For general discussion and debate. Possible talking point: say goodbye to a public option?
Aides to President Barack Obama are putting the final touches on a new strategy to help Democrats recover from a brutal August recess by specifying what Obama wants to see in a compromise health care deal and directly confronting other trouble spots, West Wing officials tell POLITICO. Obama is considering detailing his health-care demands in a major speech as soon as next week, when Congress returns from the August recess. And although House leaders have said their members will demand the inclusion of a public insurance option, Obama has no plans to insist on it himself, the officials said.
Is this true or another trial balloon? What does it mean?
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
I believe it. He will get
September 2, 2009 - 08:56 ET by motherbeltI believe it.
He will get it passed without it; then later it will be decided that things are not working out, and a public option is the only way to fix it.
Oh, goody! Another major speech!
I hope Pinks is on that night!
Government health care is far from dead
September 2, 2009 - 08:59 ET by R D HelmComrade Chairman Obama fully intends to seize control of our health care system, no matter what.
So what if he has to wait for the conference committee to do it for him?
-Dave
Even when the government tries to kiss you, it is just a prelude to a good screwing. -Neal Boortz
Libs will screw you
September 2, 2009 - 08:59 ET by Mica the MagnificentThere will be no 'public option' in the house or senate version of the bill.
The 'public option' will be inserted at the last minute at 5:00 am, 2 hours before Oby-One signs it.
Your bank account will be audited by noon the same day.
doesn't matter either way
September 2, 2009 - 09:46 ET by jon_torlinI don't care if the public option is in there or not(well, I don't want it) but as long as all those other sections, especially the ones with real time access to the bank accounts, are still there, the whole damn thing needs to be shredded. That's the bottom line and I don't mean the ones in your bank accounts.
Right now, that's my main concern as to why it should be shredded, but it's not the only one.
-Jon
That's right. It's not the
September 2, 2009 - 11:52 ET by ThisnThatThat's right. It's not the public option. It's the entire cost. The huge tax increases built into the bill. The panels that do everything from end-of-life "counciling" to gender-identity analyses. It's the placement of "everyone born in the US (including illegals) that can't afford health care" immediately onto medicaid -- for life! It's the placement of HIV people (aka drug addicts and homosexuals) on medicaid -- for life. It's the public statements by Obama himself demonizing the insurance companies, and declaring them to be the root of all health-care evil. It's the absolute refusal of Democrats to even consider Tort reform because that will make lawyers angry. It's the refusal of congress critters to abandon their existing health care system so they can go onto the proposed program.
It's all these things, not simply the public option. This whole fiasco needs to be killed off. That's why the town halls have been so direct -- they are acting, hopefully, as the health care bill's Death Panel. It needs to die.
___________________________________
"Tax the rich" is a basically unstable way of governing - The NYT
clarity is a good thing
September 2, 2009 - 12:26 ET by jon_torlinWhich there isn't in this bill.
To explain why I worry about the bank access, I don't have any health care problems that would be affected by this, I'm in my early 40s and in good shape, not looking to die any time soon, so to ME, the bank access is the biggest problem, which is something that would facilitate re-distribution of wealth.
However, put simply, I haven't seen one good thing about this bill, so as you say, it needs to die.
-Jon
Practicality
September 2, 2009 - 09:07 ET by KC MulvilleOn the one hand, Obama never takes a definitive stand. He never draws a line in the sand. That has immediate benefits, in that it always leaves him some personal wiggle room. But, at the same time, it means that nothing he ever says can be trusted. No one is going to commit to his plan because he never does.
Here's the difference. Obama (what, last week?) claimed that the only reason people were opposing the public option was because the evil insurance companies were selfishly deluding the public. He tried to rally his supporters into pushing that party line in the media. He made speeches where he laughed at his opponents, made jokes about wee-weeing, and took a few jabs. Now he's going to pretend that he never meant any of that? I can't speak for Obama's supporters, since I'm not one, but what signal did he send to his political troops?
If you portray this whole effort as a "process," then you're allowed to go back and change your mind. But when you portray this as a "cause," and you attack your opponents with ridicule and scorn, you've burnt the bridges behind you.
What real health care reform should look like
September 2, 2009 - 09:14 ET by UnsaneThere should STILL be much fighting against this waste of paper.
This is a condensed version of REAL health care reform:
1) Tort reform.
2) Make health insurance much like auto insurance - when was the last time your employer paid for auto insurance?
3) Offer MSAs to people so that sniffles and paper cuts can be paid for directly, saving health insurance for catastrophes.
4) Allow the insurance companies to sell health insurance directly to people, and allow them to do so across state lines.
5) You know, I would think that unions wouldn't have such a problem with paying for pensions and bennies if maybe they didn't spend so much cash on political contributions and paying for thugs to try and influence things like town hall meetings. Maybe if they worked with industry to knock down health spending, they'd all be better off.
Just a few thoughts...
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
News of the Weird James
September 2, 2009 - 09:24 ET by QueenMumNews of the Weird
James Traficant being released. Hero's welcome planned.
"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out
of other people's money."
—Margaret Thatcher
QM - as an Ohioian
September 2, 2009 - 09:29 ET by FeynmanFanAs an Ohioan, my greatest hope is that he will still be wearing that magnificent toupe!
