Donald Trump And Those Other " Birther " Idiots...

....have been slapped up the side of their heads with the release of President Barack Obama's lonf-form birth certificate from the state of Hawaii, so now the morons want the President to release his college records because Trump and the " group of stupid " need something else to keep the ignorant sector of the population from deciding to maybe believe that Obama is a legitimate President of the United States. This is nothing but many of the Republican Party, along with other " group of stupid " attempting to distract Americans from the real issues at hand. It is a sad day in America when the sitting president has to defend his birth-rite and his education record to a rolling train of idiots, which does no good in the first place. Trump should be thrown off of NBC and his fake reality show cancelled. He should be also labeled as a terrorist. I would hope that President Obama would not stoop down to their lower level again by submitting to their demands of his school records. There is no point in giving in to the racist once again as it will not help matters anyway.

Boehner Breaks Out The Tissue

American Taliban House leader John Boehner decided to break out into tears on Thursday as the talks over the federal budget went no-where. Perhaps this piece of crap should seek the attention of a medical specialist.

All of the lying and bullshit that he and his ilk have been presenting to the American public must be getting to him.

At an afternoon news conference today, Boehner announced the House GOP will press forward with a short-term government funding bill in hopes of averting a shutdown this Friday. But President Obama said Tuesday he wouldn't support a measure.

Source:http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_theticket/20110406/pl_yblog_theticket/boehner-gets-teary-amid-threat-of-a-government-shutdown

A Little Bit Of Polling

   Well now, to give you just a little bit of what the country thinks of President Obama, I went to one of my favorite polling sites, Rasmussen to check out their latest info.

    The latest polling index shows that only 29% of the countries voters Strongly Approve of the way Barack Obama is handling his job as president. Those who Strongly  make up some 41%. Those are not good numbers by any means,

    While we are at it, you should know that 75% of those polled think that our Congress should cut their own pay until the budget gets balanced. Don’t hold your breath waiting for that one to happen.

Overall, 48% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the president's performance. Fifty-one percent (51%) disapprove.

Glenn Beck and The Christian Right

“Something beyond imagination is happening. America today begins to turn back to God.”        Glenn Beck

 

    That was FoxNews Channel's own pundit Glenn Beck while he was speaking at a rally up in Washington,D.C. on this past Saturday in which 10,000’s of thousands (100’s if you ask Beck) of people attended.  Just what you and I need, another Republican rally, which is exactly what this event was.

   It was not to long ago that the Republican diehards where out touting about how godly they were and that the GOP would be turning America back towards God and that this country would once again become a great nation.

   The Republicans might have actually pulled it off if it wasn’t for all of that greed,graft,and criminal activity that they perpetrated getting in the way of things.

    Of course, the Obama administration has not been all that great either. They haven’t gotten to the corruption and crime part yet. Not that we know of yet. Give it time, the game isn’t over.

   The Democrats cannot seem to get anything accomplished in the Senate or the House for that matter. Nobody likes anyone else's idea’s because they didn’t think of it. Then of course, those darned Republicans keep sticking nails in any idea from the Liberal side of the isle. Lest you forget, there are many Republican politicians whose sole purpose is to see to it that President Obama goes down hard with as many other Democrats as possible.

   The Republicans are winning this war against you and I. Mr. Beck does his best to disparage the President at every chance that he gets.

    Sara Palin also got her shot at running her mouth at this gathering.

    When Sarah Palin, the Republican populist and former vice presidential candidate, launches into her speech, the crowd chants “USA, USA, USA.” “We must restore America and restore her honor,” demands Palin. She addresses the people as “patriots.” In recent months, Palin has emerged as the leader of the “tea party” movement and is mentioned as a possible 2012 presidential candidate. But she says she is speaking in front of the Lincoln Memorial not as a politician, but rather as the mother of a soldier. For this, too, there is warm applause.

   This is the stuff that the GOP has always been great at and I see no reason for that group to fail this time around either.

   The Dems are in deep shit and they are going down a little bit deeper if they do not get it together.

   Then there is also the influence of the Tea Party movement, another group supporting the Republicans. Easy to do since they are mostly GOPer’s in the first place.

From dailykos.com.
Your Abbreviated Pundit Round-up
by DemFromCT Sat Apr 10, 2010
Saturday punditry, and if you need a second opinion...

NY Times editorial:
President Obama might be tempted to replace Justice John Paul Stevens with someone bland enough to slip through the Republican chain of opposition in the Senate. If he is, we recommend he read a few of the opinions that Justice Stevens wrote in the last 34 years.

EJ Dionne:
Justice John Paul Stevens’s retirement is an enormous loss for the country, and particularly for progressives who have valued his brave and straightforward defense of civil liberties, equal rights and equal justice over many years.
But his departure should not lead to a bloody battle over his successor. Whomever President Obama names to the court will be no more liberal than Stevens -- and might possibly be slightly less so.

Charles Blow:
On the issue of the court being completely composed of former federal judges, she said: "In the past, we’ve had a very diverse court, at times, and typically we’ve had people on the court who didn’t serve one day as a judge. Sorry. You know. I’m a judge. I like judges. But we don’t need them all on the court. And we need people of different backgrounds."
In fact, according to a 2005 article in The Christian Science Monitor, 41 of our Supreme Court justices have had no prior judicial experience. That’s more than a third.

TAPPED:
I don't think there's any mystery about how Republicans are going to handle President Obama's nominee to replace retiring Justice John Paul Stephens. Here are some revealing quotes from a short Wall Street Journal post on the retirement announcement (all emphasis mine). Mitch McConnell: "Americans can expect Senate Republicans to make a sustained and vigorous case for judicial restraint and the fundamental importance of an even-handed reading of the law." Orrin Hatch: "[S]omeone who would be an activist judge, who would substitute their own views for what the law requires, is not qualified to serve on the federal bench." John Cornyn: "Our nation deserves a Supreme Court nominee who is committed to deciding cases impartially based on the law, not on personal politics, preferences, or what’s in the nominee’s ‘heart.’" Man, it's gonna be a great summer.

Monica Potts:
It’s not surprising that Stupak, who stood front-and-center in the health-care debate over its treatment of abortion, would want to leave after such a bruising battle. The end result of health-care reform is that access to abortion will be at least as restricted as it ever was, and likely more so. That was true without Stupak’s more restrictive amendment to the house bill, and would likely have been true even if he’d never raised a fuss over abortion.
The problem is, once you use anti-abortion rhetoric to criticize the health-care bill, the legislation's actual provisions on abortion -- that women would have to use their own money to buy abortion-riders because federal subsidies can't be used to pay for abortions, so plans in the exchanges can't offer them -- don’t matter. For voters who do not support abortion rights, the bill is forever associated with abortion, and Stupak played a roll in that. Since he ultimately voted for the bill, it was inevitable that he would be branded a sell-out.

Ezra Klein:
Compare Nelson and Stupak to people such as Mark Warner or Brad Ellsworth, both of whom are moderate Democrats who had serious concerns about the bill, but who spent their time quietly getting those concerns addressed rather than using them to get TV bookings in advance of a high-profile deal. Nelson and Stupak made themselves into targets for both the left and the right, and ended the process with lots of notoriety but even more new enemies. Warner and Ellsworth haven't suffered from the same backlash. The old model in which moderate Democrats justify their vote for a bill by talking trash about it until they get bought off doesn't work in an environment where the media and the political opposition is waiting to pounce on the buy-off.

Gail Collins:
At the Minnesota [Palin-Bachmann] rally, Gov. Tim Pawlenty, a presidential hopeful, tried to glom onto some of the glitter, but all he could come up with was "Wall Street gets a bailout, the poor get a handout and everybody else gets their wallets out," which is mean without being exciting. The crowd yawned.
Pawlenty is supposed to be one of the new breed of level-headed conservatives, but by next year he may be wearing snowshoes for his speeches and accusing Obama of surrendering our freedom to Finland.

... In Which I Politely Flip Out. When Have Assassinations Become Acceptable?

by Dauphin
Thu Apr 08, 2010
What. The. Fuck. Actually, there are no other words which I can use to express my disappointment with Obama Administration's latest move: As both the New York Times and The Washington Post have confirmed, the Obama Administration has, for the first time in history, allwed the CIA to assassinate an American citizen, Anwar al-Awlaki, a Muslim imam and extremist.

