Welcome to Anti

The Barack Obama On The Issues Page

Welcome to our site where we have collected recent news and resources for Barack Obama On The Issues.

Latest Barack Obama On The Issues News

Obama, Dems consider pared-down health care bill - San Francisco Chronicle

Chastened by the Democratic Senate loss in Massachusetts, President Barack Obama and congressional allies signaled Wednesday they may try to scale back his sweeping health care overhaul in an effort to at least keep parts of it alive. A simpler, less ...

MPS releases names of 3 earlier superintendent finalists - Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

The three previously undisclosed candidates were: Charles Hopson, a deputy superintendent in the 46,000-student Portland Public Schools; Joshua Starr, superintendent of the 15,000-student Stamford Public Schools in Stamford, Conn.; and Edward ...

Obama's Year One: What Went Wrong - NBC Bay Area

As the Obama administration marks its first birthday, there is no reason to shop around for the perfect present. What President Barack Obama needs most is obvious: a new political strategy — ideally one more grounded in the realities of governance ...

Republican win in Mass. will alter course for issues affecting Utah - ksl.com

It's an altered landscape for both national parties, for national political figures and for key issues affecting Utahns, like ... Chastened by the Democratic Senate loss in Massachusetts, President Barack Obama and congressional allies signaled ...

Brown record doesn't always match everyman image - Charleston Daily Mail

BOSTON -- As he campaigned for the U.S. Senate from the back of his green pickup, Scott Brown portrayed himself as an independent-minded everyman and moderate candidate fighting the Democratic "machine.'' But as a Republican in Massachusetts, Brown ...

GOP candidates’ feud could imperil race against Reid - Las Vegas Sun

Republican Scott Browns (the 201,000 mile truck driver) defeat of Democrat Martha Coakley for "The People's Seat" Senator from Massachusetts can be laid at the feet of the supercilious TOO BIG TOO FAIL Senator HARRY REID and OBAMA. Following on the ...

Intelligence Chief Slams Handling of Christmas-Bomb Case - Wall Street Journal

The nation's intelligence chief said the man accused of trying to blow up an airliner on Christmas Day should have been questioned by a special interrogation team instead of being handled as an ordinary criminal suspect. Dennis Blair, the director of ...

Gay U.S. Senate candidate files complaint against Chicago television ... - EDGE Boston

An openly gay U.S. Senate candidate from Illinois filed a complaint against a Chicago public television station earlier today for excluding him from an upcoming televised debate. Jacob Meister, who is seeking the Democratic nomination to President ...

Democrats scramble for new healthcare approach - Reuters

... rode a wave of voter anger on the health bill and other elements of President Barack ... proceed on the issue, with nearly all of the potential options for passing healthcare drawing criticism or doubts from some party members. Obama urged ...

In Senate, 59 Votes Can Still Deliver - Wall Street Journal

President Barack Obama won a $787 billion stimulus ... We need to move as quickly as we can to the jobs issues and the economic issues," said Sen. Dick Durbin (D., Ill.). "That turned out to be a dominant issue among independent voters who voted ...

Open Question: Republican win in Mass, a godsend to reducing unemployment?

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE60J3GM20100120?type=politicsNews%3FfeedType%3DRSS&feedName=politicsNews&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Reuters%2FPoliticsNews+%28News+%2F+US+%2F+Politics+News%29&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher "The White House said it may rethink its strategy for selling Obama's agenda as it presses ahead with its priorities, including not only healthcare but job creation, climate change and financial regulatory reform." http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE60J5IK20100120?type=politicsNews%3FfeedType%3DRSS&feedName=politicsNews&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Reuters%2FPoliticsNews+%28News+%2F+US+%2F+Politics+News%29&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher "Senate loss will bolster Obama's resolve on jobs, The loss of a key Democratic Senate seat will likely strengthen the resolve of President Barack Obama to press ahead urgently with a package of targeted proposals to spur U.S. job creation." You'd think curing unemployment/economy would be the first thing Obama should of taken on, not only is it a higher priority, but it would be immensely useful for increasing his own popularity (assuming it was successful) and would be able to use that popularity to pass other items later on down the line. The fact that this adim waited till they lost some power to get back to the real issues is telegraphing a very destructive message to voters, that the only way to reign them in is to vote them out, and we have seen in recent admins where this trend leads to. Now that the focus in on the economy and on jobs, and we can assume there will be higher yields of co-operation, (I said higher, not perfect, lol). Anyways, I wish Obama luck in regards to restoring the economy. Right, what are your thoughts on the election and how it effects Obama? What are your thoughts on the articles? And thank you for your time more

Open Question: Where can I join liberals anonymous support group?

My dear fellow liberals in this time of our liberal anxiety and repentance I would like to attract yuor attention to this confession of our fellow liberal, who was special counsel to Our Saint President Bill Clinton 1996-98. He was so confused and misguided that he failed to find such liberals anonymous support group and chose inseated to voice his opinion in the evil Wall Street Jourlan, no less. Here it goes : http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703837004575013221708478134.html Liberal Democrats might attempt to spin the shocking victory of Republican Scott Brown in Massachusetts by claiming that the loss was a result of a poor campaign by Martha Coakley. Would that it were so. This was a defeat not of the messenger, but of the message—and the sooner progressive Democrats face up to that fact, the better. It's the substance, stupid! According to polls, fears about the Democrats' health-care proposal played a prominent role in Mr. Brown's victory yesterday. In the last several months, the minority congressional Republicans have dominated the message on health care—and stamped on the Democratic Party the perception that we stand for big government, higher taxes, and health insecurity when it comes to Medicare. How is that possible? The Democrats have a simple message on health care that has still not really gotten through: If our bill passes, you never have to worry about getting, or losing, health insurance for the rest of your life. How is it that so few people have heard that message? View Full Image Associated Press President Barack Obama Then there were the two "deals" that put congressional Democrats in a worse light than the infamous "Bridge to Nowhere"—as impossible as that might have seemed—as an emblem of the special interest politics Barack Obama ran against. We Democrats had to explain to Massachusetts voters and other Americans why non-Nebraskans and nonunion members have to pay more taxes, while Nebraskans and union members get to pay less. Those two deals seem to have alienated most people across the political spectrum. That's not easy. Somehow, in the last 12 months, we allowed the party of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama to morph into the party of George McGovern (or more accurately, his most ardent supporters) and Howard Dean, who called for the defeat of the Democratic health-care bill if it had neither a public option or Medicare buy-in. (He couldn't possibly have been speaking for the 31 million uninsured people in taking that all-or-nothing position.) In 1996, Mr. Clinton was the first Democrat to win re-election since FDR—expanding the electoral map once again into western, southern, and sunbelt states. He did so by creating a new ideological hybrid for a still-progressive Democratic Party: balanced-budget fiscal conservatism, cultural moderation, and liberal social programs administered by a "lean and mean government." This New Democrat combination appealed to Ross Perot independents concerned about deficits, and also to traditional Republican suburbanites who were culturally moderate on issues like abortion and gay rights but opposed to high taxes and wasteful, big-government bureaucracy. Then, in 2008, Barack Obama added something extra: a commitment to a "new politics" that transcended the "red" versus "blue" partisan divide. He explained this concept clearly in his 2004 Democratic Convention keynote speech and during his 2008 presidential campaign. It meant compromise, consensus and bipartisanship, even if that meant only incremental change. The purists on the left of the Democratic Party who demanded the "public option" or no bill at all apparently forgot that candidate Obama's health-care proposal did not include a public option; nor did it include a government mandate for everyone to either purchase insurance or pay a significant tax approximating the cost of that insurance—the "pay or play provision" in both the Senate and House bills. Bottom line: We liberals need to reclaim the Democratic Party with the New Democrat positions of Bill Clinton and the New Politics/bipartisan aspirations of Barack Obama—a party that is willing to meet half-way with conservatives and Republicans even if that means only step-by-step reforms on health care and other issues that do not necessarily involve big-government solutions. That's what Massachusetts Democrats and independent voters were telling national Democrats yesterday. The question isn't just, will we listen? The question is, will we stop listening to the strident, purist base of our party who seem to prefer defeat to winning elections and no change at all if they don't get all the change they want. Stay tuned. Liberal Democrats might attempt to spin the shocking victory of Republican Scott Brown in Massachusetts by claiming that the loss was a result of a poor campaign by Martha Coakley. Would that it were so. This was a defeat not of the messenger, but of the message more

Open Question: How could the Democrats lose so much so fast without accomplishing a single thing?

What is the problem? This was the worse political upset in the history of politics. The Republicans were roundly defeated in 2008 by Democrats, and they squandered their public's trust. I am embarrased to be a Democrat today; not on principle - but because I think THIS PARTY is ineffective at best when it comes to making things actually happen. Why is Barack Obama always behind the scenes? Why did the Democrats cave on every major issue in the Senate Bill? This is EMBARRASING folks. If you are a Democrat, I'm sure you feel the same way I do right now.A clarification - "political upset" includes the fact that Democrats have lost 2 (after today 3) major consecutive national elections, lost liberal support, lost independent support, and have lost control of the communication war to the Tea Party ("the message" as it is called in political jargon). more

Open Question: Do you agree that the US senate should pass the following resolution?

1. That Barack Hussein Obama must immediately present his birth certificate for verification by the US Supreme Court to determine if he is indeed constitutionally permitted to serve as president. 2. That if Barack Hussein Obama does not present his birth certificate within 24 hours, that the Supreme Court issue a warrant for his immediate arrest for the crime of high treason. more

Open Question: Why is Big Beautiful Man referring to himself in a question about Barack Obama?

