Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 8:30 AM ET, 11/20/2010

Retired general: Senate GOP doesn't trust our military

By Greg Sargent

President Obama devoted his weekly address this morning to urging passage of the New Start treaty. Obama mostly took the high road: Though he noted that Senator Jon Kyl had raised objections that the White House had answered, he didn't make the case that Senate Republicans are obstructing the treaty for political reasons or criticize them in any way.

Contrast that with the approach taken by Retired Lt. Gen. Dirk Jameson, the former deputy commander of U.S. nuclear forces, who said in an interview yesterday that those who continue to oppose the treaty are showing they have no trust in our military.

Jameson, referring to the wide array of current and former military leaders who support New Start, said it was "quite puzzling" that all this military support is being "ignored."

He added: "I don't know what that says about the trust that people have and the confidence they have in our military."

This is probably too overtly political a case for the President to make. But if Dems are going to get serious about playing hardball -- and they really don't have any other option at this point -- this is the type of schism you'd think Dem officials would be highlighting at every conceivable opportunity.

By Greg Sargent  | November 20, 2010; 8:30 AM ET
Categories:  Foreign policy and national security, Senate Republicans  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Happy Hour Roundup
Next: Sunday Open Thread

Comments

Morning, Greg:

I thought O's speech was fine, I like using St. Ronnie against the GOP. Nice touch. Let others do the bashing. Obama doesn't have to do it himself and it's probably better if he doesn't, for several reasons: it isn't natural for him, chief among them. I honestly think I see glimmers of hope, that the Left is becoming more and more energized. Not demoralized but angry and assertive. I even see the word Liberal (rather than the defensive Progressive) being used more frequently in the news. While much of this activity may be extra-partisan and not controlled by the Democratic Party, with Plouffe coming aboard and the Dems Caucus shaping up a bit, the Dems still have a great opportunity to seize the initiative. Remember: the GOP has NOTHING TO OFFER but the failed policies of Bush and Reagan. We now know beyond any shadow of a doubt that selfishness and greed are not foundations for a healthy, vibrant society. And the country knows that the GOP has nothing to offer. We are just waiting -- still waiting -- for Obama and the Dems to take charge and move the country forward. Maybe it's wishful thinking but for the first time in months I really think things are looking brighter on the political front.

Posted by: wbgonne | November 20, 2010 8:47 AM | Report abuse

My guess is that the POLLUTION caused short-term effects which you call "global warming"

Specifically, the more pollution the more the sun is BLOCKED, and that makes the temperatures cooler.

The Soviet Union and the Eastern bloc had a good number of large, dirty factories which put a great amount of pollution into the atmosphere.

Those factories were shut down in the early 1990s - and you saw a ONE-TIME jump in temperatures DUE TO CLEANER AIR.

In the 1970s, the US enacted the Clean Air Act and gradually regulations were drafted and enforced - smokestakes came down and the air was cleaner.

So, it was the CLEANER air which made the temperatures rise -


Not the "carbon dioxide" which is colorless, odorless and harmless.

The "heat trapping" properties of carbon dioxide which the warmists claim really are not exhibited by carbon dioxide. The heat is dispersed, it isn't trapped.


In addition, global temperatures appear to mirror how CLEAN the air is - NOT the levels of carbon dioxide.


Again, over the past 10 years, there has been more carbon dioxide put into the atmosphere than at any other time in history, and yet temperatures have been flat.

Posted by: RedTeaRevolution | November 20, 2010 8:53 AM | Report abuse

I don't quite get it. There's a broad outline of values and strategy and respect for the office held here to which I'm more sympathetic than many. But there's a very reasonable and traditional argument for bringing the two words "pulpit" and "bully" into a single phrase.

Posted by: bernielatham | November 20, 2010 8:54 AM | Report abuse

Unions Yield on Two-Tier Wage Scales to Preserve Jobs

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/20/business/20wages.html?hp

Now when are we going to address the problem of Red States stealing manufacturing jobs from Blue States by acting like China and India and turning Blue Collar workers into wage slaves?

Posted by: wbgonne | November 20, 2010 8:55 AM | Report abuse

wbgonne

It makes no sense to follow the democrats if they are going in the wrong direction.


It is the democrats who have offered nothing but failed policies - and expensive government programs.


If you say the Republicans' programs have not worked, and I say the democrats' programs are complete failures, then at the LEAST I can assure you that the Republicans' ideas are LESS EXPENSIVE.

.

Posted by: RedTeaRevolution | November 20, 2010 8:56 AM | Report abuse

I assume we'll see lots of retired generals on the Sunday shows this weekend. I'm sure the dems in conjunction with the generals will persuade enough R's to pass the treaty. It's just too important, although nothing really surprises me anymore re conservatives and their determination to thwart progress.

Posted by: lmsinca | November 20, 2010 9:05 AM | Report abuse

Kyl doesn't want to cut the nuclear weapons as much as Obama does, is that it?


Obama is operating under some hippie 60s idea that "we should eliminate all nukes."

Well that really is not a military strategy. We already know from Woodward's book that Obama ignores the advice of Generals - and refuses to listen to any reasoning from the Pentagon.


So, the parade of military people taking Obama's positions has to be regarded as SUSPECT.

Obama can NOT be trusted. Everything he does is either political, or designed to puff up his ego for the history books.

Neither is a way to run a country.

Posted by: RedTeaRevolution | November 20, 2010 9:06 AM | Report abuse

Imsinca:

The GOP is all-in for destroying Obama and they won't stop until it begins backfiring. Maybe this is it. Crossing the military just to undermine Obama may well be a bridge too far for many. Perhaps this will be the Radical Right Wing's Waterloo.

Posted by: wbgonne | November 20, 2010 9:13 AM | Report abuse

This one's worth the read. Apparently this investigation began in 2007 and is close to indictments.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Federal authorities, capping a three-year investigation, are preparing insider-trading charges that could ensnare consultants, investment bankers, hedge-fund and mutual-fund traders and analysts across the nation, according to people familiar with the matter.

The criminal and civil probes, which authorities say could eclipse the impact on the financial industry of any previous such investigation, are examining whether multiple insider-trading rings reaped illegal profits totaling tens of millions of dollars, the people say. Some charges could be brought before year-end, they say.

The investigations, if they bear fruit, have the potential to expose a culture of pervasive insider trading in U.S. financial markets, including new ways non-public information is passed to traders through experts tied to specific industries or companies, federal authorities say."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704170404575624831742191288.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTTopStories#articleTabs%3Darticle

Posted by: lmsinca | November 20, 2010 9:14 AM | Report abuse

I am 100% AGAINST an income tax increase in the middle of an Economic Crisis.


There is no economic rational for raising taxes now - and the democrats have to be completely insane to support another policy which will drag down hiring and the economy.


In addition, unemployment benefits should be extended - these people can not get work because it isn't there. 5% of the jobs in this nation disappeared. Why don't they just MAKE WALL STREET PAY FOR THE UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS - tax them.


It is not a stretch to blame the Wall Street crew and their excesses for the unemployment.

In addition the HEDGE FUNDS have reaped much of the benefits from the Free Trade deals - it is MORALLY CORRECT to have them pay for the costs of umemployment AND THE COSTS OF RETRAINING THOSE WORKERS. After all, that is what was promised at the time of the proposals at the time the Free Trade deals were under consideration.

