Nevada Senator Harry Reid would support Jon Huntsman over Mitt Romney.

Former Ambassador Jon Huntsman has made it official: He’s running for President. I know some people are excited by his candidacy, but I think I’ll pass. After all, I don’t want to be on the same side as Harry Reid. In case you missed it, Huntsman received Reid’s stamp of approval. “If I had a choice in that race, I’d choose Huntsman over Romney,” said Reid. On top of that, Huntsman’s family members are big Reid supporters.

In addition to the Reid endorsement, Huntsman doesn’t have much room to criticize Barack Obama, since he accepted an appointment as ambassador to China. Of course, you could argue that his appointment could cause a problem for Obama during a campaign against Huntsman, but I doubt it will get that far anyway. Think about it: If someone is absolutely terrible at what they do (like the GOP will argue), do you really have credibility if you agree to work for them? I don’t think so.

Jon Huntsman’s campaign can’t be taken seriously, and his chances are about as good as Rick Santorum’s. Actually, they might not even be that good.

Barack Obama as The Joker. I'm not laughing.

Washington Times writer Jeffrey Kuhner has an interesting column, where he argues that Barack Obama and his gang of leftists should be impeached. Here is an excerpt from Mr. Kuhner’s column:

Mr. Obama is willing to devour his presidency, his party’s congressional majority and – most disturbing – our democratic institutional safeguards to enact it. He is a reckless ideologue who is willing to sacrifice the country’s stability in pursuit of a socialist utopia.

The Slaughter Solution is a poisoned chalice. By drinking from it, the Democrats would not only commit political suicide. They would guarantee that any bill signed by Mr. Obama is illegitimate, illegal and blatantly unconstitutional. It would be worse than a strategic blunder; it would be a crime – a moral crime against the American people and a direct abrogation of the Constitution and our very democracy.

The blatant disdain being shown for the Constitution by Barack Obama and Democratic Congressional leaders is alarming. They show a complete lack of respect for the nation’s ideals, as well as its founding document. The Constitution is being treated like a bump that needs to be driven around, rather than the road to the true betterment of our nation.

I would like nothing better than to see Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Louise Slaughter, and Barack Obama out of a job. With that said, the way to bring about that result is through the midterm elections of 2010, and the Presidential election of 2012. Any talk of impeachment would only complicate matters further.

Barack Hussein Obama and his Congressional puppets will continue to damage this country, and it will leave the majority of Americans appalled at how their country has become a very different place in just 2 short years. The way to bring about this change is through elections, where voters will hold these scoundrels responsible for spitting on the Constitution and the foundation of this country.

Mark Levin on the cover of his latest book.

I’d like to thank talk show host Mark Levin and the Landmark Legal Foundation, who are working hard to ensure that Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Barack Obama don’t trample over the constitution any more than they already have. If the House uses the “Slaugher Rule” to pass the health care bill this weekend, it will be facing a serious court challenge. To read more about the potential lawsuit, go to Mark Levin’s website.

From the beginning, Scott Brown said he would vote against Obamacare, and would be the 61st Senator needed to stop the Democrats. The fact that this message resonated with one of the bluest states in the country illustrates the level of discontent with Congress and Barack Obama. This is just the latest loss for the Democrats. You might recall the huge losses for the Democrats in the November 2009 elections when both Virgina and New Jersey elected Republican governors. Some felt that those elections weren’t really much of a barometer for national sentiment. However, Scott Brown’s win leaves no doubt that the Republican party has the momentum.

Barack Obama, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi should look at this moment as a judgment of their leadership. A moment where a state that tends to support their ideas overwhelmingly, finally had enough. It’s one thing to have your political enemies criticize you, but when your methods receive a rebuke from your own, it’s time to reconsider your approach.

There’s no doubt that this momentum will carry forward into the November elections. It’s very likely that Republicans could pick up a half-dozen Senate seats and possibly gain control of the House. Hopefully, when they return to power, they will practice the fiscal conservatism that voters sought when they put them in office.

Nelson secured full federal funding for his state to expand Medicaid coverage to all individuals below 133 percent of the federal poverty level. Other states must pay a small portion of the additional cost. He won concessions for qualifying nonprofit insurers and for Medigap providers from a new insurance tax, and was able to roll back cuts to health savings accounts.

“I know this is hard for some of my colleagues to accept and I appreciate their right to disagree,” Nelson told reporters at the Capitol, of the many changes made at his behest. “But I would not have voted for this bill without these provisions.”

If you read this blog regularly, then you know that I strongly oppose the Senate health care bill. With that said, if I was a Senator who supported it, I would likely vote no due to the favorable treatment Nebraska’s citizens will receive. If every other state is making a contribution, then why shouldn’t Nebraska? It’s because Senator Ben Nelson is the last hold-out, so he figured he could hold the bill’s supporters hostage. There’s a lesson for U.S. Senators: Pretend you oppose a bill for a particular reason (such as abortion), then get the change you pretend to care about along with some rewards for your state that you can use at election time.