Isn't this supposed to be about the issues, not him? more

Resolved Question: Just as the major media covered-up the John Edwards scandals have they covered up the Obama AKA, NBC scandals?

'AKA' means 'also known as'. Obama has gone by a number of different aliases -- the latest reported are 'Steve Dunham' and 'Stephen O. Dunham'. 'NBC' means 'natural born citizen'. Obama is ineligible to hold the office of President because teh Constitution requires BOTH parents to have been citizens at his birth. Obama's dad was not. As James Rainey writes in the LA TIMES today: --- There still appears to be a sizable minority in America who favors big news organizations at least in part for their broad ambitions, thoroughness, balance and sense of restraint. But ain't it a shame when those highfalutin', old-school intentions get in the way of the basic mission -- delivering the audience a "Hey Martha!" scoop now and then with their breakfast cereal? It seems the higher values and a healthy dose of old-fashioned incredulity (Could he really be that big a cad?) put America's most prestigious news organizations on the sidelines as presidential hopeful John Edwards embarked on an extramarital affair of epic audacity. After reading "Game Change," a sweeping new account of campaign 2008 by veteran journalists John Heilemann and Mark Halperin, a reader might wonder: How could the schmucks on the bus miss the operatic disintegration of Edwards' once widely admired partnership with his wife, Elizabeth? --- We have the same questions about Steve Dunham aka Barry Soetoro aka Barack Obama, Mr. Rainey. Where has the media been? Why haven't they covered all the aliases, the reports of multiple social security numbers, the legitimate natural born citizenship questions? Would they have been hot on these issues if it was a Republican candidate with similar issues? more

Resolved Question: Should Haitians illegally living in the U.S. get "Temporary Protected Status" due to the disaster in Haiti?

Haitian-American and immigrant activists who greeted President Barack Obama's election with high hopes are growing frustrated with the administration's failure to deliver one of their top goals. Obama said in July he was "very sympathetic" to the community's request to allow Haitian immigrants now illegally in the country to stay temporarily, but no decision has been announced. Some activists say their patience is wearing thin. "I feel they are stringing us along, and we are in an awkward position," said Randolph McGrorty, head of Catholic Charities Legal Services, who brought the subject to a head with a stinging e-mail sent to House, Senate and administration staffers last week. "Do we allow them to string us along because they are our allies or do we start calling them on the carpet for it?" The unrest comes as Obama plans a trip to Miami on Monday to raise money for House and Senate Democrats. Presidential candidate Obama did not promise to grant undocumented Haitian immigrants temporary legal status in the United States -- a designation known as Temporary Protected Status, or TPS -- but activists said they believed the first African-American president would give the issue special consideration. Haitians press Obama on immigration goals http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/77733.html#Comments_Container more

Voting Question: What is your opinion on the article?

When talk of race goes behind closed doors (CNN) -- We're just going to put it out there: Behind closed doors, whites talk differently about blacks. At least that's what two sociologists found after conducting a study of college students across the country. One of the researchers, Joe Feagin, said that's why it comes as no surprise to him that a powerful politician such as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid would talk about Barack Obama's skin color and use the term "Negro dialect" in what he considered a private conversation. Speaking not of Reid but of his conclusions drawn from his research, Feagin said, "Most whites have sharply reduced the blatantly racist stuff they do in public, while they still do huge amounts in private." "It's just social correctness in the front stage. The scale of this is gigantic on the backstage, which is why the notion of a post-racial America is laughable," said Feagin, a professor at Texas A&M University. "And I think most whites know it because they've been to Thanksgiving dinner with Uncle Jim and have heard the n-word jokes." Feagin and Leslie Picca of the University of Dayton compiled their research in a book called "Two-Faced Racism" published in 2007. They surveyed 626 white students at 28 colleges and universities across the country. They asked the students to keep diaries and record any racial events they came across during the course of a day. The students recorded 9,000 accounts, of which 7,500 were "blatantly racist" events ranging from private jokes and conversations to violent incidents, Feagin said. About 100 accounts stood up against racism, he said. The majority of racial events were directed at African-Americans, but Latinos and Asians also came under attack. Feagin and Picca also surveyed African-American students, but that research is still being compiled. "In these 7,500 blatant accounts, most of them are accounts of what we call backstage racism -- that is they're doing these performances and skits with friends and relatives," Feagin said. Does it surprise him that someone with such political clout as Reid would use a term such as "Negro dialect"? "No," Feagin said, "not after looking at our student diaries." He said Reid "felt safe making" the comment about Obama because he was in a private setting. "It's a great teaching moment," Feagin said. "It shows the difference between the front stage and the backstage. He thought he was saying that in the backstage, and now it's been brought out in the public for all to see and discuss." The controversy is centered on remarks published in the book "Game Change" by Mark Halperin and John Heilemann. The book cites Reid as saying privately in 2008 that Obama could succeed as a black candidate partly because of his "light-skinned" appearance and speaking patterns "with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one." Reid, D-Nevada, apologized to the president after excerpts from the book were released, and Obama said he considered the issue closed. Your take: iReporters sound off on the issue "This is a good man who's always been on the right side of history," Obama said Monday in a sit-down interview with CNN political contributor Roland Martin. "For him to have used some inartful language in trying to praise me, and for people to try to make hay out of that, makes absolutely no sense." Reid has received the support of the Congressional Black Caucus. On Monday, he said numerous prominent African-American officials, including NAACP Chairman Julian Bond and Attorney General Eric Holder, called to offer their support. Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, head of the GOP's Senate campaign arm, has called for Reid to give up his leadership post after the "embarrassing and racially insensitive" remarks. Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele also called for Reid to step down. Duke University political science professor Kerry Haynie said he doesn't dispute that attitudes toward race may be viewed differently in private than in public. But he said he doesn't feel that came into play with Reid's remarks. "Many of us who work in areas of race and politics asked these same kinds of questions, about whether Obama is different for whites than other black politicians," Haynie said. "I don't think Sen. Reid was expressing sentiments he would not have expressed publicly." Boyce Watkins, an associate professor at Syracuse University, said the country shouldn't let this moment pass. "The takeaway is that there is a teachable moment, but we can't allow politicians to do all the teaching," Watkins told CNN's "American Morning." "If you watched President Obama's interview with Roland Martin, the conversation tends to be let's sweep this under the rug and throw the baby out with the bath water and move on. "But the truth is that they are trying to get health care passed, and that's good, I respect that, but I want to have the conversation on race. more

Resolved Question: Democrats attack Cornyn for saying Reid should resign. Is this Obama attacking his opponents?

http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2010/01/dems-call-sen-john-cornyn-a-hy.html Dems call Sen. John Cornyn a hypocrite over Reid racial remarks, say he's playing politics "The Democratic National Committee says Sen. John Cornyn is a hypocrite for calling on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's resignation. Yesterday, the Texas Republican became the first member of the Senate GOP leadership to say Reid should step down because of racially insensitive comments he made about Barack Obama in 2008. "Cornyn, the DNC said in a statement issued moments ago, "would have one believe that he is some kind of champion for the African American community and for civil rights.... But with an abysmal record on issues of importance to the African American community, clearly Senator Cornyn has no credibility on these issues and is simply playing the worst kind of politics. Senator Cornyn has repeatedly opposed policies that would benefit African Americans, has received Fs repeatedly from the NAACP, and in a far worse situation than the one involving Senator Reid, defended Trent Lott in 2002 when he waxed nostalgic for the Presidential Campaign of Strom Thurmond - and the era of Jim Crow and segregation his campaign represented." " Funny thing about Thurmond - he switched parties in 1964. All those racist things he did happened while he was a DEMOCRAT. We saw Obama attacking his critics before, such as Fox news. Is Obama now attacking members of Congress who disagree with him?LOL! Of course Ensign doesn't want to see people held accountable for their ACTIONS - after what he did. Not what I would call a reliable source of balanced opinion... more

Resolved Question: Why do some people continue to deny that ?

Why do some people continue to deny that Obama is a Socialist when his record reflects that ??...... 1) Obama was a registered card carrying member of the Democratic Socialists of America in 1996 2) Obama sat in an admittedly marxist based black liberation theology church for over 20 years 3) Obama was endorsed in 2008 by: A) Socialist Party USA B) " Marxists/Socialists/ Communists For Obama " C) Communist Party USA & it's Chairman/Leader Sam Webb D) Democratic Socialists of America 4) Obama ran for Illinois State Senator in 1996 on the " New Party " Ticket which was the Chicago branch of the Democratic Socialists of America 5) Obama was reported in an article in the fall 1996 issue of the official newspaper of the Democratic Socialists of America that " one of our members, Barack Obama, was elected Illinois State Senator "LOL - Obama supporters are more than welcome to confirm these irrefutable facts if they dare merely by googling them however I doubt that they want to deal with any facts exposing the reality of Obama more

Resolved Question: Do you think President Barack Obama wants to deal with immigration reform in 2010?

Im not asking if you are for immigration reform or for immigration reduction, I am just asking if the President really wants to deal with 11.7 million illegal immigrants or not. I really do not think he wants to deal with the issue. I think that Numbers USA doesn't have anything to worry about within the next 11 months of 2010. According to this article dated January 8 of 2010, immigration reform is unlikely to happen in 2010, so i don't know why immigration reform should be worried about over people that oppose immigration reform and favor immigration reduction and or elimination. http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/01/08/world/AP-LT-Mexico-US-Migration.html From what I have heard, the Obama Administration doesn't want to deal with immigration reform until 2011 because health care reform and energy saving bills have completely passed, and only if they feel like it. Obama stated a few days ago according to the News I watched on ABC that "Making a pathway to legalization will be almost impossible for 11.7 illegal immigrants from Mexico, why should they be the first in line to a pathway to citizenship?" And according to the news media this is exactly what he said. (sorry i cant find a link to prove this, but his was on friday nights abc news. So all I want to know is, do you think President Barack Obama will ever pass immigration reform in 2010 or ever? Do you think he opposes the H.R. 4321 introduced by Representative Gutierrez because it lacks a guest worker program? Why or why not? Thanks for your answers. more

Resolved Question: What favors, behind closed door bribes did Harry Reid make to get Al Sharpton to support him?