"I support the President but not his policies" - Blonde
Me too, Feynman. BTW, any
September 2, 2009 - 09:33 ET by QueenMumMe too, Feynman. BTW, any idea why he's been in the prison hospital for so long? Hadn't heard about that. Maybe he took the opportunity while he was out of the public eye to get some plugs.
"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out
of other people's money."
—Margaret Thatcher
QM - it was the usual politician activities
September 2, 2009 - 09:47 ET by FeynmanFanBribes, soliciting favors, kick-backs.
He acted as his own attorney, so you know he wasn't playing with a full deck.
"I support the President but not his policies" - Blonde
I know why he was in
September 2, 2009 - 09:50 ET by QueenMumI know why he was in prison. But the reports say he's been in the prison hospital. So, are you saying the prison "hospital" was a mental health facility?
"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out
of other people's money."
—Margaret Thatcher
QM - sorry
September 2, 2009 - 10:01 ET by FeynmanFanI misunderstood your question. After a little googlefest I found that it was never announced why he was in the hospital. Maybe it'll be explained after he's released.
"I support the President but not his policies" - Blonde
Ya know, what I've been
September 2, 2009 - 16:38 ET by QueenMumYa know, what I've been hearing throughout the day is that he was released from the prison hospital. Is there some sort of medical exam that's routinely done before a prisoner is released?
"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out
of other people's money."
—Margaret Thatcher
QM - best I can find out
September 2, 2009 - 16:47 ET by FeynmanFanHi, QM. I found some information that said he was transferred to the hospital in 2004 and that the hospital provides "specialized medical services" but that's all it says. If I can find out why he was hospitalized, I will let you know.
"I support the President but not his policies" - Blonde
Thanks, Feynman. It's an
September 2, 2009 - 16:52 ET by QueenMumThanks, Feynman. It's an interesting sidelight.
"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out
of other people's money."
—Margaret Thatcher
Yeah, at least Traficant
September 2, 2009 - 09:40 ET by motherbeltYeah, at least Traficant was funny!
Beam me up, Scotty!!
chips falling where they may
September 2, 2009 - 09:44 ET by jon_torlinI remember when he was talking about spending programs and described one of them about a study going on about bull poop or something like that, and it was funny as hell where he said "let the chips fall where they may" and something to the effect of spending the money on other things.
He hated bad spending, or stupid spending programs that didn't do anything useful.
-Jon
Of course there will be a
September 2, 2009 - 09:30 ET by celatorOf course there will be a public option. We have learned that Obama speaks opposite talk. It will be inserted under another name, in the dark of night, as a footnote in a 1,000 page bill. The public option is the whole point of their bill, for goodness sakes.
Whether the bill passes is another matter.
We know that the D's, Obama and the whole demonic crew pushing this bill are not doing it because they care about healthcare for one and all. They want the bill because it represents the most complete invasion of personal privacy since the Republic was founded. And that transfers to them overwhelming power over the details of our lives that, until now, the radicals could only dream about.
Yesterday's announcement is the equivalent of Obama ducking his head back into the bunker. For now.
No citizen's right to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, or property is safe as long as Obama is President of the United States.
Bozo the VP gets competition!!
September 2, 2009 - 09:42 ET by motherbeltDingy Harry Reid said this about Ted Kennedy's death:
I think it's going to help us. He hasn't been around
for some time. We're going to have a new chairman of that committee,
it'll be, I don't know for sure, but I think Sen. (Chris) Dodd,
(D-Conn.). He has a right to take it. Either him or (U.S. Sen. Tom)
Harkin, (D-Iowa), whichever one wants it can have it. I think he
(Kennedy) will be a help. He's an inspiration for us. That was the
issue of his life and he didn't get it done.
Way to heap on the praise, Harry!
At least Bozo has a guaranteed job for the next 3.5 years
September 2, 2009 - 09:51 ET by SickofLibsDingy has now entered the quicksand.
I want to apologize to NB
September 2, 2009 - 09:49 ET by Dan The Man 2I want to apologize to NB staff and members for my comment a couple a days ago. I want to extend an apology specifically to Jer. I have an excuse but like all excuses it stinks. I did some introspection on the plank in my eye and found it will take some doing to extricate. SEE YALL.
September 2, 2009 - 09:57 ET by jessieHMore smoke & mirrors. They will promise anything, for now. As soon as the 2010 elections are over, they will pass it behind our backs.
Call me silly but...
September 2, 2009 - 10:10 ET by Georgia GirlI'm totally suspicious on anything at this point. I think our only and best shot is for everyone to stay on top of it -- analyze it to death -- and keep watch on everything. There are a lot of conservative minds engaged in this now -- and on the Obama Administration in general. We've got some watchdogs in the media who won't let up...and I don't think the public will ever look at Obama in that rose-tint way again. Too much has gone on to forget.
Obama is tanking, and I think 2010 will change the dynamics enough to make a difference. The goal? To keep him from taking over everything before he can be booted in 2012. I'm hopeful. But it's going to be tiring -- keeping watch and continuing to do the tea parties and writing our congress folk, etc. But people are taking action, not just talking.
This is why
September 2, 2009 - 10:34 ET by StarAZBingo--this is why even if passed, this stuff doesn't go into effect for yrs--and the regulation writers have time to do their worst, all behind closed doors. How many people do you know who read the Federal Register and comment?
