Monday, August 31, 2009

Ann Coulter Thrashes ObamaCare

I love Ann Coulter. No, really. I absolutely love her. Okay, not in the same way that I love my wife. I just love the way Ann fearlessly, plain-spokenly, and skillfully rips through liberal lies and boldly, unashamedly stands for truth.

She has chosen to take on the liberal lies concerning this health care plan that Obama, Reid, and Pelosi are pushing in Congress right now. She cuts through their arguments like Excalibur through Mazola.

Here is Liberal Lies About National Health Care: First in a Series


Liberal Lies About National Health Care: Second in a Series (Collect all 10!)

Read them if you dare. Or just keep your head in the sand.

A "River" Reader Goes to a Town Hall Meeting

One of our readers here at The River recently had the opportunity to attend a town hall meeting set up by his local representative to Congress, Sheila Jackson-Lee. He even got to ask a question, along with a follow-up.

Before I get into the story and tell you who it was, I just have to say that I thank the Lord God Almighty of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob that this woman is not my congressman (shudder). I am abundantly blessed to have, instead, Jeb Hensarling as a U.S. Rep. and he represents my viewpoint almost perfectly.

But not so blessed is our friend Allen Lewis, the Texas Conservative. Here is the story of his second trip to a town hall meeting and what took place there, including his questions to the distinguished Mrs. Jackson-Lee. (click here)

I'm just glad for our friend Mr. Lewis that Mrs. Jackson-Lee's mobile phone was apparently turned off this time and he was able to have her undivided attention, even if just for a few minutes.

For those of you too lazy to go over to his blog right now, I wanted to bring up a fabulous point that Mr. Lewis made to the congresswoman by quoting him here and then giving him a hearty "amen." Here is Mr. Lewis:

For me, I finally got to ask my question, which I did not get to do at the last meeting. I pointed out to her that Congress is not authorized in Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution to operate a health care program. I asked her if she would sponsor an amendment to the Constitution which would reserve this power for the Congress.

Her answer was not really an answer so much as it was a skillful avoidance of the question. She stated that the government does many things which are not specifically allowed in the Constitution, and said that this was being done to “promote the general welfare” and “to form a more perfect union.”

My reply to her was that her interpretation of the general welfare clause essentially allowed for an arbitrary government, which naturally leads to tyranny. I also pointed out to her that from 2001-2009, she and other Democrats were rightfully angry at what they perceived to be arbitrary laws made by the Bush administration, such as the Patriot Act; and the unconstitutional abdication of the responsibility to declare war by the Congress.

She definitely agreed with me that the Patriot Act and the Iraq/Afghanistan wars were not Constitutional. Unfortunately I was way over my time, so I didn’t get to make my closing point which was: by her reasoning, if George W. Bush and the Congress said, “The Patriot Act is for the general welfare of the nation,” it immediately becomes Constitutional - no matter what the bill actually says or does.
I think that our friend, Mr. Lewis, thinks on a far deeper level than someone like Mrs. Jackson-Lee ever has. And his logic here is flawless. "Progressive" politicians have been abusing that little clause in the preamble since Theodore Roosevelt.

Thursday, August 27, 2009

More Socialized Medicine Horrors Exposed

From the UK Telegraph:

By Rebecca Smith, Medical Editor

'Cruel and neglectful' care of one million NHS patients exposed

One million NHS patients have been the victims of appalling care in hospitals across Britain, according to a major report released today. . . .

In the last six years, the Patients Association claims hundreds of thousands have suffered from poor standards of nursing, often with 'neglectful, demeaning, painful and sometimes downright cruel' treatment.
The charity has disclosed a horrifying catalogue of elderly people left in pain, in soiled bed clothes, denied adequate food and drink, and suffering from repeatedly cancelled operations, missed diagnoses and dismissive staff.

The Patients Association said the dossier proves that while the scale of the scandal at Mid-Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust - where up to 1,200 people died through failings in urgent care - was a one off, there are repeated examples they have uncovered of the same appalling standards throughout the NHS. . . .
To read further about the horrors of socialized medicine, click here.

Government. It's so wonderful. It can do so much for you.