Another unsolicited statement, as Reid's camp works frantically to put out the fire: I have learned of certain unfortunate comments made by Senator Reid regarding President Barack Obama and have spoken with Senator Reid about those comments. While there is no question that Senator Reid did not select the best word choice in this instance, these comments should not distract America from its continued focus on securing healthcare or creating jobs for its people. Nor should they detract from the unquestionable leadership role Senator Reid has played on these issues or in the area of civil rights. Senator Reid's door has always been open on hearing from the civil rights community on these issues and I look forward to continue to work with Senator Reid wherever possible to improve the lives of Americans everywhere. http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0110/Sharpton_backs_Reid.html more

Voting Question: comment on this plz???????

Solomon once said: “When there is no vision, the people perish.” The founding fathers all had a vision for posterity, but when the time came for the vision to become a reality Americans did not embrace it. The founder’s dreams had changed and evolved into realities that they themselves would not have recognized. America has departed from the vision of its founding fathers by redefining the separation of church and state, increasing the power of the federal government, and neglecting education.Separation of church and state has always played a crucial role in American history; it was one of the issues that prompted many people to settle in America. The boundaries between the two entities are constantly being redrawn. Thomas Jefferson, the writer of the Declaration of Independence, clearly communicated a higher Being when he penned, “…all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights.” He also concluded the Declaration by referring to a “divine providence.” One can conclude after reading his statements in the Declaration, a public document, that Jefferson did not intend for religion to be barred from all areas of public life. He only supported the separation of church and state so that legislations could not be influenced by the church, or vice versa. Today, Democrats like President Barack Obama say that Jefferson, who was a Deist, did not like to include religion in any area of public life. To support their claim they point to our godless constitution where the word “god” is not found anywhere. On the other hand, Ron Paul, a staunch Republican, disagrees with the President by saying that the separation of church and state does not mean the separation of religion and state. He strongly believes that our god-less constitution only reinforces the fact that legislation and religion should be separate, but the public square should not be deprived from God. The elusive definition of the boundary between church and state has affected politics and court rulings from the founding of the nation to now. If a nation is to survive then it must clearly define and embrace the vision of its founding fathers.The balance of federal and state government is constantly being tipped one way or the other. The federal government’s power has been constantly increasing. All of the founding fathers favored state’s rights over the national government. One of the grievances Jefferson mentioned in the Declaration of Independence is “suspending our own legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.” It refers to the fact that England stripped the local government’s rights and increased the national power. This was one of the many grievances that reflected the visions the founding fathers had on the issue of federal and state power. Today, the President of the United States, Barack Obama says he holds that same views as the founders, but he is more attentive to the needs of the people. He claims that the increase of federal government will protect their families. Republicans, like Ron Paul strongly oppose President Obama’s policies on state’s rights. Ron Paul argues that decisive issues, like abortion, are meant to be handled by the states and not the central power. State’s rights and Federal powers are constantly being checked with what the founders intended for the nation, but there seems to be no agreement.Thomas Jefferson warned future generations about neglecting education when he said, “If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.” The founding fathers envisioned a nation with a strong emphasis on education, but that still hasn’t become a reality. Democrats and Republicans agree the education system in America is failing and immediate action must be taken. The President has been a major advocate for better education ad he has teamed up with Republicans to make a vision into a reality. Bettering the education system is a hurdle America must overcome if it wants to realize the visions of its founding fathers.Redefining the separation of church and state, increasing the federal government’s power, and neglecting education has put America far from living the vision of the funding fathers. America must take the word of Gail Devers to heart, “Understand to achieve anything requires faith and belief in yourself, vision, hard work, determination, and dedication. Remember all things are possible for those who believe.” more

Voting Question: Cn u plz comment on this essay?

Resolved Question: Can u plz read this essay and comment on it?

Resolved Question: Will not any candidate who has a chance of beating Obama in 2012 have to be just as polished in speech making?

Barack Obama's powers of oration have been a key to his success in most endeavors leading up to his election to President in 2008. And in this, the American voting public has become accustomed such that, any candidate with LESSER capabilities in the speech making department may automatically be perceived as less qualified to be President -- REGARDLESS of the issues of content or character behind the policies, values, performance and behavior of the speaker. To those who don't LIKE someone so polished to be holding the top office, a more FOLKSY, DOWN-TO-EARTH candidate may be more appealing. But on balance, would a folksy candidate be more likely to defeat Obama? Or would they simply be perceived as someone less sophisticated and capable, regardless of intellect, experience, correct ideology or soundness of reasoning? What will be the ideal set of positive characteristics that a candidate must possess in order to defeat the mighty Obama in 2012 (although less mighty based on polls since mid 2009)? And have we seen any such candidate materialize just yet? This question asks for the responder to set aside their OWN personal preferences and to think more broadly -- i.e. on balance, what won the vote in 2008 and now what might be required to win the vote with all of America in 2012 in the aftermath of Obama the Orator flooding our TV screens for 4+ years? more

Resolved Question: Why Did Obama Sternly Criticize Lott but Give Reid a Pass on Racist Remarks?

In light of President Obama's decision to forgive Harry Reid's remarks about Obama's skin color and lack of a "Negro dialect," check out what Obama said about Trent Lott in 2002: Illinois Senator Barack Obama (D-13th), who hosted WVON's Cliff Kelley Show, challenged the Republican Party to repudiate Lott's remarks and to call for his resignation as senate leader. "It seems to be that we can forgive a 100-year-old senator for some of the indiscretion of his youth, but, what is more difficult to forgive is the current president of the U.S. Senate (Lott) suggesting we had been better off if we had followed a segregationist path in this country after all of the battles and fights for civil rights and all the work that we still have to do," said Obama. He said: "The Republican Party itself has to drive out Trent Lott. If they have to stand for something, they have to stand up and say this is not the person we want representing our party." --From the December 12, 2002 issue of the Chicago Defender. more

Resolved Question: When will the Harry Reid story hit the 6:00 news? Which party is led by racist's now?

The top Democrat in the U.S. Senate apologized on Saturday for comments he made about Barack Obama's race during the 2008 presidential bid and are quoted in a yet-to-be-released book about the campaign. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada described in private then-Sen. Barack Obama as "light skinned" and "with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one." Obama is the nation's first African-American president. "I deeply regret using such a poor choice of words. I sincerely apologize for offending any and all Americans, especially African-Americans for my improper comments," Reid said in a statement released after the excerpts were first reported on the Web site of The Atlantic. "I was a proud and enthusiastic supporter of Barack Obama during the campaign and have worked as hard as I can to advance President Obama's legislative agenda." Reid remained neutral during the bitter Democratic primary that became a marathon contest between Obama and then-Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, whom Obama tapped as the United States' top diplomat after the election. Reid's comments are included in the book, obtained Saturday by The Associated Press and set to be published on Monday. "Game Change" was written by Time Magazine's Mark Halperin and New York magazine's John Heilemann. The book also says Reid urged Obama to run, perceiving the first-term senator's impatience. "You're not going to go anyplace here," Reid told Obama of the Senate. "I know that you don't like it, doing what you're doing." In another section, aides to Republican nominee John McCain described the difficulties they faced with their vice presidential pick, then-Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin. Steve Schmidt, a senior member of Sen. John McCain's presidential team, is quoted telling Palin's foreign policy tutors: "You guys have a lot of work to do. She doesn't know anything." The authors also quote Obama's initial reaction to McCain's selection of a little-known governor: "Wow. Well, I guess she's change." Vice presidential nominee Joe Biden was direct. "Who's Sarah Palin?" the book quotes the then-senator as asking as they left the nominating convention in Denver. Reid, facing a tough 2010 re-election bid, needs the White House's help if he wants to keep his seat. Obama's administration has dispatched officials on dozens of trips to buoy his bid and Obama has raised money for his campaign. Recognizing the threat, Reid's apologies also played to his home state: "Moreover, throughout my career, from efforts to integrate the Las Vegas strip and the gaming industry to opposing radical judges and promoting diversity in the Senate, I have worked hard to advance issues." Even before his ill-considered remarks were reported, a new survey released Saturday by the Las Vegas Review Journal showed him continuing to earn poor polling numbers. In the poll, by Mason-Dixon Polling & Research, Reid trailed former state Republican party chairwoman Sue Lowden by a 10 percentage points, 50 percent to 40 percent, and also lagging behind two other opponents. More than half of Nevadans had an unfavorable opinion of Reid. Just 33 percent of respondents held a favorable opinion. more

Resolved Question: What should i add to this picture?

okay, i am supposed to make a political cartoon over an issue with america today, and show your stance on it. I have Barack Obama on it, in front of a run down, trashy house, labeled with all of america's problem's today (War, Recession, Health Care Bill, Illegal Immigration, Economy) and Obama is saying "Its a bit of a fixer upper...maybe we should leave it alone for now..." What can i add to this to show my stance, which is anti-obama? Is this a good political cartoon? Is there anything that i can add to it to make it better? Thanks! more

Resolved Question: Do you agree with mexico's ambassador, "No reform in 2010?