Star~
September 2, 2009 - 13:15 ET by Georgia GirlNote to self: read Federal Register and comment.
:)
George Will's column
September 2, 2009 - 10:18 ET by KC MulvilleI'm going back and forth about George Will's column yesterday that basically advises us to get out. I have to admit, I'm slowly coming to agree with him.
The original purpose of the Afghan war wasn't to attack al-Qaeda. It was to throw out the Taliban, on the theory that anyone who harbors terrorists is equally liable. Well, the Taliban was ejected quickly. That's what prompted Rumsfeld to say that we had no more targets. The Taliban fled into the hills. Now they're returning, but I think something has changed in the meantime.
We've come to see that Afghanistan isn't the problem anymore, if it ever was. What's keeping al-Qaeda around is really Pakistan. And there are three problems with Pakistan:
In Iraq, the Bush Administration followed the Pottery Barn rule. Having demolished the Saddam regime, the US stayed around to rebuild the country. There was enough infrastructure to make it possible and the benefits made sense. But Afghanistan can't be treated the same way. There's no country to rebuild. So why are we trying to nation-build in Afghanistan?
If we stay there, then al-Qaeda will just stay where they are. Nothing will have changed. And if we leave Afghanistan, it's not like al-Qaeda will set up shop openly, because we'll just bomb them again. So whether we stay or leave, it doesn't matter. Why are we wasting resources there? Unlike Iraq, we don't have to be there, since there is no there there.
not so much, KC
September 2, 2009 - 12:00 ET by candanceA big reason Republicans insisted that we stay in Iraq during the Bush years was the fact that Al Qaeda went there to fight us instead of coming back over here. I do believe our presence in the middle east is forcing AQ to spend most of their resources there. And besides that, we're getting a lot of intel from being on the ground in Afghanistan.
The best way to keep an eye on Pakistan is to make them keep up the charade of cooperating with us in Afghanistan. We know a lot about their military structure now. If/when the crap hits the fan there, we'll be just across the border. And I'm sure that India (a real ally) is thankful for that.
And if we leave Afghanistan, it's not like al-Qaeda will set up shop openly, because we'll just bomb them again.
Don't be so sure of that.
Good points
September 2, 2009 - 14:33 ET by KC MulvilleI used to follow Iraq closely, since there was a good number of reports coming out of there (which I mentally filtered for liberal bias). But there isn't a lot of reporting coming out of Afghanistan. I have little to keep up with. I check the BBC, but the Brits hate the war, so it's hard to filter.
One of four
September 2, 2009 - 10:15 ET by StarAZI read that Afghanistan is one of four countries that have never been conquered-- I forget the other three. The Taliban live there...they are not going anywhere...now they are resurging. We have lost so many valiant soldiers there--but is this a reason to lose more...how is this benefiting us? This is a dope patch run by anti-women fanatics with a corrupt propped up govt at the head. The world doesn't reconform itself at our urging. These people are fighters--they fight, they have a "fighting season" in which they try to do a maximum amt of fighting. This is a loser for us.
I come out about where you
September 2, 2009 - 11:56 ET by celatorI come out about where you do on this. If the politicians were to say to the military, "do what you need to do to get rid of the Taliban and we'll get out of the way", it would be a different story. There's no doubt in my mind that our military would win the fight.
As it is, the military is completely hamstrung by the left wing radicals. Obama and the crackpots he has surrounded himself with have absolutely no backbone or leadership ability for this kind of thing. We will be sending our men and women into a fruitless, never ending conflict where they are not allowed to win.
Nope, not this time.
No citizen's right to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, or property is safe as long as Obama is President of the United States.
translation:
September 2, 2009 - 12:03 ET by candancethe war is lost because a Democrat is in charge.
likely
September 2, 2009 - 12:09 ET by katainkentit was Obama himself that said he wasn't there to "necessarily win". WT fudgesicles does that mean?
__________________________________________
We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. ~Thomas Jefferson
come on. seriously.
September 2, 2009 - 12:20 ET by candanceSo now conservatives are in the business of discouraging our troops because of the guy in the White House? Go tell my brother he's wasting his time over there.
I would never say that
September 2, 2009 - 12:24 ET by katainkentthe 'why' hasn't changed. Its the 'how' and the 'who's in charge' that is a problem. There are plenty of good reasons. The question and concern (for me anyway) is how effectively can Obama run the war machine. And for all we know, he may have changed the goals and not let the players know. When Clinton was President I was perpetually worried for my husband because.. welllll... I thought he was a complete dufus who thought our military was a play toy.
___________________________________________
We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. ~Thomas Jefferson
Candance....Not so much a
September 2, 2009 - 12:19 ET by celatorCandance....Not so much a democrat (Truman did what he had to do to win in Japan, after all), but because Obama and that band of radicals is in charge. It's the perpetual chaos, shambling, misdirection, and the duplicity of the current WH that worries me re Afghanistan (and everything else they engage in). That would spill over into the day to day operations of our military in Afghanistan and cost American lives.
Whether Afghanistan is a worthy cause is another matter, it seems to me. Obama sending our men and women in that morass would be a venture in disaster for us. That's where I come out, at least.
No citizen's right to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, or property is safe as long as Obama is President of the United States.
