What a worthless piece of horse shit Ben Chandler has become. (If you can’t deal with the language? Please move along. This situation warrants it.)
He voted for the Stupak Amendment:
Stupak’s…amendment…would ban the public health insurance option from funding abortion and also ban any private plan operating within the exchange from funding abortions. Under Stupak’s plan, a woman buying private insurance from within the exchange with her own money would not have a choice of a plan that covered abortion.
Like Joe says, it’s time for Ben Chandler to be ousted from the U.S. House of Representatives.
Here’s hoping every single woman in Ben Chandler’s life tells him just how worthless he is.
Let’s hear it for back alley abortions with coat hangers, ladies!
Will Andy Barr ever get his junk together enough to beat Chandler? Maybe it’s time for everybody to contribute to Barr’s campaign. Click here to do just that. At least Barr would be up-front and honest about where he stands on every issue.
Note to Ben: I know you’re reading this. And I can’t wait to find out what you’re trying to hide. I know people will come out of the woodwork to share their stories with me. (Hint to readers)
P.S. Here’s Chandler’s theme song.
35 responses so far ↓
1 Olivia Anne // Nov 8, 2009 at 12:08 am
This is a new low. As I watched the vote on the Stupak amendment, I posted how the Democrats who voted with the Republicans should get out of the party. Had no notion it was Ky’s own “problem.” They have no business calling themselves Democrats. Every time it becomes politically expedient to abandon any vote supportive of issues important to women, or GLTBs, these guys who pose as Democrats fold. Makes me Sick; oh, yes; mustn’t get sick now. Wish it were a joke.
2 David Conley // Nov 8, 2009 at 12:14 am
He makes me sick!!! He’ll never, ever, get my Democratic vote here in Central Ky. What a spineless looser. Do us all a favor and become a Republican, you already are in all respects but name. Shame on you Chandler, scum of the earth.
3 Mark.L // Nov 8, 2009 at 12:26 am
Do you ever consider that some people think abortion is wrong. Is it a crime to differ in a view?
4 jake // Nov 8, 2009 at 12:28 am
Do you ever consider that Ben Chandler doesn’t think abortion is “wrong” - but that he’s a giant pussy who consistently caves on every single vote of importance?
He publicly admits to voting to save his political hide.
5 Taylor // Nov 8, 2009 at 1:03 am
Is it a crime to differ in a view?
No, but in this case, it means that you’re a dick.
6 jake // Nov 8, 2009 at 1:11 am
Or, since Ben Chandler NEVER votes for what his people want or for what he believes in - because he’s a pussy - it means he’s a worthless piece of horse shit.
7 eric schansberg // Nov 8, 2009 at 10:06 am
Did y’all catch the Onion on pregnancy and pro-choice? Good stuff!
EDIT: Removed commenter link. Click here to directly visit The Onion story referenced.
8 kentondem1 // Nov 8, 2009 at 10:37 am
So, Ben votes for the Stupack amendment, then he turns around and votes No on the final passage of the Health Care Reform Bill……………….?
Someone, please tell me why we need him in the House?
What a worthless piece of shit he is!!!
9 Gary Guss // Nov 8, 2009 at 1:08 pm
This guy is giving excrement a bad name !
10 jake // Nov 8, 2009 at 1:12 pm
How many chances does this guy deserve?
Funny how he’s fallen so far since 2004. Last year everybody thought he was invincible. Now he’s vulnerable and has a credible Republican challenger.
11 Steve Magruder (I, not D or R) // Nov 8, 2009 at 1:19 pm
I am pro-choice, but it seems to me that abortion should be treated as elective surgery, unless the conception came from rape or incest.
That said, it does seem to go too far that someone will not even have the choice to purchase private insurance that covers abortion in the exchange.
I am thinking that if/when the House and Senate confer to blend their health care bills, they will need to remove the part that requires private plans not to provide this option. As for the public plan, I think the argument can and will be made that since such a vocal and violent minority of the public opposes abortion, that it makes political sense for the public plan not to provide that option.
12 Steve Magruder (I, not D or R) // Nov 8, 2009 at 1:20 pm
I meant to say it’s also not elective if the mother’s life or health is in danger.
13 briansmith // Nov 8, 2009 at 1:42 pm
will a woman have to prove she was raped? does that mean she will have to wait for the justice system (aka “the government”) to hand down a guilty verdict? what about incest? will the father have to admit to it before the procedure can be approved? by the government?
14 kentondem1 // Nov 8, 2009 at 1:52 pm
So Steve, what if the new slam against the Public Option was that it should exclude gays, because it would only serves to promote their lifestyle?……….
Should we then agree, “that it makes political sense for the public option plan not to provide that option ( treatment for gay diseases) ?
Don’t understand why you are so quick to throw women under the bus?