.

Posted by: RedTeaRevolution | November 20, 2010 9:16 AM | Report abuse

Bernie writes

I don't quite get it. There's a broad outline of values and strategy and respect for the office held here to which I'm more sympathetic than many.

___________________________________

Except when Bush was in office, right???


I believe a good deal of the lack of respect comes from the time when Bush was in office - and now people are just saying, "the democrats didn't respect Bush, so that is the new acceptable"


Sorry, but the democrats set the bar on this one - and please don't be such a liar.

Posted by: RedTeaRevolution | November 20, 2010 9:19 AM | Report abuse

wbgonne, yes, I think they may have taken it too far with the Start treaty. We'll see though. I think they need to get it done in the lame duck session as many moderate R's were purged even from the Senate this month.

I have a few middle class champions I watch including Ted Kaufman, Elizabeth Warren and Phil Angelides. I've added Brad Miller to my list. Here's his latest move.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"One of the more amusing moments of yesterday’s House Financial Services Committee hearings on foreclosure fraud was when the representatives for the loan servicers were asked why they were subsidiaries of the large financial institutions. The link between the servicers and the big banks, mainly caused by a series of mergers, leads to all kinds of conflicts of interest, because it inevitably pairs them up with the originator or trustee of the loan. The servicers had no real answer to this question. Finally, the Wells Fargo representative claimed that it was for “customer convenience,” because some customers had their mortgage and their checking accounts at the same bank.

Everyone’s jaw dropped in the hearing room.

Now Miller is out with a letter (I’ve placed it below), signed by all the top leaders of the House Financial Services Committee, that seriously ratchets up the demands on the Financial Stability Oversight Council. Among other things, it asks the FSOC to use its authority under Dodd-Frank to force the large financial institutions to divest from the loan servicers."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

First paragraph of letter to Treasury:

"In light of the recent report from the Congressional Oversight Panel regarding mortgage irregularities, we are writing to support the panel’s call for a new round of stress tests to examine stability issues arising from residential mortgages held in securitized pools. Stability issues that have not been included in previous stress tests include liabilities for breaches of representations and warranties in Pooling and Servicing Agreements, liabilities arising from systemic mortgage documentation irregularities, and conflict of interests for servicers affiliated with firms that hold significant portfolios of second liens. We urge the council to recommend that its members conduct specific, thorough reviews of the potential effects of these issues on the risk profiles of the institutions they regulate and also that the Federal Reserve incorporate these potential liabilities into the new round of stress tests it announced earlier this week. We urge that the Financial Stability Oversight Council consider, in light of those stress tests, requiring that some financial companies divest affiliates involved in servicing securitized mortgages. "

http://news.firedoglake.com/2010/11/19/rep-brad-miller-protecting-bank-solvency-has-been-a-goal-of-treasury-that-i-do-not-share/

Posted by: lmsinca | November 20, 2010 9:24 AM | Report abuse

Isn't that why we have CIVILIAN control of the military in this country? Our Founding Fathers even had the wisdom of splitting command from the power of the purse / rule making. Read GENERAL Washington's Farewell Address.

The GOP is not "ignoring" anyone as much as they are being overruled. Look up "advise and consent" someday.

By the way, lmsinca, there's no "military" scheduled on the Sunday talk shows. So, does that mean the MEDIA is ignoring them too?

Posted by: clawrence12 | November 20, 2010 9:25 AM | Report abuse

In the above link is a terrific interview David D. had with Miller. One of his answers was there is zero chance of another bailout of the banks.

Posted by: lmsinca | November 20, 2010 9:27 AM | Report abuse

Clawrence, it means the talk shows have become nothing more than reality Teevee. I haven't watched them in a long time because they've lost their edge and value IMO. Too bad.

Posted by: lmsinca | November 20, 2010 9:31 AM | Report abuse

RedTeaRevolution, didn't bernielatham and wbgonne say they weren't going to be posting here?

Posted by: clawrence12 | November 20, 2010 9:31 AM | Report abuse

@wbgonne:

"Crossing the military just to undermine Obama may well be a bridge too far for many."

I sure hope so. I'm hoping that Republicans have finally jumped the shark with this one, because there's something astoundingly pathetic about Republicans in the Senate being so hellbent on destroying Obama and Dems that they are literally willing to put this nation and its alliances -- both military and economic -- at risk.

By the way, they aren't just crossing the military, they're also crossing some national security heavyweights in their own party from every Republican administration of the modern era, and as Obama pointed out, even going against Reagan himself.

It's just astounding that Senators of a major political party could act with such narrow-mindedness about such crucial matters of national security (and alliance building and maintenance).

Posted by: associate20 | November 20, 2010 9:36 AM | Report abuse

What's too bad is that Richard Seibert didn't beat Brad Miller way back when.

Posted by: clawrence12 | November 20, 2010 9:36 AM | Report abuse

associate20, Ronald Reagan would not have backed this version of START.

Posted by: clawrence12 | November 20, 2010 9:40 AM | Report abuse

"...I really think things are looking brighter on the political front."

A fine cuppa Peet's will do that, mmmm Toraja, my favorite.

Posted by: shrink2 | November 20, 2010 9:43 AM | Report abuse

"...I really think things are looking brighter on the political front."

A fine cuppa Peet's will do that, mmmm Toraja, my favorite.

Posted by: shrink2 | November 20, 2010 9:43 AM | Report abuse

So will two cups of green tea, evidently.

Later, All.

Posted by: wbgonne | November 20, 2010 9:51 AM | Report abuse

@clawrence12:

Reagan's words speak for themselves:

"In 1986 at the Reykjavik summit, Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev, both passionate about nuclear disarmament, shocked deterrence experts with an unimaginable proposal – total nuclear disarmament. 'It would be fine with me if we eliminated all nuclear weapons,' said Reagan. 'We can do that,' replied Gorbachev, 'Let’s eliminate them. We can eliminate them.'"*

New START is a step toward eliminating nuclear weapons, and therefore, is completely consistent with Reagan's aims.

Additionally, Frank Carlucci, former Secretary of Defense, Reagan administration, backs it. Kenneth M. Duberstein, former White House Chief of Staff, Reagan administration, backs it. And perhaps, one of the most well-known figures of the Reagan administration, George Shultz, who served as Secretary of State under Reagan, backs it.

So, clawrence12, it's pretty safe to say that you're wrong.

*http://www.acus.org/new_atlanticist/fulfilling-reagan%E2%80%99s-dream-nuclear-disarmament

Posted by: associate20 | November 20, 2010 9:52 AM | Report abuse

I hardly hear any liberal talk about what the actual income tax rates are -

and I hardly hear any liberal talk about what those rates have been historically - the various ups and downs - in context. You might hear a liberal cite one or two numbers - but not the whole set of numbers over the past century in which we had income taxes.


It should be remembered that the country went through over half its history WITHOUT an income tax - and everything turned out OK.


It's funny that for the past 10 years, you hardly heard a liberal say that Bush lowered the taxes on the middle class.


NOOOO - all the liberals wanted to talk about was the rich end of the bracket - NEVER stating clearly that MOST of the money went to the middle class.


