Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Obama, congressional leaders plot final health care strategy

1. President Obama will convene a meeting with the top four Democrats in the House and Senate -- House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (Md.) will be at the White House while Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.) and Majority Whip Dick Durbin (Ill.) will participate via phone -- later today to discuss the end-game strategy for the administration's health care bill. With several deadlines already blown through to complete the bill, the thinking now is to get it done before the end of the month -- making way for the president's expected pivot to a focus on the economy/job creation in his first state of the union address. The merging of the House and Senate bills will be a delicate dance as several senators who voted for the measure -- Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman and Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson in particular -- made clear that any significant revisions could force them to rescind their support. The process is so fraught with potential political peril -- and with the potential for significant procedural delay by Republicans -- that there is talk that a formal conference committee to fuse the bill might be ignored entirely. Today's meeting is rightly seen as the first step by the White House and congressional leaders to find as much common ground between the two chambers as quickly as possible. In order to begin what is expected to be a year-long focus on the economy, the legislative decks must be cleared of health care as soon as possible.

2. President Obama likes to keep his thought process and decision-making on major issues contained to a very small group of advisers who, in turn, share little insight into the mind of the most powerful man in the world. So, when a piece detailing Obama's approach to terrorism and national security -- written by the New York Times's Peter Baker -- comes along, it's well worth reading all 8,000(!) words. But, since we know many Fixistas actually have day jobs and can't read 17 printed pages(!), we've pulled out a few of the highlights. (But, you really should read the whole thing.) 1) "This president recognizes that there's still a very serious terrorist threat that we gave from organizations like Al Qaeda," counterterrorism chief John Brennan told Baker. "But at the same time, what we have to do is make sure we're not pouring fuel on the flames by the things we do." 2) "Obama understands that if, only by the law of averages, there is a decent chance of a major attack on the United States during his presidency And, if that attack happens, any change in policy, no matter how incidental to the facts of the case, will be fodder for critics to blame him for the attack." 3) According to a former Bush adviser, the former President left a meeting with the president-elect "thinking that President Obama understood at an intellectual level [the threat of terrorism] but you don't really understand at a gut level until you're in that seat."

3. With 37 governors races on the ballot in 2010, both national party committees are raising record sums of money to finance their efforts across the country. The Republican Governors Association brought in $30 million in 2009 and netted $25 million to spend this year while the Democratic Governors Association raised $23 million and ended 2009 with $17.5 million on hand. Both sides' sums were record hauls indicative of the historic challenge of the massive number of races and the raised stakes as the decennial redistricting process looms in 2011. Unlike their congressional campaign counterparts, the RGA and the DGA are allowed to accept contributions of unlimited size from individuals, making it easier to collect the vast sums of cash needed to prosecute campaigns in vast -- and vastly expensive -- states like California, Texas, Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio among others.

4. The dirty little secret in House Republican circles was that Rep. Henry Brown, who announced his retirement from South Carolina's 1st district on Monday, was in deep political danger and his decision to step aside has almost certainly strengthened the party's chances of holding onto the Charleston-area seat. Brown barely beat Food Lion heiress Linda Ketner (D) in 2008 despite the strong Republican tilt of the district because he refused to actively campaign even as Ketner spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on ads hammering him. The news that Ketner, a self funder, is considering a bid in the now-open seat gives Democrats a glimmer of hope for a takeover but the Republican bench is deep in the state with a number of well known names pondering candidacies. There seemed to be general agreement in South Carolina that Carroll "Tumpy" Campbell III, the son of the late Gov. Carroll Campbell won't be the nominee despite having been in the primary against Brown for months. But, another progeny of South Carolina Republican royalty -- Paul Thurmond, son of the late Sen. Strom Thurmond -- is far more highly regarded and could be a frontrunner if he makes the race. Former Rep. Tommy Hartnett is also considering a run and would be formidable.

5. Former representative Richard Pombo (R) will run for the open seat being abandoned by Rep. George Radanovich (R) in California's Central Valley, creating a contested primary fight that is sure to draw national attention. Pombo held the 11th district from 1992 to 2006 but was unable to overcome massive spending by national environmental groups who had made him their prime target due to his actions as chairman of the House Resources Committee. Pombo, who is expected to announce today that he will run today, joins state Sen. Jeff Denham, who has already won Radanovich's endorsement, and former Fresno mayor Jim Patterson in the Republican primary. Expect groups like the League of Conservation Voters and Defenders of Wildlife -- among others -- to ramp up once again to beat Pombo although in a Republican primary being attacked from the environmental community could actually bolster his candidacy. Democrats are hoping that a nasty and contentious primary might give them an opening to steal this seat but its demographics -- Sen. John McCain carried it by ten points in 2008 -- gives Republicans a leg up.

6. Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney (R) will make two stops in Iowa -- Des Moines and Ames -- as he tours the country this spring in support of his new book "No Apology: The Case for American Greatness." Romney's book, which is being cast by supporters as a blueprint for the direction he would take the country, will push him back into the national spotlight and likely reinforce his status as a frontrunner for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012. Romney, unlike some of his potential rivals like former Alaska governor Sarah Palin and former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, has worked aggressively to cement his status in the lead pack of the presidential race -- traveling the country in support of Republican candidates in 2009 and keeping in close touch with his political team from the 2008 campaign. According to the Boston Globe, Romney campaigned for 29 candidates in 2009; on the final day of last year, Romney sent an email to his list advocating for the Senate candidacy of state Sen. Scott Brown who will face off against state Attorney General Martha Coakley (D) in a Jan. 19 special election.

7. Speaking of Brown, he won another high-profile endorsement on Monday -- from old number 38 himself Curt Schilling, the former hurler for the Boston Red Sox. Schilling, who himself was rumored as a potential Republican candidate in the special election to replace the late Sen. Ted Kennedy, wrote that Brown "is going to provide this state with the once in a lifetime chance to change this country forever" on his "38 Pitches" blog. In addition to offering his endorsement for Brown, Schilling offered his feelings about the health care bill currently wending its way through Congress; "Our Government is dead set on passing health care legislation the people have made clear we don't want," wrote Schilling. "Hell they don't even know what it contains but they're sure as hell going to try and pass it anyway." Need to know whether Schilling's endorsement matters? Just check out our handy-dandy Fix endorsement hierarchy; Schilling is a celebrity endorser, likely to draw some positive press for Brown but not to sway any significant chunk of voters in what is a very uphill race for the Republican.

8. Connecticut (a.k.a. the best state in the union) is the staging ground for two terrific races in 2010 -- Sen. Chris Dodd's attempt to overcome his lagging poll numbers and win a sixth term and the open seat race to replace retiring Gov. Jodi Rell (R). At the epicenter of those twin fights is Colleen Flanagan, the Connecticut Democratic party communications director who got the profile treatment in the Hartford Courant on Monday. Flanagan, who cut her teeth working in Dodd's Senate office and his failed presidential bid and moved on to work for North Carolina Sen. Kay Hagan's campaign in 2008, is a Connecticut native whose tenacity -- Republicans almost certainly call it something else -- has won her the moniker "attack husky." (She refers to herself by said nickname on her Twitter page.) Gotta love Nutmeg State politics!

9. Florida Gov. Charlie Crist (R) continues to bring on a series of political operatives to try to right his struggling Senate primary campaign. The latest hire is Amanda Henneberg who left her position as a spokeswoman for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) to serve as press secretary for Crist's race against former state House speaker Marco Rubio. Henneberg, like Crist communications director Andrea Saul, spent time on Sen. John McCain's (Ariz.) 2008 presidential campaign -- overseeing the surrogate television and radio operation. Crist's recent hires and more aggressive approach to the upcoming primary fight suggests he has finally realized the seriousness of the challenge posed by Rubio who has become a national conservative darling in recent months. While Rubio has momentum on his side, the late date of Florida's primary -- August 24 -- gives the governor plenty of time to regain his footing and win the nomination.

10. "Washington Sketch" artist Dana Milbank spent the morning chilling -- literally -- in an attempt to bring an end to the Internet and, in so doing, save newspapers. Um, OK.

By Chris Cillizza  |  January 5, 2010; 6:33 AM ET
Categories:  Morning Fix  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Abdulmutallab attempted attack forces Obama to multitask
Next: Is the Massachusetts Senate race getting closer?

Comments

kwoods2:

There's a big abortion protest in Houston next Monday, January 18th (FYI).

Posted by: JakeD | January 6, 2010 2:12 PM | Report abuse

Back on topic:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, piqued with White House pressure to accept the Senate health reform bill, threw a rare rhetorical elbow at President Barack Obama Tuesday, questioning his commitment to his 2008 campaign promises.

A leadership aide said it was no accident.

Pelosi emerged from a meeting with her leadership team and committee chairs in the Capitol to face an aggressive throng of reporters who immediately hit her with C-SPAN’s request that she permit closed-door final talks on the bill to be televised.

A reporter reminded the San Francisco Democrat that in 2008, then-candidate Obama opined that all such negotiations be open to C-SPAN cameras.

“There are a number of things he was for on the campaign trail,” quipped Pelosi, who has no intention of making the deliberations public.

People familiar with Pelosi's thinking wasted little time in explaining precisely what she meant by a “number of things” – saying it reflected weeks of simmering tension on health care between two Democratic power players who have functioned largely in lock-step during Obama’s first year in office.

Senior House Democratic leadership aides say Pelosi was pointedly referring to Obama’s ’08 pledge not to raise taxes on the middle class, which she interprets to include a tax on so-called “Cadillac” health care plans that offer lavish benefit packages to many union members.

The House aides, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Pelosi has been miffed with Obama’s tilt toward the Senate plan and his expectation the House will simply go along with the Senate bill out of political necessity.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31180.html

Posted by: JakeD | January 5, 2010 8:55 PM | Report abuse

"10. "Washington Sketch" artist Dana Milbank spent the morning chilling -- literally -- in an attempt to bring an end to the Internet and, in so doing, save newspapers. Um, OK."

This blog is exhibit 1 in just why Newspapers, and the internet blogosphere, are both doomed to collapse.

The blog is so full of bile, vituperation, and angry untruths that what little real discussion goes on is buried in the garbage. Chris C does give good starting points for discussion, but there are far too many CB'ers out there who have nothing particular to say and intend to make sure that only they get to say anything at all. It slowly drives out anyone who chooses to think about what is being offerred and tries to find different points of view to offer. Eventually the bad coinage will drive the good off to private work groups, which, unfortunately, tend to get unipolar far too quickly. Political discourse on the net dies quickly, and with it one justification for the net in the first place.

News Papers are dying for something of the same reason. There only so many column inches per paper, and too many of them have to be used to generate income to pay the freight of publishing the newspaper, in advertising. There just doesn't seem to be a way, THAT MANAGEMENT CAN FIGURE OUT ON ITS OWN, to make revenues match needs.

There HAS BEEN a way, since the late seventies, to do it all and then some, but its inventor can't get the attention of the people who would prifit by buying it. believe me, because I have been yelling "Hey! Fellahs!" for twenty years and haven't gotten even a polite request to explain myself.

Newspapers OUGHT to be highly profitable concerns, in much greater profusion than now, but they won't be as long as Newspaper Publishers insist on doing it THEIR way.

Demonstratably, they DON'T knopw what they are doing, but that doesn't seem to open their minds.

A solution IS for sale.

The Price is actually quite reasonable.

Posted by: ceflynline | January 5, 2010 8:00 PM | Report abuse

"In his speech to the Planned Parenthood Action Fund in July of 2008, President Obama stated that in his mind 'reproductive care is essential care, basic care, so it is at the center, the heart of the [health care] plan that I propose.' When asked for clarification later, an Obama spokesman said that 'reproductive care included abortion.'"

Posted by: kwoods2 | January 5, 2010 6:44 PM | Report abuse

Hey, sorry, I had a long drive home from work.
to your questions:

1) I think on a prior thread, you agreed that [1 million abortions] was too many, right?
A) In a perfect world I think 1 is too many. However, the fact that the Yankees are again world champs proves that this world is far from perfect.

2) How many pregnant women would die in back-alley abortions?
A) I have no idea, and neither does anyone else.
3) Which # is bigger?
A) I'm sure there are more abortions than back ally deaths.
4) 4,611 death certificates were "faked" [in 1960]?
A) Is this a question?
5) Can you at least admit that YOUR LANGUAGE is inflammatory to those of us who think that EVERY HUMAN BEING is created in the image of God, precious and worthy of protection?
A) I think if both sides are honest, each can find the language of the other side to be inflammatory. My position is by its definition, offensive to you. And while i don't have a problem with your opposition to abortion, It is very inflammatory to call anyone a murderer, or that you don't care if they die.
I really think we need to get past the inflammatory language and listen to each others points without presumptions about their motivations. I hope that was a satisfactory answer.

Posted by: elijah24 | January 5, 2010 6:26 PM | Report abuse

Don't you all realize that they put the abortion issue up front to confuse you to what they are realy trying to push past us. They know this subject is very explosive and it will distract from the big picture. Once they magicly seem to solve that issue they think people will start to accept the bill. They are dead wrong. These people never heard what the people were saying. They put themselfs and their interests above what the majority of the people want. They put their party above whats best for america and for that they will not have a job next year.

Posted by: rainman2 | January 5, 2010 6:24 PM | Report abuse

Don't you all realize that they put the abortion issue up front to confuse you to what they are realy trying to push past us. They know this subject is very explosive and it will distract from the big picture. Once they magicly seem to solve that issue they think people will start to accept the bill. They are dead wrong. These people never heard what the people were saying. They put themselfs and their interests above what the majority of the people want. They put their party above whats best for america and for that they will not have a job next year.

Posted by: rainman2 | January 5, 2010 6:22 PM | Report abuse

The present occupant in the White House appointed health-care policy advisor Ezekiel Emanuel who wrote "Principles for Allocation of Scarce Medical Interventions." which was published Jan. 31, 2009 in the British medical journal Lancet, 11 days after the inauguration.

Then on March 19, Emanuel was appointed to the Federal Coordinating Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research.

His article stated:

"When implemented, the complete lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated." This may be justified by public opinion, since "broad consensus favours adolescents over very young infants, and young adults over very elderly people."

Posted by: kwoods2 | January 5, 2010 6:18 PM | Report abuse

Heath care doesn't need to be fixed have as much as the senate and congress. Once you fix that problem the rest will be easy.

Posted by: rainman2 | January 5, 2010 6:13 PM | Report abuse

He appointed John Holdren "Science Czar"

From the Science Czar's 1977 book "Ecoscience"

Page 837: Compulsory abortions would be legal
"Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society."

Page 786-7: The government could control women’s reproduction by either sterilizing them or implanting mandatory long-term birth control
Involuntary fertility control
"The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control. The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births."

Posted by: kwoods2 | January 5, 2010 5:50 PM | Report abuse

The present occupant in the White House voted "against extending a health care program to cover pregnant women and their unborn children"

He stated, "I have consistently advocated for reproductive choice and will make preserving women's rights under Roe v. Wade a priority as President."