Why is mexico so interested in our immigration laws? What is "earned legalization"? Read the article - Do you agree with what has been said? XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Jan 8, 9:46 PM EST Mexico says immigration reform unlikely in 2010 By MARK STEVENSON Associated Press Writer MEXICO CITY (AP) -- Mexico's ambassador to the United States said Friday he expects immigration reform is unlikely to pass in that country in 2010 because of unemployment and midterm elections. In an unusually frank assessment, Ambassador Arturo Sarukhan said Mexico will continue its quiet, "under the radar" lobbying for a reform that would benefit the estimated 11.8 million Mexicans living in the United States. A large percentage are undocumented. "It's not that it is unachievable. It is possible, but it will be difficult," he told a news conference. "And this year, especially, the conditions ... will be particularly difficult." "If the (U.S.) economy grows, but there continues to be the unemployment and the job losses that occurred in the United States in 2009, it is politically impossible for the Republicans or the Democrats, as much as they might be interested ... to put an integrated immigration reform on the table," Sarukhan said. Sarukhan also said past pronouncements on the issue by Mexico may have done more harm than good. "Having spoken about it publicly at times in the past ... has done a great deal of damage to our countrymen and our allies in the United States," he said. Sarukhan said a general amnesty that would automatically legalize undocumented migrants "cannot be the solution," because "the radical conservative wing in the United States would immediately mobilize to torpedo it." He said a more realistic goal is a program of temporary work visas and a "regularization process" - presumably, what has been called "earned legalization" involving fines or other qualifying factors. Sarukhan said chances for reform may depend on how much political capital the administration of President Barack Obama has left after the divisive debate over health care. Daniel Hernandez Joseph, director of overseas citizen protection services for Mexico's Foreign Relations Department, told reporters that anti-immigration rhetoric "has permeated in (U.S.) society" and that anti-immigration groups in the United States currently "feel empowered." Hernandez Joseph also said preliminary estimates indicate that 396 people assumed to be Mexican citizens died trying to cross into the United States last year, up from 340 in 2008. http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/L/LT_MEXICO_US_MIGRATION?SITE=YAHOO&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT more

Resolved Question: Isn't it true that top (intelligent) Republicans defend Obama's handling of terrorism threats?

Jan. 8 (Bloomberg) -- Richard Lugar, the top Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, defended President Barack Obama’s handling of recent terrorism threats, taking issue with former Vice President Dick Cheney’s criticism. “It’s unfair,” Lugar said in an interview for Bloomberg Television’s “Political Capital with Al Hunt,” airing this weekend. “I think the president is focused.” more

Voting Question: There is fiscally challenged, bankruptcy, dead broke , and then there is California?

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6074TP20100108?type=politicsNews%3FfeedType%3DRSS&feedName=politicsNews&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Reuters%2FPoliticsNews+%28News+%2F+US+%2F+Politics+News%29&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher "SACRAMENTO, California (Reuters) - California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger declared a fiscal emergency as he unveiled his new budget on Friday and said the state will face another cash crisis as early as March. Barack Obama Schwarzenegger's budget for 2010-2011 aims to close a $19.9 billion deficit, relying mostly on spending cuts of $8.5 billion, which he called "draconian," and $6.9 billion in federal funds. The state will spend $82.9 billion. "There is simply no conceivable way to avoid more cuts and more pain," said Schwarzenegger in his final year in office as he is barred from seeking re-election due to term limits. He made a call for "real reform" to the budget and tax systems, which he blames for the running fiscal crisis that led to the state issuing IOUs last year as cash and tax revenues fell short in the sharp economic downturn. "If you compare it to an intersection it's like seeing people crashing into each other and never building a stop sign, never building a stoplight," he said. He said the state will face cash challenges in March, but can repay debt as scheduled in May and June. But by July, he sees "substantial cash challenges" if no corrective action is taken. By declaring the fiscal emergency, Schwarzenegger calls the California legislature in session to consider his proposals. The budget must be approved by a two-thirds majority vote, a difficult requirement that makes passing the budget an arduous process. Schwarzenegger also called again on the federal government to come to the rescue of the state with the largest economy by raising the amount Washington transfers back to the state. "Right now the federal government is forcing us to spend money we don't have," he said." What are your thoughts on the article? On California's situation and how they got there? more

Resolved Question: Are Republicans beginning to see Dick Cheney as a negative rather than a positive to their cause?

LUGAR DEFENDS OBAMA AGAINST CHENEY ATTACKS.... After Dick Cheney's loathsome attacks against President Obama last week, most Republicans were content to cheer the disgraced former vice president on. There have been a few exceptions. Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), for example, said earlier this week, "I think [Cheney] had his eight years, and he's caused a lot of trouble for our country and perpetuated a war in Iraq unnecessary and wrong-headed. I would say it would be best he not be so critical right now." Similarly, former Rep. Bob Barr of Georgia, who left the GOP to become a Libertarian, called Cheney's vile criticism "asinine." But as nice as it was to see Paul's and Barr's pushback, neither are especially influential with the political establishment. It's why I found this item, by way of Teagan Goddard, noteworthy. Richard Lugar, the top Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, defended President Barack Obama's handling of recent terrorism threats, taking issue with former Vice President Dick Cheney's criticism. "It's unfair," Lugar said in an interview for Bloomberg Television's "Political Capital with Al Hunt," airing this weekend. "I think the president is focused." Cheney, who frequently has led Republican attacks on the Democratic president since leaving office a year ago, told Politico on Dec. 29 that Obama "is trying to pretend we are not at war" with a "low-key response" to the Dec. 25 attempt to ignite a bomb aboard a flight to Detroit. To the contrary, Obama has demonstrated "firmness" and "decisiveness," Lugar, who represents Indiana, said. "That's been the antidote to the criticism." Keep in mind, Lugar isn't exactly a moderate -- he's always been a conservative senator. And even he has no use for Cheney's nonsense.www.washingtonmonthly.com more

Resolved Question: Has this member of Congress actually "hit the nail on the head" about Obama's eligibility to be president?

Deal Challenges Obama’s Eligibility FIRST TIME IN U.S. HISTORY THAT A SITTING PRESIDENT’S ELIGIBILITY QUESTIONED BY MEMBER OF CONGRESS by P. Patriot Nathan Deal, U.S. Representative for Georgia, is running for Georgia Governor in 2010. (Jan. 5, 2010) — The Post & Email can publicly confirm that on the first of December, last, U.S. Congressman Nathan Deal (GA-R) challenged the eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama to hold the office of the U.S. presidency. Todd Smith, Chief of Staff for Representative Nathan Deal of the United States House of Representatives serving Georgia’s 9th district, has confirmed today that Deal has sent a letter to Barack Hussein Obama requesting him to prove his eligibility for the office of President of the United States of America. The letter was sent electronically the first of December 2009 in pdf format, and Mr. Smith said that Representative Deal has confirmation from Obama’s staff that it has been received. The letter did not have additional signatories. It originated solely from Representative Deal. Now, what does this mean? This is probably the first time in 233 years of American history that a sitting member of the House of Representatives has officially challenged the legitimacy of a sitting president….one full year into his term. This forever changes the public discourse. Click the seal to learn more about The Petition Campaign. Even if the putative president ignores the challenge, he cannot hide from it, because by doing so he admits his guilt through silence. The question has to be asked near and far, why would a president who has promised greater transparency than any previous administration pay upwards of $2,000,000 of taxpayer money to hide documents that could resolve the matter once and for all time for the cost of $20.00. He has publicly admitted on more than one occasion that his father was NOT an American citizen. This alone disqualifies him from eligibility based on Article 2, Section 1, Paragraph 5 of the Constitution, and consequently makes him a usurper. Representative Deal, understanding full well the magnitude and gravity of the situation and recognizing that it places our country in a national security crisis, has rightfully confronted the issue head-on. The ramifications are so serious that all laws signed by a putative president are null and void, and soldiers sent into war under his command can be tried as war criminals. Representative Deal is not a “Birther”; rather, he is a “Truther”; one of the millions of others who have been seeking irrefutable proof for over a year and a half! Not a single lawsuit to date has been decided on the merits of the case, with numerous cases yet to be resolved or dismissed. To show support for Representative Deal, you may contact him here: The Honorable Nathan Deal 2133 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515-1009 DC Phone: 202-225-5211 DC Fax: 202-225-8272 Email Address: http://www.house.gov/deal/contact.shtml WWW Homepage: http://www.house.gov/deal/warren v: Of course I expect it to be deleted. But I've gotten some great comments so far. That matters to me. There are so many of us on the "right" page, it makes me feel so good!!!!!! And obviously there is something to this. Will it go much further? Probably not! Unfortunately!bengalcliff: It bothers me that our Constitution is not being followed. Doesn't that bother you? And it has been used and abused by both parties, but, for the highest office in the land, this pi**es me off no end. The arrogance of B.O. getting away with something like this is ridiculous. As is he! more

Resolved Question: Who is correct about Obama, Glen Beck or Stephen Pidgeon?