The poor already pay virtually no income taxes - and with the standard deduction it would be interesting to know where that exact line is. (that is excluding Social security and medicare)


It is just a DECEPTIVE way to approach the whole issue.


NO WONDER that so many liberals simply DO NOT UNDERSTAND what the rates are, and how they work

I have heard a bunch of liberals claim people have been lying about the rates - only to be informed that they do not understand the rates and they are wrong.


I URGE EVERYONE - LOOK UP THE RATES - LOOK UP THE BRACKETS


I URGE EVERYONE - look up the HISTORICAL RATES - see what has been done over the brackets.


We already have a progressive income tax system - the liberals should be happy that the whole system is ALREADY LIBERAL

The question is to make it MORE LIBERAL OR LESS LIBERAL.


Our income tax system is FAR from Conservative.

Posted by: RedTeaRevolution | November 20, 2010 9:54 AM | Report abuse

@clawrence12:

By the way, Jim Baker, who succeed Shultz also backs the treaty.

Posted by: associate20 | November 20, 2010 9:56 AM | Report abuse

"Millionaires to Obama: Tax us"

More than 40 of the nation's millionaires have joined Patriotic Millionaires for Fiscal Strength to ask President Obama to discontinue the tax breaks established for them during the Bush administration, as Salon reports.

"For the fiscal health of our nation and the well-being of our fellow citizens, we ask that you allow tax cuts on incomes over $1,000,000 to expire at the end of this year as scheduled," their website states. "We make this request as loyal citizens who now or in the past earned an income of $1,000,000 per year or more."

http://www.fiscalstrength.com/

The group includes many big-time Democratic donors such as Gail Furman, trial lawyer Guy Saperstein and Ben Cohen of Ben & Jerry's ice cream (pictured). The list remains open to millionaires who want to sign on.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_theticket/20101119/ts_yblog_theticket/millionaires-to-obama-tax-us;_ylt=AkoZ1S6vFXAg7_MT2KXlf3Cs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTM2a2lxaGhqBGFzc2V0A3libG9nX3RoZXRpY2tldC8yMDEwMTExOS9taWxsaW9uYWlyZXMtdG8tb2JhbWEtdGF4LXVzBHBvcwM0BHNlYwN5bl9tb3N

Posted by: suekzoo1 | November 20, 2010 10:02 AM | Report abuse

Palin ain't gonna run update:

As I've said before, she won't be allowed to run because there are billion or trillions of dollars at stake and this trumps all else. She almost to a certainty has no chance of succeeding (outside of some large national catastrophe or, as Tomasky suggests, a Bloomberg run which is highly doubtful) and so the real powers on the right will cut her off at the knees.

And they can, easily. If the Murdoch crowd (FOX, WSJ) don't support her, she gets nowhere. Likewise, if Limbaugh supports another. The sneakier NRO/Weekly Standard crew will play the same game but for a different audience. But it's really the Chamber of Commerce dynamic and infrastructure which will lead and determine moves to shunt her aside.

How easy will this be? Quite. If you saw her answer the recent question "Do you think you could beat Obama" you may have noticed that her answer was preceded by a rather severe, if brief, clenching of eyelids. God knows what exactly her brain cast up into her consciousness at that instance but she really did not want to experience or face something. She knows she's dumb and has already publicly opened the door to letting someone better qualified take the baton.

Why continue the charade? She monetizes herself by remaining in the spotlight and continuing to gain huge press/TV traffic. This also works out well for the media so they are happy to play along. It also has advantages for the right wing project in that she keeps an activist and loyal base in a state of fevered insanity while filling up the media space such that real issues that ought to gain public attention are moved out of the picture. And there's a value in diverting much of the media attention away from the other individuals who will end up in the race.

As I said earlier, what one needs to watch to see unfold (if I have this right) will be FOX/WSJ, NRO/Weekly Standard and Limbaugh (plus Armey). Particularly the first two as they are less narrowly tied to Palin's base than is Limbaugh and Armey. They'll follow later while saying nothing to criticize her, just lauding her patriotism and selflessness in letting another run instead. And what we ought to expect to see is a slow emergence of critical commentary re Palin dripping out and then becoming more prevalent as time passes (though there isn't much time).

And we are already seeing that with Kondrake, with the recent leak of FOX pundits in that off-mike moment. And today we have Charen at NRO informing that audience "Why Sarah Palin Shouldn't Run"...

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/253545/why-sarah-palin-shouldn-t-run-mona-charen

Posted by: bernielatham | November 20, 2010 10:06 AM | Report abuse

clawrence12 at 9:25 AM

Obviously, the liberals think that civilian control extends only to Obama's misguided ideas.

They ignore Congress and the power of the purse - which will be with the Republicans in the House in a few days.


It is about time the liberals get a grip on reality. They lost the election. The American People do not want their liberal agenda. And yet, there are more demands now for a lame duck Congress to act contrary to the will of the people than ever before.


Seriously, the people have spoken - the democrats are out in the House.

And yet, listen tot he liberals. They still want policies which run counter to the results of the election. What they want now is dictatorial - it is NOT DEMOCRACY - a democracy follows the results of elections.

Posted by: RedTeaRevolution | November 20, 2010 10:06 AM | Report abuse

HILARIOUS

Obama quoting Reagan on Trust, but verify.


But will Obama sign a release opening up the file in Hawaii, so the American People can VERIFY.


Obama is a hypocrite, a deceptive liar. Nothing he says can be trusted. He talks, but he never acts in the way he talks. Obama is a disgrace to the country and his actions are shameful.


.

Posted by: RedTeaRevolution | November 20, 2010 10:10 AM | Report abuse

clawrence12 at 9:31 AM


Just like Obama - they say one thing and do another.

Can't trust anything they say.


Their actions call into question EVERYTHING they say - the very fact that they are posting here proves they are liars - so everything they say should be under close scrutinty for lies as well.


.

Posted by: RedTeaRevolution | November 20, 2010 10:12 AM | Report abuse

associate20, as you well know, New START is not "total nuclear disarment." that would be wonderful because ALL sides would be equal (Reagan also wanted a nuclear shield that would have made such long-range weapons obsolute). Reagan would NEVER had put America at a unilateral disadvantage, even if Baker does. Do you want me to post everything else that he and Baker disagreed about?

Posted by: clawrence12 | November 20, 2010 10:14 AM | Report abuse

clawrence wrote:
"RedTeaRevolution, didn't bernielatham and wbgonne say they weren't going to be posting here?"

Well, I said very infrequently. But a situation has worked out better than I hoped. Still, I have reduced my contribution to just Greg's blog and to a right wing site where I post stuff under the pseudonyms PicolloPenisTroll, BurntSiennaImmigrants, and RevoltingBodilyFluids.

Posted by: bernielatham | November 20, 2010 10:17 AM | Report abuse

RedTeaRevolution, exactly! The following is from Washington's Farewell Address:

"While, then, every part of our country thus feels an immediate and particular interest in union, all the parts combined cannot fail to find in the united mass of means and efforts greater strength, greater resource, proportionably greater security from external danger, a less frequent interruption of their peace by foreign nations; and, what is of inestimable value, they must derive from union an exemption from those broils and wars between themselves, which so frequently afflict neighboring countries not tied together by the same governments, which their own rival ships alone would be sufficient to produce, but which opposite foreign alliances, attachments, and intrigues would stimulate and embitter. Hence, likewise, they will avoid the necessity of those overgrown military establishments which, under any form of government, are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty. In this sense it is that your union ought to be considered as a main prop of your liberty, and that the love of the one ought to endear to you the preservation of the other."