He promised Planned Parenthood in July 2007 that his "first act" as President would be to sign the Freedom of Extermination Act which bill he co-sponsored which is a bill that would invalidate all state and federal regulations on extermination, and end all restrictions on government extermination funding inclusive of this hideous procedure:

"Dr. Haskell went in with forceps and grabbed the baby's legs and pulled them down into the birth canal. Then he delivered the baby's body and the arms;everything but the head. The doctor kept the head right inside the uterus. The baby's little fingers were clasping and unclasping, and his little feet were kicking. Then the doctor stuck the scissors in the back of his head, and the baby's arms jerked out, like a startle reaction, like a flinch, like a baby does when he thinks he is going to fall....The doctor opened up the scissors, stuck a high-powered suction tube into the opening, and sucked the baby's brains out. Now the baby went completely limp. He cut the umbilical cord and delivered the placenta. He threw the baby in a pan, along with the placenta and the instruments he had just used."

Posted by: kwoods2 | January 5, 2010 5:46 PM | Report abuse

ceflynline, Your January 5, 2010 4:01 PM posting is disingenuous and dishonest on all accounts. It is about genocide and started with Margaret Sanger with genocide who founded an organization to exterminate the blacks and people of color, and her statements have already been posted on this very forum.

Planned Parenthood's agenda has been posted on this very forum wherein their killing field clinics are locate in primarily black districts.

The present occupant in the White House has voted four times to deny babies born alive after botched exterminations. He is more extreme than any member in Congress.

After the ban was upheld on the below described hideous procedure in the court case Gonzales vs. Carhart also known as Gonzales vs. Planned Parenthood, which Planned Parenthood fought for, argued for, and lost all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, where they lost in the high court, the present occupant in the White House stated: "I am extremely concerned that [Gonzales v. Carhart] will embolden state legislatures to enact further measures to restrict a woman's right to choose, and that the conservative Supreme Court justices will look for other opportunities to erode Roe v. Wade."

Posted by: kwoods2 | January 5, 2010 5:38 PM | Report abuse

Even if they do pass the mess they put together it will be ruled as unconstitutional because of all the padding and favors they gave each other to get enough votes. There are so many things in here that have knowing to do with health care, cost reduction or controling the insurance companys. They have a section on bio fuel research, Vending machine labeling, building a bridge in alaska. They also struck a deal with nebraska so they don't have to pay into medicare. Most of these clowns don't even read what they vote on. I don't care if they even straighten their act up and start doing things right. As far as I'm concerned they are voted out as soon as possiable. If you don't listen to the people first and your party second and above all put the countrys best interest in each decision you make then you are out of here.

Posted by: rainman2 | January 5, 2010 5:31 PM | Report abuse

Even if they do pass the mess they put together it will be ruled as unconstitutional because of all the padding and favors they gave each other to get enough votes. There are so many things in here that have knowing to do with health care, cost reduction or controling the insurance companys. They have a section on bio fuel research, Vending machine labeling, building a bridge in alaska. They also struck a deal with nebraska so they don't have to pay into medicare. Most of these clowns don't even read what they vote on. I don't care if they even straighten their act up and start doing things right. As far as I'm concerned they are voted out as soon as possiable. If you don't listen to the people first and your party second and above all put the countrys best interest in each decision you make then you are out of here.

Posted by: rainman2 | January 5, 2010 5:31 PM | Report abuse

I almost feel sorry for Obama now - HOW MANY TIMES HAS HE TRIED TO GET THIS TERRORISM THING RIGHT NOW ???


It is almost painful to watch.


It's like he keeps on going out there, trying to get it right, and it never works.


It's almost two weeks ago - it was last year, two holidays ago - AND OBAMA IS STILL TRYING TO GET HIS STANCE ON TERRORISM RIGHT.

Is anyone listening anymore?


We get it, you are soft on terrorism, and you are now trying to pretend that you just didn't release a bunch of terrorists to Yemen because you were about to lose a motion in court.


It is just too painful to watch.

Obama - YOU HAVE TO LISTEN - Presidential Statements on Terrorism are not something you try again, and again, and again until you get it right - and then you don't get it right, and you try it again, and again and again.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 5, 2010 5:00 PM | Report abuse

elijah24:

It's completely up to you as to whether you want to continue the debate.

Posted by: JakeD | January 5, 2010 4:42 PM | Report abuse

Here they are (one last time):

1) I think on a prior thread, you agreed that [1 million abortions] was too many, right?

2) How many pregnant women would die in back-alley abortions?

3) Which # is bigger?

4) 4,611 death certificates were "faked" [in 1960]?

5) Can you at least admit that YOUR LANGUAGE is inflammatory to those of us who think that EVERY HUMAN BEING is created in the image of God, precious and worthy of protection?

Posted by: JakeD | January 5, 2010 4:05 PM | Report abuse

"3. None of us want to commit genocide against anyone. I think abortion is a tragedy, and that the numbers can and should be reduced, but not at the expense of the women who genuinely need this service. Posted by: elijah24"

It isdn't about genocide, and it isn't even very much about reducing the number of abortions, since by permitting the Government to fund SOME abortions, it would give the Government the camel's nose to require any"controversial, experimental, questionable or of dubious nature treatment" to be done only after appropriate tests and appropriate counseling. Project Rachel says that given a chance to do such appropriate tests and counseling it could greatly reduce the number of abortions. By giving a little ground on funding abortions that will occur whether or not the Government funds them, we might get Obama's goal of abortion that is legal, but very rarely done. (By the way, a medical procedure to remove a still born fetus from a mothers womb is still, medically, an abortion. Should the Government refuse to pay for THAT particular, (rare) procedure to protect the life of the mother?)

The principle isn't ending abortion, the principle is forcing "pro life" values on "pro choice" mothers. Both terms are in quotes because neither actually means what it seems to mean, and they aren't actually mutually exclusive or particularly antithetical. It isn't about abortion, it IS about winning.

Posted by: ceflynline | January 5, 2010 4:01 PM | Report abuse

elijah24:

Apology accepted. I believe my analogy is spot on. Since you asked, I really think you don't care if all the unborn are killed. In fact, most of your side think we already have "too many" people on planet Earth. But, regardless of what you say, I am NOT "prioritizing" just from the other side. I want BOTH the mother and child to live; for instance, laparotomy or C-section deliveries can be used to save the mother's life if she is truly in danger of dying due to a full-term pregnancy, rather than killing the baby. Adoption should always be the preferred alternative. If the mother chooses to kill her own baby, however, she should face the death penalty herself. I feel the same way about "real" murderers, and you don't accuse me of "prioritizing" human life in that regard.

That's what I am talking about re: YOUR LANGUAGE being inflammatory. Care to answer my questions to you now?

Posted by: JakeD | January 5, 2010 3:59 PM | Report abuse

elijah24 wrote,
Kwoods, you think I want to make money on it? How do you think would do that?
_________________________________________________
What I think you meant was "Who do you think would do that?"

Obviously, Planned Parenthood makes money on genocide of the unborn, and it is for them that this death care bill was created.

Posted by: kwoods2 | January 5, 2010 3:53 PM | Report abuse

" "Why, if they hate the blog so much, do they go through so much trouble to keep participating?" If you learn the answer to a question like this, you will have gained rare insight into human psychology. " Actually, into pathology, incoherent rage, and obssession. I would guess rejection by women figures into one case, as well. Posted by: drindl"

It is basically the CB mentality that causes some people to decide that, given the opportunity and relative anonymity, they can convince themselves that they matter because people have to wade through their dreck or go around them, or go elsewhere to communicate. Eventually much of the CB bands became unusable in the midwest because a few trolls with power amps could dominate most of the available channels with nonstop noise.

With CB dead, but the free internet rising, it was obvious that they would migrate here. The cost of getting up and running is negligible, there is no way to makle it too costly for them to do so, and the general response of the rest of the world is to give up and go else where.

Because the pathology that leads trolls to try to dominate communications channels also leads other trolls to try to muck up the information universe with deliberate misinformation in everything from cooperate encyclopedias to articles on virtually anything that are actually either just deliberately wrong or are insidiously, and some times dangerously not right.

It is a product, again, of a relatively inexpensive media and the appearance of anonymity. Basically, if their mothers knew what they were up to, they might not be such obnoxious tots.

Posted by: ceflynline | January 5, 2010 3:43 PM | Report abuse

We've got to have abortion on demand so guys can be dogs.

Posted by: Obaama | January 5, 2010 3:32 PM | Report abuse

AntonioSosa

That is about right - it's all about creating a power structure - getting more people dependent on the government.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 5, 2010 3:30 PM | Report abuse

AntonioSosa

That is about right - it's all about creating a power structure - getting more people dependent on the government.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 5, 2010 3:22 PM | Report abuse

Obama and his comrades can't discuss Obamacare in the open. How can they discuss a SCAM at the expense of the American people in front of the American people?

As you may have heard, Robert Creamer, a CONVICTED FELON and Obama’s ACORN associate, outlined the guidelines for the Obamacare SCAM in his 2007 book, “Stand Up Straight: How Progressives Can Win.”

Creamer wrote:

* “We must create a national consensus that the health care system is in crisis.”
* “Our messaging program over the next two years should focus heavily on reducing the credibility of the health insurance industry.”
* “We need not agree in advance on the components of a plan, but we must foster a process that can ultimately yield consensus.”

As per Creamer’s book, their main objective is NOT improving health care. It’s to increase their power through the “democratization of wealth” (socialism/Marxim) as per the teachings of Saul Alinsky.
http://the-classic-liberal.com/progressive-agend a-for-structural-change-stand-up-straight/

Posted by: AntonioSosa | January 5, 2010 3:15 PM | Report abuse

Sorry Jake, that was supposed to say “it is NOW your turn to drop the hyperbole”.

Kwoods, you think I want to make money on it? How do you think would do that?

Posted by: elijah24 | January 5, 2010 2:55 PM | Report abuse

elijah24,
The World Health Organization, Health and Human Services, and the Centers for Disease Control in addition to the many doctors and a former Surgeon General of the United States all say that you posts are "suspect".

What I think is that you want to make money on genocide of the unborn.

Posted by: kwoods2 | January 5, 2010 2:50 PM | Report abuse

No, the WHO, and CDC are fine. Doctors Koop and Pisani are the ones who are suspect.
Jake, it is not your turn to put away the hyperbole. 1. Comparing anyone to the Nazi's cuts the legs out from under the rest of your argument. It's ignorant and offensive.
2. Hitler wasn't prioritizing one group over another. He just wanted an excuse to destroy certain groups. Do you really think I want to kill all the unborn?
3. I do believe every life should be protected, but I live in the real world where it isn't always possible. You may not say it, but you are doing the same thing I'm doing, but from the other side. You prioritize the life of the unborn over the living. And that’s fine. I go the other way.

Posted by: elijah24 | January 5, 2010 2:43 PM | Report abuse

Again, which is where I commenced this thread, according to the extreme leftist liberals, this entire health care overhaul should be done for one reason and one reason only which is to mandate that taxpayers pay for genocide of the unborn, and if the health care bill doesn't do that, they don't want any health care reform for Americans.


"But her group's position, she said, is that 'we would rather have no health care (overhaul) than a vicious abortion law.'" (Terry O'Neill of the National Organization for Women)

"The compromise was denounced by advocates of abortion rights, including the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the National Organization for Women, Naral Pro-Choice America and the National Women’s Law Center.

'We have no choice but to oppose the Senate bill,' said Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood."

Posted by: kwoods2 | January 5, 2010 2:42 PM | Report abuse

elijah24 wrote:

Kwoods, how much credibility would Audrey F. Manley have with you? or any representative of Planned Parenthood?
________________________________________________
I quoted Dr. Alan Guttmacher of Planned Parenthood with whom Surgeon General Dr. Koop, Dr. John Hand, Dr. John Grady, Dr. Bernard Pisani, Dr. Joseph DiZoglio all concur concerning woman's medical reproduction needs, and you called them "suspect" "sources". You cannot accept clear statistics that both sides know are true from the World Health Organization (WHO), the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). and the US Department of Health and Human Services.

I quoted Carol Everett who worked with Planned Parenthood who stated that Planned Parenthood distributed defective condoms and birth control pills just so that girls would get pregnant and come to them for unborn genocide.

I quoted a director of Planned Parenthood Abby Johnson who stated the money for that organization was in "abortion".

I quoted Planned Parenthood statistics that "42.7% of the abortions are performed on minorities" which is three times more than on whites as a percentage of their respective populations.

I quoted Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood who stated: "We have no choice but to oppose the Senate bill,".

Yet, you want to sound credible and want me to believe you in disagreeing with all of them.

Posted by: kwoods2 | January 5, 2010 2:37 PM | Report abuse

elijah24:

The Nazis "prioritized" the lives of Germans over that of Jews. In our own history, plantation owners "prioritized" the lives of whites over that of blacks. You give lip service to the unborn child being "valuable" but, in the end, it doesn't matter. Can you at least admit that YOUR LANGUAGE is inflammatory to those of us who think that EVERY HUMAN BEING is created in the image of God, precious and worthy of protection?

Posted by: JakeD | January 5, 2010 2:26 PM | Report abuse

elijah24 wrote:

Your sources are suspect because they represent a certain agenda.
____________________________________________________
Your are so much on the leftist fringe that you call the World Health Organization (WHO), the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). and the US Department of Health and Human Services "suspect" "sources".

Your post describes fully who you really are and how far you will go to require taxpayers to be mandated to pay for genocide of the unborn.

Posted by: kwoods2 | January 5, 2010 2:20 PM | Report abuse


..... NEWS FLASH ........

White House agrees with 37thandOStreet !!!

White House spokesman Gibbs today says sending more Gitmo terrorists to Yemen is "not a good idea."


We finally have a break through !!!


If only Obama would listen more to 37thandOStreet !!!

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 5, 2010 2:20 PM | Report abuse

God loves the unborn "ones".

Posted by: JakeD | January 5, 2010 2:19 PM | Report abuse

You're welcome.

Posted by: JakeD | January 5, 2010 2:15 PM | Report abuse

Kwoods, how much credibility would Audrey F. Manley have with you? or any representative of Planned Parenthood? Your sources are suspect because they represent a certain agenda.
Jake, my views are not about NARAL or PP, or any other organization. They are about prioritizing the life of the living over that of the unborn. Both are valuable, but given the choice, I choose the one who already has family and friends who love her. I knew a woman who couldn’t abort the result of her rape for religious reasons. I hope her religion was right, because otherwise she is just gone. Statistics don't matter. 1 million to one odds don't carry much weight when you love the one. And all of the ones have someone who loves them.

Posted by: elijah24 | January 5, 2010 2:15 PM | Report abuse

anyone who's not obssessed should move on... oh, i see they have.

