Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

Peggy Noonan writes in the Wall Street Journal that "Passage of the health-care bill will be, for the administration, a catastrophic victory. If it is voted through in time for the State of the Union Address, as President Obama hopes, half the chamber will rise to their feet and cheer. They will be cheering their own demise."

She's right. Should this right stinker of a bill that makes up mandatory Medicaid be passed before the State of the Union address, every Dhimmicrite that voted for the mess and is up for re-election will be--not may be, will be--replaced. With little provisos written in like the one that targets married couples with an effective tax hike, there's no possibility that the public won't vote the current critters out.

One of their own, a rather idealistic twit--Joe Sestak--blames the Dhimmicrite leadership: "'They said it would be transparent. Why isn't it?' said Sestak, a Delaware County Democrat, in a meeting with Tribune-Review editors and reporters. 'At times, I find the caucus is a real disappointment. We aren't transparent, not just to the public but at times to the members.'"

What he might not realize (if he's truly that idealistic, though he might be cynically trying to position himself as an honest believer) is that, should the Dhimmicrite leadership be as transparent as they promised they would be, support for the bill would not be there in the conservative wing of the Dhimmicrite party.

The Dhimmicrites really are damned if they do pass this monstrosity, and damned if they don't. If they manage to get mandatory Medicaid shoved up our collective ass, we will replace them with congresscritters who'll remember (for a while, at least) who they work for. If it's not passed, they'll still likely be replaced, but some of them will be replaced with Dhimmicrites that are further left than Che Guevara.

Who knows? This may be what's needed to have an amendment added to the constitution calling for term limits for all congresscritters.