Attorney Stephen Pidgeon is currently working with Leo Donofrio on the Chrysler lawsuit. He writes Glen Beck .... Dear Mr. Beck: You are ill-informed on the “birther” issue. Barack Obama, by his own admission, was a British subject at birth. He has never denied having a Kenyan father, who himself was a British subject as a Kenyan native. This is easly established under the British Nationality Act of 1948. He is therefore disqualified to run for the office of the President, because the office is not available to subjects of other governments. The issue is very simple, and very obvious. Obama himself admitted that he wasn’t a natural born citizen when he debated Alan Keyes in 2004. Let’s see you deal with this one. There is nothing “nutty” about it, and it doesn’t depend on whether his maternal grandmother tried to cover up a foreign birth in Hawaii by placing newspaper notices. It is as plain as your face. BHO is a foreign national first, and an American secondarily, if at all. That is why he thinks there are 57 states; why he doesn’t understand the constitution; why he wants to give us Britain’s health care system (it’s all in the teeth, don’t you know); why he thinks Interpol should have greater authority in the US than US law enforcement; etc. He is a British subject and has no business holding the office of POTUS. If you think you can overlook this constitutional crisis as not part of the Rubicon, you are mistaken. One constitutional overlook breeds another and the next thing you know, the financial industry is nationalized, the auto industry is nationalized, the health care industry is about to be nationalized, and the energy industry will soon be nationalized. Ultimately, it is all going to be okay, because socialism only lasts until other people’s money (OPM) runs out, and binge spender BHO has spent all the money we have and all the money we will ever have for the next several generations. He spent all of this before he got his socialist healthcare on the table. He and his wife have partied like Eddie Murphy in The Distinguished Gentleman (1992) since taking office, while he has busied himself with overthrowing the constitutional republic, establishing a new Islamic empire worldwide, disarming and crippling America, and unilaterally dividing Israel and Jerusalem. The only budget constraint for Obama is ink and paper (and he is working his way around that) and his foreign policy advisor appears to be “mirror, mirror on the wall”. He has bankrupted the nation, which the sleeping Oprah watchers are now discovering for the very first time. The reality of the bankruptcy will hit home with gusto in 2010. Not only will we suffer with 30% unemployment, a complete collapse of real estate, and a complete collapse of the dollar, we will also suffer the slings and arrows of dramatic military defeats, as we let this foreigner steer the ship of state. Most Americans have no idea how bad it is going to get. [end of excerpt] I hope that's more pessimistic an assessment than we actualize in our future, but it is entirely reasonable, speaking historically. Especially should Obama and the Democrat tyrant thug Congress continue apace. Obama could actually save the world right now by copping a plea and admitting the great con and fraud he has participated in, and turning State's witness by providing all the details of the crime syndicate he is nominal kingpin of. I highly encourage him to do so. Otherwise, it's going to be very bad times for everyone. more

Voting Question: Surprisingly blunt language from Obama. Is Panetta out?

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE60342S20100106 Obama says bomb attempt an intelligence "screw-up" "The attempted Christmas Day bombing of a U.S. airliner was a potentially disastrous "screw up" by the intelligence community, President Barack Obama said on Tuesday as he vowed urgent action to tighten air security." Look like Panetta is getting an invitation to climb under the bus. I hope I can count on the Y!A community to inform the president that he is mistaken about the seriousness of the attack. They have been saying consistently that the incident was not an attack because nobody died. I'm sure Obama will issue a correction. more

Resolved Question: Birthers, what is so hard to understand?

“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawai‛i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai‘i State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai‘i and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago.” This Director of Health in the State of Hawaii was appointed by a Republican Governor, Linda Lingle, who campaigned for John McCain and Sarah Palin. What more is there to discuss? more

Resolved Question: Is Barack Obama to be blamed for ever issue in existence?

I think so, I mean he is a Democrat, and since I do not consider myself a Democrat I will continue to place blame on him for everything and call him names. more

Resolved Question: If Americans went to Mexico illegally, would the U.S. govt. demand Mexico to give us rights?

La Crónica de Hoy (Mexico City) 6/16/09 Javier Lozano, Mexico’s “Labor and Social Welfare” Secretary, said that all progress with the United States government on the issue of migrants’ rights is “welcome, necessary and just.” In an exclusive interview with Notimex (Mex. news agency) Lozano quoted the statements of Hilda Solís, the Sec. of Labor of the U.S., that president Barack Obama is about to promote a migratory reform and held that this would be favorable for both countries. He stated, “We must obtain a legal, secure and orderly migration. I’d want nothing more than for that work force to stay in our country, but if there are job opportunities on the other side we must demand rights for our migrants.(The “other side” is an expression commonly used in Mexico to refer to the United States.) He added that the conditions, the nature of the reform and more details as to its reach will be set forth when it comes time to deal with the issue. more

Resolved Question: Would Barack Hussein Obama's Economic Plan Bankrupt America?

Check out what his own website says:http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/#invest-for-jobsAll I saw there were vague generalities and a whole lot of government spending. Where is he going to get all of the money?He doesn't really have any plans on his site, only goals. Goals are not plans. How does he expect to do all of this? more

Resolved Question: Is Obama Really Preparing For Civil War?

According to an obscure report in the European Union Times (EUTimes.net), “Russian Military Analysts are reporting to Prime Minister Putin that US President Barack Obama has issued an order to his Northern Command’s (USNORTHCOM) top leader, US Air Force General Gene Renuart, to ‘begin immediately’ increasing his military forces to 1 million troops by January 30, 2010, in what these reports warn is an expected outbreak of civil war within the United States before the end of winter. I think that this kind of action could possibly make people feel threatened and cause a civil war. What do you think? more

Voting Question: 2020 and how I really think things will be. Is it good?

Things seems to be looking mighty well as we approach a new decade, 2020. As we look across the state, things are looking a lot better, thanks to our first black female president, Oprah Winfrey. Winfrey, 66, who was best known for her long running talk show "Oprah" decided to bring a new change in office. "I just thought if we could have a black man as president, why not a black woman?" she says as she sits on the couch, rubbing her poodle dog. Winfrey decides to bring a change to the United States since former president Barack Obama left the white house in 2016. Winfrey's presidency has brought positive change across the globe far as wars, politics, confidence in young black women, addressing social issues and music. The music industry had changed tremendulously. New hip hop artists such as Breadboy Beatz, Luv Doctor, and Mister Magic had brought a change in hip hop, bringing the classic 80s and 90s sound back. "Man, my elders used to listen to cats like Boogie Down Productions, Public Enemy, KRS 1 and we just thought we bring the old school back" Breadbeat says. They also credit legendary rappers Lupe Fiasco and Mos Def for their originality. That's all I have so far..... more

Resolved Question: Who's the Boss? Obama or the Airline owners?

President Barack Obama has ordered a review of US no-fly watch-lists and demanded to know how a Nigerian man managed to board a Detroit-bound airliner wearing an explosive device. Isn't it Obama's priority to issue security related orders and oversee the safety of Americas?http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/6897328/Detroit-terror-attack-Barack-Obama-orders-review-of-US-no-fly-lists.html more

Resolved Question: ILLUMINATI(ANTI CHRIST) OBAMA, BEYONCE, JAY Z, MICHAEL JACKSON?

for the record my boyfriend is black just for the people who want to turn this into a race issue ok so last night me and my boyfriend were talking about obama and the election then he told me about this thing called illuminati and how he thinks that barack is involved in it, he has a nintendo ds and idk i think he has this translation thing on it and he told me to say yes i can and when it translated it said thank you satan it was my voice and everything he also told me that in the bible it said a black man would rule and the world would end shortly it freaked me out he then started telling me that a lot of famous people participate in illumintati so they could be famous and rich like jay z and beyonce and he showed me pictures of them holding up the hova sign thats jay z's signature sign which is an illuminati symbolism and told me that inmany of his songs translated he's making statements of him being a god and blah blah. he also said michael jackson used to be in illuminati but tried to change and thats why so many bad things would happen to him the skin diseases his hair catching fire the molestation trial his death. Do you think he's just trying to scare me or can he be telling the truth? more

Resolved Question: Six years ago, "it was standard practice not to pay for things," said Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091226/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_care_deficit GOP lawmakers change tune on costly health plans By CHARLES BABINGTON, Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON – Democrats are troubled by the inconsistency of Republican lawmakers who approved a major Medicare expansion six years ago that has added tens of billions of dollars to federal deficits, but oppose current health overhaul plans. All current GOP senators, including the 24 who voted for the 2003 Medicare expansion, oppose the health care bill that's backed by President Barack Obama and most congressional Democrats. The Democrats claim that their plan moving through Congress now will pay for itself with higher taxes and spending cuts and they cite the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office for support. By contrast, when Republicans controlled the House, Senate and White House in 2003, they overcame Democratic opposition to add a deficit-financed prescription drug benefit to Medicare. The program will cost a half-trillion dollars over 10 years, or more by some estimates. And: Six years ago, "it was standard practice not to pay for things," said Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah. "We were concerned about it, because it certainly added to the deficit, no question." His 2003 vote has been vindicated, Hatch said, because the prescription drug benefit "has done a lot of good." Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, said those who see hypocrisy "can legitimately raise that issue." But he defended his positions in 2003 and now, saying the economy is in worse shape and Americans are more anxious. Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, said simply: "Dredging up history is not the way to move forward." She noted that she fought unsuccessfully to offset some of President George W. Bush's deep tax cuts at the time. But for now, she said, "it's a question of what's in this package," which the Senate passed Thursday in a party-line vote. The Senate bill still must be reconciled with a House version. The political situation is different now, Snowe said, because "we're in a tough climate and people are angry and frustrated." Some conservatives have no patience with such explanations. "As far as I am concerned, any Republican who voted for the Medicare drug benefit has no right to criticize anything the Democrats have done in terms of adding to the national debt," said Bruce Bartlett, an official in the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. He made his comments in a Forbes article titled "Republican Deficit Hypocrisy." Bartlett said the 2003 Medicare expansion was "a pure giveaway" that cost more than this year's Senate or House health bills will cost. More important, he said, "the drug benefit had no dedicated financing, no offsets and no revenue-raisers. One hundred percent of the cost simply added to the federal budget deficit." The pending health care bills in Congress, he noted, are projected to add nothing to the deficit over 10 years. Ah, the sweet smell of HYPOCRISY? more

Resolved Question: Is the end in sight, will we have a health care bill?