Obamacare and the IRS

From a CBS News Blog, posted by Declan McCullagh

One of the problems with any proposed law that's over 1,000 pages long and constantly changing is that much deviltry can lie in the details. Take the Democrats' proposal to rewrite health care policy, better known as H.R. 3200 or by opponents as "Obamacare." (Here's our CBS News television coverage.)

Section 431(a) of the bill says that the IRS must divulge taxpayer identity information, including the filing status, the modified adjusted gross income, the number of dependents, and "other information as is prescribed by" regulation. That information will be provided to the new Health Choices Commissioner and state health programs and used to determine who qualifies for "affordability credits."
To read the whole blogpost, click here.

Big Brother is watching.

Tuesday, August 18, 2009

Dick Morris on 'Death Panels'

I'm on Dick Morris's email list so I get two or three things from him a week. Lately, he has been all over this health care debate and has really done yeoman's work to try to get this abominable legislation defeated. For the record, he and I would not always agree on what the role of government should be in our lives. Neither would I attack the Obama health care reform with the same aruments he does (keep in mind that Morris was the political brains behind the Clinton administration). But he makes some salient points in this op-ed piece published in the New York Post a day or two ago and I thought I would post that piece here. I do not know what the etiquette on re-posting this is, so I went ahead and included a couple of links at the end so you can check out his site, his youtube videos, and his book. I hope that makes it okay. Enjoy.



Published in the New York Post on August 17, 2009

Washington is all atwitter about "death panels": President Obama derides the idea that his health-care reform calls for them; the Senate is stripping "end of life" counseling language from its bill -- and last Friday the voice of the liberal establishment, The New York Times, ran a Page One story "rebutting" the rumor that ObamaCare would create such boards to decide when to pull the plug on elderly patients.

But all those protests miss the fundamental truth of the "death panel" charge.

Even without a federal board voting on whom to kill, ObamaCare will ration care extensively, leading to the same result. This follows inevitably from central features of the president's plan.

Specifically, his decisions to (1) pay for reform with vast cuts in the Medicare budget and (2) grant insurance coverage to 50 million new people, vastly boosting demand without increasing the supply of doctors, nurses or other care providers.

Whether or not he admits it even to himself, Obama's talk of cutting "inefficiencies" and reducing costs translates to less care, of lower quality, for the elderly. Every existing national health system finds ways to deny state-of-the-art medications and necessary surgical procedures to countless patients, and ObamaCare has the nascent mechanisms to do the same. With the limited options that Obama's vision would leave them, many will find that "end of life counseling" necessary and even welcome.

"Reform" would cut care to the elderly in several ways:

* Slash hundreds of billions from Medicare spending, largely by lowering reimbursement rates to doctors and hospitals for patient care.

If a hospital gets less money for each MRI, it will do fewer of them. If a surgeon gets paid less for a heart bypass on a Medicare patient, he'll perform them more rarely. These facts of the marketplace are not only inevitable consequences of Obama's cuts but are also its intended consequence. Without them, his savings will prove illusory.

* Expanding the patient load by extending full coverage to 50 million Americans (including such "Americans" as illegal immigrants) without boosting the supply of care will force rationing decisions on harried and overworked doctors and hospitals.

People with insurance use a lot more health-care resources -- so today's facilities and personnel will have to cope with the increased workload. Busy surgeons will have to decide who would benefit most from their treatment -- de facto rationing. The elderly will, inevitably, be the losers.

* The Federal Health Board, established by this legislation, will be charged with collecting data on various forms of treatment for different conditions to assess which are the most effective and efficient. While the bills don't force providers to obey the board's "guidance," its recommendations will still wind up setting the standards and protocols for care systemwide.

We've already seen Medicare and Medicaid lead a similar race to the bottom with their formularies and other regulations. With Washington dictating what every policy must cover and regulating all rates, insurers and providers will all have to follow the FHB's advice on limiting care to the elderly -- a de facto rationing system.

* In assessing whether to allow certain treatments to a given patient, medical professionals will be encouraged to apply the Quality-Adjusted Remaining Years system. Under QARY, decision-makers seek to "amortize" the cost of treatment over the remaining "quality years of life" likely for that patient.