From the New York Times:
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration has taken the extraordinary step of authorizing the targeted killing of an American citizen, the radical Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, who is believed to have shifted from encouraging attacks on the United States to directly participating in them, intelligence and counterterrorism officials said Tuesday.
But the director of national intelligence, Dennis C. Blair, told a House hearing in February that such a step was possible. "We take direct actions against terrorists in the intelligence community," he said. "If we think that direct action will involve killing an American, we get specific permission to do that." He did not name Mr. Awlaki as a target.
The official added: "The United States works, exactly as the American people expect, to overcome threats to their security, and this individual — through his own actions — has become one. Awlaki knows what he’s done, and he knows he won’t be met with handshakes and flowers. None of this should surprise anyone."
Really. Now, as a general principle, it's not considered illegal under international law to off someone who's an imminent threat to the security of a State. I admit, al-Awlaki is a nasty piece of work. People who write screeds advocating jihad against the United States and recruit for al-Quaeda. But imminence tends to be interpreted rather restrictively under both the US and international law.
In 2006, for example, a group of Canadian Muslims listened to Mr. Awlaki’s sermons on a laptop a few months before they were charged with plotting attacks in Ontario to have included bombings, shootings, storming the Parliament Building and beheading the Canadian prime minister.
"Al-Awlaki condenses the Al Qaeda philosophy into digestible, well-written treatises," Mr. Kohlmann said. "They may not tell people how to build a bomb or shoot a gun. But he tells them who to kill, and why, and stresses the urgency of the mission."
The horror! Clearly this is a man deserving of a bullet in a head! Well, my country has a saner limit to hate speech: Inciting people to violence is sanctionable. If they actually act on it, you can go to chokey for up to fifteen years (the minimum is three), if the Court really decides you've screwed up. But the United States has a little case called Brandenburg v. Ohio:
Conclusion:
The Court's Per Curiam opinion held that the Ohio law violated Brandenburg's right to free speech. The Court used a two-pronged test to evaluate speech acts: (1) speech can be prohibited if it is "directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action" and (2) it is "likely to incite or produce such action." The criminal syndicalism act made illegal the advocacy and teaching of doctrines while ignoring whether or not that advocacy and teaching would actually incite imminent lawless action. The failure to make this distinction rendered the law overly broad and in violation of the Constitution.
http://www.oyez.org/...
And let's just say that Brandenburg, a leader of the Ku Klux Klan, was a very nasty man. In tone, if not in politics, his screeds weren't that dissimilar from al-Awlaki's. So you have the absurd situation of something which doesn't rise to the level of banned speech not being enough to condemn you before a court but being enough to put you on the CIA's shit list. I mean, am I the only one who sees a bit of a problem with this? The Court would find no illegality but the executive branch can, without any judicial oversight, issue a de facto death warrant for someone. And, aside from their pro-Islamic and pro-al-Quaeda bent, Mr. Awlaki's screeds really aren't that different in tone from what the right wing lunatic fringe spouts.
And with regard to this case people usually spout that the man is obviously guilty as sin. Really? As determined by whom? The court of Public Opinion? That convocation of morons? The jury and the magistrates ignorant, the Judge Reporter a careless journalist? Yet, we are supposed to take it on faith that the executive has enough evidence, providence, and safeguards to order a summary execution of an "imminent" threat without any outside oversight at all. Here is a little something called the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
I think the law couldn't be clearer: If you're a member of the US army or naval forces, of a militia in time of war or public danger, the Grand Jury part doesn't apply. First of all, the question whether we're in a state of war is irrelevant, since al-Awlaki isn't a member of the US armed forces. Secondly, this, if a war it be, is a very strange war. There has been no formal declaration of it, although certain laws of war do apply because of the AUMF that were given, but - and I should stress this - despite that, as even the Bush administration was forced, through clenched teeth, to admit in Hamdi, there is no state of war declared. Only Congress can do that, which is why AUMFs are very specific as to what they allow.
Furthermore, who are we waging war against, pray tell? Al Quaeda isn't a sovereign power. And, pathetically, we want it both ways: We want all the privileges of waging war yet we want to imprison enemies. Sorry, you can't convict enemies in a war and imprison them for waging it; yet I was under the impression that's exactly what most of the world does with terrorists. Clearly it's a criminal matter, not a matter of war. I mean, I don't care, we can call it a war, but that means that when al-Quaeda is destroyed all its captured soldiers have to be released.
Finally, as for those who thunderously proclaim that al-Awlaki isn't a citizen, because "he's a traitor," pray tell, who determined it? Last I looked no law determined you lose your citizenship ex lege if you act like a shit. And even if it did, which institution formally weighed available evidence and revoked his citizenship? Could he defend himself? Al-Awlaki protests innocence, but, with orders being given to put a bullet in his head, it's a bit hard for him to argue his case. It might even be a tiny bit dangerous.
Besides, that pesky thing called the Fifth Amendment applies to all people, not just citizens. So, dear citizens of the United States of America who have a problem with the assassination of one of your own, what the fuck took you so long? Your own cherished preamble to the Constitution, which you do so love to invoke for political goals, states that everyone has been endowed with inalienable rights, be it citizen or foreigner, Jew or Gentile, black or white or scarlet (with the exception of political rights, of course), and that everyone has the right of due process.
Yet, apparently, in cases of OMG TERRORISM the executive could, without supervision, allow executions of foreigners based on Carefully Weighed Evidence. Never mind the fact that no outside institution ever saw it and never mind the fact that the internal procedure has even fewer safeguards than mediaeval inquisitorial procedures had. I mean, the accused could at least petition the inquisitor to perform investigative acts for him before referring his report to the college of magistrates.
And, when that restriction on due process carefully went unnoticed, because, hey, it's just them damn foreigners, right? the next and perfectly logical step of arbitrage of who is worthy to get human rights has started differentiating between worthy and unworthy citizens people get worried. No kidding. This could've been seen a mile coming.
The logic here is the logic of homo sacer, of outlawry: We'll grant everyone human rights... except for people we don't like. Those people can be dealt with with impunity. This is actually a nativist branch of legal reasoning that occasionally resurfaces in the United States, like untreated syphillis. The reasoning is that because this is the US Constitution it should only apply to citizens, not, say, foreigners under the power of the United States. Basically, it aims at a personality principle (let everyone carry their law with them) without bothering to recognise any law that protects foreigners, not the US law nor their home law.
That is the true issue here, arbitrage between personal rights. Political rights are subject to arbitrage, but personal rights aren't. That has never been contentious, not since, well, the French Revolution. And it's a tacit policy the US can afford to maintain because there is no reciprocity.
Consider, for example, the US being on the receiving end. How many people here would cry bloody murder if Berlusconi were to declare the convicted CIA agents an imminent threat and authorised their assassination? And the nativist logic goes further: If other nations were to apply nativist legal reasoning, it would mean that a US tourist in, say, France, could be robbed, raped, killed, chopped into little pieces, and dumped into the river with impunity. After all, it's just a foreigner, right?
Do everyone a favour, please, and point out to everyone you know that acknowledging others' human rights, substantive and procedural, isn't a matter of convenience but of legal and moral obligation. And point out that, if you give non-citizens equality before the law which your law demands chances are the same courtesy will be extended abroad.
To the Obama Administration: You weren't doing a bad job. Healthcare reform I supported. Even the expansion of offshore drilling I could tentatively support, if accompanied with investments into green energy. But extrajudicial executions I cannot support. If you truly feel you have to assassinate someone, at least establish a procedure where you have to get a judicial approval. It would be vile, of course, but less vile than being able to decide "within the family" that someone, citizen or foreigner, is worthy of execution. Now, I'll still tentatively support you, because the other side is worse, but unless you clean your act up this is a bloodstain that just won't wash off. And if you are going to order extrajudicial executions, Mr Obama, no offence, but I hope the dead haunt you in your sleep for the rest of your life, even if the condemned were guilty. That's not how it is done.

Update:
As burrow owl points out below, trial by military commission is perfectly acceptable and in this case the laws of war do apply as determined by Ex Parte Quirin. However, that case still subjects killings to limitations (for example, in case an enemy lays down his arms, and so on), according to the laws of war, which is why I'd argue a carte blanche for assassination is still problematic. Two former attorneys general, as per the Daily Beast, disagree, arguing that it's simply a decision on "how war is to be prosecuted."
http://www.thedailybeast.com/...
http://en.wikipedia.org/...
Update II: The more I think about this the more I see the logic that led the Obama administration. I don't have a problem with invoking Ex Parte Quirin to justify a trial before military commission, and the fact is that there is no overriding need to capture enemies under the laws of war.
However, the problem is shown by the limits of the analogy used. It was established that you can declare war on an organisation like al-Quaeda. But this organisation is not a sovereign state and is not organised like one. The problem in such an organisation is (i) its cellular structure (what if some parts desire an armstice and others don't?), and (ii) stemming from that, how do we judge cases when a suspect's position is similar to the position of a member of criminal organisation, but not necessarily an enemy combatant? For example, are people who launder money for AQ enemy combatants? Because of this, while I see where the administration is coming from, I'd still have to disagree with its approach. You can only take an analogy so far.
In short, I'd argue the structure we're using to fight AQ is seriously lacking in detail and some safeguards should be introduced.

This shit sounds more like something that I would have expected from former Prez George Bush.