WASHINGTON – Republican senators attacking the cost of a Democratic health care bill showed far different concerns six years ago, when they approved a major Medicare expansion that has added tens of billions of dollars to federal deficits. The inconsistency — or hypocrisy, as some call it — has irked Democrats, who claim that their plan will pay for itself with higher taxes and spending cuts and cite the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office for support. By contrast, when Republicans controlled the House, Senate and White House in 2003, they overcame Democratic opposition to add a deficit-financed prescription drug benefit to Medicare. The program will cost a half-trillion dollars over 10 years, or more by some estimates. With no new taxes or spending offsets accompanying the Medicare drug program, the cost has been added to the federal debt. All current GOP senators, including the 24 who voted for the 2003 Medicare expansion, oppose the health care bill that's backed by President Barack Obama and most congressional Democrats. Some Republicans say they don't believe the CBO's projections that the health care overhaul will pay for itself. As for their new-found worries about big government health expansions, they essentially say: That was then, this is now. Six years ago, "it was standard practice not to pay for things," said Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah. "We were concerned about it, because it certainly added to the deficit, no question." His 2003 vote has been vindicated, Hatch said, because the prescription drug benefit "has done a lot of good." Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, said those who see hypocrisy "can legitimately raise that issue." But he defended his positions in 2003 and now, saying the economy is in worse shape and Americans are more anxious. Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, said simply: "Dredging up history is not the way to move forward." She noted that she fought unsuccessfully to offset some of President George W. Bush's deep tax cuts at the time. But for now, she said, "it's a question of what's in this package," which the Senate passed Thursday in a party-line vote. The Senate bill still must be reconciled with a House version. The political situation is different now, Snowe said, because "we're in a tough climate and people are angry and frustrated." Some conservatives have no patience for such explanations. "As far as I am concerned, any Republican who voted for the Medicare drug benefit has no right to criticize anything the Democrats have done in terms of adding to the national debt," said Bruce Bartlett, an official in the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. He made his comments in a Forbes article titled "Republican Deficit Hypocrisy." Bartlett said the 2003 Medicare expansion was "a pure giveaway" that cost more than this year's Senate or House health bills will cost. More important, he said, "the drug benefit had no dedicated financing, no offsets and no revenue-raisers. One hundred percent of the cost simply added to the federal budget deficit." The pending health care bills in Congress, he noted, are projected to add nothing to the deficit over 10 years. Other lawmakers who voted for the 2003 Medicare expansion include the Senate's top three Republican leaders, all sharp critics of the Obama-backed health care plans: Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, Jon Kyl of Arizona and Lamar Alexander of Tennessee. Eleven Democratic senators voted with them back then. The 2003 vote in the House was even more divisive. It resulted in a nearly three-hour roll call in which GOP leaders put extraordinary pressure on colleagues to back the prescription drug addition to Medicare. In the end, 204 Republicans and 16 Democrats voted for the bill. Democrats certainly have indulged in deficit spending over the years. They say they have been more responsible over the last two decades, however. Bill Clinton's administration was largely constrained by a pay-as-you-go law, requiring most tax cuts or program expansions to be offset elsewhere with tax increases and/or spending cuts. Clinton ended his presidency with a budget surplus. But it soon was wiped out by a sagging economy, the Iraq war, GOP tax cuts and the lapsing of the pay-as-you-go restrictions. Obama and many Democrats in Congress have vowed to restore those restrictions. But they waived them this year for programs, including heavy stimulus spending meant to pull the economy from the severe recession of 2008-09. The 2010 deficit is expected to reach $1.5 trillion, and the accumulated federal debt now exceeds $12 trillion. When the Republican-led Congress passed the Medicare expansion in 2003, the deficit was $374 billion, and was projected to hit $525 billion the following year, in part because of the new prescription drug benefit for seniors. Some GOP lawmakers cite these numbers in arguing that their current worries about heavy government spending are legitimate, even ifMost Americans would love to limit their income-taxes used for government projects of their chose. Some of us would like to stop paying into the United Nations, or to fund the wars, but,, we aren't able to tell our government not to pay to support or operate programs. Abortion is a terrible waste of life. But we can not refuse to pay our income-taxes if the government extends medicare benifits to include abortion in the health care plan,I keep remembering, Obama insisting on republicans and democrats to debate this and come up with the best plan for him to sign and take all of the credit. more

Resolved Question: SURPRISE! President signs health care reform into law: did you see this news item?

Washington, DC - In a Christmas surprise for the nation, President Barack Obama signed sweeping health care reform legislation into law at the stroke of midnight late Christmas Eve. Lawmakers worked feverishly late into the night to hammer out the differences between the House and Senate version, then they rushed through a vote on the final version in both houses of Congress. Lawmakers did not have time to read the bill, for the sake of meeting the president's goal of signing the measure into law before Christmas. The generals consensus is they will have time to read it after they return from the holidays after New Year's Day. But the details that were revealed are that the final law will provide free health care for everybody, with no identity check and no deductibles. Abortions will be fully funded out of a trust, supported by voluntary contributions by those who support abortion. Doctors' offices will be required to make an appointment that is within 24 business hours of the patient calling to make the appointment, and patients will not have to wait more than 30 minutes after their scheduled appointment to see a doctor. More doctors will be hired if the office is unable to meet these requirements. When dazed and bewildered reporters asked if this new law would increase the deficit, a sleepy but relieved President Obama replied "Maybe just a little." Did anybody see this news item? NOT!!!!!! Nope, nothing like this happened, did it. President Obama has FAILED once again to meet his own goal. The Senate and House versions are each barely supported in their existing forms, and they are so different that it will be impossible to reach any compromise without losing the vote in either the House or the Senate. Losing the 60 votes in the Senate will mean endless fillibusters, so the Senate version is carved in stone. But House speaker Pelosi can't find enough votes in the House for the Senate version, so there won't be even a simple majority in the House. Sounds like the president will be dipping deeper into the trillion dollar porkulus slush fund to buy some more votes in the House. At this point, even some Republican votes could be easier to buy than the remaining Democrat votes. But that's all good, because then they can blame everything on the Republicans if three or more of them vote for it.... How much more time will Congress waste on this exercise in futility? Is Obama tilting at windmills at this point? Hasn't he spent enough time neglecting the other urgent issues facing our nation, such as reforming the financial system WITHOUT a repeat of the 1999 Gramm-Leach-Bliley act (which is what the current reform bill looks like)?Yes, I'm still looking for that Christmas spirit apology from all those people who said "Bush is Hitler." Merry Christmas to everybody else, though. more

Resolved Question: If Obama quit spending millions hiding his school records & Hawaiian Birth Certif, would he have to resign?

Obama: Where have all his records gone? Footprints of president's own history either vanish or remain covered up Occidental College records Obama arrived at Occidental College, a small liberal arts school in Los Angeles, Calif., in the fall of 1979. He only briefly mentions the school in his 1995 memoir, "Dreams from My Father." Obama attended the school on a scholarship. Some question whether the financial aid he received was reserved for foreign students. Financial records have not been released. In a legal action, handled largely by Gary Kreep of the U.S. Justice Foundation, officials at Occidental College were served with a demand to produce records concerning Barack Obama's attendance there during the 1980s because they could document whether he was attending as a foreign national. Kreep petitioned the college with a demand for its records concerning Obama. Occidental College library "The gravamen of the petition is the question as to whether United States Senator Barack Hussein Obama, of Illinois, is eligible to serve as president of the United States pursuant to the requirements for that office in the United States Constitution," he wrote. "The records sought may provide documentary evidence, and/or admissions by said defendant, as to said eligibility or lack thereof." College officials then contacted Obama's lawyers, who argued to the court that the election was over and that future concerns should be addressed to Congress. The motion stated that the records, which could reveal on what name Obama attended classes at Occidental and whether he attended on scholarship money intended for foreign students, "are of no relevance to this moot litigation." The motion also claimed the petitioners failed to serve the subpoena properly. "The subpoena directed to Occidental College should therefore be quashed. Alternatively, this court should issue an order directing that the deposition of the custodian of records of Occidental College not take place," the firm working on Obama's behalf stated. "The central issue in this lawsuit … is whether any Respondent had a legal duty to demand proof of natural born citizenship from Democratic Party's nominee," the motion said. "None of the documents sought by petitioners could possibly assist in answering this question." A judge granted a motion to quash the subpoena. "Obama's attorneys bent over backward to block us," Kreep told WND. "Obama doesn't want anyone to see those records. He's trying to hide them." more

Resolved Question: If only 36% of the population support Obamacare, why are they shoving this down our throats?

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1408 As the Senate prepares to vote on health care reform, American voters "mostly disapprove" of the plan 53 - 36 percent and disapprove 56 - 38 percent of President Barack Obama's handling of the health care issue, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today. Voters also oppose 72 - 23 percent using any public money in the health care overhaul to pay for abortions, the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University poll finds. more

Resolved Question: How many of these companies that exported jobs overseas got tax-payer funded bailouts? They had to be saved ..?