He also warned about "the insidious wiles of foreign influence.". Another retired GENERAL (Eisenhower) more recently pointed out the pitfalls of the military-industrial complex. Were they "distrusting" as well? You betcha! I wouldn't be surprised if Gov. Palin takes up this charge!

Posted by: clawrence12 | November 20, 2010 10:19 AM | Report abuse

Bernie, re Palin, I'll believe she isn't running when I notice that Randy Scheuneman departed for greener pastures. LOL

Have a great Saturday all.

Posted by: lmsinca | November 20, 2010 10:21 AM | Report abuse

Nuclear Weapons

I do not believe the goal is to eliminate all nuclear weapons -

Because if Iran or North Korea ever got large amounts of nuclear weapons, they would be the only ones with the weapons.


Nuclear Weapons are CHEAP - they are a great deterent. Instead of troops, tanks and armies, we have a few nukes do the same thing which is discouraging military invasions by other countries.


THEREFORE, the question is what is the correct level of nuclear weapons ???


Obama has poor judgement. He has demonstrated he doesn't understand military issues.


The liberals are blindly following Obama's policies - and Obama is inexperience and unqualified.

It just seems as though people are supporting Obama without really thinking it through.

I rather listen to that chick from FireDogLake than Obama - at least she appears to think things through.


AND that includes the ability to "think ahead." Obama's thinking appears really shallow, he thinks only one move into the future.


The problem is that life is more like chess. You make a move, then the other side makes a move, then you make a move and then the other side comes back and then you make another move.


Obama APPEARS to think with only ONE move - he never considers what the other side will counter.


Obama never thinks about the consequences - what the next move of the other side it - or the results of what he does.

And Obama seems completely at a loss when its his turn for the next move.


Obama DOESN'T HAVE ANOTHER MOVE. Evidence is this whole year - no moves from Obama since the Scott Brown election and he dug his heels in.


Health care premiums have gone up - Obama lied - but Obama has no answer to that.


Doctors do not want to accept Obama's rate schedules - they are dropping off the care lists. Good luck with that one.

Obama has opened up DEFICITS in the health care portions of budgets Federal and in the 50 States.


Obama knew all this was going to happen. He has advisors. Obama ignored all this.

Posted by: RedTeaRevolution | November 20, 2010 10:24 AM | Report abuse

Thank goodness that bernielatham has at least "reduced" his postings. Again, a complete elimination would be wonderful.

Posted by: clawrence12 | November 20, 2010 10:24 AM | Report abuse

Bernie a couple days ago at the Fix I wrote this...

"How to get rid of Palin before Tampa...how to get rid of Palin before Tampa...

We'll see whether this is still true. " Working against Cino would be her ties to Bush adviser Karl Rove, who is not beloved among RNC committee members." After its dalliance with Steele, I'll bet the architect looks pretty safe, sane (and lucrative) to the committee right now.
2 days ago, 09:25:23"

Rove and Gillespie have more than a few clowns that need to be purged in order to establish an organized Republican conga line...and prevent chaos at the convention.

Posted by: shrink2 | November 20, 2010 10:27 AM | Report abuse

The New Start treaty is critical to our national security as it impacts both our nuclear posture as well as our non-proliferation efforts (especially keeping nuclear material out of the hands of terrorists) which is why our military leaders are stepping up and saying so in the face of GOP obstructionism.

P.S.

@RedTeaRevolution

Congratulations! I am awarding you a medal for being the hardest working troll on this thread!

Posted by: kmy042 | November 20, 2010 10:37 AM | Report abuse

clawrence12,

Perhaps, you didn't read my post carefully? I didn't say that New START was "total nuclear disarmament." I said that it was a "step" toward the elimination of nuclear weapons, which why there is such overwhelming bipartisan agreement among individuals who have served in Republican and Democratic administrations that the treaty should be ratified.

And the notion of "unilateral disadvantage" is laughable. We have nearly 2x the number of nuclear weapons that Russia -- the state with the second largest number of nuclear weapons -- has. Additionally, our systems are more modern, and are slated for further modernization, in part, as a condition of the ratification of New START.

New START affects deployed warheads, not stored or currently inactive warheads.

Additionally, it has absolutely no constraints on conventional weapons systems.

Posted by: associate20 | November 20, 2010 10:38 AM | Report abuse

suekzoo1, nothing prevents those millionaires (or you for that matter) from VOLUNTARILY donating any tax cut to the federal government. Simply make checks payable to:

Gifts to the United States
U.S. Department of the Treasury
Credit Accounting Branch
3700 East-West Highway, Room 622D
Hyattsville, MD 20782

Thank you,

Taxed
Enough
Already
PARTY

Posted by: clawrence12 | November 20, 2010 10:38 AM | Report abuse

kmy042, were GENERALS Washington and Eisenhower also "GOP obstructionists"? It is possible to simply have policy disagreements without the name-calling.

Posted by: clawrence12 | November 20, 2010 10:43 AM | Report abuse

associate20, I've read your post(s) carefully. We'll have to agree to disagree.

Posted by: clawrence12 | November 20, 2010 10:47 AM | Report abuse

claw, are you a millionaire?

btw, the Troll Hunter is your friend.

It's mine! In you go. See ya.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | November 20, 2010 10:48 AM | Report abuse

clawrence12, that's fair.

Posted by: associate20 | November 20, 2010 10:50 AM | Report abuse

"Congratulations! I am awarding you a medal for being the hardest working troll..."

How sad, some folks still experience The Plumb Line sans Troll Hunter. How can you stand it?

Posted by: shrink2 | November 20, 2010 11:03 AM | Report abuse

Greg wrote,
"Contrast that with the approach taken by Retired Lt. Gen. Dirk Jameson, the former deputy commander of U.S. nuclear forces, who said in an interview yesterday that those who continue to oppose the treaty are showing they have no trust in our military.

Jameson, referring to the wide array of current and former military leaders who support New Start, said it was "quite puzzling" that all this military support is being "ignored.""
----------------

Strange how the opinions of military leaders matter in this case whereas with DADT all opposed are simply ignorant homophobes. Nothing like consistency in your choice of authority.

Posted by: Brigade | November 20, 2010 11:03 AM | Report abuse

suekzoo1, I would answer, but now you unfortunately can't see it. Funny how responding to the substance of your (off topic) post, with actual information of where you can donate, is what you consider the "trolling."

Posted by: clawrence12 | November 20, 2010 11:09 AM | Report abuse

Socialists have more fun!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhkrRRwiX-Q

Posted by: shrink2 | November 20, 2010 11:24 AM | Report abuse

{{{PL'ers: Pls Forgive the OT from previous thread.}}}

Bernie,

Thnx for reading the link from CNS, and posting it!! That doesn't happen much and I hope you didn't get Greg in dutch with the ACLU. (BTW: the link came from the post you cited...but AGAIN didn't bother to read until you needed to blather...from ThinkBrainRegress.)

Um, not really. Still.