Imagine a hip replacement costing $100,000 and the 75-year-old who needs it, a diabetic with a heart condition deemed to have just three "quality" years left. That works out to $33,333 a year -- too steep! Surgery disallowed! (Unless of course, the patient has political connections . . . )

Younger, healthier patients would still get the surgery, of course. The QARY system simply aims to deny health care to the oldest and most infirm, "scientifically" condemning them to infirmity, pain and earlier death than would otherwise be their fate.

In short, ObamaCare doesn't need to set up "death panels" to make retail decisions about ending the lives of individual patients. The whole "reform" scheme is one giant death panel in its own right.
Order a copy of CATASTROPHE - Go Here Now!

View Dick's videos on YouTube, Go Here Now!

The Bush Administration

My dear readers (all four of you), if you come to this blog with the idea that I am an apologist for the Bush administration, or think that perhaps because I lambast Democrats in Congress and in the White House that means I approve of everything Bush did, then you are mistaken.

George W. Bush, like his father, was not a conservative.

Should I repeat that? I wish I did not have to, but I probably should because some people cannot seem to get an "us vs. them" mentality out of their heads. They read everything through that template.

George W. Bush, like his father, was not a conservative. Neither did I approve of everything he and his administration did.

One thing I appreciate about Bush is that he worked tirelessly after 9/11 to keep us safe and was successful in doing so. Thank-you, Mr. President, for that.

But, please. If your only response to a criticism of the Obama administration is to point out a foible of the last administration, or if you think that by pointing out some inconsistency in Bush you point out an inconsistency in my conservative/libertarian viewpoint, then you are, well, mistaken.

Maybe I should post something about how I'm no longer a Republican because they no longer represent my values--so that I can better get my point across. Wait. I already did that. Or maybe I should post something about how the Republicans will need to do more than just talk conservatively to win me back, like I did this very morning, and then you might get it.

Probably not.

So, while a response like, "Well, Bush did blah, blah, blah . . ." might impress your liberal friends, it really isn't an adequate response to any criticism of this administration, is it?

The People's Cube

While surfing around the web this morning I ran across this gem of a blog. The People's Cube. I'm adding it to the sidebar. They are creative and funny and their wit hits home. These are some examples of what they did in a recent response to the White House solicitation of email addresses of those who were "spreading fishy misinformation" about Obama Care.

They even set up a website where they have a few items along this theme that you can purchase. Don't you just love the instincts of a good capitalist?

The People's Cube Store

Republican Resurgence?

More than one GOP governor has been vocal, as of late, regarding the march to socialism going on in Washington right now. Political moves are being pondered and made in the press. Here is the latest--Governor Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota:

CHICAGO – Minnesota GOP Gov. Tim Pawlenty took an aggressive line against President Barack Obama’s proposed health care overhaul Friday and insisted that a rejection of the Democratic plan could usher in a Republican resurgence.

“It appears that President Obama is making great progress on climate change, he is changing the political climate in the country back to Republican,” Pawlenty said during a speech to the second annual GOPAC conference in Chicago.

“He went around the country last fall promising ‘change we can believe in,’ but now we see it’s about changing what we believe in,” said Pawlenty, an anticipated 2012 Republican presidential contender. “We need to be calling out the flaws and misguided decisions of the Democrats in Congress and the Obama administration.”

Pawlenty characterized Obama as an “extreme left liberal” proposing a health care plan “that we don’t recognize as supporters of the free market.”

I'm not from Missouri, but these Republicans have got to do more than talk to get my attention and keep it. They need to show me something.

Friday, August 14, 2009

Nazis, Nazis, and more Nazis

Andy McCarthy, over at National Review, has written an excellent piece on the whole Nazi brouhaha started (this time) by Nancy Pelosi. I will include here a teaser and then invite you over there to read the entire article.

Andy McCarthy: It’s this week’s fashion on the left, and among such fashionably contemplative moderates as Mort Kondracke, to blast Rush Limbaugh for comparing Democrats to the Nazis. It’s no surprise that the Obama hardcores are misrepresenting the sequence and substance of events, but I would have hoped that Kondracke would at least have noted that Rush’s comparison — even if Kondracke thought it unwise — was neither gratuitous nor demagogic.