....... by the very people that they shafted? And the Bush Administration's Hank Paulson fell over himself to throw billions at them? Here is a list of confirmed companies that are "Exporting America." These are U.S. companies either sending American jobs overseas, or choosing to employ cheap overseas labor, instead of American workers. http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/lou.dobbs.tonight/popups/exporting.america/frameset.exclude.html AIG, BoA, GM, JP Morgan, Merril Lynch, all there. After going through the list, all I can say is: Holy God, anybody with more than half a brain knows that no matter how cheap you can make your product, if you have put the main consumers (The US) out of their jobs, you are going to sell donkeyshit. And to top it all, if you know you are - sooner or later - going to ship a person's job overseas, how in God's name can you give him/her a mortgage loan? And then, flatout lying, sell these worthless pieces of paper to overseas banks? And then, the final insult, pay yourselves huge 'performance bonuses'? And we know that there is a certain Political Party that is going to oppose regulating these total halfwits on Wall Street, don't we? And a good many of you are going to vote for them, aren't you? (The real 'terrorists' are right on Wall Street. In terms of sheer human tradegy, their 'contribution' is greater than that of 9/11.) Have a look at this http://www.aflcio.org/issues/jobseconomy/jobs/upload/bushrecord_jobsoverseas.pdf “When a good or service is produced at lower cost in another country, it makes sense to import it rather than to produce it domestically.” —Economic Report of the President, p. 25, February 2004 “Outsourcing is just a new way of doing international trade. More things are tradable than were tradable in the past. And that’s a good thing.” —N. Gregory Mankiw, Chairman of President Bush’s Council of Economic Advisors, Feb. 9, 2004 The outsourcing of U.S. jobs “is part of trade... and there can’t be any doubt about the fact that trade makes the economy stronger.” —U.S. Treasury Secretary John Snow, March 29, 2004 I reckon America really dodged the bullet when Barack Obama beat John McCain for the Presidency. People like Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove, Paulson, et al could have been roaming the halls of the White House right now. Look at the infantile behavior of the majority of GOP Senators lately and count your blessings. There, I feel much better now. (But life would be so much easier if we could just get ourselves to blame it all on Barack Obama, wouldn't it? Let's keep the memory short?)Hey 'You Crazy Dems': So all the jobs went to Mexico? Or CANADA? Lol!Tony W: Ignorance is bliss? Be happy. more

Resolved Question: Okay, so some polls show that 'the majority of Americans don't support the HC Reform Bill' But, how many of?

..... these 'opponents' think the Bill doesn't go far enough? 30%? 40%? 50%? 60%? How many folks oppose the omission of a single payer system or a public option? http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dc/2009/12/poll-finds-good-parts-gone-fro.html Poll Finds Good Parts Gone from Health Reform BY MICHAEL MCAULIFF A new poll is out this morning with great potential to give Democratic leaders heartburn and make progressives angry. For the agita portion of the results, Quinnipiac finds health care reform is deeply unpopular. “Voters ‘mostly disapprove’ of the plan 53 - 36% and disapprove 56 - 38% of President Barack Obama’s handling of the health care issue,” the survey says. How’s that for something Senate Democrats plan to pass on Christmas Eve? For the blood-boiling piece of the prize, the Connecticut-based pollster finds the most popular parts of health care reform are the ones cut from the Senate compromise. By a 56 - 38% margin, Americans back “giving people the option of coverage by a government health insurance plan.” More impressively, 64% favor “allowing younger people to buy into Medicare,” while 30% don’t like the idea. You have to wonder at a certain point if Congress is going to pass a bill that satisfies the most powerful players in the debate, and that even if it does some good, will be loathed by voters on one side who want no part of any Democratic reform and by voters on the other dejected that it didn’t embrace the bolder, more popular stuff. And in the middle, well, voters just think the whole thing is going to be really expensive and blow up the deficit, despite the numbers crunchers’ estimate that the Senate bill would trim $132 billion in 10 years. “By 73 - 18%, voters don’t believe President Obama will be able to keep his promise to overhaul health care without increasing the federal deficit, and by 56 - 37% they don’t want the overhaul if it will increase the deficit,” the polls says. Democrats had better hope that the parts of whatever does pass (and that kick in soon) make people happier than they are now, or they’re in for some tough sledding next fall. My point is, once the bill is passed into law, many of these 'unhappy folks' (and let's face it, many voters just love to 'complain for the sake of complaining') will come around to supporting it. (Social Security and Medicare ring a bell?) Opinions?Another interesting article: http://www.politico.com/livepulse/1209/Dem_senators_to_get_good_polling_news.html more

Resolved Question: IF THERE IS A GOOD POLICY IN A LEADER THE WHOLE POL. SYSTEM IS ENCOURAGED TO ACCEPT,THERE BE AMENDMENDMENT:OK?

12.20. 2009 NEW YORK:: Hi, Monica Profile Contacts Account Info You are signed in as: monica.nixon@ymai...Sign OutHelpGet Yahoo! ToolbarYahoo!MailMy Yahoo!NewsFinanceSportsSearch Web Search Ask Answer Discover Search for questions: Advanced Search My Profile Home > Answer a Question 2 Preview your answer ChiGirl Question Health care bill: Is Obama playing the appeasement card? Does he care about losing pharmaceutical support? http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5B… The pharmaceutical industry's powerful Washington lobbying group backs the healthcare reform legislation that is President Barack Obama's top legislative priority, but its important support for that effort could evaporate if drug imports are included. White House adviser David Axelrod said the administration will pursue the issue, but not in the healthcare reform bill. "Let me be clear. The president supports ... safe re-importation of drugs into this country," Axelrod told CNN's "State of the Union" program. "There's no reason why Americans should pay a premium for the pharmaceuticals that people in other countries pay less for." The importation of drugs from other countries has been proposed for years as a way to lower prescription drug costs in the United States. The same prescription drugs sold in the United States often are sold at much lower prices in other countries, including Canada. Both Obama and Republican rival John McCain supported drug imports during last year's presidential campaign. But the Obama administration recently issued a letter from the Food and Drug Administration citing safety concerns. "The president is committed to moving forward once we resolve the issues that the FDA has. That's his responsibility, to protect the American people," Axelrod said. The Senate on December 15 rejected two amendments to the healthcare bill to allow drug re-importation. Allowing these cheaper drugs to be sold to Americans could cut revenues for the roughly $315 billion pharmaceutical industry, which strongly opposes the idea. Monica N:DECENT LIVING IN USA Your Answer: your assessment on Obama on the issue may or may not be correct. But obama efforts for health care issues are really overdue issue. we should support b h obama in health care issues even with some important amendments if required. a naton as big as U SA & as rich as u s a may not be blind to needs of 30 millions of uninsured USA people, who otherwise the health care reforms, are in great health securirity problems & they may not afford health insurance: said the rev dr kamal karna k roy aka joseph geronimo jr of USA Source(s): THE REV MS LISA N ROY M D ( DIVINITY)a d n, r n (NEW YORK STATE), INTERNET NURSING DIRECTOR & CARE GIVER; REFORMS INTERNATIONAL, A WING OF h i iNTERNATIONAL WORLD RELIGIONS GROUP: EIN 13 3566610 ; NEW YORK & WORLD WIDE, TAX EXEMPTBY I R S. Answering earns you 2 points. You can answer 19 questions today. Make sure your answer follows the community guidelines. Share your updates withUpdates An update about your answer will not be shared outside of Answers. Manage your updates Yahoo! Answers Choose your updates setting Share my updates Don't share my updates Submit Edit Yahoo! Updates are mini-stories about what you and your friends are up to across Yahoo! and beyond. Learn more Answers International Argentina more

Resolved Question: Health care bill: Is Obama playing the appeasement card? Does he care about losing pharmaceutical support?

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5BF0DW20091220?type=politicsNews%3FfeedType%3DRSS&feedName=politicsNews&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Reuters%2FPoliticsNews+%28News+%2F+US+%2F+Politics+News%29&utm_content=My+Yahoo The pharmaceutical industry's powerful Washington lobbying group backs the healthcare reform legislation that is President Barack Obama's top legislative priority, but its important support for that effort could evaporate if drug imports are included. White House adviser David Axelrod said the administration will pursue the issue, but not in the healthcare reform bill. "Let me be clear. The president supports ... safe re-importation of drugs into this country," Axelrod told CNN's "State of the Union" program. "There's no reason why Americans should pay a premium for the pharmaceuticals that people in other countries pay less for." The importation of drugs from other countries has been proposed for years as a way to lower prescription drug costs in the United States. The same prescription drugs sold in the United States often are sold at much lower prices in other countries, including Canada. Both Obama and Republican rival John McCain supported drug imports during last year's presidential campaign. But the Obama administration recently issued a letter from the Food and Drug Administration citing safety concerns. "The president is committed to moving forward once we resolve the issues that the FDA has. That's his responsibility, to protect the American people," Axelrod said. The Senate on December 15 rejected two amendments to the healthcare bill to allow drug re-importation. Allowing these cheaper drugs to be sold to Americans could cut revenues for the roughly $315 billion pharmaceutical industry, which strongly opposes the idea.@penny p: I totally agree about putting the muzzle on the big pharms, and also malpractice lawyers like your Dem John Edwars as well. Then WHY is 0bama still pushing GVT TAKEOVER of healthcare? Sounds like appeasement to me AND GVT TAKEOVER! Nonlibs are not fooled for a second! He can't have both! DUH! more

Resolved Question: Since no one seems to want to ask this question - I will......?

What is your opinion of the satirical cover on the latest issue of the New Yorker magazine showing Barack Obama in full Muslim gear and his wife dressed as a '60's gun-toting terrorist complete with a throwback Afro hairdo? In addition, there's a picture of Osama bin Laden on the wall and a US flag burning in the fireplace. Oh yeah, and they're in the Oval Office. Magazine reps say it satirizes all the loony right-wing nutjobs that keep saying Obama's a Muslim etc. etc. while Obama campaign people got truly p.o'd about it. I thought it was excellent satire of the highest order, but apparently the Obama people - no comment from the candidate, by the way - are so thin-skinned they got insulted. They'd better get used to it, because the right-wing extremists haven't really gotten started yet. What do you think? Excellent satire or an insult? more

Resolved Question: I'm bothered by what I perceive as a cavalier attitude on the part of Barack and Michelle Obama and Oprah?