15 curtis morrison // Nov 8, 2009 at 6:20 pm
Yeah, Steve- I can see kentondem1’s point, and I’m siding on him/her’s side, even if it’s idealistic.
While the argument will be made that a lot of people oppose abortion, and some of them are violent, that’s only an argument and it’s really a lame argument.
We do not elect officials to simply be pollsters of their districts- any computer could do that. We put candidates in office to stand up for what’s right. If this compromise stays in the bill- we have an entire new set of social problems that we need to address- where do we start with them?
16 Novena // Nov 8, 2009 at 6:33 pm
“The Definition of Ben Chandler”
He is a stupendously timid, tepid soul who is effortless in his consistent, spineless worthlessness as a Democrat. (See a dead donkey, legs upright and bloated from too much gas and little activity.)
17 Who'd a thunk it? // Nov 8, 2009 at 10:34 pm
I love how Chandler voted against the plan “because it’s not in the interest of his district.” As if the cap’n'trade BS he voted for is in his district’s interest. Maybe he’s been hanging around McConnell for that logic.
18 Mark H (Not Hebert) // Nov 8, 2009 at 11:28 pm
The Stupak Amendment is just the beginning of the trade-off of “free” heath care for the forfeiture of our freedom of choice.
If a government-run or government-subsidized co-op plan passes, we will have just opened the door to every special interest group to forward their political agenda in the name of public fairness.
If you currently are covered by private insurance and public option passes, it is just a matter of time before you will end up in a government plan or in a private plan that is forced to mirror the government plan. If you don’t realize that, don’t worry, you soon will.
That said, conservatives and liberals alike will nash their teeth as “special” amendment after amendment is tacked onto military spending bills, unemployment benefits extension bills, or school spending bills, and thus, ensuring their passage.
Many of these bills will be blatant like the Stupak Amendment, but most will be more subtle and will be disguised in mandatory counseling or prerequisite requirements.
Get ready liberals, you may get your abortion funding, but there will be a mandatory counseling requirement or an ultrasound requirement before your receive the funding for the procedure.
Conservatives, the funding for your mandatory abortion counseling and ultrasounds will have to matched by an equal amount of funding to Planned Parenthood or pregnancy prevention and contraceptive coverage.
In our haste to pass legislation that turns 1/6th of our economy over to the government in exchange for security and increased coverage, we have only armed the special interests on both sides of social issues, and cleared a fresh battlefield for them to engage.
Our autonomy and freedom of choice are going to be the first casualties, but yet again, that seems to be the goal of this legislation, doesn’t it?
19 jake // Nov 9, 2009 at 7:18 am
Wait a minute. Abortion FUNDING?
This is about not being able to obtain an abortion - period - because a woman wouldn’t be able to use a privately purchased health plan, either.
20 briansmith // Nov 9, 2009 at 7:18 am
no, it doesn’t.
21 briansmith // Nov 9, 2009 at 7:20 am
wow. simultaneous commentasm.
22 Mark H (Not Hebert) // Nov 9, 2009 at 7:35 am
I was using an example of the games that are going to be played.
It may have passed that way on Saturday night, but if you don’t think Planned Parenthood and other are trying to figure out how to get hat provision loosened or repealed, your kidding yourself.
Likewise, the Right is trying to figure out ways to counter that move, while trying to fugure out how to strengthen it even further.
Amendments, amendments, amendments. Do you think Medicare today remotely resembles the bill passed years ago?
Pelosi may have conceded the first battle, but the war has only began on this new front.
Unfortunately both sides are going to use the pervasiveness and monetary power this bill wields to their own causes.
Do you think when they developed the Federal Road Funds bill that they envisioned that it would be used as a financial hammer to get states to do whatever the Federal Government wanted them to do.
How many times has the withholding of Federal Road Funds been used in past to “motivate” states to adopt legislation that they previously opposed?
My point was that this bill is going to be used for social engineering by the Right and Left.
23 Mark H (Not Hebert) // Nov 9, 2009 at 7:52 am
I am a non-religious conservative and as such, I don’t have the issue with abortion (early term only) that many do.
I was simply pointing out that the Stupak Amendment was a manifestation of the downside risk to those on the left who have been pushing hard for this legislation.
When you invite the Government in to take care of you, you allow everyone into your lives, Right or Left.
24 Terri // Nov 9, 2009 at 9:14 am
I am pro-choice, but it seems to me that abortion should be treated as elective surgery, unless the conception came from rape or incest.
So should vasectomies and tubal ligations also be banned?
Get ready liberals, you may get your abortion funding, but there will be a mandatory counseling requirement or an ultrasound requirement before your receive the funding for the procedure.
Um…you do realize this is already the case in most states, right? It’s not really much of a threat when spineless Democrats and anti-choice women-haters have been eroding privacy rights for over a decade.
