The Senate’s symbolic “non vote”
I notice the main stream media spent a lot of air time and ink last week telling the whole world, or at least everybody they could get to pay attention to them, that the vote in the House of Representatives to repeal Obamacare was a complete and utter waste of time. I would tell you what CNN had to say about it, but just like the vast majority of the rest of America, I don’t watch CNN. This by the way, is the same media that spent countless hours covering the time Congress invested looking into whether Roger Clemens used steroids or not. As far as wasting time and energy goes, I would rank the time our elected representatives spent on Roger Clemens and professional baseball as a waste of time on the same scale as giving Joe Biden etiquette lessons (can you imagine that, “Okay Mr. Biden, when you are putting your foot in your mouth, remember to extend your pinky”).I suppose that if you had a chance to have an actual conversation with some of our elected representatives, or members of the press who spent so much time on the Roger Clemens debacle, they might justify it by saying something along the lines of “He committed perjury, and that should always be punished”. Okay, I could go along with that. Personally, I don’t think he should have been “testifying” in front of Congress to start with, but I do think that perjury is a crime which corrodes our society and legal system, so I can see trying to prosecute it whenever it takes place. So, if that is the argument, and they would like us to agree that perjury should be rooted out, I’m all for it. Under those conditions, I think we need to call Bill Clinton back in and have another discussion with him about perjury. Oops, I forgot, as long as the perjurer is a darling of the left, perjury is okay. In fact, in the case of Bill Clinton, apparently even some pretty abusive behavior towards women is perfectly excusable, because after all… darn it, I forget, why exactly was/is that kind of behavior okay as long as it’s Bill Clinton doing it? Anyway, back to the recent vote in the House of Representatives to repeal Obamacare (bless them). Even days after this took place, the media is still echoing with the phrase, “only symbolic”. That is what the left and the media want you to believe. In fact, it’s easy to see they are trying to convince everybody that the vote was only symbolic and thus ineffectual simply because they keep repeating it over and over.There are a lot of words or phrases which can be used to describe the House vote against Obamacare, but symbolic really isn’t one of them. After all, the House had an actual, recorded, open-to-public-research, vote. Do you want to know how the Representative for your Congressional district voted concerning the repeal of Obamacare last week? In that case, since they had an actual vote, you can simply call their office or look it up and get that information. If this is an issue that’s important to you, or is something that will affect whether or not you vote to reelect or replace your Representative, where they stand is now a matter of public record. That’s hardly “symbolic”.On the other hand, the United States Senate under the leadership of Harry Reid, absolutely, unequivocally, refuses to consider and vote on the repeal that the House of Representatives passed and has sent to the Senate. Now, if you want to talk about symbolism, I would say the Senate’s rejection of any kind of action concerning a debate or recordable vote concerning the repeal of Obamacare is pretty symbolic.Since Harry Reid is one of the gang (I hope no actual street gang members take offense at me for comparing them to Harry Reid) who helped get Obamacare passed to start with, clearly he likes it. If that’s the case, and he thinks Obamacare is such a good idea, why exactly, is he not allowing a vote in the Senate on whether or not to repeal it? Is he afraid enough of his fellow Senators are against Obamacare that a vote would end up with it being repealed? If that’s the case, does he think that he’s smarter than the rest of the Senate, and for that matter the House of Representatives, and really knows what’s best for us and is going to force it on us no matter what? Does he perhaps have other less noble or even criminal reasons for propping up Obamacare that we aren’t aware of?My opinion is that there is indeed some symbolism involved in the latest attempt to repeal Obamacare. I think that the Senate’s unwillingness to either debate or vote on the repeal is pretty symbolic of their fear of having to take a public position concerning Obamacare. After all, doesn’t Harry Reid’s party of progressives have enough votes in the Senate to merely vote the repeal down and then go on with their other business (whatever it is)? Couldn’t they just have a quick vote and move on? Don’t forget, as much as the media and the left rails and rants about conservatives, and how uncooperative they are, the Republicans only control one half of one third of the federal government right now. If Harry Reid and Obama are so sure that they are doing the right thing, then having an open, public, vote in the Senate just shouldn’t be a problem.I would issue an invitation for Harry Reid and his fellow liberals to symbolically plant their flag concerning Obamacare and vote for it, but unfortunately, going by the previous behavior of Obama and the left, I’m not sure they understand the concept behind a flag (at least the American one). Instead I will just say that lack of a Senate vote on repealing Obamacare is symbolic of the Senate’s fear of the wrath of American taxpayers. I don’t however, expect the main stream media to comment on it.Bruce Kreitler is the author of Obamageddon (the Culmination of the Progressive Looting of America) and posts this and other articles at BruceKreitler.com.