Posted by: drindl | January 5, 2010 2:14 PM | Report abuse

JakeD wrote:

kwoods2:

"In NARAL (the acronym for the then-National Association for the Reform of
Abortion Laws) we generally emphasize the drama of the individual case, not the mass statistics, but when we spoke of the latter it was always 5,000 to 10,000 deaths each year'. I confess that I knew the figures were totally false ... But in the `morality' of our revolution, it was a useful figure, widely accepted, so why go out of our way to correct it with honest statistics?" Dr. Bernard Nathanson, one of the founders of NARAL and once the director of the busiest abortion clinic in the Western world. (From Aborting America, Doubleday, 1979.)
______________________________________________
JakeD,
Thanks for the above info. I saved it.

Here is the death of a thirteen-year-old from the so called legal genocide of the unborn which left two deaths in the family.

Thirteen-year-old Dawndalea Ravenell underwent a 21-week pre-birth murder on January 24, 1985 by pre-birth murderer Allen Kline at Eastern Women's Center. The $450 fee was paid for by her 15-year-old boyfriend.

Dawn awoke five minutes into the killing and began to vomit and choke, wherein, a breathing tube was put in her mouth.

"Dawn was left unattended in a recovery room where she apparently awoke, choked on the airway, and suffered a heart attack. This left her in a coma."

Dawn was comatose for three weeks before she died on February 11, 1985.

"In an interview, her mother said, 'They told me I had to come in [to the hospital] right away, that Dawn is here at that hospital fighting for her life. ...I was going - how could she be fighting for her life- she left this morning, going to school, looking healthy, never been sick. ...while I was in the hospital sitting there. ...I had to keep my hand over my mouth to keep from screaming in horror. I could not believe this was happening. I said this is a bad dream, I'm going to wake up and this would not have happened."

When a judge asked Allen Kline if Dawn's age had captured his attention he responded, "Oh no. I've done 13-year-olds before. When they're 10, maybe I'll notice."

Court testimony also showed that Dr. Kline and the staff altered and fabricated medical records in an attempt to conceal mistakes.
New York Daily News 12/11/90
New York Post 12/11/90, 8/7/91, 8/15/94

Posted by: kwoods2 | January 5, 2010 2:05 PM | Report abuse

"According to the World Health Organization (WHO), 500 women die daily from abortion.

The most common causes of maternal death from abortion in the US are hemorrhage, infection, pulmonary embolism (blood clot to the lung), complications of anesthesia, and cardiomyopathy, according to a report issued July 1991 by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC).

Other physical complications may occur, including: shock, brain damage, septicemia, cerebral embolism (blood clot to the brain), cardiac embolism (blood clot to the heart), etc.

Abortions account for 4.7% of all maternal deaths in pregnancy in the US, the report, published by the US Department of Health and Human Services, indicates.
Even of those who survive abortion, women have been left comatose, paralyzed or sterile.

Further, the CDC report states that the routine vital statistics utilized in gathering information for the study, severely 'understate maternal mortality ratios.' Death certificates, for example, often do not specify 'abortion' as a cause of death, but generalize, citing secondary complications such as 'hemorrhage,' 'infection,' etc., which occurred as a direct result of abortion."

Posted by: kwoods2 | January 5, 2010 1:59 PM | Report abuse

elijah24 wrote:

As for how many women would die if abortion was made "murder" legally,

___________________________________________________________________________
"'...the reasons for therapeutic abortion (to save the mother's life) have disappeared' -Dr. John Hand, (ibid.)"

""'Thousands of physicians across the United States, each of whom has cared for hundreds of mothers and infants during their respective years of practice, state firmly they have never in those thousands of pregnancies seen a single instance where the life of the infant had to be sacrificed to save the mother, nor have they seen a situation where a mother has been lost for failure of a physician to perform an abortion ... abortion is never necessary, because competent physicians, using the latest medical and surgical techniques, can preserve the lives of both the mother and the child' - Dr. John Grady (Family Review, Spring, 1981)."

"Medical reasons for provoking abortion are just about non-existent. In fact, no basis on pure medical grounds ever really stands up' - Dr. Bernard Pisani, Family Review, 1981"

Posted by: kwoods2 | January 5, 2010 1:55 PM | Report abuse

elijah24 wrote:

As for how many women would die if abortion was made "murder" legally,

___________________________________________________________________________
While he was United States Surgeon General, Dr. C. Everett Koop stated publicly that in his thirty-eight years as a pediatric surgeon, he was never aware of a single situation in which a preborn child’s life had to be taken in order to save the life of the mother. He said the use of this argument to justify abortion in general was a "smoke screen."

Dr. Landrum Shettles says that less than 1 percent of all abortions are performed to save the mother’s life."

"Dr. Joseph DiZoglio questioned a number of doctors who did abortions (including one who did 15-20,000): '...all said they have never performed an abortion that was absolutely for medical reasons ... Never means never - not one case'"

Posted by: kwoods2 | January 5, 2010 1:51 PM | Report abuse

kwoods2:

"In NARAL (the acronym for the then-National Association for the Reform of
Abortion Laws) we generally emphasize the drama of the individual case, not the mass statistics, but when we spoke of the latter it was always 5,000 to 10,000 deaths each year'. I confess that I knew the figures were totally false ... But in the `morality' of our revolution, it was a useful figure, widely accepted, so why go out of our way to correct it with honest statistics?" Dr. Bernard Nathanson, one of the founders of NARAL and once the director of the busiest abortion clinic in the Western world. (From Aborting America, Doubleday, 1979.)

Posted by: JakeD | January 5, 2010 1:47 PM | Report abuse

elijah24 wrote:

As for how many women would die if abortion was made "murder" legally,
________________________________________________
"Due to significant medical advances, the danger of pregnancy to the mother has declined considerably since 1967. Yet even at that time Dr. Alan Guttmacher of Planned Parenthood acknowledged, 'Today it is possible for almost any patient to be brought through pregnancy alive, unless she suffers from a fatal illness such as cancer or leukemia, and, if so, abortion would be unlikely to prolong, much less save, life.'"

Posted by: kwoods2 | January 5, 2010 1:46 PM | Report abuse

37thand0street: "WOW I almost appear sane next to this set of posters."

Priceless!

Posted by: nodebris | January 5, 2010 1:43 PM | Report abuse

drindl:

Child Protective Services and polices don't currently hold guns to the heads of every parent of a BORN child. Let's stop with the hyperbole, huh?

Posted by: JakeD | January 5, 2010 1:42 PM | Report abuse

drindl wrote:

The point is, her main effort was to bring CONTRACEPTION to women. And that is the main effort of Planned Parenthood as well.
__________________________________________________
The former Planned Parenthood director Abby Johnson, on November 2, 2009, after eight years working at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Bryan, Texas, including two years as its director,

"According to Johnson, the non-profit was struggling under the weight of a tough economy, and changing it’s business model from one that pushed prevention, to one that focused on abortion."

"The money wasn’t in family planning, the money wasn’t in prevention, the money was in abortion and so I had a problem with that,' said Johnson."


Carol Everett used to run a chain of abortion clinics in Texas. Ms Everett
"describes a plan to 'sell abortions' by using sex education to 'break down' the natural modesty of children, separate them from their parents and their values, and establish the abortion provider as the sex expert in young people’s lives.

'So they would turn to us when we would give them a low-dose birth control pill they would get pregnant on, or a defective condom,' she says."

Carol Everett "We deliberately gave them a low-dose pill with a high rate of pregnancy, knowing they wouldn't take the pill properly. They would be sexually active once a week before the pill, five to seven times a week after the pill. They'd get pregnant, and when they came back, abortion, abortion, abortion. *You cannot separate family planning from abortion. The entire agenda of Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provider in the nation, is to get our young people sexually active younger and younger.* We actually wanted to get three to five abortions out of each teenager between the ages of 13 and 18. It's a planned agenda."

Posted by: kwoods2 | January 5, 2010 1:40 PM | Report abuse

37th writes:
"WOW I almost appear sane next to this set of posters."

LOL! Almost, dude, almost ...

Posted by: mnteng | January 5, 2010 1:39 PM | Report abuse

"Human life begins with a fertilized egg (medically called the embryoblast), so not quite during sex. As you probably guessed by now, I believe the State should protect said human life from that moment on."

With a gun to a woman's head, undoubtedly. Small government at work.

Posted by: drindl | January 5, 2010 1:34 PM | Report abuse

elijah24:

Human life begins with a fertilized egg (medically called the embryoblast), so not quite during sex. As you probably guessed by now, I believe the State should protect said human life from that moment on.

As for how many women would die if abortion was made "murder" legally, we can actually make good estimates based on past history, and it's far less than 10,000. While statistics on illegal practices are not precise, we still do have some reliable information, including death certificates. Here are the actual pre-Roe statistics / sources.

In 1960, the total number of all U.S. pregnancy-related deaths (from abortions as well as from childbirth and all other problems during pregnancy) was 1,579.

(from the Vital Statistics of the United States, Vol. II, Mortality, Part A. 1960-77).

To believe the pro-abortion argument that upwards of 5,000 illegal abortion deaths occurred per year in that decade, one must believe that the 1,579 officially-recorded
maternal deaths were all caused by illegal abortions and an additional 3,421 deaths were also caused by illegal abortions and the death certificates were falsified to attribute the death to something such as "heart attack" or "cirrhosis of the liver," and that no woman died from any other pregnancy-related cause.

But in fact, for 1960, Vital Statistics
attributes only 289 of those 1,579 deaths to abortion (legal and illegal). So, 4,611 death certificates were "faked"? I don't think so.

In 1968, Vital Statistics reports only 859 total pregnancy-related deaths; 133 of which are attributed to abortion. By 1972, the year before the Supreme Court legalized abortion-on-demand nationwide, there were a reported 24 deaths from legal abortions and 39 from illegal abortions.

(from the Centers for Disease Control Abortion Surveillance, Annual Summary,
1978).

That seems much more reasonable to me. Next up: number of pre-Roe abortions.

Posted by: JakeD | January 5, 2010 1:32 PM | Report abuse

What Good Is Health Care Reform, When a...

SECRET MULTI-AGENCY FED PROGRAM SILENTLY TORTURES, IMPAIRS, SUBJUGATES U.S. CITIZENS WITH MICROWAVE/LASER RADIATION WEAPONS AND LOCAL VIGILANTISM, SAYS VETERAN JOURNALIST

== Did This Rogue Program Target, Incite Fort Hood Shooter? ==


* Thousands of Americans, deemed to be "dissidents" or undesirables, targeted by Bush legacy program for debilitating microwave/laser assault, held hostage in their own homes to fed-supported vigilante "community policing" stalking units, equipped with warrantless GPS devices, who vandalize and terrorize as local police look the other way.

* "Directed energy weapons," portable units and a nationwide installation employing cell towers and satellites, induce weakness, exhaustion, head and body aches, physical and neurological impairment, strokes, aneurysms, cancer -- and many victims do not realize what is making them sick.

* Regional Homeland Security- administered "fusion centers" reportedly serve as command centers for covert electromagnetic radiation attacks, pervasive surveillance, financial sabotage of those identified as "dissidents," "trouble-makers" or slandered as threats to society.

* Use of microwave weaponry to torture and impair political opponents recently confirmed by deposed Honduras President Manuel Zelaya.

* Pleas for justice, to local police and FBI, go unanswered -- as do demands for a Department of Justice Civil Rights Division investigation and congressional hearings.

"These are crimes against humanity and the Constitution, being perpetrated under the cover of national security and 'safe streets' by multiple federal and local agencies and commands -- an American genocide hiding in plain sight, enabled by the naivete of those who think 'it can't happen here.'" -- Victor Livingston, former reporter for WTXF-TV Philadelphia, Phila. Bulletin, N.Y. Daily News, St. Petersburg Times; producer/host, MSG Network Sports Business Report; columnist, NowPublic.com/scrivener.

JOURNO TO FBI: TAKE CONTROL OF DHS-RUN FUSION CENTERS
TO STOP SILENT MICROWAVE / LASER ATTACKS ON U.S. CITIZENS

Poynter.org ("Reporting" section) "U.S. Silently Tortures..."
OR http://nowpublic.com/world/u-s-silently-tortures-americans-cell-tower-microwaves
http://nowpublic.com/world/gestapo-usa-govt-funded-vigilante-network-terrorizes-america OR NowPublic.com/scrivener RE: "U.S. SILENTLY..." / "GESTAPO USA"

Posted by: scrivener50 | January 5, 2010 1:30 PM | Report abuse

WOW I almost appear sane next to this set of posters.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 5, 2010 1:29 PM | Report abuse

drindl wrote:

Margaret Sanger remains a controversial figure.
_______________________________________________
Is that why Planned Parenthood gives awards in her honor?

Posted by: kwoods2 | January 5, 2010 1:25 PM | Report abuse

No. And I also don't think 10,000 unborn will be saved either. I don't think we can know how many would go underground. It's not like they will sign in to the ally when they get there.
I also don't think life begins at the moment of sex. I don't know at what point it does begin (and neither does anybody else) but I think the possibility of life should be given its due respect.
I look at abortion the same way I looked at the possibility of taking a life in Iraq: does the cost of taking a life (there) or ending a pregnancy, outweigh what is being saved?
I don't think that question can be answered with a blanket policy. I think each case must stand alone.

Posted by: elijah24 | January 5, 2010 1:18 PM | Report abuse

It's not legally "murder" though, which is the point that "elijah24" was making about abortion. Keep up, drindl!

Posted by: JakeD | January 5, 2010 1:14 PM | Report abuse

to the "criminal murderous practice of denying people who are ill with health care because they are ill (aka pre-existing condition)"

this is not hyperbole. it's what insurance companies DO. it's called 'recission.'

Posted by: drindl | January 5, 2010 1:09 PM | Report abuse

Well, "RealNews1" (at 12:20 PM) also referred to the "criminal murderous practice of denying people who are ill with health care because they are ill (aka pre-existing condition)", so maybe we can just ignore the hyperbole on BOTH sides and stick to legitimate debate points : )

I'm sure there are some things we could agree on. For instance, do you think that more than 10,000 women would die per year?

Posted by: JakeD | January 5, 2010 12:59 PM | Report abuse

No you didn't, Jake. My comment about those buzz-words was for muawiyah. From what I can see, you have debated the issue fairly, and I think Drindle should recognize that too.
As I said before, I get where you are comming from. You feel that a prohibition would stop most abortions, and that for the ones who did go underground and die as a result, it's a small price to pay for the ones that are saved. I get it. I just disagree. I think women will go underground in mass. and many will die. I do think a rape victim should be allowed to take the action she deems necessary to get on with her life. Same with incest. And when the life or long-term health of the mother is at risk, that should also be the mothers decision. I dont think you and I will come together on those positions. would you not agree though, that there are solutions that both sides can work together on? Like sex-ed, and fixing our foster-system?

Posted by: elijah24 | January 5, 2010 12:52 PM | Report abuse

These people aren't here for a discussion, elijah. It's a hobby horse rally.

Posted by: nodebris | January 5, 2010 12:50 PM | Report abuse

You're right, BB. It just becomes a platform for strangers who aren't involved in a family's medical decisions to pontificate about their right to stick their noses in other people's business.