I get it, celator
September 2, 2009 - 12:22 ET by candanceI'll leave it to you to write our troops over there and explain your rationale.
ETA: Apparetly it is suddenly possible to support the troops but not the mission.
I know it's a tough call. I
September 2, 2009 - 12:28 ET by celatorI know it's a tough call. I have two sons in the service (master sergeant and chief master sergeant, and they may well get sent there.
I've had this conversation with them. They (and they tell me others) in the military are more than leery about Obama's leadership abilities as CIC and don't want to be sent there by Obama because of all the things we mentioned above. They'll go, of course, and do their best. But the trust in the CIC is just not there for them.
No citizen's right to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, or property is safe as long as Obama is President of the United States.
okay
September 2, 2009 - 12:30 ET by candanceWe support the troops but not the mission now. Got it.
It's the mission under the
September 2, 2009 - 12:35 ET by celatorIt's the mission under the leadership of Obama that is difficult to support, and nearly hopeless. So bring em home. Yep. Unless we let the military do what they are very capable of doing, and that's the key.
Gosh, why didn't they make us generals, we could straighten this all out. ;+}
No citizen's right to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, or property is safe as long as Obama is President of the United States.
wow. just wow.
September 2, 2009 - 12:43 ET by candanceYou realize that's the exact same argument lefties made about Iraq? It was unwinnable, we were wasting our time, Bush had no plan, the military wasn't funded/organized/given enough autonomy to win.
And conservies right here on NB screamed at them for emboldening the enemy. You don't have any concern that this would have the same effect?
So now it's okay to 1) discourage troops 2) politicize a war 3) let AQ know we're pressuring the military to leave.
Yea, I do realize it, and so
September 2, 2009 - 13:13 ET by celatorYea, I do realize it, and so I am trying to think my way slowly and carefully through this.
I for sure had issues with Bush (Rumsfeld, mostly) about the conduct of the war i several stages, including ignoring the pleas for more troops at critical times, the lack of adequate supplies (they almost ran out of ammunition twice), poorly protected vehicles, ill fitting helmets (initially), not enough bullet proof vests, and on and on. Lousy planning etc. I was pretty vocal about it. Not sure I was on here, but on other forums.
That's what I am afraid of with Obama. If we send in more men and women, I want the mission to be clear and focused for them, I want them to have everything they need to do the job, I want the President saying every day how proud he is that they are doing the job, I want clear direction from Obama to the troops saying this is what I want you to do, I will support you, I will make it possible for you to win as quickly as possible. There's no doubt, they could make hamburger out of the Jihadists, if only Obama support them, and give them what they need, motivation, supplies, consistency, clarity and fight the political battles over the war back home, etc.
If we don't have these basic elements in place, at the very least, then bring them all home, and keep them safe.
We hear all sorts of prognostications: the war will last years, we need a centralized government there, we don't need a centralizsed government there, we need to respect the tribal and clan cultures, or we don't or who knows? We need 300,000 troops there, we will be there for 10 years, 20 years, 40 years. Good grief.
Our young men and women are too precious to die becauswe of this sort of confusion.
As it stands for now, it seems to me that Obama hasn't made his case for Afghanistan, can't articulate why more American blood needs to be spilled there, doesn't seem to hold that whole issue with the conviction, seriousness, and moral principles we would like to see before letting him put our men and women in harm's way. HE COULD make the case, I believe, but he hasn't, at least not convincingly.
Good discussion, thanks for the opportunity. I don't know what more I can say about all this.
No citizen's right to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, or property is safe as long as Obama is President of the United States.
this is my thinking
September 2, 2009 - 13:28 ET by candanceBy all means, we need to pressure for more funding, more support, whatever it takes to win, just like we did in Iraq. Even if Obama doesn't do it, that shouldn't stop us from trying. Let Obama answer for his lack of leadership, because he's the CinC and that's his job. Let's not cut and run on his behalf.
When the CIC is more
September 2, 2009 - 12:54 ET by ckc1227When the CIC is more worried about using the word victory in regards to Afghanistan than in achieving victory, it might be time to come home, whether he's a Dem or a Repub.
If the Soviets who
September 2, 2009 - 11:57 ET by taterIf the Soviets who conquered pretty much everything they invaded into couldn't do it with a leader who at least knew what he was doing when it came to war, what chance do we have with Obama at the helm.
www.theholyrosary.org
"There is no problem, I tell you, no matter how difficult it is, that we can not resolve by the prayer of the Holy Rosary." -Sister Lucia
The soviets, who invaded
September 2, 2009 - 12:09 ET by bassndudeThe soviets, who invaded incurred their first problems when the US went in with advisors and weapons. Osama himself was a student of the US. We trained him well. That said, the war there can be won. But not with US and world political involvement.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
I can't believe I'm hearing this
September 2, 2009 - 12:01 ET by candanceIf a Republican were in the White House, I have ten bucks saying this conversation would not be happening.
Agreed Candance, if a
September 2, 2009 - 12:15 ET by Carl KolchakAgreed Candance, if a Republican were in the White House, Limbaugh would probably have countless talking points to give out as to why the Republicans are the greatest politicians ever and that Republicans can do no wrong.
So, basically you're saying
September 2, 2009 - 12:39 ET by ckc1227So, basically you're saying you don't listen to Limbaugh?