Hatred As A Political Strategy

This post was taken from by way of commondreams.org

Published on Saturday, March 27, 2010 by The Boston Globe
Hatred as a Political Strategy
by Derrick Z. Jackson

Newt Gringrich hit a nerve. No, wait. He hit nerves no one wants to talk about.
In an interview this week with the Washington Post, the former speaker of the House who led the charge to slash social programs during the Clinton presidency, said President Obama and the Democrats would regret pushing to pass the health care bill. Gingrich called the bill "the most radical social experiment . . . in modern times,'' so radical that Obama and the Democrats "will have destroyed their party much as Lyndon Johnson shattered the Democratic Party for 40 years.''
The Post said the quote referred to civil rights bills enacted under Johnson. Gingrich said that was not what he meant. In a correction, the Post wrote, "Gingrich said he was referring not to the civil rights legislation but to Johnson overreaching on his management of the economy, the Vietnam War and the cultural divisions that emerged partly because of that war. Gingrich said Johnson erred on civil rights by supporting busing to integrate schools and by failing to take a firmer stance against racial violence in urban areas.''
By clarifying, Gingrich helps us get why health care became the most divisive social-program debate since Gingrich's successful attack on welfare in the 1990s, an attack that had racial overtones. Health care is breaking the backs of millions of families of all colors, but the Republicans chose to gin up the masses with unbridled fear, with House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio declaring the vote "Armageddon.''
It was Armageddon all right, a battle between selfishness and sharing. Some Americans who believe health care reform represents a heist of "their'' resources for the undeserving betrayed their underlying feelings as Democratic congressmen were either called the N word or spat upon, a Latino congressman was called a "wetback,'' and Massachusetts Representative Barney Frank, who is gay, was called the F word.
No Republican had the courage to remind the rabid that America, at other great crossroads, did put government into their lives. The wealth of countless white middle class families today stems from World War II veteran housing bills that too often, we conveniently forget, discriminated against black veterans along with housing segregation. Surely, more than one tea partier has Medicare or uses a VA hospital. Yet most Republicans do anything they can to deflect responsibility for the frenzy.
None is more representative than Gingrich who, after saying there was of course no place for such behavior, told the Journal-Constitution, "I think the Democratic leadership has to take some real responsibility (for choosing) to use corrupt tactics that bought votes, that bullied people and as a result has enraged much of the American people.''
Some things just add up. The vast majority of tea partiers, at least from all the photos, are white and the nearly all-white Republican congressional delegation stood as a brick wall against reform. The rage around health care, going back to the disruptions of Democratic legislator town halls last summer, continues to raise the temperature not just on health care, but on the dangerous debate on who is a "true blue'' American.
One cannot forget how, in a last gasp before Obama's election, Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin said of Obama, "I am just so fearful that this is not a man who sees America as you and I do.'' One cannot forget the level of disrespect shown to Obama in the "You lie!'' outburst by South Carolina Republican Representative Joe Wilson. Wilson has been rewarded for his outburst with the most campaign contributions of anyone in the House, $3.4 million in the 2010 election cycle.
In the final stages of the health care debate, Palin and other Republican leaders resorted to telling their masses to "reload'' or get ready for the "firing line'' in November. Republican Congressman Randy Neugebauer had to apologize for shouting "baby killer'' when anti-abortion Democrat Bart Stupak of Michigan gave his support for the health care bill. The Republicans need to find someone with courage to disarm the rhetoric, before someone reloads for real.
© Copyright 2010 Globe Newspaper Company.
© Copyrighted 1997-2009 www.commondreams.org

Republicans Get Health Care Too...

... and Mr. Michael Moore is happy to point that out to the GOPers around the nation.

The Great Thing About the Health Care Law That Has Passed? It Will Save Republican Lives, Too
by Michael Moore Mon Mar 22, 2010
(An Open Letter to Republicans from Michael Moore)
To My Fellow Citizens, the Republicans:
Thanks to last night's vote, that child of yours who has had asthma since birth will now be covered after suffering for her first nine years as an American child with a pre-existing condition.
Thanks to last night's vote, that 23-year-old of yours who will be hit one day by a drunk driver and spend six months recovering in the hospital will now not go bankrupt because you will be able to keep him on your insurance policy.
Thanks to last night's vote, after your cancer returns for the third time -- racking up another $200,000 in costs to keep you alive -- your insurance company will have to commit a criminal act if they even think of dropping you from their rolls.
Yes, my Republican friends, even though you have opposed this health care bill, we've made sure it is going to cover you, too, in your time of need. I know you're upset right now. I know you probably think that if you did get wiped out by an illness, or thrown out of your home because of a medical bankruptcy, that you would somehow pull yourself up by your bootstraps and survive. I know that's a comforting story to tell yourself, and if John Wayne were still alive I'm sure he could make that into a movie for you.
But the reality is that these health insurance companies have only one mission: To take as much money from you as they can -- and then work like demons to deny you whatever coverage and help they can should you get sick.
So, when you find yourself suddenly broadsided by a life-threatening illness someday, perhaps you'll thank those pinko-socialist, Canadian-loving Democrats and independents for what they did Sunday evening.
If it's any consolation, the thieves who run the health insurance companies will still get to deny coverage to adults with pre-existing conditions for the next four years. They'll also get to cap an individual's annual health care reimbursements for the next four years. And if they break the pre-existing ban that was passed last night, they'll only be fined $100 a day! And, the best part? The law will require all citizens who aren't poor or old to write a check to a private insurance company. It's truly a banner day for these corporations.
So don't feel too bad. We're a long way from universal health care. Over 15 million Americans will still be uncovered -- and that means about 15,000 will still lose their lives each year because they won't be able to afford to see a doctor or get an operation. But another 30,000 will live. I hope that's ok with you.
If you don't mind, we're now going to get busy trying to improve upon this bill so that all Americans are covered and so the grubby health insurance companies will be put out of business -- because when it comes to helping the sick, no one should ever be allowed to ask the question, "How much money can we save by making this poor bastard suffer?"
Please, my Republican friends, if you can, take a quiet moment away from your AM radio and cable news network this morning and be happy for your country. We're doing better. And we're doing it for you, too.
Yours,
Michael Moore
MMFlint@aol.com
MichaelMoore.com

P.S. I'll have more to say on this tonight, live on CNN, at 9pm ET. I'll be talking with Larry King about the health care bill and where we go from here, considering we still don't have universal health care.

P.P.S. In case you missed these photos in yesterday's NY Times Sunday Magazine... That's the results of seven years of madness. The Iraq War began its 8th year this weekend. How can we remove more of those responsible for this tragedy in November?
www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/3/22/849024/-The-Great-Thing-About-the-Health-Care-Law-That-Has-Passed-It-Will-Save-Republican-Lives,-Too

HealthCare Bill Passes...

... and I must say that it is about damned time that something has gotten started with the health care problem in the United States!
Obama's bill is not perfect by any stretch of the imagination and it will need to be tweaked many times before this plan works to the benefit of all of us. But, it is a start which has been a long time comming.
There are parts of the plan that I do not like, and then again, there are some things which I do like. I think that all of us can say the same thing.
As is par for the course, this bill does not please everyone, which was expected. You cannot please everyone all of the time no matter what you aim to do. Healthcare is no different.
Keep one thing in mind as you begin to hear about all that is wrong with this plan. It is a beginning. As is with most things in this life of ours, you have to start somewhere. If you remember, there was no health care plan under former President Bush. President Clinton got his ass handed back to him with he and Hillary's idea of a health care plan. Ronald Reagan did....nothing about this fiasco either. Many Presidents before Reagan did nothing either.
Now is the time to take what we have been givin by our President and to make it work for the good of all of the citizens of the United States.
Let's give this plan a chance to be formed into something good for us,okay?

Obama's Health Care Bill Passes...

... so let the lawsuits begin! This is what several states are planning to do in order to stop parts of the health care plan from becoming a reality. The main opposition is the part of the plan which makes health insurance mandatory for all Americans to have. You will be fined if you do not carry some type of insurance under Obama's plan, which many states is not legal. Abortions will not be federally funded in this plan, which is one part of the plan that I do approve of. However, I would make exceptions in cases of rape or incest.
So, what are the Republicans going to do now that the bill has passed? Same as they always do, cry wolf.
Let us take a short trip over to DailyKos.com for a view of what the GOPers will be bringing to the table in the near future.

This isn't over. The wingnuts are just getting started.
by Hesiod Mon Mar 22, 2010
You have already seen a diary about how Veterans groups are claiming this bill screws over our veterans. The next step in the attack from wingnuts on health care reform is to push state constitutional changes to opt out of the new system that has been put into place.
This, of course, is unconstitutional and runs afoul of the commerce clause. But who knows how the corporate crony Supreme Court will rule? The concern I have is that nervous nellie state Democrats who think the federal constitution will invalidate these stupid opt-out laws will think they have a free vote against it.
This means these stupid laws may get passed by state legislatures with a lot of Democratic assistance. It is much better not to risk letting the rightwing Supreme Court have a crack at overturning health care reform. So, we need to keep up all of the pressure we can on state level Democrats to prevent these laws from passing.
Here in Michigan, a petition drive has started to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot for November. This, of course, will get all of the crazy teabagging wackos to turn out in droves for the vote, come hell of highwater.
Its clearly a device to drive up turnout among Republicans and conservatives. Turnout that wasn't guaranteed once health care reform became law. Expect this to be repeated in states across the country. This is a surefire way to create vote and donor lists and also fire up activists.
We have to keep fighting. We have to keep making sure the truth about this bill gets out there to the media. We have to make sure that Democrats in Washington and the Whgite House DON'T STOP FIGHTING FOR THIS BILL AND COUNTERING ALL THE LIES ABOUT IT. Its not enough just to pass it. You have to also defend it.
The other side is not giving up. They are going to keep fighting for as long as they can. We should not either. Fight until they are completely defeated and demoralized.