Posted by: drindl | January 5, 2010 12:50 PM | Report abuse

elijah24:

Did I use the word "murder" or "genocide" below? As for rape victims, my answer is no abortion, and if they want to offer the baby for adoption, the State takes care of that for them. We don't stone the mother just because she was raped anymore either.

Keep in mind also that I was not just referring to the number of abortions here in America, but abortions around the world that our tax dollars pay for currently. If you want to just talk about here in America, however, there have been OVER 50 million abortions since 1973, so the average has been 1.39 million per year. After reaching a high of 1.6 million in 1990, the number has been declining but still way too many. I think on a prior thread, you agreed that was too many, right?

How many pregnant women would die in back-alley abortions? The highest estimate I've seen is 5,000 per year prior to Roe v. Wade, and medical advances to save those misguided women have advanced in the past 40 years. More than 5,000 currently die every year from car accidents, but we aren't getting rid of cars. Nonetheless, double that estimate to 10,000 per year. Which # is bigger? Even if you "value" the unborn child as only 3/5 person ...

Posted by: JakeD | January 5, 2010 12:41 PM | Report abuse

By the time people are arguing about Planned Parenthood planning a black genocide, I declare the thread jacked.

If there was any debate about funding for abortions in the bill, I'd consider participating. Nelson's language vs. the Stupak amendment, that's an interesting issue. Regarding the morality of abortion? Pass.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | January 5, 2010 12:39 PM | Report abuse

Of course you won't see this on the state run WAPO but C-Span has called Obama out on his promise to allow the public to watch health reform negotiations as they happen.


This is just one of numerous outright lies from Obama, his administration and the congress. So many in fact and to the outrage of most Americans...that it is hard to believe that the Dems will still be relevant after the 2010 elections

Barack Obama Jan 31 08:

"That's what I will do in bringing all parties together, not negotiating behind closed doors, but bringing all parties together, and broadcasting those negotiations on C-SPAN so that the American people can see what the choices are,"

The head of C-SPAN has implored Congress to open up the last leg of health care reform negotiations to the public, as top Democrats lay plans to hash out the final product among themselves.

C-SPAN CEO Brian Lamb wrote to leaders in the House and Senate Dec. 30 urging them to open "all important negotiations, including any conference committee meetings," to televised coverage on his network.

"The C-SPAN networks will commit the necessary resources to covering all of the sessions LIVE and in their entirety," he wrote.

Posted by: Straightline | January 5, 2010 12:38 PM | Report abuse

Too bad that the Catholic Church in Massachusetts won't endorse Brown too ; )

Posted by: JakeD | January 5, 2010 12:30 PM | Report abuse

Using inflammatory language does nothing but fire up people who already agree with you. Throwing around words likes "murder" and "genocide" don’t enhance your argument to those who disagree with your assessment. All it does is cheapen those words when they really apply.
I think the number of women who are pushed underground will be more than a few. And I think the drop in the number of abortions that take place, if there is one, will be negligible. And still nobody has answered what to do for pregnant rape victims.

Posted by: elijah24 | January 5, 2010 12:29 PM | Report abuse

"The truth is that if they want to go to those lengths, I can't do much other than keep banning them."

That's why an "Ignore Poster" feature would be so beneficial. If a moonbat howls in the woods and no one hears it, does the moonbat really howl?

Posted by: nodebris | January 5, 2010 12:28 PM | Report abuse

'I am ok putting a prohibition on 1 million abortions per year, even if that means a few women who feel they have no choice are pushed underground and die.'

That you don't care whether women die has been obvious from the start. That you feel a blob of protoplasm is more important than a woman is also obvious.

Posted by: drindl | January 5, 2010 12:27 PM | Report abuse

FairlingtonBlade:

Perhaps you missed the reference by Mr. Cillizza himself in Topic #1 to Sen. Nelson (D-NE)? If not the "abortion issue" what was he referring to?

Posted by: JakeD | January 5, 2010 12:26 PM | Report abuse

Michael Steeele is truly comical:

In an interview last night with Sean Hannity, RNC Chairman Michael Steele expressed doubts that Republicans can take back a majority in the House of Representatives this year -- and if they do, that they're ready to lead.

Asked by Hannity for predictions in the 2010 elections, Steele said the GOP will have "nice pickups in the House."

Enough to take the majority? "Not this year," Steele said.

"The question we need to ask ourselves is, if we do that, are we ready?" he went on. "I don't know."

Posted by: drindl | January 5, 2010 12:24 PM | Report abuse

FairlingtonBlad ~ you'd have a valid point on the abortion angle EXCEPT FOR THE FACT that the word appears in the first paragraph of the first post and is inescapably one of the causes of conflict between the House and Senate.

So, you don't have a valid point. The debate really is about government paid abortion or no more insurance payments for abortion.

In short, it's an outcome not originally imagined by the proponents of a government takeover.

Frankly, I want to discuss the position of the federal bureaucrat who is going to be working for one of those standard of care committees who looks over all the videos on sigmoidoscopic examinations ~

Posted by: muawiyah | January 5, 2010 12:23 PM | Report abuse

Where's the outrage over the Democrats jamming this health care bill through under a veil of secrecy?

Transparency? YOU LIE!

Posted by: clandestinetomcat | January 5, 2010 12:21 PM | Report abuse

The health care proposal by Dems/Obama shows how right-wing the Democrats are, which means they govern for the benefit of Big corporations (Big Phrama, Big insurance, etc.) and NOT for the benefit of American people AND what utter complete lunatics Republicans are whom are even more right-wing than the Democrats. After all the so called health care bill proposed by Democrats/Obama in Dec/2009:

1- Does NOT bring about Universal health care, that is everyone having access to same health care due to the Government being entitled to Tax us. It supposedly brings it to 94% of people, that means 18Mill Americans will continue to die or go bankrupt due to lack of health care.

2- Does not even end such a criminal murderous practice of denying people who are ill with health care because they are ill (aka pre-existing condition), an act that is so EVIL that in any European country you would go to Jail for it. To be exact the Dems proposed health care reform supposedly ends this practice, but get this, NOT until 2014! This means at least an additional 200,000 Americans will DIE due to this EVIL pre-existing condition in US health care system, where they would be living if they lived in any European nation or any developed nation (1).

3- Does not bring health care costs in US in line with rest of the developed World, which means cut health care costs to 9% of GDP as it is in all European countries, Canada, etc. whom all have Universal Nationalized Health Care.

4- It forces people to buy expensive health care from the same for profit health insurance companies that have brought us our current bankrupting health care system.

5- And in the Senate version, to pay for this farce of health care reform, they replaced the Tax on those making more than $0.5Mill with Tax on health care of Union members, can you believe that!
etc. etc.

So the only answer to health care is to do what all European countries, Canada, Australia, Japan, Israel (the favorite country of right-wingers) etc. developed nations have ALL done about health care which is to operate health care on a Universal Nationalized basis which means couple of key things:

1- Every one gets the same health care for their obligation to pay Taxes,
2- Health care is pretty much operated on a not-for-profit bass,
3- Salary of people working in the Universal Nationalized health care system are set by our Government, as they are
set by the Governments of UK, Canada, Japan, etc. and in fact as our Government sets the salaries of a 4 Start General,
an Admiral, a Federal Judge, etc.

U can read much more here:
www.anoox.com/blog/uhc

Posted by: RealNews1 | January 5, 2010 12:20 PM | Report abuse

Which Party is responsible for Plantation Anacostia?

Posted by: allenridge | January 5, 2010 11:46 AM

-------

Allenridge, I am hoping this means you will be lobbying your Republican allies for DC's statehood. I know that most Democrats support statehood for DC, but most Republicans are against because they prefer to "provide oversight" over DC's elected officials. That way they can change budgets and laws passed with the support of the overwhelming majority of people in DC. Overseers know much about plantations.

Posted by: prairiepopulist | January 5, 2010 12:20 PM | Report abuse

And i respect that Jake. I disagree, but I get where you are comming from, and I respect it.

Posted by: elijah24 | January 5, 2010 12:18 PM | Report abuse

elijah24 ~ hmm. I'd imagine some made similar arguments regarding "the Final Solution" ~ whether it was better to shoot down Jews in the streets where it'd be so messy and bother the neighbors or in a camp with a nice clean well-lit furnace operation.

You see how you get off the target when you start talking about the where and how of murder? It's still murder either way. We'd like to make it punishable no matter how it's down, who it's done by, or where it's done.

Civilized people can demand no less than equality of opportunity FOR MURDERERS!

Posted by: muawiyah | January 5, 2010 12:17 PM | Report abuse

As there has been a complete abortion thread jack, I'll avoid getting involved. The Hyde amendment stands and is due to be expanded. My guess is the final language will be closer to that of the Stupak amendment.

@CC - Presumably Zouk & CF8 will return under new names. Not to worry. Zouk is simply a troll who can't resist revealing his hand. If the new Fox returns and behaves, more power to him. If not, ban without comment.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | January 5, 2010 12:16 PM | Report abuse

I am ok putting a prohibition on 1 million abortions per year, even if that means a few women who feel they have no choice are pushed underground and die.

Posted by: JakeD | January 5, 2010 12:16 PM | Report abuse

Would you like for me to make a case against guns, by telling in detail what it looks like when a bullet passes through a persons head? Or against a war of choice by describing what a teenager looks like when a Vehicle Born Improvised Explosive Device (VBIED) goes off 5 feed away from him? I could. Would it make you reconsider?
Why would a woman go through 6+ months of pregnancy only to decide in the home-stretch to call it off, unless there is a medical reason?

BTW when I say "our position" I am talking about the Pro-choice position". It isn't just mine. Still, i don't represent everyone who shares that position with me.

Posted by: elijah24 | January 5, 2010 12:15 PM | Report abuse

Quoting Neil Diamond?

Posted by: margaretmeyers | January 5, 2010 12:13 PM | Report abuse

I am.

Posted by: JakeD | January 5, 2010 12:09 PM | Report abuse

Thomas Edison didn’t like Jews. Should we stop using light-bulbs? I'm glad so few get pregnant due to rape. I know 2 of them, and I wouldn’t wish their pain on anybody. One aborted, the other didn't. Both stand by their decisions, and respect each-others.
I don't want anybody to have an abortion. I think we need better sex-education to cut down on unplanned pregnancies. And this health-care plan will reduce the number of abortions. If a woman knows that her medical costs and those that her baby could bring are covered, there is reason for her to go through with child-birth. We can put many programs in place that would help reduce the number, and I am all for them. Putting a prohibition on it, however, would do nothing but push the women who feel they have no choice underground. Instead of a doctor, the procedure will be performed by a criminal. Instead of a clean well-lit hospital room, it will be in a dark dirty ally, where a coat hanger will replace a scalpel. and more people will die. I'm not ok with that.

Posted by: elijah24 | January 5, 2010 12:07 PM | Report abuse

elijah24 wrote:
"Why was the anti-choice position never given its day in congress?"
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
If you don't know, genocide of the unborn was given its day in congress, and this by my Blue Dog Representative who co-sponsored the bill that banned the following heinous procedure.

"Dr. Haskell went in with forceps and grabbed the baby's legs and pulled them down into the birth canal. Then he delivered the baby's body and the arms;everything but the head. The doctor kept the head right inside the uterus. The baby's little fingers were clasping and unclasping, and his little feet were kicking. Then the doctor stuck the scissors in the back of his head, and the baby's arms jerked out, like a startle reaction, like a flinch, like a baby does when he thinks he is going to fall....The doctor opened up the scissors, stuck a high-powered suction tube into the opening, and sucked the baby's brains out. Now the baby went completely limp. He cut the umbilical cord and delivered the placenta. He threw the baby in a pan, along with the placenta and the instruments he had just used."

The above is taken directly from the majority opinion U.S. Supreme Court transcript in Gonzales vs. Carhart also known as Gonzales vs. Planned Parenthood which Planned Parenthood fought for, argued for, and lost all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, where they lost in the U.S. Supreme Court.

The majority court upheld the ban on this horrific procedure and ruled that the killing of this baby was the taking of a life and said that the states had a compelling interest to protect life.

This case made a huge crack in Roe.

Nevertheless, the above mentioned Carhart, from a major news source on December 4 of last month:

"Carhart has also begun performing some abortions 'past 24 weeks,' he said in an interview, and is prepared to perform them still later..."

"Carhart declined to provide specifics on how late in a pregnancy he would be willing to perform an abortion."

"Carhart's fee schedule lists prices for abortions up to 22 weeks and six days (at that point, $2,100 in cash or $2,163 on a credit card), but notes that abortions after 23 weeks are available... and that abortions after the 27th week may take four days."

This is what Planned Parenthood is fighting so hard to force taxpayers to be mandated to pay.

Posted by: kwoods2 | January 5, 2010 12:05 PM | Report abuse

drindl ~ half the unborn babies in this country killed every day are women who will never have control over their own bodies.

If I were you I'd end that sort of shameless BS.

Now, regarding Sanger, her main effort was to kill black babies in the womb. The stench lingers.

Posted by: muawiyah | January 5, 2010 12:05 PM | Report abuse

"koolkat ....which Party has been running deep blue one-party DC for the last several decades......DECADES?

I thought you were a lot smarter than that but the more you write the more I'm wrong...."

When Republicans offer something better, the voters will make the switch. But Republicans don't care about DC or other big cities, despite your impressive protestations to the contrary. It's much easier to bash big cities than to actually work to improve them.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | January 5, 2010 12:05 PM | Report abuse

Hey WAPO, you suck up: C-Span has sent a letter to Pelosi/Reid et al asking that they honor Obama's promise for open, televised health care negotiations.

Posted by: JAH3 | January 5, 2010 12:03 PM | Report abuse

What are the Democrats thinking? The reform they are pushing through will be in dire need of amendment from the day it is enacted. Do they think the mainstream media is so docile it will just run story after story about their "victory" and never mention the serious downside of reform?

Posted by: VirginiaIndependent | January 5, 2010 12:03 PM | Report abuse

About 90,000 people per year are killed in the United States because their physicians prescribed the wrong drug or dosage, or it was administered in the wrong dosage by a pharmacist or nurse.

I'd imagine the vast majority of those people were Democrats, as were the physicians, nurses and pharmacists making the mistakes.

Virtually no one in America is denied medical assistance simply because they don't have insurance.

Rush Limbaugh, as an example, has no insurance. The homeless street people in DC don't either ~ yet they receive treatment.

Now why is that?

Could it be we have a law that says they gots ta treat ya!

Posted by: muawiyah | January 5, 2010 12:02 PM | Report abuse

"Now, tell me why taxpayers should be required to be mandated to pay for baby genocide.

Posted by: kwoods2"

Because they want to?

Posted by: DDAWD | January 5, 2010 12:01 PM | Report abuse

"Go ahead . . . finalize this socialist healthcare manifesto and let's see where the country goes from there."