It seems the Obamas have no compassion and don't care about people. They're so self-centered and narcissistic and they don't speak in a mature, adult manner without a script in front of them. They're shallow and don't express a compassionate demeanor in their voices. It's the same thing with Oprah Winfrey. She's a control freak with a definite issue of being uncormfortable black. If they;re supposed to be role models, then we don't even have a country. I've heard a few of Michelle Obamas's speeches and they're off the wall. There's no attempt on her part to ameliorate prejudice but rather to perpetuate and escalate it by saying things like I know your comfortable with your prejudices because I was. What kind of a remark is that coming from the First Lady. Instead of speaking positively about bridging gaps that divide people due to prejudice, she treats prejudice as if it' s not only acceptable but a weakness if you don't have it. This is absolutely egregious.i expected a lot more from Obama and you can't compare degrees of repulsiveness....George Bush was pond scum. He and Cheney wer the lowest crap on the face of th earth. it's no coincidence that neithe rof them can show their ugly face anymore in public. But that doesn't elevate Barack Obama to acceptability by any means. Just becuse Obama and his wife aren't Bush doesn't mean that they're not bad people. the lesser of two evils is in noway acceptable because you can't cosider less evil as a positive. more

Resolved Question: How excited are you that Democrats will now pretend they reformed the healthcare system?

I'm super happy they included a federal mandate to buy private insurance. Wonder how long before that goes to the Supreme Court?? http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_health_care_overhaul WASHINGTON – Jubilant Democrats locked in Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson as the 60th and decisive vote for historic health care legislation Saturday, putting President Barack Obama's signature issue firmly on a path for Christmas Eve passage. At the White House, Obama swiftly welcomed the breakthrough, saying, "After a nearly century-long struggle, we are on the cusp of making health care reform a reality in the United States of America." In the Capitol, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid smiled broadly when asked if Nelson's decision gave him the 60-vote majority necessary to overcome solid Republican opposition. "Seems that way," he said. The Nevada Democrat agreed to a series of concessions on abortion and other issues demanded by Nelson in daylong talks on Friday, then informed Obama of the agreement in a late night phone call as the president flew home from climate talks in Copenhagen. The Congressional Budget Office said the Senate bill would extend coverage to more than 30 million Americans who lack it. It also imposes new regulations to curb abuses of the insurance industry, and the president noted one last-minute addition would impose penalties on companies that "arbitrarily jack up prices" in advance of the legislation taking effect.smart........"Were on a roll" You're getting played. Pathetic. You ACTUALLY believed that bullsh*t coming out of the white house. Pathetic. more

Resolved Question: Score this SAT I essay on a scale of 1-6?

Essay Prompt: A person does not simply "receive" his or her identity. Identity is much more than the name or features one is born with. True identity is something people must create for themselves by making choices that are significant and that require a courageous commitment in the face of challenges. Identity means having ideas and values that one lives by. Adapted from Thomas Merton, Contemplation in a World of Action Assignment: Is identity something people are born with or given, or is it something people create for themselves? Plan and write an essay in which you develop your point of view on this issue. Support your position with reasoning and examples taken from your reading, studies, experience, or observations. Essay: In this world, there is a multitude of people, each with different features, qualities, skills, etc. Also, they have the same general body structure. Yet, what is it that undefinable "thing" that makes a specific person unique? In other words, what gives him his "identity"? Perhaps it is the person's choices and individual traits that bestow his "identity" to him. There are many special people who we can instantly recognize even when we merely hear his or her name. Take, for instance, President Barack Obama. Just a few years ago, he was a relatively unknown senator in Illinois. However, during his presidential campaign, his ideas and the values he stood for were clearly expressed during his campaign speeches. His sentiments struck a chord with voters, thus earning him the required number of voters to be elected. Therefore, his ideas and the values that he lives by have carved a niche for him in both domestic and international politics. When teenagers enter high school, they desperately try to become one of the "popular" kids. But what exactly makes those popular kids "popular" instead of the other average Joes? Maybe it is their charisma, their ability to connect with almost everyone. Perhaps it could be their unique talents and skills which set them apart from the crowd. Regardless of what it is, these popular kids create a stamp for themselves, something that everyone will recognize them for. Identity is something that people create for themselves. A person does not simply "receive" their identity. Identity is much more than the name or features one is born with. True identity is something people must create for themselves by making choices that are significant and that require a courageous commitment in the face of challenges. Thus, according to me, identity means having ideas and values that one lives by. more

Resolved Question: you think if Obama was born in some other state instead of Hawaii, this "birther" thing wouldn't be an issue?

I mean, you get alot of ignorant Malahini Haoles tourists coming up here and they think that we live in grass huts, are all poor, and some of us refer to the mainland as "The States". I've met two Americans who thought we weren't apart of the USA. do you think if Barack was born in say, Oklahoma instead of Hawaii, this wouldn't be an issue?my mistake, that should read in the first paragraph "some of them"John, I thought you had a masters of Science, not a Juris Doctor...stop lying. more

Resolved Question: Is their ship sinking ?

While Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid scrambles to assemble 60 Democratic votes for health care legislation that, according to the Realclearpolitics.com average of recent polls, is opposed by a 53 percent to 38 percent margin, several Democratic members of the House are scrambling for the exits on what is starting to look like a sinking ship.You may have noticed that I avoided using the cliche "rats leaving the sinking ship," because the four Democratic House members who over the last three weeks announced their decisions to retire rather than run for re-election cannot fairly be characterized as rats.To the contrary, Dennis Moore (Kansas 3), John Tanner (Tennessee 8), Brian Baird (Washington 3) and Bart Gordon (Tennessee 6) are competent House members who between them have won election to Congress 36 times. Gordon is chairman of the House Science Committee; Tanner was offered an appointment to succeed Al Gore in the Senate in 1992; Baird was lead sponsor of measures to ensure the continuity of Congress in time of national disaster. All have claims to significant legislative accomplishments.And to political success in marginal Democratic territory. Gordon and Tanner represent districts that voted heavily for John McCain in 2008; Moore's usually Republican district gave Barack Obama a small majority; Baird's suburban district has voted at just about the national average in the last three presidential elections.All four cited plausible personal reasons for calling it quits, and none can be unaware that there is a robust job market in Washington for former Democratic congressmen with good political skills. Members of Congress make $174,000 a year; heads of trade associations make upward of $741,000 and don't have to return to home districts on weekends.All four of these retiring members faced the prospect of tougher opposition in 2010 than they have encountered in years. Tanner and Gordon are from what I call the Jacksonian belt, the area settled by Scots-Irish southwest from West Virginia to Texas, where Barack Obama ran poorly in both primaries and the general election last year. Polls in nearby Jacksonian Arkansas have shown Democratic incumbents running even with or behind unknown Republican challengers.Moore and Baird are from suburban districts where their views on cultural issues have been a political asset. But in the gubernatorial elections last month in Virginia and New Jersey, suburban voters brushed aside cultural issues and voted for Republicans who ran against higher taxes and big government. That suggests that Democrats in suburban House districts can't expect to match Obama's 2008 showings next year.These four Democrats are not the only House members who aren't running for re-election, but all of the 12 Republican retirees and all but one of the seven other Democratic retirees are leaving the House to run for statewide office.he question now is whether more Democrats of this ilk will choose to retire -- something House Democratic leaders have been working to prevent. They're very much aware that Republicans in 1994 won some 21 open seats in which Democratic incumbents did not seek re-election, nearly half the 52 seats the Republicans gained when they won control of the House that year.Public opinion expresses itself in the legislative process in various ways. Democrats' current large majority in the House, which has enabled them to pass unpopular cap-and-trade and health care legislation, is largely the product of public discontent with George W. Bush's perceived nonfeasance on Katrina in 2005 and perceived malfeasance in Iraq in 2005 and later.These four decisions to retire, and similar decisions by other Democrats that may come, seem (for all disclaimers of personal reasons) to be the product of public discontent with the policies of the Obama administration and congressional Democratic leaders in 2009. Such discontent, perceptible only in the Jacksonian belt last year, has now clearly spread to the suburbs of major metropolitan areas.The odds are still against Republicans picking up the 41 seats they need for a House majority. But it's interesting that when Massachusetts Democrat Michael Capuano, fresh from a second-place finish in the primary for Edward Kennedy's Senate seat, was asked to tell the Democratic caucus what he had learned on the campaign trail, he replied in two words: "You're screwed." How many of those listening decided that it would be a good idea to spend more time with the family after 2010?inso54.. I tried to condense, spaces count as letters more

Resolved Question: Why is Obama's own party furious at him?

How do you Obama supporters explain this?? http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20091216/pl_politico/30648 Angry liberals: Why didn't Obama fight? More than anything else in Barack Obama’s presidency so far, health reform has exposed a get-a-deal-at-any-cost side of Obama that infuriates his party’s progressives. And as Democrats tried to salvage health reform Tuesday, some liberals could barely hide their sense of betrayal that the White House and congressional Democrats have been willing to cut deals and water down what they consider the ideal vision of reform. “The Senate version is not worth passing,” former Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean told POLITICO, referring to plans to strip the latest compromise from the bill, a Medicare buy-in. “I think in this particular iteration, this is the end of the road for reform.” Dean said there are some good elements in the bill, but lawmakers should pull the plug and revisit the issue in Obama’s second term, unless Democrats are willing to shortcut a GOP filibuster. “No one will think this is health care reform. This is not even insurance reform,” he said. Read more on the link. more