ADDENDUM. Oh. And here is the irony in all of this. The Health Insurance industry should be flooding the zone with money in all of these states to BLOCK this crazy crap from passing. Why? Because states that opt out of the system -- even if its just during a pending court challenge -- are going to cost insurance companies tons of money.
But, because this bill's major provisions don't kick in for several years, it will be hard to point to other states that do not opt out and show how well they are doing under the system to counteract the bullshit.
© Kos Media, LLC
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/3/22/849088/-This-isnt-over.-The-wingnuts-are-just-getting-started.

Medicare Loved By All?

Saturday, February 6, 2010 by CommonDreams.org
Repubs, Dems, Blue Dogs and Tea Partiers: Everybody Loves Medicare
by Donna Smith
President Obama keeps torturing himself and the 111th Congress by trying to come up with new ways to work together and a single healthcare reform effort that all could embrace politically, morally and fiscally. He need not struggle so hard, as the leaders in each of the groups clamoring for leadership on the issue have stated unequivocally that they love Medicare and want to protect Medicare.
Good ol' Medicare. Publicly funded, privately delivered healthcare in America. More than four decades ago, Medicare was extended to seniors and just a suggestion of diminishment of any Medicare benefit to seniors sent leading Republicans into a dither as the Tea Party participants backed them up. "Hands off my Medicare," they oft cried through the summer town halls that gave rise to the protector/defender status of the Republicans who simultaneously sold the idea that government-run healthcare equals evil things while government- administered Medicare equals protection of grandma and grandpa's hard-earned healthcare plan.
From the Washington Post, Sept. 28, 2009, "After years of trying to cut Medicare spending, Republican lawmakers have emerged as champions of the program, accusing Democrats of trying to steal from the elderly to cover the cost of health reform."
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-KY, in December 2009 said on the Senate floor as he defended Medicare, "They are going to pay for this plan by cutting Medicare, that is cutting Seniors, and raising taxes on small businesses."
And on the House side, as reported in by The Hill in October, "The House health reform bill would ‘virtually eliminate' Medicare Advantage, Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) alleged Friday.
"The top House Republican argued that the cuts to Medicare in the House bill unveiled Thursday are so steep that it practically does away with Medicare Advantage, the popular program in which government benefits are administered through private plans."
Or how about RNC chair Michael Steele writing in the Washington Post in August 2009, "The Republican Party's contract with seniors includes tenets that Americans, regardless of political party, should support. First, we need to protect Medicare and not cut it in the name of "health-insurance reform." As the president frequently, and correctly, points out, Medicare will go deep into the red in less than a decade. But he and congressional Democrats are planning to raid, not aid, Medicare by cutting $500 billion from the program..."
Disingenuous or not, the Republicans do not want to own even an ounce of senior rage for cutting their beloved Medicare access. Seniors whose benefits are threatened are seniors who vote.
How about the Dems? And even their bluest of Blue-blooded Dogs?
Folks may remember the Blue Dog conservative-minded Democrats in the House holding up progress on the House reform bill until assurances were made to correct what they felt were unfair provider reimbursements in rural areas for, you guessed it, Medicare patient services.
NPR reported on Feb. 5, 2010, "In the House, the 10-year cancellation of doctor payment reductions was included in the broader overhaul bill after Democratic leaders cut a deal with the fiscally conservative ‘Blue Dog' Democrats. The deal was that that portion of the bill wouldn't have to be paid for as long as the House passed a separate bill to ensure that no future spending would be passed without offsetting spending cuts or increased taxes."
Even the Blue Dogs know that patients with Medicare and voters with a health plan they like, and Medicare provider rates ought to be fair too. Blue Dogs like Medicare, and they know that Medicare is consistent with fiscal conservatism and re-election. That's a good combination for them.
So what of the lefties? Well, many of the more liberal-leaning members of Congress have urged support for expansion of Medicare for some time. Even in this current debate, for several brief, shining hours, some members argued that allowing those 55 years of age and older to buy in to Medicare would be a great way to handle that difficult to insure and sometimes more in need of health services population.
Remember? Just a few weeks ago, when the "public option" folks were hitting rough waters in the Senate, the idea to expand Medicare wafted forward. Again, from the Washington Post, on December 11, 2009, "House Speaker Nancy Pelosi endorsed a proposal Thursday that would allow people in late middle age to buy insurance through Medicare, helping to sustain an idea that sprang unexpectedly from the Senate this week."
It was dashed rather quickly when Sen. Joe Lieberman expressed disagreement, though, but for many, expanding Medicare was a logical way to move forward for those 55 -64 who often cannot purchase insurance, find jobs willing to extend them coverage, or avoid losing a whole life's worth of savings and retirement security during the few years prior to current Medicare eligibility age.
Don't any of our leaders read and feel the common thread here? It's Medicare. Let's say it again. It's Medicare. Since 1965. Made in America, Medicare.
Medicare does not foist on an unwilling nation a system of government-employed doctors and government-owned providers. Medicare simply provides coverage - publicly funded, healthcare coverage that cannot be lost. The Medicare patient retains full control of where and from whom to seek care.
From the left: public funding. From the right: private delivery. In the center: patients with healthcare. Medicare for all.
If seniors are willing to protect their right to have Medicare with the ferocious energy we saw this past summer, and if Republicans recognize that well enough to claim they want to protect and defend Medicare, and if Democrats know that Medicare has been a cornerstone of social policy and justice for more than four decades, and if even the Blue Dogs understand that Medicare is so good it ought to pay fairly in rural areas and urban areas, then how far is the reach to bring everyone together and make the Medicare program work for all?
The bi-partisan, everybody in, nobody out solution has been there all along. All that remains is watching which true leader will step up and claim the victory for all.
And oh, by the way, 124 more Americans died today because they lacked access to healthcare. They added to the 124 that died yesterday and the day before and will be figured in the 45,000 this year whose lives will be sacrificed because we did not yet recognize the answer that has been before us all along.
Perhaps if we begin assigning blame for those deaths on those who have failed to act to prevent them, the Medicare for all solution will seem even more appealing. The framework is already in place, no new bureaucracy to be created, and lives saved in every Congressional district and state - Red state, Blue state, or anywhere in-between. It's the right thing to do.

Donna Smith is a community organizer for National Nurses United (the new national arm of the California Nurses Association) and National Co-Chair for the Progressive Democrats of America Healthcare Not Warfare campaign.
© Copyrighted 1997-2009

Obama's Speech: Your Reviews...

... which are comming to you by way of Dailykos.com. Sorry for the link to the story missing, I'm still not able to post the link in the way that I wish it to be shown.