I agree, Bondosan -- a toast to better health for everyone.

Margaret Sanger remains a controversial figure. So do a lot of people from days long past. The point is, her main effort was to bring CONTRACEPTION to women. And that is the main effort of Planned Parenthood as well.

Those who are trying to bring down PP are not those chiefly who are against abortion, but those who are against CONTRACEPTION and women having control of their own bodies. These are generally men with feelings [or actual] inadequacy, who want women to remain powerless and under men's control.

There is no point in engaging them, as they will not have a coherent or honest discussion.

Posted by: drindl | January 5, 2010 12:00 PM | Report abuse

It is time to get this done. The current insurance company abuses demand it. Over 45 million are without insurance. Many are cut off when they get seriously ill (rescission). And those with good insurance will see their premiums double in eight to ten years.

Meanwhile, the insurance companies continue to use pre-existing conditions to exclude people, along with very high deductible policies and low caps on coverage.

All this is done so the corporations and their rich CEOs can make billions and have hundreds of millions to use to fight reform.

Enact reform and then add to it. Otherwise individuals and the government will be bankrupted by greed in the health care and insurance industries.

Posted by: tinyjab40 | January 5, 2010 11:59 AM | Report abuse

2006 Flashback: Pelosi Says Dems Will Have Most Honest & Ethnical Congress

"The Democrats intend to lead the most honest, most open and most ethical congress in history."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/01/0 5/2006_flashback_pelosi_says_dems_will_have_most _honest__ethnical_congress.html

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The Wicked Witch of DC lied again!

Posted by: theaz | January 5, 2010 11:57 AM | Report abuse

elijah -- let it go. You cannot shout reason, as kwoods is proving.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | January 5, 2010 11:57 AM | Report abuse

rnc chairmans says the right 'screwed up for several decades' that's an admission of inherent corruption...though the party is also overpopulated with vicious jerks. the recent health care arguments are interesting, 45000 people a year die from lack of medical care and the right considers it their biggest p.r. opportunity in a decade.

Posted by: e9999999 | January 5, 2010 11:55 AM | Report abuse

Bondosan:

Hopefully, it is not finalized today or anytime before the Special Election on the 19th. After that, there's little hope to stopping it though.

Posted by: JakeD | January 5, 2010 11:54 AM | Report abuse

elijah24 wrote:

"Kwoods, it has become abundantly clear that you have no idea what you are talking about, and that when you are cornered, you will simply change the subject or alter what I have said into something you can refute. Frankly, you are beneath my level of debate. That should not be taken as arrogance on my part. My level is not that high."
_________________________________________________
You brought up rape, and before you change the subject or alter what I have said into something you think you can refute even though statistics prove otherwise, let's have the truth concerning rape and genocide of the unborn.

How can trauma on a baby answer the trauma on a rape victim?

Furthermore, "1% of all abortions occur because of rape or incest."

"Consider the following statistics for conceptions from rape in major cities: Chicago - no cases in 9 years; Buffalo - no cases in 30 years; St. Paul - no cases in 10 years (3500 rapes); Philadelphia - no cases in 19 1/2 years. One survey polled doctors who had delivered a total of 19,000 births, but not one of these doctors had ever delivered a baby conceived as a result of rape. (U.S. Congressional Record, 7/25/83; Handbook on Abortion, by Dr. and Mrs. J. C. Wilke, pp 38,39)."

Now, tell me why taxpayers should be required to be mandated to pay for baby genocide.

Posted by: kwoods2 | January 5, 2010 11:52 AM | Report abuse

"Go ahead . . . finalize this socialist healthcare manifesto and let's see where the country goes from there."

Sounds good to me!

Posted by: Bondosan | January 5, 2010 11:48 AM | Report abuse

Obama can plead all he wants for a sensible bill and it won't make a dent. There's a few key Senators who have been crowned with executive powers when the minority party refuses to participate. One of them is an (I) and the other ones are (D)s who happen to collect massive amount of health insurer lobbying dollars.

If only we have a responsible minority party and the impression of a few people willing to step up the turncoats power would be greatly diluted.

Posted by: theobserver4 | January 5, 2010 11:46 AM | Report abuse

"If you self-righteous self-serving intolerant liberal/progressive fascists really wanted to help the country and humanity you would be more out spoken about your Party shutting down their modern-day plantations in our deep blue one-party cities......

Start with Plantation Anacosita.......sad

Where's the real Social Justice?"

Your party couldn't care less about places like Anacostia, numbnutz. No one here is buying the garbage your selling. The few Republicans that do exist in DC are more liberal than most Democrats in most parts of the country.

What a sad little joke you are.

Posted by: koolkat_1960
=============================
koolkat ....which Party has been running deep blue one-party DC for the last several decades......DECADES?

I thought you were a lot smarter than that but the more you write the more I'm wrong....

Which Party is responsible for Plantation Anacostia?

Posted by: allenridge | January 5, 2010 11:46 AM | Report abuse

More truth to share concerning Margaret Sanger the founder of Planned Parenthood.

"We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don't want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population. and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." Margaret Sanger's December 19, 1939 letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble, 255 Adams Street, Milton, Massachusetts.

Posted by: kwoods2 | January 5, 2010 11:44 AM | Report abuse

Wow, allenridge, you think Grayson really thinks Satan wrote the forward to Cheney's book?

Dang, boy, you're funny.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | January 5, 2010 11:43 AM | Report abuse

mrgaret is absolutely right. To block healthcare legislation was a top down Republican fiat, coming from the insurance industry that bankrolls much of their membership. To say they wanted to be involved is ludicrous. They want it jto be Obama's 'Waterloo' -- to ruin him, rmember?

koolkat, I wouuld guess the current crop of unwashed masses is coming from a rabid anti-abortion site. it all speaks with a single voice.

Posted by: drindl | January 5, 2010 11:43 AM | Report abuse

Kwoods, it has become abundantly clear that you have no idea what you are talking about, and that when you are cornered, you will simply change the subject or alter what I have said into something you can refute. Frankly, you are beneath my level of debate. That should not be taken as arrogance on my part. My level is not that high.

Posted by: elijah24 | January 5, 2010 11:42 AM | Report abuse

"Grayson (Democrat) trikes Again
Posted by Tom Bevan |

Alan Grayson played a large part in 2009 being termed "The Year of the Political Jackass." It seems he's picked up right where he left off, wondering aloud on MSNBC whether Satan was writing the foreward to Dick Cheney's book.

That's actually a somewhat humorous line, and far more amusing than Grayson's previous dig against Cheney when he said he has trouble listening to what [Vice President Dick Cheney] says sometimes because of the blood that drips from his teeth while he's talking."

Even less funny is the fact that Grayson is one of those rare birds: a petulant demagogue who dishes out the nastiest rhetoric imaginable but who turns into a goose-stepping fascist when someone has the temerity to criticize him..."

.......How TRUE the Democrat Party is morphing into the new Nazi party, maybe they should just use "Master Party" instead......afterall the Democrat Party was founded by a Slave Owner and.......yep they STILL run modern-day plantations........like Plantation Anacostia.......

Where am I wrong? koolkat

Posted by: allenridge | January 5, 2010 11:40 AM | Report abuse

elijah24 wrote:
"Kwoods, how did this become about me?
Like I said, if your cause is just, why not let it stand on it's own? Why not bring a prohibition amendment? You had 6 years with the house, senate and an evangelical president. Why was the anti-choice position never given its day in congress?
________________________________________________
If you don't want to be the spokesman for Planned Parenthood, don't post "...and our position!"

Why are you afraid of the truth being shared?

"Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger spoke at a 1926 Ku Klux Klan rally, used the 'n' word in reference to blacks, and deemed Aboriginal Australians 'the lowest known species of the human family, just a step higher than the chimpanzee in brain development.' 'The Jewish people and Italian families,' she testified to the New York legislature, “who are filling the insane asylums, who are filling the hospitals and filling our feeble-minded institutions, these are the ones the tax payers have to pay for the upkeep of, and they are increasing the budget of the State, the enormous expense of the State is increasing because of the multiplication of the unfit in this country and in the State.'”

Posted by: kwoods2 | January 5, 2010 11:39 AM | Report abuse

reason5 @1100, there are several Republicans who are interested in HRC and were involved -- until it became apparent that their party would not tolerate their involvement. There are scared Republicans who want to address issues like 40 million Americans w/o coverage and HC's growing % of our GDP. Their party will not let them participate.

Better to "make trouble for the other side" than actually address the welfare of the electorate.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | January 5, 2010 11:33 AM | Report abuse

elijah24:

I think that scrivener50 would disagree about nobody wanting to "sensor" him, you, allenridge, etc.

Posted by: JakeD | January 5, 2010 11:33 AM | Report abuse

elijah24 wrote:
"...and our position!"

When you stated the above, it was fair to assume you "represent Planned Parenthood".

I understand that distorting facts is the only pattern of behavior you and your ilk can bring to the table in a discussion, but thanks to the Internet, your "distortions" are very very easily disproved.

I agree that "you probably shouldn't be the group’s spokesperson."

I do have to thank you, however, for bringing up additional "real genocide is taking place in Africa" and against all blacks and people of color what with Planned Parenthood's genocide on all people of color.

"According to Planned Parenthood, 42.7% of the abortions are performed on minorities, which is three times more than on whites as a percentage of their respective populations. Department of Health and Human Services reports African American women made up 43% of abortions and account for approximately 11% of the female population. In many predominantly African American communities, abortions out pace live births 3 to 1. Another indicator is the fact that the overwhelming majority of Planned Parenthood's clinics are located in or near minority neighborhoods."

Posted by: kwoods2 | January 5, 2010 11:33 AM | Report abuse

Kwoods, how did this become about me? As a person who is pro-choice, do I suddenly represent all pro-choicers? If so, do you represent all anti-choicers? I'll meet you on those grounds if you really want too, but if you look behind you I'll bet there are a bunch of people telling you "don't do it!"
Like I said, if your cause is just, why not let it stand on it's own? Why not bring a prohibition amendment? You had 6 years with the house, senate and an evangelical president. Why was the anti-choice position never given its day in congress?

Posted by: elijah24 | January 5, 2010 11:33 AM | Report abuse

"it was you who is the one smearing and mocking"

You're right, "bro" -- I am indeed mocking a dozen well-known posters who suddenly show up en masse on The Fix. Still too gutless to admit how that happened?

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | January 5, 2010 11:32 AM | Report abuse

Go ahead . . . finalize this socialist healthcare manifesto and let's see where the country goes from there.

Posted by: rplat | January 5, 2010 11:30 AM | Report abuse

mnteng:

While it's true that pneumonia is an infection and not a direct result of exposure to cold: the song "Baby, It's Cold Outside" popularized the notion of going out there, catching pneumonia and dying.

Posted by: JakeD | January 5, 2010 11:30 AM | Report abuse

"If you self-righteous self-serving intolerant liberal/progressive fascists really wanted to help the country and humanity you would be more out spoken about your Party shutting down their modern-day plantations in our deep blue one-party cities......

Start with Plantation Anacosita.......sad

Where's the real Social Justice?"

Your party couldn't care less about places like Anacostia, numbnutz. No one here is buying the garbage your selling. The few Republicans that do exist in DC are more liberal than most Democrats in most parts of the country.

What a sad little joke you are.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | January 5, 2010 11:29 AM | Report abuse

allenridge, do you not understand you sound like a six-year-old kid?

People like allenridge love to post nonsense like "MSM wolfpack press" but get upset when someone comments on it. What a thin-skinned little baby. Typical rightwingnut.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 |
==============================
koolkat.......you don't get it bro......go back and read the comments again....it was you who is the one smearing and mocking and advocating Fascists measures.......look in the mirror

And koolkat........when is your hero's and Party going to shut down Planation Anacostia? very sad........I guess those folks are invisible from the elites in NW Georgetown........

Posted by: allenridge | January 5, 2010 11:27 AM | Report abuse

allenridge, do you not understand you sound like a six-year-old kid?

People like allenridge love to post nonsense like "MSM wolfpack press" but get upset when someone comments on it. What a thin-skinned little baby. Typical rightwingnut.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | January 5, 2010 11:24 AM | Report abuse

"Yeah ......things would be so much easier if liberal/progressive fascists like koolkat could just censor us away.........wouldn't koolkat........Glad you support our Constitutions First Amendment........sad creature"

Please numbnutz, I couldn't care less where you post your gibberish. Have I ever tried to stop you from posting your nonsense on the story-specific boards, even though it's a flood of repetitive crap? My comment was only that all of you suddenly showed up here. Now how did that happen? It wasn't just a coincidence.

So fess up, ace. Who gave you your marching orders? We know you people only move in lockstep.

Posted by: koolkat_1960
================================

If you self-righteous self-serving intolerant liberal/progressive fascists really wanted to help the country and humanity you would be more out spoken about your Party shutting down their modern-day plantations in our deep blue one-party cities......

Start with Plantation Anacosita.......sad

Where's the real Social Justice?

Posted by: allenridge | January 5, 2010 11:23 AM | Report abuse

drindl, check out how often allenridge uses the expression "MSM wolfpack press" on the story-specific boards. Close to 100 percent of his thousands of posts use this phrase.

You think the Founding Fathers intended the First Amendment to protect spam?

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | January 5, 2010 11:21 AM | Report abuse

koolkat -- yeah, it's always this way when there's a link to Drudge or something -- a whole raft of nuts who will stay on here all day, then the mindless herd will move on to some other short attention span theatre.

Posted by: drindl | January 5,
==============================

Yeah you liberal/progressive fascists should see if you can get Obama and the Democrats to create a law to shut down Drudge............ the NAZIS did the same thing in the mid 1930's...........

Posted by: allenridge | January 5, 2010 11:19 AM | Report abuse

elijah24 wrote:

"THAT IS NOT WHAT I WROTE!!! DONT EDIT MY WORDS AND THEN PUT QUOTES AROUND IT LIKE ITS WHAT I SAID! THIS IS WHY NOBODY TRUSTS YOU AND YOUR ILK!"

________________________________________________
Since your words cannot be trusted, let's hear it from the New York Times concerning just how actively Planned Parenthood has been involved in requiring taxpayers to be mandated to pay for genocide of the unborn.

"The compromise was denounced by advocates of abortion rights, including the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the National Organization for Women, Naral Pro-Choice America and the National Women’s Law Center.

'We have no choice but to oppose the Senate bill,' said Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood."

Posted by: kwoods2 | January 5, 2010 11:19 AM | Report abuse

Nobody wants to sensor you, allenridge. We just want you to debate facts, and cut the name-calling, and the over-the-top accusations of our side. Maybe admitting that your side isn't perfect either, would go a long way.

Posted by: elijah24 | January 5, 2010 11:18 AM | Report abuse

"Yeah ......things would be so much easier if liberal/progressive fascists like koolkat could just censor us away.........wouldn't koolkat........Glad you support our Constitutions First Amendment........sad creature"

Please numbnutz, I couldn't care less where you post your gibberish. Have I ever tried to stop you from posting your nonsense on the story-specific boards, even though it's a flood of repetitive crap? My comment was only that all of you suddenly showed up here. Now how did that happen? It wasn't just a coincidence.