To recap, the speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, started this episode by comparing American citizens who oppose Obamacare to the Nazis and asserting that her political opponents were donning “swastikas.” (Sen. Barbara Boxer simultaneously ripped Obamacare dissenters for their Brooks Brothers suits — it’s not altogether clear where on the twill the swastika goes.) Pelosi’s tactic was the shopworn smear we on the right have dealt with for six decades. There is no conceivable substantive connection between opposition to Obamacare and German National Socialism — they are antithetical. By invoking the Nazis, Pelosi was patently slandering dissenters as racist thugs.
Read the entire article by clicking here.

This also exposes the hypocrisy of the left as they ramp up the rhetoric while simultaneously claiming that it is the right which is ramping up the rhetoric and that this is dangerous.

Thursday, August 13, 2009


Found this over at the B.S.Report.

Paglia Agrees With The River

Camille Paglia, columnist, uber-liberal, and Obama aficionado, agrees with me and this blog concerning Nancy Pelosi . . . and . . . the town-hall protesters.

She writes in Salon:

But who would have thought that the sober, deliberative Barack Obama would have nothing to propose but vague and slippery promises--or that he would so easily cede the leadership clout of the executive branch to a chaotic, rapacious, solipsistic Congress? House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, whom I used to admire for her smooth aplomb under pressure, has clearly gone off the deep end with her bizarre rants about legitimate town-hall protests by American citizens. She is doing grievous damage to the party and should immediately step down.

There is plenty of blame to go around. Obama's aggressive endorsement of a health care plan that does not even exist yet, except in five competing, fluctuating drafts, makes Washington seem like Cloud Cuckoo Land. The president is promoting the most colossal, brazen bait-and-switch operation since the Bush administration snookered the country into invading Iraq with apocalyptic visions of mushroom clouds over American cities. . . .
In fact, Paglia speaks a lot of truth in her column and I recommend you go there and read all of it. The admissions will be shocking coming from a liberal, but that's Paglia.

Wow. A Lefty who is honest about the Left. Somebody pinch me.

Click here for entire column.

Death Panels?

From the Politico: (click here for the entire article)

Former Alaska GOP Gov. Sarah Palin defended her claim that the Democratic health care proposal would create “death panels” in a statement Wednesday night slamming President Barack Obama.

“Yesterday President Obama responded to my statement that Democratic health care proposals would lead to rationed care; that the sick, the elderly and the disabled would suffer the most under such rationing; and that under such a system, these ‘unproductive’ members of society could face the prospect of government bureaucrats determining whether they deserve health care,” Palin wrote in a note on her Facebook page.

“The provision that President Obama refers to is Section 1233 of HR 3200, entitled ‘Advance Care Planning Consultation.’ With all due respect, it’s misleading for the president to describe this section as an entirely voluntary provision that simply increases the information offered to Medicare recipients,” she continued.

“Section 1233 authorizes advanced care planning consultations for senior citizens on Medicare every five years, and more often ‘if there is a significant change in the health condition of the individual ... or upon admission to a skilled nursing facility, a long-term care facility... or a hospice program.’"

The White House and Democratic lawmakers have blasted Palin in recent days for suggesting that her own son, Trig, would have had to face a bureaucratic panel to get access to health care under the provision in the House health care proposal because he was born with Down syndrome.

“The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s ‘death panel’ so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their ‘level of productivity in society,’ whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil,” Palin wrote last week.

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs identified Palin on Wednesday as one of the GOP leaders he says is spreading “wrong” information about the health care debate.

Palin has come under a lot of fire for her rhetoric, posted last week on her facebook page, concerning ObamaCare. This fire has come both from the Left and some on the Right for whom Sarah continues to be an embarrassment. On the Right, the criticism has been that this sort of hyperbole, referring to the end-of-life counseling sessions mandated under the House health care reform bill as "death panels", is a type of hyperbole that is unproductive and makes conservatives look shrill.

Now watch this video clip that ran on its webpage as "Obama Debunks Health Bill's 'Death Panel' Rule".

So who are you going to believe, Palin or Obama?

Well, . . . then there's this neat little piece from a week or so ago in Oregon where they have state-run health care. You know, the good old government option.

From an article at . . .

The news from Barbara Wagner's doctor was bad, but the rejection letter from her insurance company was crushing.