Since the rewards Senators like Ben Nelson extract will likely be brought up by him at election time to prove how “effective” he is, you could argue that he is deriving quite a benefit from his deal. His actions are unethical and go against everything a legislator should stand for. A competent Majority Leader would have made the change to part of the bill related to abortion, but not the unfair give-aways for his constituents. Then, if he continued to oppose the legislation, he could call him on it. Of course, Harry Reid’s failure to do this makes you wonder what types of goodies the people of Nevada will be receiving.

Illinois Senator Roland Burris has indicated that he will not vote for a bill if it doesn’t achieve “the goals of a public option.” Notice that he doesn’t specifically insist on a public option, merely the goals that he believes a public option would achieve. Still, it makes you wonder how many votes might be lost in this attempt to appease Joe Lieberman, and there lies the problem.

Since the bill is unlikely to receive any Republican votes, it needs unanimous Democratic support. Unfortunately for them, the goals and ideology of its members are anything but unanimous. You satisfy one, you alienate another. Because of that, passage of this bill will be in question until the final minute. Welcome to the two-party system.

The current health care bill will allow insurance companies to enforce annual coverage limits for expensive illnesses, so even if people have health insurance, they could still “go broke because they get sick”. Reid’s spokesman defended the decision to allow limits:

“We are concerned that banning all annual limits, regardless of whether services are voluntary, could lead to higher premiums. We continue to work with experts on how best to accomplish our goals of preventing insurance companies from imposing arbitrary coverage limits while providing the premium relief American families need and deserve.”

So, let me get this straight. If there are no coverage limits, then premiums would be very high, but if there were limits, the premiums would be lower. That seems to make sense to me, but of course, I live in the real world. Some how, Barack Obama and his group of merry liberals thought they were going to steal from the rich and give to the poor without additional expenses. Finally, it seems, some sense of reality is setting in.

There is no doubt that health care reform will pass, since Democrats want to assure they don’t end up looking like fools. Of course, between reality and negotiations with moderates, the final bill will end up looking vastly different that what they were hoping to pass. It will probably be bad for tax payers, but not as bad as it could have been.

Historians also faulted Mr. Reid’s curious reference to the Senate civil rights debates of the 1960s. After all, it was Southern Democrats who mounted an 83-day filibuster of the 1964 Civil Rights Bill. The final vote to cut off debate saw 29 Senators in opposition, 80% of them Democrats. Among those voting to block the civil rights bill was West Virginia Senator Robert Byrd, who personally filibustered the bill for 14 hours. The next year he also opposed the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Mr. Byrd still sits in the Senate, and indeed preceded Mr. Reid as his party’s majority leader until he stepped down from that role in 1989.

Imagine that. 80% of the Senators who opposed the Civil Rights bill were Democrats. I think Senator Reid should “slow down” and read some history so he doesn’t make a fool out of himself again.

Do you oppose the health care bill? If you’re concerned about taking a step toward a single-payer system, using tax dollars to pay for abortions, or rationing, you’re not a concerned citizen, you’re a racist. Oh, I almost forgot: You’re also a sexist. If you’re thoroughly confused, don’t worry, so is Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

In a sign that he realizes his house of cards is falling in around him, the Senator made a vicious attack on Republicans who oppose the health care bill. Here is his statement:

Reid started by mimicking Republicans whom he claims have said: “‘Slow down, stop everything, let’s start over.”

“You think you’ve heard these same excuses before? You’re right,” he continued. “In this country…there were those who dug in their heels and said, ‘Slow down, it’s too early. Let’s wait. Things aren’t bad enough’ ” – about slavery.

When women wanted to vote, he went on, opponents said, ” ‘Slow down, there will be a better day to do that — the day isn’t quite right.’ ”

He finished with: “When this body was on the verge of guaranteeing equal civil rights to everyone, regardless of the color of their skin, some senators resorted to the same filibuster threats that we hear today.”

Of course, Harry Reid conveniently ignores the role played by the Republicans in ending slavery, and the inconvenient fact that a Democratic Senator filibustered a civil rights bill. I find it hard to believe that Senator Reid wasn’t familiar with these facts. Since we can rule out ignorance, we can just make the assumption that he is an intellectually dishonest hack who sees the writing on the wall.

There was a lot of criticism over Joe Wilson’s behavior when he shouted “you lie” during the President’s speech. How about this display of ignorance? How can you stand on the floor of the U.S. Senate, and call your colleagues racists and sexists because of their opposition to a health care bill? If his Democratic colleagues don’t insist he apologize, they are hypocrites.