"OBAMA EATS REPUBLICANS' LUNCH"! Reviews, bonus, poll, photos
by blackwaterdog
Sat Jan 30, 2010 (edited for content)
Hello,
After the last couple of days, i'm thinking maybe Monarchy is not such a bad idea.
First: best three random reactions out of hundreds, maybe thousands, that i've read all over the web yesterday:
"It was as though Obama reauthorized torture for 90 minutes—a masterful performance".
"This was like something straight from The West Wing. Glad i've been alone so i could shout to the TV: LET OBAMA BE OBAMA!"*
"I scared the bejeezus out of all three dogs cheering Obama on! That was absolutely the best political teevee I have ever seen, outside Election night last year and Inauguration Day!!
Third, all kinds of reviews:
Ambinder:
Obama's Question Time: An Amazing Moment
The moment President Obama began his address to Republicans in Baltimore today, I began to receive e-mails from Democrats: Here's an except from one of them: "I don't know whether to laugh or cry that it took a f$$@&$* year for Obama to step into the ring and start throwing some verbal blows... I'm definitely praying at mass on Sunday morning that this Obama doesn't take another 12 month vacation."
This e-mail comes from a very influential Democrat.
Accepting the invitation to speak at the House GOP retreat may turn out to be the smartest decision the White House has made in months. Debating a law professor is kind of foolish: the Republican House Caucus has managed to turn Obama's weakness -- his penchant for nuance -- into a strength. Plenty of Republicans asked good and probing questions, but Mike Pence, among others, found their arguments simply demolished by the president. (By the way: can we stop with the Obama needs a teleprompter jokes?)
More than the State of the Union -- or on top of the State of the Union -- this may be a pivotal moment for the future of the presidential agenda on Capitol Hill. (Democrats are loving this. Chris Hayes, The Nation's Washington bureau chief, tweeted that he hadn't liked Obama more since the inauguration.)
... Republicans may have wished they had spoken to John McCain about what happened to him in the presidential debates before they decided to broadcast this session. The president looked genuinely engaged, willing to discuss things. Democrats believe that he tossed away the GOP talking points and lack of real plans into a bludgeon against them. "The whole question was structured by a talking point," he told Jeb Hensarling. Obama took the blame for not living up to some of his promises on transparency in health care negotiations. He displayed a familiarity with Republican proposals that seemed to astonish those who asked questions of him. And at the end, Republicans rushed up to him, pens and photo cameras in hands, wanting autographs and pictures.
Mused one mid-level White House official: "This really is the best thing we've done in a long, long time".
Ezra:
Remember the old joke, "I was at a fight and a hockey game broke out?" Well, earlier this afternoon, I was at a photo opportunity and a policy debate broke out.
Obama's Q&A session with the House Republicans was transfixing. What should have been a banal exchange of talking points was actually a riveting reminder of how rarely you hear actual debate -- which is separate from disagreement -- between political players.
This was a surprise. The session was clearly proposed so that Obama could appear to be taking real steps to reach out to Republicans. That implied warm feelings and a studied unwillingness to cause offense. But that was not the event we just saw. Instead, Obama stood at a podium for an hour and hammered his assailants. That makes it sound partisan and disrespectful. But it wasn't. It was partisan, but respectful.
There's a value in proving that you understand the other side's ideas deeply enough to disagree with them. And that was the message of Obama's session. Not that the Republicans were right. But that he'd looked hard enough at their ideas to realize they were wrong. I'm willing to work on tort reform, Obama said, but it's not a credible way to rein in health-care spending. The GOP budget might save a lot of money in theory, he admitted, but it does that by voucher-izing Medicare and holding its spending constant even as health cost increase -- which means seniors will go without a lot of necessary care. And it's hard to take that proposal seriously coming from the party that spent the past few months saying slight decreases in Medicare Advantage reimbursement represented an unforgivable threat to seniors.
Amazed that Obama knows offhand that Ryan wants Medicare vouchers. More amazed he can explain it offhand. This is a command performance.
Yesterday, I interviewed David Axelrod and was struck by his inability to explain how the White House would highlight the the difference between disagreement and obstruction. Today's session, if it becomes a regular event rather than a one-off, provided part of the answer. He'll debate them directly. But that may be tough to do. Republicans are already spreading the word that they made a mistake allowing cameras into the event. Apparently, transparency sounds better in press releases than it does in practice.
But if this is to be the last of these we see for a while, make sure to take the time and watch it, or read the transcript. It's some of the best political television I've seen in memory.
Benen:
I'm reasonably certain I've never seen anything like it. GOP House members were fairly respectful of the president, but pressed him on a variety of policy matters. The president didn't just respond effectively, he delivered a rather powerful, masterful performance.
It was like watching a town-hall forum where all of the questions were confrontational, but Obama nevertheless just ran circles around these guys. I can only assume caucus members, by the end of the Q&A, asked themselves, "Whose bright idea was it to invite the president and let him embarrass us on national television?" .
Note, however, that this wasn't just about political theater -- it was an important back-and-forth between the president and his most forceful political detractors. They were bringing up routine far-right talking points that, most of the time, simply get repeated in the media unanswered. But in Baltimore, the president didn't just respond to the nonsense, he effectively debunked it.
Republicans thought they were throwing their toughest pitches, and Obama -- with no notes, no teleprompter, and no foreknowledge -- just kept knocking 'em out of the park.
It's easy to forget sometimes just how knowledgeable and thoughtful Obama can be on matters of substance. I don't imagine the House Republican caucus will forget anytime soon -- if the president is going to use their invitation to score big victories, he probably won't be invited back next year.
Nevertheless, the White House should schedule more of these. A lot more of these.
Yglesias:
...It was sort of like Prime Minister’s Questions and it revealed, simply put, that Barack Obama is a lot smarter and better-informed than his antagonists. A lot. He very calmly and coolly dismantled them.
To me, personally, it’s not a surprise. I debated policy with Mike Pence once and the guy is a stone-cold idiot. That was a years ago and I’ve been surprised since then to learn that conservatives consider him an unusually sharp policy mind and I take leading rightwingers at their word about that. But it’s the kind of thing that I think most Americans aren’t aware of. Obama knows what he’s talking about. A lot of the members of Congress you see on TV all the time talking smack don’t. That’s not always clear to people since the TV anchors interviewing them usually also don’t know what they’re talking about. Judd Gregg’s whining freakout on MSNBC yesterday punctured the illusion of calm confidence and so did Obama’s back-and-forth.
Mike Madden:
Before President Obama started speaking to the House Republican conference's retreat in Baltimore Friday, the GOP presented him with a little book, one that wrapped up all of the policy ideas they've had since he took office that have languished. It had a catchy title: "Better Solutions." The pamphlet may not be an ideal blueprint for governing -- it only takes 30 pages to wrap up everything from economic stimulus to national security to financial reform -- but, as it turned out, it did make for a pretty good prop.
Which Obama demonstrated about an hour into what was easily the most entertaining program C-SPAN (or any cable news network, really) has aired in a long time "You say, for example, that we've offered a health care plan, and I look up -- this is just {in} the book that you've just provided me, 'Summary of GOP Health Care Reform Bill,'" Obama said, casually flipping through the book as Rep. Tom Price, R-Ga., stood by. Price had demanded the president tell Republicans how they should answer constituents who don't like the way the White House says the GOP hasn't offered any ideas. So Obama played it deadpan. '"The GOP plan will lower health care premiums for American families and small businesses, addressing America's number one priority for health reform.' I mean, that's an idea that we all embrace. But specifically it's got to work."
Two days after his feisty State of the Union speech, Obama's trip to the retreat started off slowly, with a speech that could have worked almost anywhere with only a few edits ahead of time. And then the question-and-answer session got started, and the event turned into a spectacle, the kind of thing that hasn't been seen in American politics in years -- and probably won't again, once the people responsible for putting it together go back to look at the video. (Which is too bad, because NBC does have an opening for a 10 p.m. show, and this was a lot more watchable than Leno.) Rarely has his administration done such a good job of bluntly underscoring the differences between what Obama wants to do and what Republicans would prefer if they had power. The president was funny and disarming, but he defended his policies fiercely, and he tiptoed up to the line of calling Republicans liars to their faces...
The whole thing basically went like that: Republican asks obnoxious question rooted in Glenn Beck-ian talking points; Obama swats it away, makes the questioner look silly, and then smiles at the end. It got so bad, in fact, that Fox News cut away from the event before it was over. Democratic operatives around Washington watching it had pretty much the same reaction: "Where the hell has this guy been?" One source said GOP aides probably wished they'd spoken to John McCain "about what happened to him in the presidential debates" before they broadcast the event. "It's quite a show," a White House official said, apparently going for the same deadpan tone the president was...
... By the time Obama was done, and had stayed about 30 minutes past when he was scheduled to leave, Republican leadership was ready to get him out of the room. One GOP lawmaker asked for one more question, and as Obama started to say he was out of time, Pence jumped in, too: "He's gone way over." And with that, Obama took his booklet of GOP policy proposals and left the room -- in much better political shape, possibly, than he was when he walked in...
Booman:
Obama performed as well as any British prime minister during Question Time. The same cannot be said for the Republicans who, by and large, tried to use dishonest arguments and demonstrably inaccurate statistics only to have Obama tell them to get serious and stop trying to score cheap political points. I can honestly say that if as many Americans watched today's Q & A with the Republicans as watched the State of the Union, our political problems would be over. If we had Question Time, we'd have a much easier time winning over public opinion and sustaining support for progressive policies.
The Republicans certainly will not want to repeat this extremely painful beat-down.
Drun:
Obama is adressing the GOP retreat in Baltimore right now, and it's being televised live. It's remarkable that Republicans agreed to this. The guy at the mike always has an advantage in these kinds of forums, and in any case Obama is better than most at this kind of thing. For the most part, he's running rings around them. I don't know if this will have any long-term effect, but it's good for Obama and, regardless, a good show. Presidents should do this kind of thing more often.
Sullivan:
But here's the key thing: Obama is best at this. He is best at defusing conflict; he is superb at engaging civilly with his opponents. It's part of his legacy - I remember how many conservatives respected him at the Harvard Law Review. But he needs to do more of this, even though he may get nothing in return. Why? Because unless the tone changes, unless the pure obstructionism and left-right ding-dong cycle stops, we are on a fast track to catastrophe.
That was the core message of Obama in the election. It was one of my core reasons for backing him over Clinton - because he has the capacity to reach out this way. I remain depressed at the prospects for a breakthrough, but this was good politics and good policy. More, please. Do this every month. Maybe over the long haul, the poison of the past has to be worked through with Obama as therapist in chief.
The Guardian:
Obama eats Republicans' lunch
"When the Republicans invited President Obama to address their congressional House delegation in Baltimore today, they had no idea how badly it would turn out for them.
Presumably the Republicans thought they'd get a high-profile chance to grill the president on live television. But instead, Obama – following on from his state of the union address on Wednesday night – turned the tables by highlighting the Republicans who opposed his policies and refused to bend, yet were prepared to "turn up and cut ribbons" when their constituents reaped the rewards.
Obama also displayed a rare grasp of policy and legislation, wrong-footing his questioners to their face with some stern rebuttal and in some instances quoting their own positions back to them to highlight the contradictions. He mocked the GOP for presenting healthcare reforms as a "Bolshevik plot" – and got a laugh, even from the Republican audience – and suggested that their approach was counterproductive:
I think we can confidently predict this is the last time the Republicans invite the president to a similar format. Indeed, because the hall the Republicans are holding their event seemed to have just a single TV camera, Obama literally took the spotlight away. Republican questioners showed up as shadowy figures, and when caucus leader Mike Pence kicked off the Republican questions at first he couldn't be heard at all.
At the end, shaking hands with the president, Pence's face looked as if he'd sucked a lemon for an hour – and in a way he had.
A sign of how compelling the footage was: the US cable networks, always so trigger-happy and ready to move on if an event is looking boring, stuck with the live feed, although Fox did cut away first for analysis.
The net effect is that Obama looked serious, reasonable and intelligent. The Republicans got to sound like whiners, complaining about various pet peeves and chewing over their old laundry list of tax cuts and opposition".
John Cole:
For some reason, the GOP allowed the cameras to roll at their retreat during a question time session with President Obama, and he spent the next hour and a half depantsing them. Pretty funny stuff:
If Mike Pence really is regarded as one of the deep thinkers for the GOP, I’m beginning to understand why they refused to admit Terri Schiavo was brain-dead.
Time
President Obama just spoke before the House Republican caucus and then took questions from members - live. It was amazing television - watchable, interesting, feisty and even a little dramatic. I was reminded of the campaign when, in a single speech in Philadelphia, Obama neutralized the Jeremiah Wright issue that could have sunk his candidacy. The environment and subject matter are obviously completely different now, but Obama proved again that he performs best when he's up against the wall. Today, at the caucus meeting, he went right after Republicans on their turf and, in my opinion, owned them.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/1/30/831961/-OBAMA-EATS-REPUBLICANS-LUNCH!-Reviews,-bonus,-poll,-photos