So fess up, ace. Who gave you your marching orders? We know you people only move in lockstep.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | January 5, 2010 11:18 AM | Report abuse

You FASCIST Demo-Rats better brig this out into the light of day as that Marxist Obama promised!

Posted by: theaz | January 5, 2010 11:17 AM | Report abuse

koolkat -- yeah, it's always this way when there's a link to Drudge or something -- a whole raft of nuts who will stay on here all day, then the mindless herd will move on to some other short attention span theatre.

Posted by: drindl | January 5, 2010 11:17 AM | Report abuse

Drindl, that is not true that no Republicans came to the table on healthcare. Republicans came to the table on healthcare but their suggesstions were dismissed before the public fully heard them. For example, Tom Coburn (Okla.) & Richard Burr (NC) had alot of ideas concerning lowering costs of healthcare. They mainly centered around wellness and early detection, but those are capitalist suggesstions, therefore they were demonized. Jim DeMint had ideas to make the healthcare system more competitive, ensuring lower prices. However, his ideas dealth with the private markets and not a government ran healthcare, so his ideas were demonized as partisan and not acceptable. So yes, Republicans did come to the table but there were no chairs for them there.

=================================

It's a partisan bill........

No competition allowed by continuing to block insurance companies from selling across State lines.......our left-wing MSM wolfpack press never reported WHY that was an issue for the corrupt Democrats

No tort reform which would have saved 100's of billions of dollars over ten years........WHY? because vampire trial lawyers, like John$400 Edwards, like to sue the hell out of doctors and hospitals........sad but true

Posted by: allenridge | January 5, 2010 11:16 AM | Report abuse

" PLOT " That's a great word for what these S.O.B.'s are doing . HOW CAN WE SHOVE THIS WELFARE HEALTH CARE BILL DOWN THEIR THROATS ??? Then we can clear the way to have midnight votes and meetings to SHOVE 20 MILLION ILLEGAL ALIENS down America's throat !!!! This Gov. has become a Gov for the Gov. by the Gov. and the people be dammed !!! Wake up and vote !! Not for who someone tells you to vote for but someone you made up " YOUR " mind about !!!!

Posted by: catinhat83510496 | January 5, 2010 11:15 AM | Report abuse

Kwoods, I don't represent Planned Parenthood. I have never used their services. I won't claim to speak for them. I also won't address all pro-lifers, only the ones who are like you. If distortion of facts and the words of Pro-choicers is the only argument you can bring to the table, you probably shouldn't be the group’s spokesperson. You throw around words like "genocide" and "pro-life". Where is your self-righteous indignation when real genocide is taking place in Africa? Where is your pro-life position on issues like war, health-care, capital punishment, the environment, guns, and stem-cells? You aren't pro-life. You are pro-subjugation of women. You would force a rape victim to relive that rape every time she suffers morning sickness, and with every back pain or look in the mirror for 9 months. And you are so eager to force this burden on her that you would lie, exaggerate and distort facts and opinions to do it. YOU make real pro-lifers look crazy. If I were on your side of this debate, I would be furious at you.

Posted by: elijah24 | January 5, 2010 11:14 AM | Report abuse

Drindl, that is not true that no Republicans came to the table on healthcare. Republicans came to the table on healthcare but their suggesstions were dismissed before the public fully heard them. For example, Tom Coburn (Okla.) & Richard Burr (NC) had alot of ideas concerning lowering costs of healthcare. They mainly centered around wellness and early detection, but those are capitalist suggesstions, therefore they were demonized. Jim DeMint had ideas to make the healthcare system more competitive, ensuring lower prices. However, his ideas dealth with the private markets and not a government ran healthcare, so his ideas were demonized as partisan and not acceptable. So yes, Republicans did come to the table but there were no chairs for them there.

Posted by: reason5 | January 5, 2010 11:12 AM | Report abuse

Wow, a who's who of rightwingnuts from the story-specific boards has made its way over here. lmarkex, tupac goldstein, infantry11b, allenridge, dottydo, jerzy, procounsel, askgees...

amazing how they all show up today.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 |
==================================

Yeah ......things would be so much easier if liberal/progressive fascists like koolkat could just censor us away.........wouldn't koolkat........Glad you support our Constitutions First Amendment........sad creature

Posted by: allenridge | January 5, 2010 11:11 AM | Report abuse

mark_in_austin


You are buying into a line which simply is not true.


The poor are not using 2 trillion dollars worth of emergency room services.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 5, 2010 11:08 AM | Report abuse

C-SPAN has written a letter to both the Senate and House requesting that they open up the final Health Care Reform negotiations to the public via C-SPAN, as the President has promised!!!! Don't hold your breath. There's to many bribes to be past around to make a public show of how corrupt this process has been.

Posted by: Jimbo77 | January 5, 2010 11:07 AM | Report abuse

Wow, a who's who of rightwingnuts from the story-specific boards has made its way over here. lmarkex, tupac goldstein, infantry11b, allenridge, dottydo, jerzy, procounsel, askgees...

amazing how they all show up today.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | January 5, 2010 11:06 AM | Report abuse

I'm also glad to see that national Republicans seemed to have learned a lesson from NY-23. It seems they are staying out of the Ill. US Senate primary race. Mark Kirk is not the ideal candidate, nor is he conservative, but he is a moderate who can actually win in Ill. Either we support Kirk in the primary and GE, or we get a Durbin like liberal. Also, Kelly Ayotte should be backed in NH, as she is Sen. Gregg's favorite. The conservative efforts should definately go on Rubio in the Florida Senate race & Perry in the Texas Gov. race.

Posted by: reason5 | January 5, 2010 11:05 AM | Report abuse

"There are no Republicans supporting this healthcare legislation and they are not being invited to the table either."

they were invited -- they chose not to show up, not to participate and determined early on that their entire 'strategy' would be negativity, propaganda, and obstruction. And so it is.

Posted by: drindl | January 5, 2010 11:04 AM | Report abuse

THAT IS NOT WHAT I WROTE!!! DONT EDIT MY WORDS AND THEN PUT QUOTES AROUND IT LIKE ITS WHAT I SAID! THIS IS WHY NOBODY TRUSTS YOU AND YOUR ILK!

Posted by: elijah24 | January 5, 2010 11:03 AM | Report abuse

I suspect that the Democrats all went home for the Christmas break and figured out how much of a bribe it will take to make sure they vote for this disasterous bill. Since Nelson and others have already established their prices it is now up to the other Democrats to figure out what their votes are worth. Pelosi will of course make sure her husband's business will get a large piece of the bribe pie. Reid will need a lot to make sure he can buy his re-election. I suspect Murtha will have to take some to make up for cuts in defense budgets for companies in his district. My, my, so much planning to be made, so many bribes to be planned. Congress's work never seems to be done....

The history books will have to put an asterick next to the passage of this bill to make sure readers know that it was passed using illegal means much like baseball players' records obtained using illegal drugs.

Posted by: staterighter | January 5, 2010 11:03 AM | Report abuse

Democrats May Bypass Conference To Finish Health Bill
Today

C‑SPAN has sent a letter to House and Senate leaders asking that negotiations on the health care bill be open to cameras. News reports indicate that the leadership is considering bypassing a formal conference committee in resolving differences between House and Senate versions of the legislation. Identical bills must pass each chamber before a final bill can be sent to the President.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Better do it Demo-Rats!

Posted by: theaz | January 5, 2010 11:02 AM | Report abuse

Concerning the meeting between Obama & Democratic leaders. I have to say that Obama is the biggest hypocrite of them all! Downing the Bush administration for being partisan and calling himself bi-partisan. There are no Republicans supporting this healthcare legislation and they are not being invited to the table either. The Democrat's strategy now seems to be "it don't matter what, we need a political victory so let's pass something quick! Good, bad or indifferent for America doesn't matter, we need a political victory!" They want to pretend to care about the economy for the next year b/c election time is at the end of this year. I urge the Democrats to end this madness and start over at a later date when they have good viable legislation, not a political victory.

I am glad to see what is happening in Florida. National conservatives have put their weight in a fight they can win, both on a primary level and the GE. The Club has put their money behind Marco Rubio against Governor Crist. Crist would be a RINO in the US Senate and should be defeated in a state like Florida by Rubio. Rubio would beat Kendrick Meeks in a GE handily. Rubio is a true conservative who will make a positive difference for Florida & America. As a former House speaker for Florida under Gov. Jeb Bush, Rubio has the backing of national & state conservatives and moderates. Also, Rubio as a national conservative, will do wonders for the Republican party in Hispanic circles. If Rubio becomes the new US Senator of Florida, watch for his name to be on VP lists of Romney, Pawlenty and most of the Gop Presidential candidates.

Posted by: reason5 | January 5, 2010 11:00 AM | Report abuse

elijah24 wrote:

WOW!!! Thank you for admitting that yours and Planned Parenthoods "position" is "perversion".

It is true that Planned Parenthood has an obsession with the genocide of the unborn. It is 100% of the reason that organization, founded by Margaret Sanger, exists, and your ilk placed the language in Reid's bill that required taxpayers to be mandated to pay for the genocide of the unborn.

H.R. 32 was also written entirely for Planned Parenthood.

The Senate Democrats steam rolled over the public will and forced the bill through.

Every subject, every bill, every idea always comes back to the genocide of the unborn when Planned Parenthood is involved, and they have been actively involved in trying to force taxpayers to be required to be mandated to pay for genocide of the unborn.

To try to use important legislation to back-door your genocide of the unborn agenda through is dishonest and cheap.

Your point of view is not valid because there is no excuse for genocide of the unborn.

No woman "needs" to kill her baby.

Posted by: kwoods2 | January 5, 2010 10:58 AM | Report abuse

Another flaw in Brook's piece is the presentation of the Teabaggers as if they were a coherent movement, rather than a loose, negative ideological construction made up of quite disparate issues, which will fall apart under gravitational stress. Here's a good example of the fault lines already:

"On his radio show yesterday, Fox News personality Glenn Beck lampooned the birther movement, saying their claim that Obama is not an American citizen is the “dumbest thing I’ve ever heard.” Beck argued that birthers’ agitation is actually a “dream come true” for Obama because they are constantly “discrediting themselves” and making all conservatives look foolish. Conservative news website WorldNetDaily, which has led the birther charge, took offense to the way Beck “caricatured” their movement’s argument. While both Beck and WND both traffic in extreme anti-Obama fear mongering, the right-wing website nevertheless accused Beck of sounding “reminiscent” of “Obama’s apologists” in the media:

The ongoing dialogue then spun off into ridicule as Beck caricatured those who question the sitting president’s eligibility with straw-man arguments reminiscent of jibes made by Obama’s apologists in other news outlets. [...]

“Birthers,” however, reflect a far greater diversity of opinion than is assumed by Beck’s characterization. … While other top radio hosts, including Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Mark Levin and Lou Dobbs, have all said unequivocally and publicly that the Obama eligibility issue is legitimate and worthy, a few – including Beck and fellow Fox TV host Bill O’Reilly – have taken the position that the issue is, in O’Reilly’s words, “bogus.” Both Beck and O’Reilly cite the contemporaneous appearance of birth announcements in two Honolulu newspapers as prima facie evidence Obama was born in Hawaii and “birthers” are conspiracy nuts.

Beck is often at the forefront of right-wing conspiracy theories, but the completely baseless smear that Obama was not born in the U.S. seems to be a bridge too far, even for him.

Posted by: drindl | January 5, 2010 10:57 AM | Report abuse

"Democrats May Bypass Conference To Finish Health Bill
Today

C‑SPAN has sent a letter to House and Senate leaders asking that negotiations on the health care bill be open to cameras. News reports indicate that the leadership is considering bypassing a formal conference committee in resolving differences between House and Senate versions of the legislation. Identical bills must pass each chamber before a final bill can be sent to the President. "

......Glad the DEMOCRATS and the clueless Obama Administration are keeping their word about "transparency" in this new historic Administration (insert eye roll)

Glad our corrupt liberal/progressive MSM wolfpack press are holding their pals, the Dems, accountable (insert another eye roll)

Posted by: allenridge | January 5, 2010 10:56 AM | Report abuse

How's that transparency thing workin out for ya?

Posted by: Tupac_Goldstein | January 5, 2010 10:55 AM | Report abuse

mark_in_austin:
You are correct that the SB maintains the Hyde amendment restrictions. The House bill goes further in terms of requiring separate riders for abortion coverage.

http://dpc.senate.gov/dpcdoc-sen_health_care_bill.cfm

BTW, pneumonia is an infection and not a direct result of exposure to cold ...

Posted by: mnteng | January 5, 2010 10:54 AM | Report abuse

The wingnuts are flocking here today.

I wonder if it was Drudge or some other blog that sent them over here?

It's amazing to watch...they get handed their talking points in the morning and off they go:
Obama'sASocialistCommunistFascistHeBreaksEveryCampaignPromiseThe Country'sGoingBankruptTheTerroristsAreWinningHealthCareReformIsEvil etc., etc., etc.

I've never seen such a bunch of pathetic crybabies in my life.

Posted by: Bondosan | January 5, 2010 10:51 AM | Report abuse

URGENT TO: Team Obama
FROM: The Unjustly and Unconstitutionally Targeted
RE: DOMESTIC TERRORISM


When will POTUS end the government terror war against Americans?

GESTAPO USA:
FED-FUNDED VIGILANTE NETWORK TORTURES, TERRORIZES AMERICANS

See: http://Poynter.org -- "Reporting" section

OR

http://nowpublic.com/world/gestapo-usa-govt-funded-vigilante-network-terrorizes-america
http://nowpublic.com/world/u-s-silently-tortures-americans-cell-tower-microwaves
OR NowPublic.com/scrivener RE: "GESTAPO USA," "U.S. Silently..."

Posted by: scrivener50 | January 5, 2010 10:48 AM | Report abuse

The Brooks column was infuriating. He is one of the most disingenuous writers out there today. He has equated educated with Democratic positions and essentially laid the groundwork for saying that the Obama administration had better do something to make the Tea Party people happy. I have trouble believing that 41% have a favorable view of the Tea Party people.

As for these rants about Obama's partisanship. I guess it is easier to type with a straight face. Obama has reached out to Republicans on every major issues and gotten slapped down. I do hope the Health Care proposal goes behind closed doors and is improved upon in the ways that Mark-in-Austin suggested. We'll actually see major legislation that improves the lives of millions of Americans and does not break the bank. [Cue conservative queue to talk about exploding the deficit, a major concern since Jan. 20, 2009]

Posted by: trep1 | January 5, 2010 10:47 AM | Report abuse

Street Corner, I would be opposed to any spending bill in a vacuum where the alternative were less spending. but this is a pay me this or pay me that situation.
What I mean is that without expanding private insurance by subsidizing poor people to buy it we will pay more for medicaid and in local property taxes to the hospital districts that run the emergency rooms that the poor use on our $. That is expensive health care. Cheaper is subsidizing insurance, if the costs are controlled, if the poor do not continue to go to the emergency rooms..

