Nelson's Vote to Support Obamacare has me stumped.

Nelson has been fending off the wraith of his constituents since the day his vote was bought. These recent poll numbers are staggering and makes me wonder what was really at stake for Nelson's vote.

How could he be that ignorant to completely ignore the fact that 64% of voters oppose this legislation in Nebraska. Only 17% approve. What gives Nelson? Perhaps you should have checked in with your now former supporters before casting your vote. He is doomed. His career is over because of one vote. There has to be more behind this vote. Even the Nebraska governor does not support Nelson's vote or the package deal that bought it.

Facing declining poll numbers, harsh editorials and angry constituents for his vote on healthcare reform, Democratic Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska is hitting the airwaves Wednesday night with a 30-second television ad to defend what has turned out to be a very unpopular vote.

“With all the distortions about health care reform, I want you to hear directly from me,” Nelson, a former governor, says in the ad, according to the Journal Star. In the spot, the Senator speaks directly to the camera.

The spot, scheduled to launch during the Holiday Bowl, is sure to receive wide viewing because the post-season college football game features the Nebraska Cornhuskers, according to Roll Call. Nelson’s move comes on the heels of a Rasmussen Reports poll conducted Monday that showed widespread anger over Obamacare.

the poll showed Nelson, who isn’t up for re-election until 2012, badly trailing Gov. Dave Heineman by 31 points in a hypothetical matchup, 61 to 30 percent. A 55 percent majority of Nebraska voters now hold an unfavorable view of the two-term senator, with 40 percent viewing him favorably.

The health care bill is currently very unpopular in Nebraska, according to the Rasmussen poll. Nearly two-thirds of voters (64 percent) oppose the legislation while just 17 percent approve.

The man completely sold out including the sellout regarding the abortion language contained in this bill. This language was the main reason Nelson was holding out in the first place. All they did was change a few words.

Nelson is also under fire for accepting compromise abortion language that does not explicitly prohibit abortion procedures from being subsidized with federal funds.

newsmax.com...

Gotta love the politicians who would go against a 99% opposition from constituents. How is it representative democracy when there's these types- the "despite popular opposition I (and industry) know best" politicians.

I agree with your simple questions- why, how much? Because yes, they really would have had to pay him off.

So I searched for the comercial before reading it hasn't aired yet and saw this one:
www.youtube.com...

The first comment was HILARIOUS!---

I'm 50 years old with NO HEALTH INSURANCE coverage at all and I'm 100% OPPOSED to any government takeover of health care. I've seen their failed public schools and run down housing projects. The post office is BROKE and so is SOCIAL SECURITY and MEDICAID. The "stimulus plan" was a failure. We're over 12 Trillion dollars in DEBT. Remember the government response to KATRINA and how they failed to protect this nation on 9/11. Now we should trust them with our health care? I don't think so....

This story continues to unravel one strand at a time.

Several state attorneys general have been asked, or plan, to investigate the deal struck by Senator Ben Nelson to permanently exempt Nebraska from paying Medicaid expenses in exchange for his voting for Obamacare.

An investigation of the Nelson deal would likely have two focuses. First, is the Nebraska exemption unconstitutional under Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution, which requires “all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States?” Secondly, did the deal constitute a form of corruption?

Whether the Nebraska exemption constitutes unlawful corruption obviously depends on the facts surrounding how Senator Nelson cut his deal. However, even a pure constitutional challenge would benefit from a clear understanding and presentation of the facts underlying how and why the Nebraska exemption was reached.

If an investigation about unlawful corruption were to proceed, it would of course be critical to question Senator Nelson himself. Senator Nelson – and Harry Reid – would assuredly invoke the Speech and Debate Clause (Article I, Section 6, Clause 1 of the Constitution) to block such an investigation.

This protective clause has been widely abuse to protect our guilty politicians over the years. More detail about that in this article.

The Speech and Debate Clause was written so an overly aggressive executive would not suppress and intimidate critical legislators. The Founders, however, did not envision a Congress as gluttonous and corrupt as the one we have today.

biggovernment.com...-53726

reply to post by jibeho

Obama made him an offer he could not refuse,

Obama likes to get people alone, maybe has something on the guy, Chicago style.

Forget Obama. The only one to blame here is Nelson. Just another example of business as usual. Wonder if he'll have a job after this?

edit double post somnehow.........
just the tip I think though.

[edit on 31-12-2009 by adifferentbreed]

Can anybody prove that his vote was based on this bribe?

IMO, it would be a hard charge to prove.

He knows that healthcare reform is necessary.

reply to post by Stormdancer777


The amazing thing about this deal is that you can't even begin to place a dollar figure on it. The exemption from Medicaid payments does not expire and the dollar value of this bribe will continue to grow to no end.

reply to post by Stormdancer777


You said exactly what I was thinking.

There has actually been a pattern of this. Summoning the dems to the WH for behind closed door meetings, and viola, they have a sudden change of heart.

Couple this with the ones that have "come out" about their affairs for seemingly no reason, or ones that have been "outted" by some unknown, and you have what *appears* to be some major blackmailing going on.

Add to the mix the ones who have nothing to hide because they have managed to stay clean in that corrupt stinking hole we call Washington, and made claims they have been threatened.

The cirumstantial evidence really begins to mount up.

Of course, it is just opinion based on circumstantial evidence, but so are cases built on criminal convictions.

Just sayin..

reply to post by jam321


I am too sick and lazy right now to go look for it, but he made a public statement on it, and even said he was thinking of having them remove the clause from the bill after his constiuents ate his face the next day.

A little googling would easily find this.

reply to post by jibeho


Not to mention....

It is illegal based on US tax code, as the tax code is written that all states must be taxed equally. This is why 13 State Attorneys General are preparing to sue. They are also looking into using the 10th ammendment rights.

But still, hardly any mention of page 1020 and the attempt to change the rules of congress by Reid, putting a clause into the bill that states it can never be repealed.

*cough*

it's simple,

either he plans to retire anyway,,

or

he has a cushy private sector job lined up,,,,,
or even worse connections to a lobbying firm



hopefully this vote alone will knock out some of these entrenched idiots


everyone needs to stop with my rep's good,,,,, it's the others that's bad

they're all bad,,,,, minus mckinney, paul, and kucinich