The 64-year-old Oregon woman, whose lung cancer had been in remission, learned the disease had returned and would likely kill her. Her last hope was a $4,000-a-month drug that her doctor prescribed for her, but the insurance company refused to pay.

What the Oregon Health Plan did agree to cover, however, were drugs for a physician-assisted death. Those drugs would cost about $50.

"It was horrible," Wagner told "I got a letter in the mail that basically said if you want to take the pills, we will help you get that from the doctor and we will stand there and watch you die. But we won't give you the medication to live."

Notice how ABC spins this horrible act as something done by an "insurance company." Sort of implies that this is some private, evil, corporation. Not so fast. A closer look reveals what ABC simply will not state explicitly, that this is a government insurance company--the Oregon Health Plan. This is ObamaCare at the state level.

So, are we going to believe Obama . . . or observation?

I think Palin is right.

Miller Time

I don't usually watch the O'Reilly Factor because, frankly, Bill annoys me. However, I used to record it just to skim through and see if Dennis Miller was going to be on. Then, I discovered youtube and found out I could just catch the "Miller Time" segments the next day there, without even needing a satellite or cable. This one I include here because Dennis is in particularly good form and tears into Nancy Pelosi with vigor. Enjoy.

Be honest, don't you think O'Reilly gets in the way?

Tuesday, August 11, 2009

John Dingell Plays the Race Card

Yes, American subjects, this is what the American nobility thinks of you.

They're not listening.

Hillary Slams Pelosi

As you may have heard, several big-name Democrats have verbalized, recently, the opinion that those American citizens who show up at Town Hall Meetings to question their legislators or vocalize their dissent about the current helath care proposal being considered by Congress are un-American. The most recent example of this was Nancy Pelosi over the weekend.


"House Speaker Nancy Pelosi turned the health care debate up a notch Monday, penning a column along with her top deputy that questioned the patriotism of those disrupting town hall meetings to air their complaints.

Pelosi and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer claimed such behavior is 'simply un-American.'"
Again, to read the entire newspiece click here.


Even more interesting was Hillary Clinton's purported response to that accusation.


The B.S. Report

I just found this blog yesterday and thought it worth linking here. These guys are prolific, so good luck keeping up with them. What I read there was both humorous and poignant.

The B.S. Report

Monday, August 10, 2009

Congress, the Economy, and the Constitution

Walter E. Williams, syndicated columnist and economics professor at George Mason University has a great piece on what Congress can and cannot do constitutionally regarding the economy. First let me give a pertinent quotation, then I'll link the whole editorial. It is worth the read.

"The Constitution provides, through Article V, a means by which the Constitution can be altered. My question to my fellow Americans whether they are liberal or conservative: Has the Constitution been amended to permit Congress to manage the economy? I'd also ask that question to members of the U.S. Supreme Court. I personally know of no such amendment. What we're witnessing today is nothing less than a massive escalation in White House and congressional thuggery. Secure in the knowledge that the American people are compliant and willing to cast off the limitations imposed on Washington by the nation's founders, future administrations are probably going to be even more emboldened than Obama and the current Congress."

Now go read the whole article. Click here.

Thursday, August 6, 2009

Pelosi and Swastikas

Here is our esteemed House Speaker, the Honorable Nancy Pelosi, telling us what she thinks of average citizens expressing their views. She pulls out the time-honored canard of "Nazi Republicans." Heart-warming isn't it?

Is there anyone who actually believes this? The arrogance of this woman to think we are all so stupid as to not check her facts, but just to believe her no matter how outrageous her claims should be. It is pure hubris.

AARP Town Meeting Erupts

Check out this video. It speaks for itself. Comments are welcome.

Health Care Misinformation

The White House is concerned about misinformation being spread by bad people concerning the health care reform being touted by Generalissimo Obama. So concerned are they that they have generated an email account so that the populace can report the spread of misinformation to Mr. Obama himself.

Click on this sentence to get it straight from the horse's mouth.

Don't want to go there? Here's one of the pertinent quotations:

"There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to"

For the record, that "misinformation is coming from people who actually have read the bill that is being considered by the House of Representatives right now. It is the House bill which would specifically enable the government to go straight into an individual's bank account to collect funds for services rendered. It is the House bill which recommends regular end-of-life counseling between a patient and the government doctor, a practice which could easily, easily be abused as recent news items have established.