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 5, 2010 10:46 AM | Report abuse

"According to the extreme leftist liberals, this entire health care overhaul should be done for one reason and one reason only which is to mandate that taxpayers pay for genocide of the unborn, and if the health care bill doesn't do that, they don't want any health care reform for Americans."
==
WOW!!! That is an amazing perversion of my point, and our position!

Let’s start with the point I was trying to make: It was simply that Pro-lifers seem to have an obsession with abortion. Every subject, every bill, every idea always comes back to this issue for them. A zealot is a person who can't change their mind and won't change the subject.
2. This bill falls under the Heid Amendment just like all others. To try to use important legislation to back-door your agenda through is dishonest and cheap. If your point of view is valid (and I even agree that it has some good points) it should be able to stand on its own, and not piggybacked on another bill.
3. None of us want to commit genocide against anyone. I think abortion is a tragedy, and that the numbers can and should be reduced, but not at the expense of the women who genuinely need this service.

Posted by: elijah24 | January 5, 2010 10:41 AM | Report abuse

The Democrats are so ashamed of this monstrosity of a bill that they are hiding it from the American public.

Posted by: Jerzy | January 5, 2010 10:39 AM | Report abuse

I am surprised that this meeting of the Politburo has been announced. I am glad to see that the actual negotiations will be secret. Enough of this democracy c---!

Hopium Dopium nitwits

Posted by: JoeDBrown | January 5, 2010 10:38 AM | Report abuse

"On Brooks, I'm not convinced he's barking up the wrong tree. In particular, his note that ideas associated with the educated class coming under attack from teh tea people is on target."

He's absolutely right about that. Where he is wrong is saying that this is the majority of the country. It isn't. it may be the majority of the republican party, but that's a different story.

Why do 'we' no longer value education? Most of us do. A noisy minority don't.

Like most of the really bad ideas in circulation now, it goes back to the Reagan years. Before that, the conservative movement had some intellectual basis. That chiefly died with William Buckley.

Posted by: drindl | January 5, 2010 10:36 AM | Report abuse

sr31


Are you talking about the 8 years prior to 9/11 when we were attempting to ignore al Queda and have limited responses to their bombings? Because a restrained effort only resulted in 9/11.

OR are you talking about the 8 years after 9/11 - in which we have generally been on the offensive and al Queda has been on the run?


The track record with terrorists released from Gitmo is clear: it doesn't work.


I don't care if we are going to lose a motion in court, or lose an Obamatrial.


The terrorists at Gitmo must be kept BEHIND BARS UNTIL THE AL QUEDA THREAT IS GONE.

That's consistent with international law - prisoners of war are not released until after the war is over.


AND pretending the war is over doesn't count.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 5, 2010 10:34 AM | Report abuse

I was a moderate Democrat who is now and independent, I've had it with both parties. The 2010 election isn't going to help no one, it will still be the same regardless of the results, NOTHING GETTING DONE. I look for the GOP to pick up seats but not enough to control the country, which means they will sit there and stare at each other across the isle.

Posted by: shipfreakbo214 | January 5, 2010 10:33 AM | Report abuse

Bsimon,
I would argue that the highly educated people in this country have always been under persecution from the less educated masses. Especially when the fringe of one political leaning takes over a certain party. Look at McArthiesm in the fifties, or the Dixiecrats in their response to civil rights. I guess being right has its drawbacks.

Posted by: AndyR3 | January 5, 2010 10:31 AM | Report abuse

Larry, attitudes like that are exactly why there is gridlock in Washington. You assume that all Democrats are sleazy, stupid, and self-interested. It is reasonable to question our platform, just as it is reasonable for us to question yours. But to presume to know our motivations, especially to claim to know that they are sinister, is remarkably pompous. Bleating "4 legs good 2 legs bad" may be a simple way to shut up your opponent, but it doesn't help our country.

Posted by: elijah24 | January 5, 2010 10:31 AM | Report abuse

Moonbat @853 -- are you attacking Jake?

Posted by: margaretmeyers | January 5, 2010 10:30 AM | Report abuse

http://www.stefsclothes.com

free shipping
competitive price
any size available
accept the paypal

Air jordan(1-24)shoes $33


Nike shox(R4,NZ,OZ,TL1,TL2,TL3) $35
Handbags(Coach lv fendi d&g) $35
Tshirts (Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste) $16
Jean(True Religion,ed hardy,coogi) $30
Sunglasses(Oakey,coach,gucci,Armaini) $16
New era cap $15

Bikini (Ed hardy,polo) $25

http://www.stefsclothes.com

Posted by: iofferkicks411 | January 5, 2010 10:28 AM | Report abuse

elijah24 wrote:

"...and here we go on abortion."
___________________________________________________
According to the extreme leftist liberals, this entire health care overhaul should be done for one reason and one reason only which is to mandate that taxpayers pay for genocide of the unborn, and if the health care bill doesn't do that, they don't want any health care reform for Americans.


"But her group's position, she said, is that 'we would rather have no health care (overhaul) than a vicious abortion law.'" (Terry O'Neill of the National Organization for Women)

Posted by: kwoods2 | January 5, 2010 10:27 AM | Report abuse

I read Brooks' column, shrink. A surprisingly poor piece, sloppy and not thought out, a disappointment after his last good one.

I wonder which item caused the sinking Drudge to link here today? The misinformation is sad to see.

Posted by: drindl | January 5, 2010 10:23 AM | Report abuse

So Odumbo and the slugs in Congress will go behind closed doors to complete the screwing of Americans, called health care reform.
What happened to open, public discussions of legislation?
Apparently whatever happened to the other promises by the turd head in the White House.
What a disgrace these democrat sleazes are.

Posted by: LarryG62 | January 5, 2010 10:22 AM | Report abuse

On Brooks, I'm not convinced he's barking up the wrong tree. In particular, his note that ideas associated with the educated class coming under attack from teh tea people is on target. What has happened to this country that we no longer value education?

Posted by: bsimon1 | January 5, 2010 10:21 AM | Report abuse

"Obama understands that if, only by the law of averages, there is a decent chance of a major attack on the United States during his presidency And, if that attack happens, any change in policy, no matter how incidental to the facts of the case, will be fodder for critics to blame him for the attack."

The law of Democrat averages, maybe. But at least we see Obama's typical immediate instincts: worry about politics rather than actually fending off terrorist attacks and protecting the American people. People forget that Bush ran in 2000 as a near isolationist, but to his credit pulled a 180 after 9/11 and began pushing the fronts on terror back overseas and into the terrorists' faces. Given the choice between having our military fight terrorists overseas, and our bankers and deli workers fighting them here in our cities, the answer should be pretty obvious. Obama's CYA approach is particularly troubling for a guy who has already broken nearly every campaign promise he ever made. Seriously, at this point why even worry that you might end up contradicting your own policies someday? With this Administration I set my watch to it.

Posted by: zippyspeed | January 5, 2010 10:18 AM | Report abuse

On your #2 Obama thought process


Chris - you state that Obama thinks "we have to do is make sure we're not pouring fuel on the flames by the things we do."


ISN'T THAT WHAT WE DID IN THE 1990s ???


In the 1990s, time after time, al Queda attacked - the World Trade Center was attacked in 1993, the Khobar towers, our embassies in Tanzania and Kenya - there were other bombings in Saudi Arabia - and then the USS COLE.


America tried to have a limited response to al Queda - we tried to ignore them - We tried that already.


This is what is WRONG WITH OBAMA - he simply does not properly see the security picture - he is extremely unrealistic - and releasing terrorists from Gitmo is INSANE.


If Obama does not want to fight, HE SHOULD NOT BE PRESIDENT, HE SHOULD RESIGN.


This attitude, that somehow America is at fault, is simply wrong.


The idea that somehow by defending ourselves, America is doing something wrong, is silly.


That was a problem with Obama's speech at West Point, he started his history lesson at 9/11.


Obama just doesn't get it.

------------------------------

We went your way for eight years. It didn't work, period.

Posted by: sr31 | January 5, 2010 10:18 AM | Report abuse

"Obama seemed to have started campaigning right after being sworn in."
==
That’s odd. Because you generally don't start campaigning by angering your own base. I think anything President Obama does is going to be wrong in your mind. And if it were President Hillary Clinton or any other Democrat, you would feel the same.
My question for you is this: Since you can't possibly be pleased, why should he or any other Democrat care what you think?

Posted by: elijah24 | January 5, 2010 10:17 AM | Report abuse

Obama has set the Gov. back 25 years. He's a rookie and it show's He holds special behind closed door meetings, does not work with the 2 parties in Congress to achieve a quality bill for all American's. He and his band of dumb5hits are doing nothing more than pandering to the poor in hopes of securing re-election. As far as I am concerned this makes him a traitor to his country and he should be IMPEACHED. Come 2010 the DMES will be ousted and we will kill the bill. The DEMS finally get their chance and as usual blow it. Why??? because all they are really after is re-election. Obama seemed to have started campaigning right after being sworn in. I guess in his little mind the campaigning is the job. IMPEACH ODUMBO!!!!!

Posted by: askgees | January 5, 2010 10:10 AM | Report abuse

AndyR if what you are saying is true, this reconc process could be much more interesting than the cw has it. Hope it doesn't get uglier than it has already been. Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory is still possible.

Drindl, CC, some think the water politics of the American West are going to be played out all over the world. These central valley battles are crucial precedents so please do keep us informed.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 5, 2010 10:10 AM | Report abuse

Elective abortions are covered in the bill.

Posted by: Imarkex | January 5, 2010 10:06 AM | Report abuse

mark_in_austin


Sure, the conservatives don't object to anything else in the bill EXCEPT IT WILL END UP COSTING 2 - 3 TRILLION DOLLARS.


And taxes will have to be raised.

I'm sure you think that is nothing.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 5, 2010 10:03 AM | Report abuse

...and here we go on abortion.

Posted by: elijah24 | January 5, 2010 10:01 AM | Report abuse

Imarkex, I understand the SB maintains the Hyde Amendment's bar to public financing of most abortions; certainly the elective ones you described.

Because the SB maintains private insurance as the model for most of us; private insurance that is regulated as to overhead and profit, private insurance that covers all except illegal aliens and those of us already on the public teat [medicare, medicaid, VA], it seems the only major conservative objection that remains is the mandatory nature of the program. Do
I read that correctly?

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 5, 2010 9:59 AM | Report abuse

of course, evil requires secrecy and darkness

the commentary states:

"The process is so fraught with potential political peril -- and with the potential for significant procedural delay by Republicans -- that there is talk that a formal conference committee to fuse the bill might be ignored entirely."

Posted by: ProCounsel | January 5, 2010 9:56 AM | Report abuse

The Health care fight is no longer a partisan brawl.
It appears the people walked out on the 2 corrupt partys.

With NO CONFIDENCE at the highest in US history, isn't it time for the press to catch up to reality?

It apparently has become Obamaland vs The USA

as the US Constitution is tossed out for tyranny.

Posted by: dottydo | January 5, 2010 9:55 AM | Report abuse

There is no way you can expect people that believe it is immoral for a mother to have her baby killed because she does not want it to pay for it.If you do sorry .IT IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN !

Posted by: Imarkex | January 5, 2010 9:48 AM | Report abuse

Cillizza writes
"I keep wondering: Why, if they hate the blog so much, do they go through so much trouble to keep participating?"


Because they love yanking people's chains more than they hate the blog. The poster formerly known as zouk has come here primarily to goad drindl for years. CF/GT arrived more recently and has fixated on JakeD. In neither case do they care that they are ruining the blog others, and may even relish the attention they receive when asked to behave.

Its a pain for the blog owner, but your best bet is to keep banning their reincarnations and hope they bore of the game before you stop paying attention to comments.

.

Posted by: bsimon1 | January 5, 2010 9:46 AM | Report abuse

On your #2 Obama thought process


Chris - you state that Obama thinks "we have to do is make sure we're not pouring fuel on the flames by the things we do."


ISN'T THAT WHAT WE DID IN THE 1990s ???


In the 1990s, time after time, al Queda attacked - the World Trade Center was attacked in 1993, the Khobar towers, our embassies in Tanzania and Kenya - there were other bombings in Saudi Arabia - and then the USS COLE.


America tried to have a limited response to al Queda - we tried to ignore them - We tried that already.


This is what is WRONG WITH OBAMA - he simply does not properly see the security picture - he is extremely unrealistic - and releasing terrorists from Gitmo is INSANE.


If Obama does not want to fight, HE SHOULD NOT BE PRESIDENT, HE SHOULD RESIGN.


This attitude, that somehow America is at fault, is simply wrong.


The idea that somehow by defending ourselves, America is doing something wrong, is silly.

Obama is just into "blaming America" that he is obsessed with doing anything that America can be blamed for.

Obama just doesn't get it.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 5, 2010 9:44 AM | Report abuse

Why of course the health care conference negotiations will be put on C-SPAN, as CEO Brian Lamb requested in his letter today. Obama promised it in his campaign, and he would never break a promise.

Posted by: Chippewa | January 5, 2010 9:44 AM | Report abuse

Russ, we can reasonably disagree on the details of the bill, and whether they are positive or negative. We can also reasonalby disagree on whether the methods that both sides have used are ethical. But to call any part of this bill hateful, is just silly. This bill brings out strong emotions on each side, but neither side is acting on hate. Both sides feel that their side best represents the best interests of this country. Both sides feel that a win by the opposition will hurt this country. One side is wrong. You think it's mine, and I think its yours. But I only think that your side is wrong, not hateful. Are you not reasonable enough to give mine the same concession?

Posted by: elijah24 | January 5, 2010 9:41 AM | Report abuse

As to #5. Chris -- Pombo is roundly hated in this district; he won't be reelected. The demographics of this district have changed profoundly. When Pombo was first elected, he was one of the wealthy ranchers who dominated the rural district, and his policies were defiantly anti-enviromental -- he ran on that, he made fun of the idea of the extermination of species. He is a particularly nasty character.

The monster ranches have all been broken up and sold into suburbs; the huge influx of people who replaced a small ranching community are commuters who moved to the [expensive] area primarily for its natural beauty. He is anathema to what the area has now become.

Posted by: drindl | January 5, 2010 9:38 AM | Report abuse

Mark,
I disagree that the bill will be just like the Senate bill. The house is getting a little peeved about how the Senate keeps telling it what it will and won't pass. I think Pelosi uses the the trigger to bring along the moderates, and then gets rid of the abortion language to match the senate version to appease the liberals. Also remember that Nelson, Lincoln, and all the democrats running for open seats want this to be finished as quickly as possible.

Posted by: AndyR3 | January 5, 2010 9:35 AM | Report abuse

"Shrink, I think Brooks made too much of a poll finding in that column, btw."

