly be called physicians' prescriptions; neither in a nation can a statute of any sort be called a law, even though the nation, in spite of being a ruinous regulation has accepted it.

- Marcus Tullius Cicero

REPEAL IT!

Pelosi compares healthcare to Social Security and Medicare

This doesn't make me feel all warm and gooey inside about how wonderful this system is going to be. Most of this article is about a bunch of procedural mumbo jumbo about how they are forcing a vote for reconciliation to automatically mean a vote for the Senate bill. Something about keeping the Senate from using the filibuster to block passing or something or other. Basically from what I understand a vote for reconciliation is basically an acknowledgement by the majority party that there is opposition on both sides. Anyway I don't really know a whole lot about that topic, but then we see the following quote:

Pelosi believes, her caucus will see that this is "the most important bill most of us will ever pass," that it is legislation on par "with Social Security and Medicare."

Oh good, healthcare is on par with social security and medicare. Those systems are doing great aren't they?

Another one of the many reasons I am against government healthcare

Stupak Claims Committee Chairman Wants Government to Fund Abortions:

Oh gee, this must be one of those "compromises" they were talking about.

Jim Matheson is on thin ice with me.

I voted for Jim Matheson last election. I'll tell you why. First of all, yes I'm a Republican, and yes I usually vote Republican, but last election, Bill Dew was the only other option. Bill Dew I'm sure is a great guy in real life. But all I heard about Bill Dew the entire campaign season was attack ads against Jim Matheson. One thing you should know about me is that mudslinging and attack politics are one of my biggest pet peeves in politics. I HATE people who say you should vote for them just because "that other guy is evil and is going to vote the opposite of everything you believe in!" On top of that, I couldn't find one single iota of information on what Bill Dew stood for. All I knew from Bill Dew was that Jim Matheson voted for whatever policy in Congress and it was usually something you didn't care about.

That being said, I also thought Jim Matheson was a man of good character. And integrity. I haven't had reason to start worrying about him until recently. I have been so proud to know that he is one of the democrats standing up against pushing healthcare down our throats. Then of course the whole thing came out about Scott Matheson being appointed to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals and that the timing was strangely, coincidentally on the exact same day that Obama invited all the Democrats against healthcare to the White House for buttering up. I'm willing to accept that Scott Matheson deserves the appointment, but I hate the fact that none of these stupid White House people saw any kind of coincidence. Those who raised the concerns were called "absurd" and accused of "manipulat[ing] the message out there for partisan gain" and this by Matheson himself who was described as "furious". So I'm basically hearing "those people are just crazy Republicans and we should ignore them." Why would you be furious for being asked if an accusation is true or not? Its not like we are accusing you personally of taking a bribe. We are just concerned about the integrity of the White House and Obama. And rightly so. It's not a baseless accusation at ALL!

Let's make an analogy here. Your son really wants a cookie before dinner. You say no, mainly because you know that you will be in big trouble with your wife if you say yes. Your son then decides to be really obedient and helpful, including getting a cookie for you. In the midst of him getting a cookie for you and handing it to you, your wife walks in. What do you think she is going to think immediately? That your son was just trying to be nice and that him giving you a cookie was completely unrelated to the fact that HE wants a cookie? No that would be stupid. Almost as stupid as my analogy :)

Anyway, a few days ago I wrote Jim a letter letting him know that I wasn't accusing him of anything wrong but that I hoped he wouldn't let these seeming favors influence his votes and that he would continue to vote for his constituents (me). Then, I read about Jim's refusal to give back $45,000 given to him by Charlie Rangel over the years because the money had been spent during past campaign cycles. The problem I have with this?

Matheson had reported $860,000 left in his campaign bank account after his last race in 2008 and reported $1.24 million in that account at the end of 2009.

So... you must keep a very specific ledger of each individual or group that gives you money and then when you spend that exact same money. But even if that were the case, the money that he was given by Rangel is money that Rangel obtained through tax fraud. Meaning (to me at least) that Matheson is basically refusing to give back tax payer money. He is funding his campaign in part with money that should not ever have been his whether he knew at the time he got it or not. He obviously has plenty of money right now for his next campaign. I would think that at a point when his public image is somewhat in the hands of how he votes on healthcare, he might want to try and shift that negative focus to something more positive like giving back money that he doesn't technically have to give back. At this point I'm feeling more like everything I hear about Matheson is about how he received some benefit out of corruption within his party yet he is unwilling to acknowledge it. The message I'm getting is this:

Utah, my party is infected with corruption and I have benefitted many times at the hands of it. But I never participated in any of it directly so I should not be held responsible for any of it. I also should not have to give up any of the benefits I am receiving from it. After all, if a bank robber steals money and then gives me some of it later and I spend it on a new TV then shouldn't I be allowed to keep the TV? After all I didn't know he got the money by stealing it. I'm totally innocent. And if you say I should give up my TV because I bought it with dirty money then you are an absurd self righteous jerkhead. You voted for me and that means I'm allowed to do whatever I want for two years and screw you.

That's the message I'm hearing from Jim. Sorry buddy, but you are going to have to find a new job soon.