25 Mark // Nov 9, 2009 at 9:30 am
Can Yarmuth come down here to Lexington and primary Chandler so the people of this district can know what its really like to have a democratic rep?
26 jake // Nov 9, 2009 at 9:32 am
Again, I don’t think this is an issue of partisanship. It’s an issue of honesty, having a spine and flip-floppery.
27 Steve Magruder (I, not D or R) // Nov 9, 2009 at 2:56 pm
I love the eggshells that always make themselves present on this issue. Heh.
28 Steve Magruder (I, not D or R) // Nov 9, 2009 at 2:57 pm
Mark H, you still seem to be under the mistaken impression that anyone is pushing for “free” health care. Why?
29 Steve Magruder (I, not D or R) // Nov 9, 2009 at 3:02 pm
Brian, KentonDem, Curt…
No matter how you cut it, it’s elective surgery. You can jump to conclusions about me throwing women under the bus, but it just isn’t true. Just as the right wing likes to try to enforce their lockstep thinking, it also comes from the left, and either way, I am going to continue with my independent, critical thinking on this and other matters.
I’ve already said I oppose this amendment insofar as private plans. The public option _already_ wasn’t going to provide coverage for abortions.
30 Terri // Nov 9, 2009 at 3:10 pm
Steve, I ask again -
Should we also ban tubal ligations, vasectomies, and, say, elective mastectomies?
As far as your critical thinking goes, I have to question how critical it is when you act as though assaults on women’s bodily autonomy is tantamount to partisan hysteria.
31 Mark H (Not Hebert) // Nov 9, 2009 at 4:40 pm
“Mark H, you still seem to be under the mistaken impression that anyone is pushing for “free” health care. Why?”
When just under 50% of the US population pays no Federal income taxes, then you would be receiving “free” heath care from the government plan. I would suspect the vast majority of pro public option advocates are expecting the costs to be born by “rich.”
If the internal polling didn’t support my suspicion, I don’t think the class warfare card would have been played so hard by the Democrats.
The irony, is that even Yarmuth admits that this bill is going to do nothing to lower costs, only help reduce the increase.
Just like the Republicans “lowered’ drug costs for seniors through their prescription drug bill pork bill, the current bill will only hide the costs in the government debt.
It’s a shame that potential cost-cutting measures were excluded.
32 Terri // Nov 9, 2009 at 6:02 pm
Mark H, I think what you’re trying to say here is that nearly half of the U.S. population makes less than roughly $30K/yr. Do you suggest raising taxes on these people?
33 Conservative // Nov 9, 2009 at 8:04 pm
Chandler was God when he voted for cap and tax, a bill that truly is against the best interests of Kentucky.
Now he’s Satan incarnate.
Had one of Kentucky’s four conservative reps voted for it, you’d be praising his independent thinking.
Chandler’s no DINO. Very little about him is truly conservative. He’s voted with Pelosi most of the time up there. I don’t see Democrats abandoning him in droves, maybe the ultra-left types that dominate the state’s blogs but not the rank and file voters.
34 jake // Nov 9, 2009 at 8:08 pm
I think you spew horse shit just like Ben. Ha.
Have you ever read anything I’ve written?
I’ve disliked the fraud that is Ben Chandler for years.
35 Mark H (Not Hebert) // Nov 9, 2009 at 11:08 pm
“Do you suggest raising taxes on these people?”
While I do think every working American should pay a little something in Federal taxes so they have some skin in the legislative game, raising their taxes was not my point.
What I am trying to point out is that currently many of the “non-payers” are getting insurance which is subsidized by the companies where they currently work.
The problem I have with this legislation is that it is designed to provide a financial incentive for corporations to dump huge numbers of these workers into the government plan. This is going to place an increased burden on the taxpayers beyond that which they are currently are committed.
The insidious aspect of a fine that is based on a percentage of salary, is that it disproportionately impacts lower wage workers. Since insurance is based on the person and not their salary, it is cheaper to provide insurance of higher-earning workers and much cheaper to dump lower-earning workers onto the taxpayer dole.
The fine is 8% of workers salaries for businesses who make over $500K in profit annually. It doesn’t take a CFO to do the math.
Let’s use a cheap plan cost of $3,000/year
If you are an employer who has 50 workers making $30K, the 8% fine is going to be $120K. The cost to provide a $3K policy to all 50 would be $150K. It’s going to be $30K cheaper to dump the 50 workers into the government plan.
If you are an employer who has 50 workers making $60K, the 8% fine is going to be $240K. The cost to provide a $3K policy to all 50 would be $150K. It’s going to be $90K cheaper to provide coverage for the 50 workers rather than pay the fine.
This is why I am concerned. We can’t pay for the entitlement programs we are currently committed to and The House has designed a bill that pushes huge numbers of the insured from company roles to the government roles.
Leave a Comment