As I'm sure you haven't a clue about, the American Catholic Church has been providing health care to all comers without requiring payment since Catholics came to America.

Recently their ability to do this, incidentally, has been severely hampered and even stopped by the tender advocacies of gay rights activists and abortion proponents. But that's another issue for the present company of hypocritical bashers...with a B (and an L).

Benedict is focusing in the Caritas in Veritate letter on, as you quoted, "access to adequate medical attention." The man has been around the world and was clearly not pointing the finger at us savage brutes in the US who kill wantonly via withholding care because we are a perverse&evil society. (Did I capture your prevailing POV OK, Bern? I did? Thanks!)

And I really don't think he's on board like say, Al Grayson, for Obamacare specifically.

Now, as to one of the candidates for the "Most bigoted and willfully ignorant commenters on all things RC @ PL" award, using a fragment of an encyclical, to cynically praise someone and something he hates, I say:

Thanks! & GodBless! But you're gonna have to take it to St. Pete, eventually.

Posted by: tao9 | November 20, 2010 11:39 AM | Report abuse

American Catholic Church has been providing health care to all comers without requiring payment since Catholics came to America.
------------------------------------------
@tao,

How does this work? I'm a cradle Catholic and never heard of this.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | November 20, 2010 11:47 AM | Report abuse

These Retired Generals might be looking for consulting deals or contracts or appointments or something from the Obama people -

There are many reasons why they might be making these silly statements - to gain favor with the Obama people


Posted by: RedTeaRevolution | November 20, 2010 11:48 AM | Report abuse

"(and an L)"

Is that me? If not, who are you referring to, just come right out and say it.

Posted by: lmsinca | November 20, 2010 11:49 AM | Report abuse

Associate FTW:

"they aren't just crossing the military, they're also crossing some national security heavyweights in their own party"

This is just another signpost that the Republican Party is dead. What's left are JUST the splinter factions:

Neoconservatives (Liz Cheney, John Bolton)

Neoconfederates (Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, Sharron Angle)

Wall Street (Grover Norquist, Pat Toomey, Tom Donahue)

Entertainers (Limbaugh, Beck, Fox)

Pretty much everyone in the GOP falls into one of these camps. As recently as 2008 I was convinced that the GOP was only concerned about the Republican Party. But the truth is, since the advent of the Tea Party, they don't even put their party first anymore. The GOP bigs, and thus the rank and file, are now SOLELY concerned about their own personal ideological brand of "conservatism" to the exclusion of everyone and everything else.

The GOP is clearly involved in a Civil War, and this distrust of formerly respected Republican leaders on foreign policy is direct evidence of their internal battle.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | November 20, 2010 11:52 AM | Report abuse

Associate FTW:

"they aren't just crossing the military, they're also crossing some national security heavyweights in their own party"

This is just another signpost that the Republican Party is dead. What's left are JUST the splinter factions:

Neoconservatives (Liz Cheney, John Bolton)

Neoconfederates (Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, Sharron Angle)

Wall Street (Grover Norquist, Pat Toomey, Tom Donahue)

Entertainers (Limbaugh, Beck, Fox)

Pretty much everyone in the GOP falls into one of these camps. As recently as 2008 I was convinced that the GOP was only concerned about the Republican Party. But the truth is, since the advent of the Tea Party, they don't even put their party first anymore. The GOP bigs, and thus the rank and file, are now SOLELY concerned about their own personal ideological brand of "conservatism" to the exclusion of everyone and everything else.

The GOP is clearly involved in a Civil War, and this distrust of formerly respected Republican leaders on foreign policy is direct evidence of their internal battle.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | November 20, 2010 11:52 AM | Report abuse

lms, no it's not you. it's BL.

12Bar: have you ever heard of anyone callously turned away from a Catholic hospital, or a Catholic doctor, or who appealed to a Catholic rectory for help they couldn't pay for?

(I'm sure anecdotally it's happened but it would be sanctioned seriously by any Diocese that got wind of it. The mission is not ambiguous.)

Posted by: tao9 | November 20, 2010 11:55 AM | Report abuse

"...American Catholic Church has been providing health care to all comers without requiring payment..."

Please...could you tell this to the Sisters of Profit, I mean Providence? They'll extract every dime a person has before they'll give up on a collections effort, just like every other profiteer in the American health care industrial complex.

Well they are "non profit", so its called excess revenue, you know, the money to buy and build more and more profit canters, or excess revenue centers, or health care centers, whatever you want to call them. The Sisters of Providence don't lose money on health care, they make money. That is fine, just lets not pretend they are somehow more wonderful than say Cigna, or the HCA.

OTH, (sorry, I hate it when other people do that, undermine the argument they just made, oh well) I did find this example...this is good.

http://www.mercycares.com/pages.asp?id=4348

No matter who operates them, America needs lots more FQHCs, they are the delivery vehicles for the socialized, single payer, efficient, effective and easy to access system to come, the one we can actually afford.

Posted by: shrink2 | November 20, 2010 11:56 AM | Report abuse

12Bar: have you ever heard of anyone callously turned away from a Catholic hospital, or a Catholic doctor, or who appealed to a Catholic rectory for help they couldn't pay for?
---------------------------------------------
Oh, I thought you were talking about a program. Since I have paid bills to a Catholic hospital, when I was nearly destitute, for my daughter's emergency surgery, I knew that the hospital certainly did not tell me anything about it.

Personally, tao, I'm pretty loyal to the Church, but I don't think the maybe handouts you describe substitute for access to healthcare for all.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | November 20, 2010 12:00 PM | Report abuse

tao9, I am no longer sure of what IS a Catholic hospital. My daughter was triple billed [for 5 days observation for her twin babies] by a nominally Catholic Hospital, which settled with her BC/BS carrier for $18K but pursued her for $36K more for several months until I intervened and demanded arbitration with BC/BS and threatened a lawsuit against the hospital[I'm daughter's free attorney]. Then they quietly went away, "adjusting" the bill. I assume they treat their ER indigents with more respect, of course.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | November 20, 2010 12:05 PM | Report abuse

shrink,

Per your comment and the link provided the Sisters of Providence are chasing homeless people for payment for services via collection agencies, and presumably Dog the Bounty Hunter and his family.

I guess Mercy is owned by these folks:

http://www.che.org/

Any abominations you can cite?

Posted by: tao9 | November 20, 2010 12:10 PM | Report abuse

I need to tell my Catholic friend that she didn't have to sign away her house to the Catholic hospital for her colostomy, and that if she asks real nice, they won't charge her to reconnect her colon. Because, right now, she's waiting to turn 65 to get rid of her colostomy bag.

Tao, I appreciate your loyalty to the Church, and believe me, I share it. But, to think that the Church is giving breaks to poor people for healthcare would be surprising to those poor people.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | November 20, 2010 12:10 PM | Report abuse

12bar,

I'm truly sorry and sympathetic to your friend's situation.

The "mission" fulfilled, I mean in the US, is that care cannot be refused to the indigent and penniless (and that is every hospital in the US, not merely RC).

A homeowner is not that.

So, and again this is anecdotal but shows the other side-o-the-coin, my parish has raised money privately for individuals and families to help with payment of care...dozens of times a year since I've been in this beat-down small city in UpStateNY. We're not exactly a fat, suburban gang here.