Those Messed Up Democrats!!

Why is it that Democrats always tend to turn stupid once they get into political office? President Obama is no exception to this rule, as he seems to have forgotten what he was placed into office for.

www.commondreams.org
Published on Thursday, January 21, 2010 by CommonDreams.org
Massachusetts and the Populist Imperative
by Robert Weissman

It takes a special skill for a Democrat to lose a federal election in Massachusetts.
But whatever the failings of the candidacy and campaign of Martha Coakley, the Democratic senate candidate in Massachusetts, the Democrats' loss of the Massachusetts Senate seat held for almost half a century by Edward Kennedy, following the party's November loss of the New Jersey gubernatorial race, suggests the need to focus more on the broader context, and less on individual shortcomings.
The Democratic Party has squandered the enormous opportunity bequeathed to it by the election of 2008.
The party gained overwhelming control of both the legislature and executive in 2008. Yet party leaders somehow failed to recognize the political moment.
We live in populist times.
Wall Street has crashed the economy. According to the official figures -- which under-report unemployment -- one in six people in the country are out of work or unable to find full-time work.
People know who's to blame for the country's deep recession, and they want them held accountable.
And they want to see aggressive policies to put people back to work.
But we've seen neither populist politics nor policies from the Democrats.
Although President Obama on occasion has had harsh words for Wall Street, in general the administration has sought to blunt the public's anger against the banksters.
It supported and has continued the Bush administration's bailout plan, a kind of unconditional love for Wall Street. Sure, you could make the case the banks had to be saved in order to rescue the economy; but there is no defense for bailing out the richest of the rich with no strings attached.
The administration has put forward a financial regulatory plan with some very useful components. But it has refused to embrace the bold populist policies we need -- breaking up the banks, taxing financial speculation -- to rein in Wall Street. It has also failed to defend the good positions it has advocated with sufficient vigor and high-level involvement.
The gentle treatment of Wall Street from the outset of the administration has framed subsequent political developments.
To its credit, the administration pushed through a desperately needed economic stimulus plan. But in significant part because the size of the stimulus plan was similar to the amount spent on the Wall Street bailout, and because the administration had embraced both, the stimulus and bailout -- though totally distinct -- became entangled in people's minds.
Next came health care. The Democratic Congressional leadership developed a complicated and obtuse health care plan. There was the occasional bluster about how the insurance industry was seeking to undermine the plan, but in fact the insurance and pharmaceutical industries embraced the idea, and will profit enormously from it. Rather than identifying and campaigning against the corporate obstacles to providing affordable access to care for all, the White House cut deals with them.
Meanwhile, while the stimulus and Federal Reserve interventions prevented the recession from turning to depression, the unemployment and foreclosure situations grew dire. No post-stimulus jobs initiatives appeared until the end of 2009. And the Congress and White House failed to do anything consequential to keep people in their homes.
Along the way, populism did find a partial outlet: in the confused and contradictory tea party movement.
Going forward, who grabs the populist reins will significantly determine the 2010 election results.
The populist issue of the day is Wall Street's exorbitant bonus payments. Wall Street remains in business only because it has benefited, and continues to benefit, from trillions of dollars in public supports. The billions that Wall Street is now preparing to pay itself in bonuses come, in a very real sense, out of the pockets of We, The People.
Neither we nor our elected officials need to stand by and watch this happen. We can take our money back by imposing a windfall bonus tax, as Representative Dennis Kucinich has proposed.
You can click here to sign a Public Citizen petition supporting a tax on Wall Street's bonuses.
One clear lesson from the last year is that the people cannot count on political leaders to read the tea leaves and go populist -- even if it is in elected officials' narrow self interest. They have to demand it.

Robert Weissman is the president of Public Citizen.

© Copyrighted 1997-2009
www.commondreams.org

Barack Obama's Pledges, And How He's Doing...

...and this story comes to you by way of http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-10-28-obama-promises_N.htm#table. As you can see, I'm still having a small problem with Blogger posting the links to the story. What is one to do?

Tracking delivery on campaign promises

President Obama made hundreds of pledges to get elected. USA TODAY's Richard Wolf reviews some:

Taxes

Promise: Offer tax cuts of $500 for individuals with income up to $75,000 and $1,000 for couples with income up to $150,000. Obama said 95% of working families would benefit.
Quote: "This is a tax cut, paid for in part by closing corporate loopholes and shutting down tax havens, that will offset the payroll tax that working Americans are already paying." - Janesville, Wis., Feb. 13, 2008
Status: Obama settled for $400 and $800 as part of the $787 billion stimulus package passed by Congress in February. The non-partisan Tax Policy Center estimated that 91% of families with children would get tax cuts averaging $538. Overall, 75% of taxpayers would get reductions averaging $385. Obama's proposals to close loopholes and target tax havens are pending in Congress.

Jobs
Promise: Offer $3,000 tax credits in 2009 and 2010 to existing businesses for each full-time employee hired.
Quote: "I will give American businesses a $3,000 tax credit for every job they create right here in the United States of America." - Canton, Ohio, Oct. 27, 2008
Status: Obama dropped the idea during stimulus negotiations because of concerns in Congress that businesses could cook their books. As unemployment worsens, however, the White House is reconsidering it.

Home ownership
Promise: Create a $10 billion Foreclosure Prevention Fund to help people stay in their homes. Give a tax credit to middle-class homeowners to cover 10% of their mortgage interest every year
Quote: "This fund will help homeowners sell a home that is beyond their means, or modify their loan to avoid foreclosure or bankruptcy." - North Las Vegas, Nev., May 27, 2008
Status: Obama created a larger, $75 billion program in February, a month after taking office. It includes a one-time, $8,000 refundable tax credit for new homebuyers that expires in November.

Type in the link at the begining of this post for even more stats on Obama's financial regulation promises,healthcare, and stem cell research along with a host of other campaign promises which Obama made.

Obama Looking At Small Business

Obama turns his attention to small businesses
by SusanG Sat Oct 24, 2009 http://susang.dailykos.com/
This country was built by dreamers. They’re the workers who took a chance on their desire to be their own boss. The part-time inventors who became the fulltime entrepreneurs. The men and women who have helped build the American middle class, keeping alive that most American of ideals – that all things are possible for all people, and we’re limited only by the size of our dreams and our willingness to work for them. We need to do everything we can to ensure that they can keep taking those risks, acting on those dreams, and building the enterprises that fuel our economy and make us who we are.
For the second time this month, President Obama has aimed his weekly address in the direction of small business. For the first October weekly address, he outlined specifically how health care reform would help out entrepreneurs and innovators, and in this morning's address, he discusses how his Recovery Act--and, by the way, his health care reform proposals--will benefit the little guy.
Small businesses have always been the engine of our economy – creating 65 percent of all new jobs over the past decade and a half – and they must be at the forefront of our recovery. That’s why the Recovery Act was designed to help small businesses expand and create jobs. It’s provided $5 billion worth of tax relief, as well as temporarily reducing or eliminating fees on SBA loans and guaranteeing some of these loans up to 90 percent, which has supported nearly $13 billion in new lending to more than 33,000 businesses.
In addition, our health reform plan will allow small businesses to buy insurance for their employees through an insurance exchange, which may offer better coverage at lower costs – and we’ll provide tax credits for those that choose to do so.
The President discusses his move earlier this week to have the federal government increase the maximize size of loans available through the Small Business Administration, and the effort the feds are undertaking to pump money into smaller, community banks. "The goal here," he explains, "is to get credit where it’s needed most – to businesses that support families, sustain communities, and create the jobs that power our economy."
And, he says, already we can see the signs that federal intervention has worked to unfreeze the economy through the loans to the big commercial banks and big business ... now it's the turn of the smaller institutions:
But while credit may be more available for large businesses, too many small business owners are still struggling to get the credit they need. These are the very taxpayers who stood by America’s banks in a crisis – and now it’s time for our banks to stand by creditworthy small businesses, and make the loans they need to open their doors, grow their operations, and create new jobs. It’s time for those banks to fulfill their responsibility to help ensure a wider recovery, a more secure system, and more broadly shared prosperity.
The full address can be found beneath the fold or on the White House website.
You can Watch the video:

Score One For Cindy McCain

Published on Friday, October 16, 2009 by RebelReports

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/10/16-6
Cindy McCain Bankrolled Conference That Called for Ban on Mercenaries
by Jeremy Scahill
A little-publicized US Naval Academy conference named after Senator John McCain and bankrolled by his wealthy wife, Cindy, issued a call earlier this year for the US government to ban the use of armed private security contractors like Blackwater in US war zones, stating bluntly, "contractors should not be deployed as security guards, sentries, or even prison guards within combat areas."
The ‘McCain Conference on Ethics and Military Leadership’ appears to be ahead of the senator when it comes to the US use of mercenary forces."[T]he use of deadly force must be entrusted only to those whose training, character and accountability are most worthy of the nation's trust: the military," reads the executive summary of the U.S. Naval Academy's 9th Annual McCain Conference on Ethics and Military Leadership, which was held in April at the Annapolis Naval Station. "The military profession carefully cultivates an ethic of ‘selfless service,' and develops the virtues that can best withstand combat pressures and thus achieve the nation's objectives in an honorable way. By contrast, most corporate ethical standards and available regulatory schemes are ill-suited for this environment."
In 2001, Cindy McCain, who may be worth as much as $100 million, first endowed the McCain conference "in honor of her husband" with a $210,000 gift that was specifically intended to fund conferences that would "bring together key military officers and civilian academics responsible for ethics education and character developments."
According to the Fall 2009 newsletter, "Taking Stock," published by the US Naval Academy's Stockdale Center for Ethical Leadership-the host of the McCain Conference-among the speakers at the 2009 event was none other than Erik Prince, the owner of Blackwater. Prince's company is the most infamous of those engaged in the type of armed activity explicitly condemned by the conference's leadership.
The executive summary released by the McCain conference was recently highlighted in a report completed on September 29 by the Congressional Research Service on the use of private contractors. That report said that the US is "relying heavily" on armed contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan and suggests their use could continue to rise. The report also states that misconduct and the killing of civilians by armed security contractors "may have undermined U.S. counterinsurgency efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan."
Despite the fact that the McCain conference, which publicly advocated against the use of armed contractors in combat areas bears Sen. McCain's name and was bankrolled by his wife, when it has come to making this a major issue on Capitol Hill, the Arizona Senator has been largely silent. In 2007, Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Jan Schakowsky introduced the Stop Outsourcing Security Act, which sought to do precisely what the McCain conference called for two years later: to ban the use of mercenaries in US war zones. McCain did not endorse or co-sponsor that legislation, which would certainly have benefitted from his support (neither did then-Senator Barack Obama). Responding to a reporter's question on the campaign trail in July 2008 about whether he believed that US troops and not private guards should protect US diplomats in Iraq, McCain said, "I'd like it, but we don't have enough. Yes, and I'd love to see pigs fly, but it ain't gonna happen."
The McCain campaign hired people with deep ties to the mercenary industry to work on his presidential bid. Among these was senior strategist, Charlie Black, whose firm BKSH & Associates worked for Blackwater's owner Erik Prince, helping to guide Prince through his appearance on Capitol Hill in the aftermath of the September 2007 Nisour Square massacre in Baghdad. McCain also brought on as a senior foreign policy advisor Richard Armitage, the former deputy Secretary of State. After leaving the government, Armitage served as a senior adviser for Veritas Capital from 2005 to 2007. Veritas owns the mercenary giant DynCorp, which holds billions of dollars in Iraq and Afghanistan security and training contracts.
Moreover, the International Republican Institute, which has deep ties to McCain, hired Blackwater as its private security force in Iraq, paying Blackwater an average of more than $17 million a year since 2005 for security services, according to records.
As the Obama administration weighs a substantial troops increase in Afghanistan, leading Democrats and Republicans are calling for an expanded role for US trainers for the Afghan military, which will mean more business for private contractors. Blackwater continues to play a central role in the CIA's drone bombing program in Pakistan and Afghanistan, which vice president Joe Biden and others are suggesting should intensify. At present, there are 74,000 contractors on the DoD payroll in Afghanistan-roughly 10,000 more than the number of US troops. Thousands of other contractors work for the US State Department and other agencies.
The McCain conference raised questions about "the privatization of combat support functions," including intelligence collection and analysis, as well as "advising/training for combat." It concluded, "In irregular warfare environments, where civilian cooperation is crucial," barring the use of armed contractors "is both ethically and strategically necessary."
© 2009 RebelReports

Obama's Peace Prize And Republican Hatred

Why the Right REALLY hates Obama's Nobel
by Paganus Sat Oct 10, 2009
The conservative media's collective unravelling at the news of Obama's Nobel Peace Prize should surprise no one at this point. They have actively hated the Peace Prize since Carter won it.
But the tone and substance of the analysis from the Right clearly reveal, once again, a more deeply seated, and somewhat disturbing, basis for their criticism. Their vision of the world at peace is essentially a Roman one: the eagle victorious atop crushed 'enemies,' a fearful prospect to allies and rivals alike. "Oderint dum metuant - let them hate so long as they fear."
Of course, the problem with this approach to peacemaking is obvious. 1) It's not really peace and 2) it fools exactly no one. The Roman Historian Tacitus, in one of his more remarkable moments of empathy, has a British chieftain say of the Romans, "Auferre, trucidare, rapere falsis nominibus imperium; atque, ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant." - "to ravage, to kill, to steal under false pretenses they call "empire;" and when they make a desert and they call it peace."
Obama's initial rapprochement with the Muslim world, his trip to Egypt, his opening of discussions with Iran, his insistence on ending the occupation of Iraq, and his reformulating of the mission in Afghanistan have turned the basic neoconservative foreign policy formulation on its head. For that alone, for repudiating the imperial course laid by the the previous administration, he richly deserves the Nobel.
Paganus's diary
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/10/10/791845/-Why-the-Right-REALLY-hates-Obamas-Nobel

Is Osama bin Laden Right?

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/09/19
Published on Saturday, September 19, 2009 by The Independent/UK
Everyone Seems to Be Agreeing with Bin Laden These Days
Only Obama, it seems, fails to get the message that we’re losing Afghanistan
by Robert Fisk
Obama and Osama are at last participating in the same narrative. For the US president's critics - indeed, for many critics of the West's military occupation of Afghanistan - are beginning to speak in the same language as Obama's (and their) greatest enemy.
There is a growing suspicion in America that Obama has been socked into the heart of the Afghan darkness by ex-Bushie Robert Gates - once more the Secretary of Defence - and by journalist-adored General David Petraeus whose military "surges" appear to be as successful as the Battle of the Bulge in stemming the insurgent tide in Afghanistan as well as in Iraq.
No wonder Osama bin Laden decided to address "the American people" this week. "You are waging a hopeless and losing war," he said in his 9/11 eighth anniversary audiotape. "The time has come to liberate yourselves from fear and the ideological terrorism of neoconservatives and the Israeli lobby." There was no more talk of Obama as a "house Negro" although it was his "weakness", bin Laden contended, that prevented him from closing down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. In any event, Muslim fighters wold wear down the US-led coalition in Afghanistan "like we exhausted the Soviet Union for 10 years until it collapsed". Funny, that. It's exactly what bin Laden told me personally in Afghanistan - four years before 9/11 and the start of America's 2001 adventure south of the Amu Darya river.
Almost on cue this week came those in North America who agree with Obama - albeit they would never associate themselves with the Evil One, let alone dare question Israel's cheerleading for the Iraqi war. "I do not believe we can build a democratic state in Afghanistan," announces Dianne Feinstein, the California Democrat who chairs the senate intelligence committee. "I believe it will remain a tribal entity." And Nancy Pelosi, the House Speaker, does not believe "there is a great deal of support for sending more troops to Afghanistan".
Colin Kenny, chair of Canada's senate committee on national security and defence, said this week that "what we hoped to accomplish in Afghanistan has proved to be impossible. We are hurtling towards a Vietnam ending".
Close your eyes and pretend those last words came from the al-Qa'ida cave. Not difficult to believe, is it? Only Obama, it seems, fails to get the message. Afghanistan remains for him the "war of necessity". Send yet more troops, his generals plead. And we are supposed to follow the logic of this nonsense. The Taliban lost in 2001. Then they started winning again. Then we had to preserve Afghan democracy. Then our soldiers had to protect - and die - for a second round of democratic elections. Then they protected - and died - for fraudulent elections. Afghanistan is not Vietnam, Obama assures us. And then the good old German army calls up an air strike - and zaps yet more Afghan civilians.
It is instructive to turn at this moment to the Canadian army, which has in Afghanistan fewer troops than the Brits but who have suffered just as ferociously; their 130th soldier was killed near Kandahar this week. Every three months, the Canadian authorities publish a scorecard on their military "progress" in Afghanistan - a document that is infinitely more honest and detailed than anything put out by the Pentagon or the Ministry of Defence - which proves beyond peradventure (as Enoch Powell would have said) that this is Mission Impossible or, as Toronto's National Post put it in an admirable headline three days' ago, "Operation Sleepwalk". The latest report, revealed this week, proves that Kandahar province is becoming more violent, less stable and less secure - and attacks across the country more frequent - than at any time since the fall of the Taliban in 2001. There was an "exceptionally high" frequency of attacks this spring compared with 2008.
There was a 108 per cent increase in roadside bombs. Afghans are reporting that they are less satisfied with education and employment levels, primarily because of poor or non-existent security. Canada is now concentrating only on the security of Kandahar city, abandoning any real attempt to control the province.
Canada's army will be leaving Afghanistan in 2011, but so far only five of the 50 schools in its school-building project have been completed. Just 28 more are "under construction". But of Kandahar province's existing 364 schools, 180 have been forced to close. Of progress in "democratic governance" in Kandahar, the Canadian report states that the capacity of the Afghan government is "chronically weak and undermined by widespread corruption". Of "reconciliation" - whatever that means these days - "the onset of the summer fighting season and the concentration of politicians and activists for the August elections discouraged expectations of noteworthy initiatives...".
Even the primary aim of polio eradication - Ottawa's most favoured civilian project in Afghanistan - has defeated the Canadian International Development Agency, although this admission is cloaked in truly Blair-like (or Brown-like) mendacity. As the Toronto Star revealed in a serious bit of investigative journalism this week, the aim to "eradicate" polio with the help of UN and World Health Organisation money has been quietly changed to the "prevention of transmission" of polio. Instead of measuring the number of children "immunised" against polio, the target was altered to refer only to the number of children "vaccinated". But of course, children have to be vaccinated several times before they are actually immune.
And what do America's Republican hawks - the subject of bin Laden's latest sermon - now say about the Afghan catastrophe? "More troops will not guarantee success in Afghanistan," failed Republican contender and ex-Vietnam vet John McCain told us this week. "But a failure to send them will be a guarantee of failure." How Osama must have chuckled as this preposterous announcement echoed around al-Qa'ida's dark cave.
2009 Independent News and Media.
Robert Fisk is Middle East correspondent for The Independent newspaper. He is the author of many books on the region, including The Great War for Civilisation: The Conquest of the Middle East.