I agree entirely. I just didn't want to go too far into an off-topic item in the current climate 'round here. But I too thought it out of character for the oh-so sober, the increasingly rare rational conservative, David Brooks, to threaten his readers with naming the decade for the Tea Baggers, that unless the Democrats can work miracles.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 5, 2010 9:35 AM | Report abuse

LIBERALS ARE THE HATERS


Sticking other people with the bill for crazy ideas is HATEFUL!

---------

Chris, they are what Kat Williams calls "haters." Hating is what they do.

Posted by: russpoter | January 5, 2010 9:33 AM | Report abuse

"Why, if they hate the blog so much, do they go through so much trouble to keep participating?"

If you learn the answer to a question like this, you will have gained rare insight into human psychology. "

Actually, into pathology, incoherent rage, and obssession. I would guess rejection by women figures into one case, as well.

Posted by: drindl | January 5, 2010 9:31 AM | Report abuse

CC, if you want to limit the extremists on the blog, my suggestion would be to write more stories about the horse race of politics and less about the issues. For example, I personally like to know what is going on with the texas GOP primary, and how is White's campaign planning on dealing with either Perry or KBH, or is he only planning for one. The key is to stay away from healthcare, terrorism,

In the end however, we the readers just have to ignore the people who come on the blog to rant and rave. In addition, to all the other readers it doesn't help to have to scorll through 8 comments asking that this person or that person be banned. Just ignore them and let CC ban them as he sees fit.

Posted by: AndyR3 | January 5, 2010 9:27 AM | Report abuse

Be fair, Moonbat. The problem is not liberals or conservatives. The problem is anal cavities (or a synonym thereof). Both sides have them. It isn't about ideology.

Posted by: elijah24 | January 5, 2010 9:18 AM | Report abuse

On #3, I assume RGA and DGA moneys are not spent in the primaries, generally. However, considering shrink's cite of Brooks this morning, it would be useful to know if the RGA is playing any favorites in the primaries, and if so, who? Shrink, I think Brooks made too much of a poll finding in that column, btw.

On #10, I hope the young women parading in two piece swimsuits, who obviously attracted Milbank's concern, have good health care insurance, lest they catch pneumonia and die.

On #1, Andy, I think we will see the SB or no bill.

On #2, it is also obvious that BHO is continuing the post Rummy policies of the previous Admin. Without the baggage of the Wolfowitz-Perle-Rummy-Cheney neocons, this Admin can continue those policies with a fresh face. In other words, SecDef Gates was instrumental in changing the course of GWB's foreign policy and he remains the central figure, now. His background, his close links to Baker-Scowcroft, plays into BHO's admiration for the elder Bush's foreign policy. IMHO, that is the very best part of what this Admin is doing. There will be errors, but they will not as likely be blind errors, like believing Iraq would be a cakewalk, or dismissing the threat of OBL seeking to attack within the USA, or isolating the then counter-terror adviser, Richard Clarke. Humans are not perfect, but they veer sadly into constant error when moved by emotion, rather than by information and reason.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 5, 2010 9:17 AM | Report abuse

C-SPAN JUST SENT A LETTER TO CONGRESS AND BOY HUSSEIN ASKING THAT ALL CONGRESSIONAL DISCUSSIONS ON THE BILL BE ON C-SPAN.

Posted by: infantry11b4faus | January 5, 2010 9:13 AM | Report abuse

Here is what will happen. The bill will be scraped because it is Unconstitutional.

Posted by: Imarkex | January 5, 2010 9:11 AM | Report abuse

How appropriate that you describe Obama's health care efforts as a push. I guess that would be a push as in:

over the cliff
under the bus
into the meat grinder
in front of the subway.

Very appropriate for what Obama is doing to his party.

Posted by: ADNova | January 5, 2010 9:11 AM | Report abuse

I'm sure the President understands the threat that terrorists pose to this nation. What concerns me is the strength/viability of the inter agency links between the CIA, the FBI and Homeland Security. If these complex agencies are not all on the same page we really do have a problem. The focus of all three must be coordinated in great detail daily, and I have serious doubts that this is happening to the degree necessary? As for the Republican party, the George W.Bush years has left an indelible black mark on the parties future!

Posted by: joe100821 | January 5, 2010 9:08 AM | Report abuse


ENOUGH ALREADY!!! PASS THE DAMN BILL!!!

Posted by: demtse | January 5, 2010 9:05 AM | Report abuse

On the contrary, more liberal voices on this blog is the heart of your problem. Two years ago this blog was fairly balanced. Then the drivl, kool kat and cf8 nonstop insult and hate began to drown and run off every intelligent poster. It is now simply a mouthpiece for failed liberals.

It is human nature to reply. It is not a sign of personal misery. The pop psych on this site is a joke.

Posted by: Moonbat | January 5, 2010 9:04 AM | Report abuse

Guess they need to find out who they'll need to bribe and how much it will cost!!!!!

Posted by: Jimbo77 | January 5, 2010 8:58 AM | Report abuse

Chris, they are what Kat Williams calls "haters." Hating is what they do. There are people in this world who are so miserable in their own lives that the only thing they can think of to make themselves feel better is to find someone who has a good thing, and try to spoil it. You should take it as a compliment that they have chosen you as the target for their hate. It means, you have a good thing going (which you do, BTW or I wouldn’t be here and neither would the rest of us), but if they are that desperate to hate on your blog, maybe its best to let it go so that they don’t end up on a roof-top with a deer-rifle. That is of course, only my opinion.

Posted by: elijah24 | January 5, 2010 8:54 AM | Report abuse

Cilizza. You are a putz.

Looks like you are about as effective as the Obama administration.

Until you rid yourself of the drivl, you are what you are.

A lefty loony mutual admiration echo chamber for unemployed losers.

Did you notice the non stop ignorance from a certain kook yesterday?

Yeah. I'm your problem.

Communications and journalism majors have no business trying to think or influence others. They are simply too dense.

Posted by: Moonbat | January 5, 2010 8:53 AM | Report abuse

WHAT ABOUT A TAX PROTEST OVER HEALTH CARE DESTRUCTION?

Chris,

So, the STEAL-0-CRATS think their health care destruction bill is a slam-dunk?

There's a business tax payment due Jan. 15.

Lot in blog-o-sphere about what would happen if, oh, say, 1,000,000 small business decided to tell the Harvard Law-ARROGANT THIEVES to go to H*ll and NOT make that payment.

What do you think?

What if the working small business person "voiced" their opinion by PROTESTING?

Think protesting is only for BILLY AYERS/GENE ROBINSON?

Wrong.

Posted by: russpoter | January 5, 2010 8:51 AM | Report abuse

"Why, if they hate the blog so much, do they go through so much trouble to keep participating?"

If you learn the answer to a question like this, you will have gained rare insight into human psychology. Once you referenced Sarah Palin's combined revulsion with and attraction to Washington DC insiders, like a moth to a flame I think you said.
Its like that. One day, Cf8 mentioned, "This is personal." He wasn't kidding.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 5, 2010 8:50 AM | Report abuse

"It is astonishing that the Democratic Party wants to push through a major government program which is not paid for and will certainly lead to massive tax increases in the future."
==
What is truly astonishing is that the GOP, who has slapped away the hand of their counterparts time and again, can still convince their sycophantic cult-like followers that it is the Democrats who are being partisan. I should be clear, there are smart Republicans who know that their party is disgracing their loyalty, but who support the platform, if not the tactics. Those are not the Republicans I'm talking about.
The stim, and the health-care plan have both been weakened to the point that they disgust even the party that pushed for them in the first place, all in a desperate attempt to get 1 Olympia Snowe. The GOP has consistently negotiated in bad faith. If you insist on biting the hand that feeds you, don't complain when you starve.

Posted by: elijah24 | January 5, 2010 8:47 AM | Report abuse

A note on the banned commenters:

I have been banning people both by username and IP address but have noticed a desire on the part of some (ChrisFox8/GoldandTanzanite/SeattleTop and snowbama/moonbat) to use proxy servers to come back with different, unbanned IP addresses.

The truth is that if they want to go to those lengths, I can't do much other than keep banning them.

But, I keep wondering: Why, if they hate the blog so much, do they go through so much trouble to keep participating?

Chris

Posted by: Chris_Cillizza | January 5, 2010 8:34 AM | Report abuse

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/05/opinion/05brooks.html?hp

We appreciate what you do CC, but this piece is important too. Brooks says,

"In the near term, the tea party tendency will dominate the Republican Party" [see The Fix comments section, for example]. "It could be the ruin of the party, pulling it in an angry direction that suburban voters will not tolerate. But don’t underestimate the deep reservoirs of public disgust. If there is a double-dip recession, a long period of stagnation, a fiscal crisis, a terrorist attack or some other major scandal or event, the country could demand total change, creating a vacuum that only the tea party movement and its inheritors would be in a position to fill."

So the best way to eliminate right wing rage looks like security and prosperity.
Can the Democrats pull it off?

Posted by: shrink2 | January 5, 2010 8:28 AM | Report abuse

I would love to see President Obama fulfil the campaign promises he made but it appears that at least two and possibly a third will be ignored relating to the health care bill.

First he stated that he wanted the bill to be bipartisan but how could any attempt at a bipartisan bill be accomplished when it only the Democrats from the House, Senate and the White House are crafting same?

Second it will be forged in back rooms and not on C-Span as he candidate Obama spoke about numerous times last year.

Third it appears it will loaded up with earmarks and special interest segments that he campaigned against.

This is not the "Change We Can Believe In" and hoped for!

Posted by: mwhoke | January 5, 2010 8:19 AM | Report abuse

We will close gitmo within a year.

We will pass health care by march

we will pass health care by august

I have reviewed the afghan situation in march

I have reviewed the afghan situation in November

I'm giving Iran until the end of the month

I'm giving Iran until the end of the year

we will have cap and trade by the end of the year

this year we will fix the economy and jobs

what's today's date?

Posted by: Moonbat | January 5, 2010 8:18 AM | Report abuse

The system worked

it was a failure

the party crashers did not get near the president

there was a photo of them together

the base killer was a kook

he was involved with AQ

the plane bomber was an isolated extremist

he was part of the AQ network in Yemen

the Boston police acted stupidly

etc. I am confused.

Posted by: Moonbat | January 5, 2010 8:12 AM | Report abuse

Smart move in shutting GOP delay tactics out of the equation as the bill nears passage. It;s all about keeping things as low-key as possible so Lieberman and Nelson stay on board.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by: parkerfl1 | January 5, 2010 8:05 AM | Report abuse

It is a serious lack of judgement that Obama has engaged in to open up the abortion question with the health care bill. I have no idea why he went down that path.


He just doesn't get it.

All during the campaign last year, Obama was saying how he was going to reach out to everyone, to unite the country and be the person bringing everyone together.

AND there were some of us who said he was full of it, but for the most part most people fell for this bull.

What have we had this year? NOTHING BUT "IN YOUR FACE" STUFF FROM OBAMA. The abortion stuff mixed in the health care bill again is IN YOUR FACE - it is not uniting anybody -

Instead, time and time again, Obama insists on making a FRAUD of his campaign themes.

You can chalk this one up to another one that people were right about how bad Obama is.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 5, 2010 7:52 AM | Report abuse

On your #2 Obama thought process


Chris - you state that Obama thinks "we have to do is make sure we're not pouring fuel on the flames by the things we do."

ISN'T THAT WHAT WE DID IN THE 1990s ???

In the 1990s, time after time, al Queda attacked - the World Trade Center was attacked in 1993, the Khobar towers, our embassies in Tanzania and Kenya - there were other bombings in Saudi Arabia - and then the USS COLE.

America tried to have a limited response to al Queda - we tried to ignore them - We tried that already.

This is what is WRONG WITH OBAMA - he simply does not properly see the security picture - he is extremely unrealistic - and releasing terrorists from Gitmo is INSANE.


If Obama does not want to fight, HE SHOULD NOT BE PRESIDENT, HE SHOULD RESIGN.


This attitude, that somehow America is at fault, is simply wrong.

The idea that somehow by defending ourselves, America is doing something wrong, is silly.

That was a problem with Obama's speech at West Point, he started his history lesson at 9/11.


Obama just doesn't get it.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 5, 2010 7:46 AM | Report abuse

I said months ago that the healthcare bill that will be voted on will have a trigger for a public option, and that is what you will see in this final bill. Also the abortion amendment in dead on arrival so that will be gone for sure.
I would expect this to not be nearly as hard as people may think. The country as a whole considers the bill passed and isn't really paying attention anymore. They have moved their focus back to the economy and terrorism.

Also its nice to hear that we finally have a president who understands terrorism on a 'intellectual level', because frankly understanding it on a 'gut level' didn't get us very far.

Posted by: AndyR3 | January 5, 2010 7:42 AM | Report abuse

UNDERPANTS BOMB ATTACK A 'FALSE FLAG' STINKER?
http://nowpublic.com/world/witness-says-govt-lies-about-botched-terror-bombing

• MI attorney Kurt Haskell says accomplice helped would-be bomber board flight -- and that a second suspect was taken into custody.

WHY NOT A WORD ABOUT THIS FROM THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA?

Is this whole underpants affair an elaborate diversion from the government's Terror War on unjustly and unconstitutionally "targeted" Americans -- a quiet GENOCIDE?


***

Health Care Reform a Cruel Joke When Gov't Assaults Americans with "Directed Energy" Radiation Weapons. President Obama: "First, Do No Harm."

U.S. SILENTLY TORTURES AMERICANS WITH CELL TOWER MICROWAVES, SATELLITES, SAYS VETERAN MAINSTREAM MEDIA JOURNALIST

• Secret Bush legacy multi-agency federal program uses cell tower/GPS satellite microwave/laser electromagnetic radiation attack system to torture, impair, subjugate "targeted" citizens -- and oversees local "community watch" vigilante terrorism and financial sabotage campaigns.

See story at: Poynter.org ("Reporting" section)
OR http://www.nowpublic.com/world/u-s-silently-tortures-americans-cell-tower-microwaves
HTTP://nowpublic.com/world/gestapo-usa-govt-funded-vigilante-network-terrorizes-america OR NowPublic.com/scrivener RE: "U.S. SILENTLY..." / "GESTAPO USA"

Posted by: scrivener50 | January 5, 2010 7:35 AM | Report abuse

The only way Obama is going to get a health car bill through is to take the Senate version - without the public option - and add in the abortion amendments from the House. HOWEVER THE FINANCIAL PICTURE IS STILL BLEAK.


It is astonishing that the democratic party wants to push through a major government program which is not paid for and will certainly lead to massive tax increases in the future.

Obama's commitment to a "deficit neutral" bill will HAUNT him for the rest of his life if he signs this bill.


The democrats are far better off starting from scratch.


A far better approach would be to negotiate with the Republicans, come up with a truly bipartisan bill - which would regulate the health insurance companies and curb the worst abuses. The country simply can not afford to add to the deficit at this time.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 5, 2010 7:00 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company