Posted by: tao9 | November 20, 2010 12:23 PM | Report abuse

@tao,

My friend lives in a little old house, that is not much more than a converted chicken coop. She is unemployed and unemployable due to schizophrenia. She inherited her house from her mother, or she would be homeless. She is also cradle Catholic. The hospital knew of her circumstances--this is a small town--and she's lived there her whole life. Not once did they offer, or hint, that the Church would pick up her bill which was emergency due to peritonitis. Now, that they could reconnect her colon, they flatly refused because they already have title to her ONLY asset.

That's the reality on the ground.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | November 20, 2010 12:29 PM | Report abuse

12bar & markinaustin,

OK, point taken, and agree that the biz end of the isn't always Carita in Veritate.

My scolding of Bernie was more re.: his co-opting Benedict, for the purpose of...I don't really know. My impression is that he loathes the Church. He certainly mocks it, and per the zero-degress-of-separation-debate-technique-ala-lefties
...he mocks Catholics in general, ie.: us.

Posted by: tao9 | November 20, 2010 12:37 PM | Report abuse

"...indigent and penniless...A homeowner is not that."

But they will be and homeless to boot, if they use the healthcare system, Catholic or otherwise.

It is happening all around us. Everyone knows someone nowadays whose SES has been devastated by, of all things, health care.

So is that what we've become?

Posted by: shrink2 | November 20, 2010 12:37 PM | Report abuse

I think the problem is that charity, Catholic or otherwise, does not take the place of comprehensive care. Most of the heartbreaking stories I've heard, including my own, are of people falling through the cracks of the insurance industry's rescission practices. People who thought they had insurance, suddenly found themselves waiting for authorization, all the while becoming more ill, and then received the letter saying they'd been canceled. Not an easily managed problem. The health care reform bill dealt with this issue as well as pre-existing conditions, only marginally, but at a cost.

Posted by: lmsinca | November 20, 2010 12:41 PM | Report abuse

@tao-

"Recently their ability to do this, incidentally, has been severely hampered and even stopped by the tender advocacies of gay rights activists and abortion proponents".

Got a link for this? I'm curious...

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | November 20, 2010 12:43 PM | Report abuse

"That's the reality on the ground."

12Bar,

My Bishop would not let that fly without a large hoo-haw.

Posted by: tao9 | November 20, 2010 12:43 PM | Report abuse

well, I'm not speaking for bernie, I'm speaking for myself. I am a very loyal Catholic, probably a little more loyal than I should be (about subjects that shall remain nameless), but I don't think that the Church's ministry substitutes for true access to healthcare. For every person who gets parish or diocesan help, there must be thousands who don't, don't know they can even make an appeal, or don't have the sympathetic enough stories, or simply can't wait.

To tell you the truth, I was shocked that my friend had to sign over her house, and then they refused to reconnect her colon because that is "elective surgery". So now she has about 4 years wearing a colostomy bag. Now, she doesn't own anything, but still the hospital/docs won't do it. They would do surgery on her when they could put a lien on her house. That says something.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | November 20, 2010 12:48 PM | Report abuse

Chuck, presumably tao is referring to stuff like this:

"Same-sex ‘marriage’ law forces D.C. Catholic Charities to close adoption program"

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/same-sex_marriage_law_forces_d.c._catholic_charities_to_close_adoption_program/

Posted by: suekzoo1 | November 20, 2010 1:32 PM | Report abuse

Meanwhile, Arizona has instituted its very own version of a government run death panel:


"Arizona Budget Cuts Put Some Organ Transplants Out of Reach
State Financial Woes Force Some Poor Patients to Raise Funds -- or Do Without Life-Saving Surgery"

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Health_Care/medicaid-cuts-make-organ-transplants-unaffordable/story?id=12177059

Posted by: suekzoo1 | November 20, 2010 1:42 PM | Report abuse

EXAMPLE

In Iowa the OUTGOING democratic Governor has decided on a 100 MILLION dollar give-away to the unions.

Ahead of the new Republican Governor coming in-


So, the democrat gives away 100 MILLION to the unions, and leaves the BILL with the Republicans


That is 100 Million this year, and 100 Million every year after that


I say JUST BILL THE DEMOCRATS FOR THAT - LEAVE THE REPUBLICANS OUT OF IT


The democrats are almost a criminal outfit.


.

Posted by: RedTeaRevolution | November 20, 2010 1:50 PM | Report abuse

clawrence writes:


nothing prevents those millionaires (or you for that matter) from VOLUNTARILY donating any tax cut to the federal government. Simply make checks payable to:

Gifts to the United States
U.S. Department of the Treasury
Credit Accounting Branch
3700 East-West Highway, Room 622D
Hyattsville, MD 20782


____________________________


Room 622D - I wonder what they are doing in the other 621 rooms

The government is up to something


There must be at least 621 other rooms in that building - probably more

Posted by: RedTeaRevolution | November 20, 2010 1:57 PM | Report abuse

NATO, Russia To Join For Missile Shield

LISBON, Portugal — Russia was receptive but stopped short of accepting a historic NATO invitation Saturday to join a missile shield protecting Europe against Iranian attack, the alliance's chief announced.

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev agreed to involve technicians in development plans, but did not make a commitment for his nation to be linked to it if it becomes operational, NATO chief Anders Fogh Rasmussen announced.

"We could cooperate one day in shooting down missiles," Fogh Rasmussen said.

President Barack Obama praised Russia's decision, saying it "turns a source of past threats into a source of potential cooperation against a shared threat."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/20/nato-russia-to-join-for-m_n_786377.html

Posted by: suekzoo1 | November 20, 2010 2:03 PM | Report abuse

What a joke

Obama says the Russian will be protected under our missile shield.

Meanwhile, Obama is going to lose his election in two years.


AND the Russians are saying to themselves, that there is NO WAY they are going to trust Obama with being able to control the shield above Russia - he could turn it off at any time.


OOOPPPPPssss sorry that missile got through


OR is Obama just going to HAND the technology over to the Russians, and let them protect themselves from our missiles??? And eliminate any deterence we have ???


Obama is an idiot.

Posted by: RedTeaRevolution | November 20, 2010 2:20 PM | Report abuse

Imsinca said: "Bernie, re Palin, I'll believe she isn't running when I notice that Randy Scheuneman departed for greener pastures."

I think for Scheunemann, "green" is money. He's one of the classic-style DC lobbyist/parasites who make big bucks working for anyone who'll pay (he and McCain did a pro-Georgia/anti-Russia push which was followed by a big PR contract between him and Georgia). Soros is another one of his clients. And she's undoubtedly paying him very well so that's motive enough (even if she'd be the perfect neocon candidate).

Posted by: bernielatham | November 20, 2010 2:53 PM | Report abuse

@shrink - Re your 10:27AM post, I wish I had a better grasp of the modern RNC's actual power. Given the Rove/Gillespie bypass of them and the shift of corporate money over to R/G and the rapidly increasing influence of Murdoch's media entities, they don't appear to have much.

Posted by: bernielatham | November 20, 2010 3:15 PM | Report abuse

@tao
I don't "hate" your church. Along with the evil it has coughed up over 2000 years, it's done much good as well and it has a history of theological self-reflection which American Protestantism has been seriously deficient in.