Obama Scares The GOP

From http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/9/10/779677/-No-Wonder-the-GOP-have-gone-crazy...-This-is-a-formidable-enemy...(UPDATE)

No Wonder the GOP have gone crazy... This is a formidable enemy...(UPDATE)
by The Simple Canadian
Wed Sep 09, 2009
What have you guys done? The sun is shining through my window, I am looking at a beautiful Vancouver, British Columbia false creek waters and the boats slowly moving through, early in the morning (6am), I brush my teeth, and I say, let's check out the dailykos before heading to work... and voila, my anonymous diary that I posted last night is at the top of the rec list??? Merci tres beaucoup les gars!!!
This is really a formidable enemy (at least to them). Obama threatens to make the GOP irrelevant for many years to come. They are unable to match up with him intellectually, charismatically and politically. And unlike Kennedy, he seem to have a damn good Secret Service.
However, every time Obama speaks, Americans remember why they are a great Nation. He seems to move the entire world with him, with just one simple speech he could wipe out all the town hall demonstrations, all smear TV ads from the McCain campaign, everything, is just wiped out.
This, my friends, is for the ages. This, is what is going to pass the health care reforms:
To the GOP, this enemy, is different, and is very very scary. No wonder, they have gone crazy.
There is something that can make you better, but I can't afford it

Time To Lose The Republicans?

The following article comes from http://www.dailykos.com/

TIME TO LET THE REPUBLICANS GO.
by icebergslim Sun Aug 30, 2009
I am from Illinois, a blue state with the City of Chicago within it, a large populous state. Yet, while the White House WAITS on the Senate Finance Committee; large populous states have no representation of the committee. There are six individuals who are trying to pound out an agreement, yet all come from extremely small states and represents none of the majority of Americans. Note, we have had other bills come out of committee with the public option attached, but the bipartisanship of the White House has been a wait and see, as what comes out of the Baucus Committee.
Now the same sort of damaging retreat may be happening in the Senate Finance Committee. Three committees in the House and one in the Senate have used their Democratic majorities to approve liberal health reform bills. The only bipartisan negotiations are between a rump group of three Democrats and three Republicans on the Finance Committee who hail from largely rural states with small populations, namely Iowa, Maine, Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota and Wyoming. Somehow this small, unrepresentative group has emerged as the focal point for bipartisan health care reform.
Bipartisan health care. No one is asleep here; do we actually believe that the Republicans will vote ANYTHING for Obama? When you have the likes of Grassley and Enzi, who are on this committee continuing to destroy any hope of bipartisanship, yet the White House forges along, but why? Is it for Independent votes? If that is the case, they are bleeding this group, since the Democratic Party has been all over the map in the messaging of health care and this message has clearly been yanked from the Democrats. The reality now in the Obama White House is that none of these Republicans were EVER going to be an honest broker, not for any of Barack Obama's agenda. At this time the Republicans only care about political points with hopes of recapturing the congress and hopefully the White House, so helping out President Obama is very LOW on their totem pole.
In recent weeks, it has become inescapably clear that Republicans are unlikely to vote for substantial reform this year. Many seem bent on scuttling President Obama’s signature domestic issue no matter the cost. As Senator Jim DeMint, Republican of South Carolina, so infamously put it: “If we’re able to stop Obama on this, it will be his Waterloo. It will break him.”
As we are still trying for the "bipartisanship lovey-dovey bill", the Republicans are staying on course to kill ANY health care reform bill, in the process making outrageous demands for their support EVEN THOUGH we have majorities in the House and Senate. The way things are going, you would think it is the Republicans in charge and not the Democrats.
In Salt Lake City today, Sen. Bob Bennett (R-UT) held a fundraiser with former Bush adviser Karl Rove, where Rove declared that “Republicans will be defined this year by their effort to block Democrats’ efforts for health care reform.” “This year is going to be defined by Republicans and conservatives by what we oppose,” said Rove. After Rove praised Bennett’s health care plan, Bennett said that he agreed with Rove’s goal of killing health care reform:
Rove said that he supports Bennett’s work on the Healthy Americans Act - the health care bill Bennett is co-sponsoring with Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Oregon - although he said it’s “not exactly the bill that you or I would like each and every section.” Bennett said his bill is not a negotiating tool on health care, but it will be there as an alternative after Democratic reforms are blocked. “The No. 1 assignment in 2009 is to kill Obamacare,” Bennett said.
With lovey-dovey friends like these, no wonder health care is in disarray.
No one can rule out that the health care debacle or debate has hurt Obama and Democrats across the board, but I firmly believe once a health care package (with a public option) is passed by Democrats (let's be real the Republicans are not voting for ANYTHING) then we can rebound in the polling numbers. I also believe that once President Obama explains in clear lay-man speak, not that Washington, D.C. mumbo jumbo, but relay to the American Public why health care reform is not only important but what it means for THEM, we can win this battle. But, if we continue to deal with the Republican Party, which is fruitless, worthless and a waste of time, in my opinion, the public option could be a compromise if the Obama White House is hell bent on a bipartisan bill. Even though, a government run public option is what the public wants and demands, it could easily be dealt away:
The six have been working hard to reach agreement, but the concessions demanded by Republicans will most likely make the reform effort weaker and smaller. They could, for example, reduce the scale of the program and the subsidies for low-income people; drop the idea of a government-run insurance plan to compete with private insurers; and eliminate a requirement that employers offer coverage to their workers or pay a penalty.
Even if the group reaches an agreement, which is by no means certain, its compromise is unlikely to win support from a Republican Party that seems bent on delay. Leading Senate Republicans have seen little in the emerging compromise that they are willing to support.
Two of the Republicans working on the compromise — Charles Grassley of Iowa and Michael Enzi of Wyoming — have said they would not vote for a bill that could not win broad support, which Mr. Enzi defined as 75 to 80 senators, implying that roughly half of the Senate’s Republicans must sign on. That is unlikely — no matter how good or bipartisan or middle-of-the-road any bill may be.
After all this, does anyone believe these Republicans? And get this one, even if the Democrats and we got some very weak ones, give them everything, these Republicans will still NOT VOTE FOR ANY REFORM.
I hope President Obama and his family had a very restful vacation, even though the death of our great leader of the senate, Ted Kennedy, hurts, I am hoping that it is our former Lion of the Senate, while in his death will give some backbone or steel spine to the Democrats to forge this ahead and get on with it.
We need health care reform, desperately, but we don't need what the Republicans are trying to dish up. The Democratic Party is the leaders, majority of the congress and White House, it is time to show this leadership and get on with it.
NY Times
Think Progress
••
This Week With Barack Obama