I think Genghis Khan had
September 2, 2009 - 12:17 ET by Carl KolchakI think Genghis Khan had success in Afghanistan. Maybe John Kerry could teach some lessons on Genghis Khan and give out some advice for Afghanistan.
Saw that--another speech
September 2, 2009 - 10:20 ET by StarAZYes--we need another speech...The red pill, the cut-off feet, the er's, the um's, the head back and forth. That ought to do it!
Hammer/Nail
September 2, 2009 - 11:03 ET by slickwillie2001Speechifying is the only thing the Bamster is somewhat good at. He can't lead, he can't put together legislation, he doesn't have a clue about economics, he is a poor manager, and he is terrified to delegate. So when there's a problem, give a speech.
It will be interesting to see how readily the networks give up prime time, this time around.
Spiders Attacking
September 2, 2009 - 11:08 ET by slickwillie2001Next big hooha to hit: the White House appears to be putting together a massive spidering operation to scour the internet with software to search out their detractors. Looks like just an extension or an automation of the 'fishy information' gathering process.
White House Plans Massive Spidering Operation: http://directorblue.blogspot.com
An Obamanation from Superintendent in Chief !?!?!?
September 2, 2009 - 11:23 ET by SkipperMLMIndoctrination from the Whitehouse? Kids are asked to study Obama. Not our country or our givernment (notice the "give"ernment), but Obama.
From Fox news: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/09/02/critics-decry-obamas-lesson-plan-students/
"A suggested lesson plan that calls on school kids to write letters to themselves about what they can do to help President Obama is troubling some education experts, who say it establishes the president as a "superintendent in chief" and may indoctrinate children to support him politically."
They are given assignment to write to themselves on topics like "what resonated with you from President Obama's speech? What lines/phrase do you remember?"
and
"Why does President Obama want to speak with us today? How will he inspire us? How will he challenge us?"
And it gets worse
"teachers can ask students to write down key ideas or phrases that are important or personally meaningful."
What happened to our children learning the to read, write and the sciences along with what good character is?
he's a narcissist
September 2, 2009 - 11:30 ET by katainkenthe doesn't realize he's administrating a governmental machine to make education work by making it run more efficiently and bring children and teachers the resources they need. He has to be there to inspire, to motivate.... (to indoctrinate)
___________________________________________
We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. ~Thomas Jefferson
It's one thing to talk to
September 2, 2009 - 12:15 ET by ThisnThatIt's one thing to talk to children about civics, learning, doing better, and the Golden Rule. That's fine.
Obama isn't doing this. Instead, he's telling them them to help him out directly. Perhaps by having them talk to their parents, recording the parents answers, and bringing them back to school to have the teacher collect them and file a report? Or to allow teachers to single out students who disagree with Obama and browbeat them? Or affect their grades?
All sorts of opportunities for mischief, here. Question: What would the press do if Bush did this?
___________________________________
"Tax the rich" is a basically unstable way of governing - The NYT
Simple answer
September 2, 2009 - 12:46 ET by jon_torlinHere's a simple answer to your question: Bush wouldn't do this.
That's the difference between Obeyme and Bush. Bush did not micromanage every damn little thing, he got people into his cabinet and let them do their job and got out of the way. That One doesn't even use the cabinet much anymore, he appoints his own czars and tells them what to do anyway.
The community organizer can't help himself, it's the way he's brought up and trained. If anything, there's a lot wrong with asking school kids for help like this, it's beyond a publicity stunt.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not an apologist for Bush, he's done a few things I've disagreed with, especially the TARP thing and letting Fat Bas...I mean Ted Kennedy write that education bill morass(more ass?). But Bush hasn't even come CLOSE to doing the stuff that the organizer in chief is doing.
-Jon
******UPDATE******
September 3, 2009 - 08:38 ET by SkipperMLMWhite House Withdraws Call for Students to 'Help' Obama
Obama's plan to inspire the nation's schoolchildren with a video address next week erupted into controversy.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2009/09/03/white-house-withdraws-students-help-obama/
Skipper~
September 3, 2009 - 09:52 ET by Georgia GirlThis is an example of why I now have hope for this country. I really feel the days of Obama going "unchecked" are gone. With no thanks to the majority of the MSM, the American public have stepped up and are now being vigilant...and we all should also thank FOXNEWS daily, because without them, there would be no way to get the facts out about what is occurring in the Obama Administration. It truly scares me to think where we would be today without this one news -- actual NEWS -- outlet.
In a tiny way, it almost makes me feel sorry for Obama. He's truly boxed in now, and I don't see that ever reversing to the point where things were at before. Only a tiny bit sorry for him. ^_^ He is finally being held accountable. Honestly, with the way things started out, I thought it would take much longer than this.
Re Hope
September 3, 2009 - 11:32 ET by slickwillie2001I agree somewhat, the activism we are seeing from conservatives is refreshing and has been a long time coming, but we are still deep in the woods. There's a contingent of Republicans in Congress, –those 'bipartisan' idiots, the 'aisle crossers' that remain a threat to the nation. That's the McCains, the Snowes, the Collinses, Grahams, etc. They are weak-willed.