Otherwise, your post is pretty lousy in tone (I've insulted you when?) and in any honest address to theology.

Posted by: bernielatham | November 20, 2010 3:49 PM | Report abuse

Well yeah, but as you said, Republican politics is all about managing the money (who cares what happens to the fools who keep voting for Republicans, Republican money sure doesn't) and the money stayed with what I've been calling the Republican firm(ament) of Barbour, Rove & Gillespie.

They'll put it back where they want it, the RNC, after the inevitable embarrassment of whatever Steele does after he gets fired, I mean loses his reelection bid.

Then the knives will come for Palin. Goofy posers like Pawlenty, Thune, Rubio...they'll realize the jig is up, this cycle anyway. The Republicans groom their contenders, they don't want any freelancing, no surprises. Mitt, Huck, Barbour, possibly Newt but I doubt it... that is it, that's what I think anyway.


Posted by: shrink2 | November 20, 2010 4:01 PM | Report abuse

"President Barack Obama praised Russia's decision, saying it "turns a source of past threats into a source of potential cooperation against a shared threat."

The irony that this is happening at the exact same time that the GOP are grandstanding over START is obviously too much for the Righties to comprehend. It really is sad and disturbing how off the rails the right has become. The insane right are practically begging for Iran and NKorea to get nukes. I think Obama's foreign policy has been on point, and the treaty is a major political win for him.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | November 20, 2010 4:06 PM | Report abuse

Ok, and there's this from tao...

"[Bernie] mocks Catholics in general, ie.: us."

I guess this might explain your sense of having been insulted.

Don't know what to say to you other than, tough luck. To the degree that any community, religious or otherwise, involves themselves in prescriptions as to how the broader community ought to behave and ought to be organized - that is, when they become political entities - to that degree they lay themselves open for all the critical analysis and rejoinders which we normally deem acceptable for such political communities. I grant no special warrant in this to faith communities because I see no good reason to and many good reasons to deny such a warrant.

Further, where is there danger in this to either you or to your Church? Your personal faith is not at risk, one presumes. The church has been around for 2000 years and I'm not going to influence its survival going forward. God, if he's there in some form akin to what the church holds to be so, isn't going to be wounded. So what exactly is the problem?

Posted by: bernielatham | November 20, 2010 4:11 PM | Report abuse

There is a coercive SICK element to Obama -

NO ONE VOTED ON THESE NEW RULES

CONGRESS DID NOT VOTE ON THIS


IT IS ALL OBAMA DOING THIS

The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is warning that any would-be commercial airline passenger who enters an airport checkpoint and then refuses to undergo the method of inspection designated by TSA will not be allowed to fly and also will not be permitted to simply leave the airport.

That person will have to remain on the premises to be questioned by the TSA and possibly by local law enforcement. Anyone refusing faces fines up to $11,000 and possible arrest.


____________________________

THERE IS A MENTAL ILLNESS to all of this


The radiation or the sexual assualt


If you go in the line, and you decide against it, you are going to be fined


WHO IS FORCING ALL THIS ON THE AMERICAN PEOPLE


WHO ARE THE PEOPLE WITH THE SICK EGO-DRIVEN PERSONALTIES TO WHAT TO FORCE EVERYONE TO ACCEPT THIS


IT HAS TO BE OBAMA


CONGRESS NEVER APPROVED THIS


IT IS ALL ADMINISTRATIVE - IT IS SICK


OBAMA IS MENTALLY ILL


IMPEACH OBAMA IMMEDIATELY FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE 4TH AMENDMENT - MAKE HIM DEFEND THIS


Remember, Obama's attitude is that its not the terrorists who are wrong, it is Americans who did something wrong to provoke the terrorists.

.

Posted by: RedTeaRevolution | November 20, 2010 4:26 PM | Report abuse

@Ethan - To my mind, there are two problems in the road here. The first is the "deny Obama any success" strategy, of course. But along side that significant barrier, the modern right in the US has fallen under the sway of the neoconservative crowd in foreign policy which is a relatively recent occurrence with particular consequences eg rejection of any multinational body or treaty if it is deemed not in the singular interests of the US (as conceived by these people).

The tea party/John Birch crowd, now rising to some level of influence, has some differing and some corresponding ideas. A shared loathing of the UN or treaty limitations is one correspondence. Where the tea party types (greatly social conservatives) differ from the Bircher/Paulite camp is on foreign military adventures. The social conservatives have been trained now to support any military action the warmongers dream up. The other camp wants America to keep its soldiers at home. This latter group won't win this contest because there's no money in it.

So, that's the two features of US politics now that Obama is up against and whether the older and more grownup Republicans can influence this current START outcome, I don't know.

Posted by: bernielatham | November 20, 2010 4:37 PM | Report abuse

"To the degree that any community, religious or otherwise, involves themselves in prescriptions as to how the broader community ought to behave and ought to be organized - that is, when they become political entities - to that degree they lay themselves open for all the critical analysis and rejoinders which we normally deem acceptable for such political communities."

So I can viciously mock (and Bernie, you know very well that you do) the NAACP, la Raza, GLAAD, HRC, et.al., with accusatory rhetoric that "others" {{{giggle}}} them into some kind of new millenial political leper colony? Oh, and verbally attack their members personally?

And be still accepted in "decent" society, ie.: here.

Sure. Right.

Posted by: tao9 | November 20, 2010 4:40 PM | Report abuse

Translation of Shrink's views:


Well yeah, but as you said, DEMOCRATIC politics is all about managing the money (who cares what happens to the fools who keep voting for Democrats, Democratic money sure doesn't) and the money stayed with what I've been calling the liberal agenda of the gay agenda, the amnesty folks and the cap and trade people.

They'll put it back where they want it, the DNC, after the inevitable embarrassment of whatever Obama does after he gets fired, I mean loses his reelection bid.

Then the knives will come for the rest of them...they'll realize the jig is up, this cycle anyway.

Posted by: RedTeaRevolution | November 20, 2010 4:52 PM | Report abuse

Obama should be IMPEACHED based on the violations of 4th Amendment rights of American Citizens at airports today.

Obama has just sat there silently - first leaving the country when he knew these things were happening - and then leaving the country a second time when things headed up in the media.


Obama is a coward not to speak out on this issue - and by his silence, he is backing the policies of his own appointees.


Obama should just be impeached.


Let's get it over with. And 20 democratic Senators should vote to REMOVE Obama - just to save their party from complete destruction if nothing else.


.

Posted by: RedTeaRevolution | November 20, 2010 5:21 PM | Report abuse

Did anyone post this rather spot-on observation.

“There is simply no basis for meaningful bipartisan leadership meetings today,” Brookings scholar and congressional expert Thomas Mann told me. “Republicans are determined to defeat Obama in 2012; they have no interest in negotiating with him in order to provide him any sort of victory. This is a partisan war and the Republicans are playing to win. The only question is how long it will take Obama to accept this reality and act accordingly.”
In his acceptance speech today after his co

http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2010/11/17/bi-monthly-slurpees/#ixzz15rZY9dnK

Posted by: bernielatham | November 20, 2010 5:27 PM | Report abuse

Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Washington announced today that it is shutting down its foster care and public adoption program. The District of Columbia said the charity would be ineligible for service because of the new law recognizing same-sex "marriage."


