A few draft-versions of health care reform have been offered since this spring; all of them have had one thing in common. Conservative pundits have done a great job of highlighting a commonality in all of them: 2013. The regulations limiting freedom in choice will begin in 2013. So much for the plea that we need reform now!

Commentators have forwarded the notion that those in leadership now facing re-election in 2012 will be, beating the ill effects of government-controlled healthcare as they are not implemented for another year. I consider this "Plan A."

Politicians like Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and other liberal congressman have little to fear. The districts they are elected from will continue to elect them. Voters in these locales have drunk the Kool-Aid. The only thing that matters is that we are one step closer to Universal Healthcare. Any problems with the new will be moot. As President Obama says at every option, "this is not a perfect bill. But it is a step closer..."

Plan A relies on the Democrats being re-elected en masse under the belief that they were successful in causing reform. And it any loss of seats or control would come after 2013. Kind of a drive-by lawmaking. Consequences be damned, the change enacted.

Plan B relies on realization that over the next three years, enough light will be shed on aspects of the bill. "Regular" people will be so upset with the unintended and intended consequences alike that they vote out the Democrats in 2012. Given enough time - a single election cycle is a lifetime - the assumed new Republican majority will pegged with causing any downsides relating to the healthcare regulation. In 2016 another Democratic sweep will take place as the Fourth Estate successfully paints the Republicans responsible.

Don't think it is possible? It worked for No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and W. My wife gets all the Union magazines for educators. Every issue contains how George Bush messed up the law or wasn't funded properly. There is no mention of NCLB's author, Ted Kennedy! Never mind that the president neither writes legislation nor controls the "purse strings."

Plan A is the optimal option, it keeps power going. Plan B, less desirable, is still suitable for the Dems. They have a scapegoat for the complications which will reverberate through America on all levels. 2016 isn't too far away for them.

Pelosi Chokes Up Amid Fears of Political Violence

Pelosi Chokes Up Amid Fears of Political Violence

Shared via AddThis

Apparently the push to label all Obama "disagree'ers" (every group needs a label: truther, birther, teabagger) as racist malcontents wasn't working. There might have been too much hurt feelings from this political friendly-fire.

Yes, not all the attendees at Healthcare Town Halls or the recent 9/12 protest were vicious, right-wingers out to destroy the country! No one can publish a reliable count of how many people attended. So, putting a number on the percentage of Democrats and the ever-needed swing voting Independents is impossible.

Nancy Pelosi attempts an award winning performance, but her method acting falls short. 

Please elaborate!  What language has been used?  Can you describe this "frightening rhetoric?"  I was born in the 70s, and not in San Francisco.  What happened?  I know about the Civil Rights work in the 50s and 60s; the Haight-Ashbury Revolution in the late 60s, but what could bring you to crocodile tears at the podium today?

She is now making such broad statements, that it is difficult to know whom she is talking about or what she is hearing that is inciting violence.  Like beating up a wheelchair-bound black man?  Or nearly biting off the pinky of an elderly man?  Of course not, those were Obama "disagree'ers." 

Yes, let us have more personal responsibilities about what we say!  Mrs. CIA-Lied-To-Me.  Please give an example or show us a photo of the swastikas you saw a one town hall meeting!  Please make a clear analogy between 1970s San Francisco and peaceful outrage towards Obama's plans, for those of us who have no clue what you are talking about.

Who are the "unbalanced" that you speak of?  Regular American's who hear how more and more sectors of our economy are becoming Government run?  The men and women, who thought they were getting "Hope and Change," only to find out they hope things don't change? 

It is typically those on the left who "want to teach business a lesson" when the WTO comes to town or Republicans have their convention.  I understand there were zero arrests during the 9/12 march on Washington D.C..  How many police cars were torched?  Was there a garbage can tossed through a store's window anywhere in the city related to American's converging on our Capital? 

In one sentence you speak of "incitement" and being held accountable for inciting 70s-style violence.  I don't know on anyone who would disagree - aside from maybe the ACLU.  I am confused, wouldn't someone making inciteful statements or requests not be balanced?  Obviously, those who would act out at the request are clearly unbalanced.  But, you begin to blur the line between rhetoric and stating one's belief with inciting violence. 

What is now considered incitement?  Merely stating your dissatisfaction with ObamaCare or fear that Obama's call to "fundamentally change America", is this incitement should  it fall on some ears of an imbalanced person who would become violent?  Please, Mrs. Lawmaker, be more clear.
From this video, I see the Speaker has learned her lesson about returning to the podium to answer lingering questions from the press.