And, regardless of the Bamster's popularity figures, he is our President for four years, over which he can run wild through our country simply using the power of the Presidency and all the administration's departments. The office of the President is tremendously powerful, more powerful than we are aware because no President has ever dared to use all the power available. When a pathological narcissist realizes that he has been rejected, he may turn violent.
The only healthcare reform
September 2, 2009 - 11:19 ET by mattmThe only healthcare reform we need is tort reform, the elimination of the HMO middleman (a Ted Kennedy creation) by way of tax-free HSAs and anything else that promotes an active private market.
And...
September 2, 2009 - 11:41 ET by StarAZSince the govt seems to think it's OK to boss private companies around all they want--how about resetting prices to reflect actual costs. Getting a boil lanced should not cost $24K, as a recent letter to the NYT reported. The ER should not be approx $1000 an hour, as it seems to be in AZ. This would bend the old curve.
the five pillars of healthcare?
September 2, 2009 - 11:24 ET by katainkentoh boy I can't wait.
___________________________________________
We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. ~Thomas Jefferson
So this thought came to me
September 2, 2009 - 11:49 ET by Another Dead KennedySo this thought came to me over the last few hours. More of a conspiracy theory, really. But here goes: I think someone is trying to burn down California, and I think it's conservatives. Think about it. Without liberal Californians screwing up the political landscape of the rest of the country, imagine the progress that can be made. Now that's REAL change.
"If we love our country, we should also love our countrymen." Ronald Reagan
I think you're right.
September 2, 2009 - 11:57 ET by goldbarI think you're right. After all, the conservatives are successfully burning down their own house. From the latest Rasmussen poll:
"But Republican voters are disenchanted with their team as much as the Congress itself: 69% of GOP Voters say Republicans in Congress are out of touch with the party base".
And why do they say
September 2, 2009 - 12:35 ET by ckc1227And why do they say Republicans are out of touch with the base? Here, I'll help you:
And yet, despite your implication that we're burning down our own house, somehow we're still beating democrats:
If that's burning down our own house, hopefully we move on to the cities next.
win by default?
September 2, 2009 - 12:35 ET by katainkentI'd rather be voting for an honest to gosh conservative than trying to vote OUT the socialist.
___________________________________________
We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. ~Thomas Jefferson
Any suggestions? "If we
September 2, 2009 - 12:56 ET by Another Dead KennedyAny suggestions?
"If we love our country, we should also love our countrymen." Ronald Reagan
ermm
September 2, 2009 - 13:00 ET by katainkentthe last time I even squeaked about a conservative party I got utterly buried so... no :) GOP leadership/members will just have to clean house. Meanwhile I will continue to choose the lesser spender of two evils.
___________________________________________
We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. ~Thomas Jefferson
Oh, come on. This could
September 2, 2009 - 13:24 ET by Another Dead KennedyOh, come on. This could turn into a very positive, unifying debate!
"If we love our country, we should also love our countrymen." Ronald Reagan
"...Republicans have tied
September 2, 2009 - 12:41 ET by goldbar"...Republicans have tied their highest level of
support for the third straight week."
I agree---you guys are having a great three weeks!
THE RETURN OF NUGGET!
September 2, 2009 - 12:59 ET by SickofLibsWhich just happens to coincide with the return of NB's dreaded DRUPAL database errors moments ago. Coincidence? Perhaps not.
But on to your point: wouldn't matter if it were 89%. While some Republican may have pulled the lever for a Dem in the past, no way is that scenario going to play out next time. And most Independents have had it with the Dems, too.
THE VIEW
September 2, 2009 - 12:13 ET by ricklailI was sitting in the waiting room for an x-ray this AM when The View came on. I wanted to change the channel but couldn't. I hear a lot of comments on here about the show but had never HAD to watch it before. What a bunch of airheads, even Elizabeth. They were talking about Britney Spears weight. HELLO-none of this crowd has any room to talk about weight. Whoppi looked like she was dressed for a street fight instead of a "serious" talk show. I can't believe that this show has an audience. Lot of stupid people out there that would watch this crap.
Semper suprene nitens
OBAMACARE: If it ain't good enough for my Congressman then it ain't good enough for me.
What gets me
September 2, 2009 - 12:15 ET by StarAZThe View watchers are also the first to whine about raucous people talking over each other!
Poll Gem
September 2, 2009 - 12:24 ET by slickwillie2001Little noticed aspect of one of the crashing polls on the Bamster:
Zogby Interactive: Loss of Democrats’ Support Helps Bring Obama Job Approval Down to 42%
I doubt you’ll see it mentioned much in the MoBama Media, but Zogby uncovers something interesting: 4% of “liberals” disapprove of Obama. 21% of Blacks do.
h/t Daily Pundit: They Must Be Racist Eh?
Is anyone else getting the "Drupal" page...
September 2, 2009 - 12:55 ET by PrairieSkyagain? I've gotten it 3 times in the last couple of minutes.
This is so annoying...
"The problem is not that people are taxed too little...the problem is that government spends too much." ~President Ronald Reagan
"too many connections"
September 2, 2009 - 12:56 ET by katainkentmust be lunchtime ;)
___________________________________________
We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. ~Thomas Jefferson
kata...Yep...You're likely right, but...
September 2, 2009 - 12:59 ET by PrairieSkyI sure would like to see something done to remedy this on a permanent level...This seems to happen fairly frequently.
Annoying...