(I plan to blog something about that this evening.)

Also, in that post on the White House blog, the White House again repreats the lie that . . .

"For the record, the President has consistently said that if you like your insurance plan, your doctor, or both, you will be able to keep them."

That is a lie and anyone with any sense knows it. While it is true that there is nothing directly in the bill to take anyone's private insurance away from them, it is also true that as soon as employers have the ability to reduce their insurance costs by dumping their employees onto the government option, many of them will do so. Nothing in the bill protects consumers from this, therefore the statement is a lie, intended to deceive.

But, that's beside the point of this post.

Just think about what the White House has done here, especially in the light of my last two posts. Are we really to spy on our neighbors, turn in our friends, point the finger at people who have differing political opinions from the current administration? Are we to turn them in to the government?

Perhaps someone might object that this is not the intent, rather that the intent is for the White House to gather arguments and misinformation opposing the plan so that they may effectively defeat those arguments and misinformation?

Do you really believe that given these guys' record?

And, if so, why would they do it this way? Don't they know they are pouring blood into the water?

The Tea Parties

All over the country there is a simmering anger at what is going on in Washington. I've been alive for forty years, and in my short lifetime I have never seen average working Americans this stirred up and angry. I see it first-hand every day here in east Texas and I hear it in the media, both main-stream (Left) and alternative (Right). The tea parties are a prime example. While there have been some Republican leaders who have tried to make hay by appearing at these tea parties (our esteemed Texas Governor Rick Perry would be an example) I know first-hand that these events are not organized by the Republican Party. In fact, many if not most of the people attending these are as angry at the Republicans as they are at the Democrats. At the heart of the matter is a feeling of disenfranchisement and a growing fear of our liberties being taken away.

After one of the local tea party events got a huge attendance I was talking to my boss about the event the following day. My boss is a liberal and he began spewing the leftist talking points about the rally. He said, "I don't understand what these people are angry about, Bush is the one who drove up these deficits in the first place."

That was true as far as it went. But I informed him that these people were as angry at Bush as they were at Obama. Bush started it, Obama has escalated it. It is a mistake to think that these tea parties are a Republican-driven vehicle. In fact, if you go to the Texas tea party web-site you will find that the only political party they are promoting is something called the Constitutional Party. If this is a Republican opposition effort, then they are not doing a good job of promoting themselves. (But when was the last time a Republican really did a good job of anything politically anyway?)

The next claim my boss tried to make was that these were a bunch of racists. That's typical leftist. When in doubt, pull out the race card. When I asked him for evidence of this, he pointed out that someone had brought in a placard claiming Obama was a Muslim.

Yep, that's it. Talk about a leap in logic. I told him that all this placard proved was that the guy was a nut-job and that events like that always attracted a few nut-jobs. You can't judge a crowd by one or two members. I also pointed out his non sequitur. This caused him to mumble back something about he knows people from the South (he's originally from up north) and he just knew that it was racially motivated.

Again, this is what the Left does. Stand against them and they demonize you. It's not possible that average, working, freedom-loving citizens would get upset about encroaching socialism and attempt to do something--within the parameters of the law--about it. No, there must be some high-level Republican operatives behind it. It is to laugh.

Wednesday, August 5, 2009

"Enough of the Mob"

Check out this ad put out by the DNC today.

Nice, isn't it?

Here are American citizens exercising their first amendment rights . . .

1st Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

. . . in a peaceful manner, no doubt under the assumption that this is a government of the people, for the people, and by the people, and the Democrat National Committee chooses to malign them by portraying them as an angry "mob." These, according to the DNC, are "extremists" who, judging by the photos, are full of hatred and malice. Obviously they are not grass-roots and genuine, rather they are being organized by those ee-vil Republicans who have no ideas at all.

This is classic leftist demagoguery--demonize the opposition.

The favorite debate technique of the Left in this country is the one known as ad hominem. In fact, it is the only one they know, but they use it recklessly and with impunity. Sadly, their constituency has proven itself consistently dull enough to make its use of inestimable value.