__________________________________

Why is it so difficult for the liberals in the District to give the Catholic Church an exemption to their LIBERAL AGENDA ???


This is the problem with the liberals - a complete inability to work with anybody - They refuse to compromise.


This attitude only PROVES that liberals are unfit to govern, unable to govern - and usually end up doing more damage than good in the end.


.

Posted by: RedTeaRevolution | November 20, 2010 5:33 PM | Report abuse

@tao
You can attack anyone you wish to attack if they are politically active (thus whose actions have potential consequence for you). Whether I find it interesting or compelling or convincing or discerning or supported is another matter, of course.

You could start with Charlie Rangel. I'll join in.

Posted by: bernielatham | November 20, 2010 5:52 PM | Report abuse

B,

I actually have a soft spot for Charlie. Wish he hadn't gotten himself in trouble and don't think he's got an (overly) ungenerous bone in his body.

I think he got too old to pay attention and couldn't be bothered to invisiblelize the usual bag-o-benfranklins harvest that's SOP for NYC Dem Reps.. Actually compared to the StateHouse guys up here in Albany, Charlie's a flippin' saint.

And hey, sorry for the heat...lost my temper, I think when folks bash the "Church" they forget there's some very fine folks in the pews. A LOT of them are Dems&Libs.

Posted by: tao9 | November 20, 2010 6:25 PM | Report abuse

I think when folks bash the "Church" they forget there's some very fine folks in the pews. A LOT of them are Dems&Libs.
----------------------------------------------
In my parish and my last one, most of them are Dems and Libs. And proud of it.

And I agree with tao that there are some very fine folks in the pews, the kind you want to know and be known by.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | November 20, 2010 6:56 PM | Report abuse

One can hope more adults will appear...

"Earlier this week, seven Republican-appointed federal judges co-signed a letter warning of the consequences of the GOP’s systematic obstruction of President Obama’s judges."

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/11/20/gop-judges-letter/

Posted by: bernielatham | November 20, 2010 6:56 PM | Report abuse

Bernie, yes, thousands of people have posted this spot on observation...

“There is simply no basis for meaningful bipartisan leadership meetings [today, yesterday or any other day]...Republicans are determined to defeat Obama in 2012; they have no interest in negotiating with him in order to provide him any sort of victory. This is a partisan war and the Republicans are playing to win. The only question is how long it will take Obama to accept this reality and act accordingly.”

Yeah, we knew that. It is not because we are really smart, it is because that is what the Republicans have been doing since that inauguration parade.
Obama was so very popular. He had to be brought low.

Posted by: shrink2 | November 20, 2010 7:22 PM | Report abuse

@tao
Re good people in the pews...

Truly, my man, I know this. And it isn't just in the pews but up in front of them too. Likewise in any church in the land. My grandparents were always active in their church and the dearest, smartest, funniest two humans I've been privileged to know. Many of the people I read and respect are believers. And my mennonite upbringing has obviously marked me deeply and is responsible for central moral tenets I still hold, most notably, my (relative) pacifism with its revulsion at war and my notion that being our brothers' keepers will of necessity entail government institutions which accept the responsibility of lessening suffering.

And, it is the case that I have no slightest notion that you are anything but a fine fellow. That's completely sincere.

Posted by: bernielatham | November 20, 2010 7:37 PM | Report abuse

@shrink - yes, I knew of course that the idea there was not new. But Mann is a serious government scholar and his observations ought to carry a bit more weight than, say, mine.

Posted by: bernielatham | November 20, 2010 7:47 PM | Report abuse

Meanwhile, Arizona has instituted its very own version of a government run death panel:


"Arizona Budget Cuts Put Some Organ Transplants Out of Reach
State Financial Woes Force Some Poor Patients to Raise Funds -- or Do Without Life-Saving Surgery"

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Health_Care/medicaid-cuts-make-organ-transplants-unaffordable/story?id=12177059


Posted by: suekzoo1 | November 20, 2010 1:42 PM
------

b-b-but, this CAN'T be true. The whole idea of death panels was just a lowdown Republican lie. No pulling the plug on granny, either, no matter the cost, no matter how efficacious the treatment. Not ever! We've been promised.

Posted by: Brigade | November 20, 2010 8:22 PM | Report abuse

tao9 wrote,
"I actually have a soft spot for Charlie. Wish he hadn't gotten himself in trouble and don't think he's got an (overly) ungenerous bone in his body."
------

I agree about Charlie, one of my favorite Dems. Maxine Waters? Another case altogether. String her up I say.

Posted by: Brigade | November 20, 2010 8:25 PM | Report abuse

Jay Rosen, abut 12:30 PM, explains FOX news while sipping scotch (I think).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7t_vaduSTQ

Posted by: bernielatham | November 20, 2010 9:15 PM | Report abuse

St. Jude's Childrens Hospital offers cancer treatment to every patient regardless of ability to pay.

Posted by: clawrence12 | November 20, 2010 9:45 PM | Report abuse

Oh, Republicans don't respect the military? I didn't know this was news. Thinking back to the last decade, can anyone name one Republican policy that was beneficial to our troops?

Posted by: DDAWD | November 21, 2010 12:49 AM | Report abuse

As a general rule, if you can shave at least a half point off your current interest rate, it is a good idea to refinance. If you currently have a home mortgage above 7%, the time is now to make a change. Look online for "123 Mortgage Refinance" they gave me the lowest rate than everybody else which is 3.21%.

Posted by: gailminor | November 21, 2010 3:07 AM | Report abuse

Eric Cantona is calling for a protest on Dec. 7 in France and it's catching on across Europe, a bank run.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"I don't think we can be entirely happy seeing such misery around us. Unless you live in a pod. But then there is a chance... there is something to do. Nowadays what does it mean to be on the streets? To demonstrate? You swindle yourself. Anyway, that's not the way any more.

"We don't pick up weapons to kill people to start the revolution. The revolution is really easy to do these days. What's the system? The system is built on the power of the banks. So it must be destroyed through the banks.

"This means that the three million people with their placards on the streets, they go to the bank and they withdraw their money and the banks collapse. Three million, 10 million people, and the banks collapse and there is no real threat. A real revolution.

"We must go to the bank. In this case there would be a real revolution. It's not complicated; instead of going on the streets and driving kilometres by car you simply go to the bank in your country and withdraw your money, and if there are a lot of people withdrawing their money the system collapses. No weapons, no blood, or anything like that."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/20/eric-cantona-bank-protest-campaign

Posted by: lmsinca | November 21, 2010 9:05 AM | Report abuse

It appears to me that most Americans learned "fool me once, shame on you...fool me twice, shame on me."

In that context, if you keep in mind that there are over one hundred times Obama lied, and most of them are on youTube, and it is easy to understand that most Americans no longer listen to Obama, about anything.

We all know he is a liar, so why would we listen? I know in my life, as soon as I KNOW someone lied to me, I NEVER believe anything else from his lips, unless it can be verified beyond any doubt.

Boxx

Posted by: BoxxNine | November 21, 2010 9:08 AM | Report abuse

All, a fresh Sunday Open Thread for you:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/11/sunday_open_thread_11.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | November 21, 2010 9:13 AM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company