"The problem is not that people are taxed too little...the problem is that government spends too much." ~President Ronald Reagan
PS, Drudge has a link to us
September 2, 2009 - 13:17 ET by R D HelmEvery time he does that, it plays havoc with the NB server.
-Dave
Even when the government tries to kiss you, it is just a prelude to a good screwing. -Neal Boortz
RD...I didn't...
September 2, 2009 - 13:23 ET by PrairieSkyrealize that...Well, that does make sense...All that extra "traffic".
No wonder.
Thanks for the info- :)
"The problem is not that people are taxed too little...the problem is that government spends too much." ~President Ronald Reagan
OPTION RIGHT, OPTION LEFT
September 2, 2009 - 14:28 ET by reelman46OPTION RIGHT, OPTION LEFT
Remember back…when Bush toured America trying to get a “going broke” Social Security reformed?
The democrats wheeled in (very) senior citizens with signs proclaiming
their SS “would be taken away” and such. Hounded him in every city.
What was the main point of that SS reform? It was an OPTION for those
under 55. It was a true option by any measure. Not a word was said
about it being anything but a true option. Democrats hate true options.
They trashed it into oblivion.
“Option Right” is never deemed worthy while ‘Option Left ” is always deemed noble, right, caring, sensible, logical, etc.
The really bizzaro thing about these “Options” is the Option Left, when
closely examined, always has the goal of morphing into something much
more sinister…like another huge expensive control-over-your-life
program.
Did I mention Klinton chose to tax SS?
Did I mention the SS Fund was robbed blind by congress and faces red
ink in under 20 years while the royal congress still fiddles?
http://conservablogs...
Doug Schexnayder, Ph.D. (theconservativecrawfish)
Anyone else have some
September 2, 2009 - 16:04 ET by bigtimerAnyone else have some problems with NBs in the last half hour?
edit~Nevemind...I just saw some of the comments above. ;-)
'Go Green...Recycle Congress'
That same page...
September 2, 2009 - 16:25 ET by Georgia Girlthat so many of us are so familiar seeing!*_*
Lol GG...they just won't
September 2, 2009 - 16:35 ET by bigtimerLol GG...they just won't let us miss Drupal.
'Go Green...Recycle Congress'
The Green Jobs Czar
September 2, 2009 - 16:40 ET by katainkent(excuse me "Special Advisor for Green Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation") the more I see of Mr. Van Jones the more ill I become. Two more videos #1 (language warning) #2 on drudge today of this guy. Plus 2-3 more on Breitbart! How did this man get past the basic FBI check - or was there even one to begin with.
___________________________________________
We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. ~Thomas Jefferson
Beck's been doing a great
September 2, 2009 - 16:43 ET by bigtimerBeck's been doing a great job on him as well, today included.
'Go Green...Recycle Congress'
watching Beck at our house too
September 2, 2009 - 16:45 ET by candanceand tempted to run out to buy more canned food.
I'll have to
September 2, 2009 - 16:46 ET by katainkentcome back to where I am below "throw things" angry and just "write congressmen" angry before I go looking up anything else.
___________________________________________
We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. ~Thomas Jefferson
Isaiah 6
September 2, 2009 - 17:04 ET by candanceHe said, "Go and tell this people:
'Be ever hearing, but never understanding;
be ever seeing, but never perceiving.'
Make the heart of this people calloused;
make their ears dull
and close their eyes.
Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
hear with their ears,
understand with their hearts,
and turn and be healed."
Then I said, "For how long, O Lord?"
And he answered:
"Until the cities lie ruined
and without inhabitant,
until the houses are left deserted
and the fields ruined and ravaged,
→ Candance
September 2, 2009 - 21:35 ET by Cool ArrowOK, so Obama's prophet pronounced a curse on America, invoking a God he doesn't know.
The fault is minimal for the heathen young ruler and his prophet, because they have never accepted the truth.
The fault lies with the majority of Americans who voted their ascent to that curse.
Elections have consequences. And the people said "Give us a king"
We will Barry you! - Russian prophecy
not following you, Cool
September 2, 2009 - 21:40 ET by candanceThat's a little too cryptic for me. I get the part about "give us a kind" but I'm not following the line about the prophet.
Re Beck
September 2, 2009 - 17:15 ET by slickwillie2001I've been following the story of the shutdown of the California Central Valley for a while now. This is just outrageous, for a stupid little minnow. The next time the liberals whine about food shortages somewhere in the world, or the problem of overpopulation, remind them of what they have done to California. The loss of jobs, income taxes, sales taxes, etc, to the State of California is also tragic. This story has received very little coverage. Why?
simply put
September 2, 2009 - 17:17 ET by candanceit might embarass Obama.
re the minnows. Liberals
September 2, 2009 - 19:28 ET by Radical1979re the minnows. Liberals forget animal species and plants have gone extinct for millions of years. It's part of nature.
sw... Strategy. 'Go
September 2, 2009 - 19:40 ET by bigtimersw...
Strategy.
'Go Green...Recycle Congress'
Van Jones with no answer
September 2, 2009 - 19:13 ET by GregEhttp://www.realclear...
Federal Ownership
September 2, 2009 - 19:45 ET by slickwillie2001The top 10 list of states with the highest percentage of federally owned land looks like this:
..and what the leftist
September 2, 2009 - 19:51 ET by bigtimer..and what the leftist can't control that way, they will destroy another.
'Go Green...Recycle Congress'
think Obama won't push propaganda at schools?
September 2, 2009 - 20:31 ET by candanceLook at this video that ended up being played at a public school assembly in Utah.
Really think it was an accident this came right before Obama's big speech?
Good grief.
September 2, 2009 - 20:36 ET by GregEGood grief.
take the time to watch the whole thing
September 2, 2009 - 20:39 ET by candanceIt literally says "I will pledge allegiance to Barack Obama"
And at the
September 2, 2009 - 20:47 ET by GregEThen at 3:16.... "I pledge to be of service to Barack Obama"
And at the end,. 3:54....
"I pledge..........to be a servant to our president."
WTF!
candance... It literally
September 2, 2009 - 21:28 ET by Jercandance...
It literally does not say "I will pledge allegiance to Barack Obama." GregE states what it says literally in that regard.
The suggestion that this was deliberately timed by the school to be shown right before Obama's big speech on health care is preposterous. The video was aired at a back-to-school assembly last week. The "big speech" is sometime next week. [When was the announcement made regarding Obama's upcoming address? Was it prior to the showing of the video?]
Most of the content of the video was positive, inspirational and non-partisan. There were a few instances of questionable pledges which do justify claims of agenda-peddling, and for that reason alone the video--as school officials readily acknowledge--should not have been aired. (At least not without editing out the politicized portions.) It should be understood, however, that students were not being asked to repeat, or even agree with, the pledges made by the various celebrities. But there is no denying they would be influenced.
Jer
Jer
September 2, 2009 - 21:35 ET by MightyMouthHas ANY President attempted to indoctrinate Students in this manner?
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
MM
September 2, 2009 - 21:40 ET by JerWas the video an administration or DNC production?
Jer
It doesn't matter..
September 2, 2009 - 21:44 ET by MightyMouthconservatives judge these things on content not souce!
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
What was your problem with
September 2, 2009 - 22:07 ET by JerWhat was your problem with the content of Obama's remarks in the video? They were politically neutral. Your problem, and to some extent mine, is with the content of the pledges made by the celebrities. Therefore, if you believe it to be indoctrination of a political nature, you must necessarily be concerned about the source.
Jer
who knows?
September 2, 2009 - 21:49 ET by candanceA high-quality production featuring half the people in Hollywood - and not one line about who made it. How curious.
according to Penn
September 2, 2009 - 22:04 ET by katainkent(of Penn and Teller) in his "reply" to that video - its a Harpo Production. I verified that is is here.
___________________________________________
We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. ~Thomas Jefferson
interesting, kata
September 2, 2009 - 22:46 ET by candanceI've made note of every celebrity who appeared in that. I will not patron their work ever again.
that's a lot of paragraphs
September 2, 2009 - 21:33 ET by katainkentto basically agree with someone :D
___________________________________________
We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. ~Thomas Jefferson
I agree with you, katainkent...
September 2, 2009 - 21:38 ET by JerI agree with you, katainkent...
for a number of reasons as I'll explain below, but, first, I should point out that...oh, just forget it.
Jer
sorry Jer
September 2, 2009 - 21:35 ET by candanceMy wording was off by a bit. But I was pretty close.
But I have to call some benefit-of-the-doubt going on here. If that was Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity encouraging children to repeat pledges, and then ended with pledging service to Bush, I very much doubt you'd be calling it a harmless inspirational message that went a little too far.
The school officials knowledged their mistake (to their credit) the ones who pushed it from the beginning, the PTA committee, has been strangely unavailable for comment.
candance...
September 2, 2009 - 22:12 ET by JerThe phrase "pledge of allegiance" smacks of a loyalty oath or personal fealty to the nation and flag--not that I object to the latter, but rather to the implication by you that Obama was simply substituted for the United States of America.
But the couple of celebrities slavishly pledging "service to Obama" was indeed pretty revolting. The supporting of stem cell research was clearly too partisan and controversial to be included, as were a couple of others--ending slavery is laudable but not as presented in that format. Still, the majority of pledges should be unanimously applauded.
Jer
P.S. Coulter and Hannity? Maybe so. Chuck Norris, Pat Heaton, Jon Voight, etc. No Problem.
Some of them pledge to be a
September 2, 2009 - 22:12 ET by Radical1979Some of them pledge to be a servant to Barack Obama. O.k. for them, leave those of us with a brain out of it.
candance this video would
September 2, 2009 - 22:11 ET by Radical1979candance this video would be funny if it wasn't so serious. Ashton Kutcher pledging to represent this country with dignity? Nicole Ritchie pledging, well, anything? I know why they used celebritities but I just look at those people and think OMG YOU are preaching to ME?!
However, if this is shown in the schools I pay taxes to I'll be at the next school board meeting asking why.
ROFPMSL
September 2, 2009 - 21:29 ET by candanceThe Dems are getting desperate in Virginia. Just saw the funniest ad ever.
Creigh Deeds accuses McDonnell of being like Bush and wanting to use Bush's "failed" tax cuts on the rich.
Then literally ten seconds later, in the same ad, Deeds said he was "different" because he would give a tax cut to business owners.
Not even kidding.
Smell the desperation.