Sunday, February 28, 2010
Here she goes again
Pelosi is nuts to a fault. She insists that "we don't have time to start over" when talking about the healthcare debaucle. If it is not going into effect for several years.........YES WE HAVE TIME TO START OVER! What a moron! What we don't have is the money to pay for this stupid bill! Pelosi! How is it you can walk and talk at the same time, but you just don't get it. We don't want this bill. It cost too much and does too little. You simply can't be that stupid!
Healthcare mess
By: Byron York
Chief Political Correspondent
February 26, 2010
"There have been a lot of comments from every Republican about the polls," President Obama said near the end of the mind-numbing White House summit on health care reform. "What's interesting is when you poll people about the individual elements in each of these bills, they're all for them."
What Obama was addressing was a dilemma that drives Democrats crazy. Polls show the public supports some parts of the Democratic national health care reform plan, but adamantly opposes the comprehensive bill now dying a slow death on Capitol Hill.
Just look at the latest survey from CNN and Opinion Research. When asked if they support "preventing health insurance companies from dropping coverage for people who become seriously ill," 62 percent say yes. When asked whether they support "requiring all large and midsized businesses to provide health insurance for their employees," 72 percent say yes. And when asked if they support "preventing health insurance companies from denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions," 58 percent say yes.
On the other hand, asked what Congress should do on health care -- pass the current bill, start work on an entirely new bill, or stop working on the issue altogether -- a huge majority opposes the Democratic proposal now on the table. Just 25 percent of those surveyed want to see the bill passed. Forty-eight percent want Congress to start over, and 25 percent want lawmakers to stop working on health care altogether. Put those last two together, and an overwhelming majority of 73 percent do not want Congress to pass the current bill.
The White House is cherry-picking the news it likes; that's what Obama was doing when he said the public is "all for" elements of the bill. But bring up the polls showing people just don't want the current bill, and the administration gets a little dodgy.
"Who knows what is in those polls, how they were taken, when they were taken?" White House health care spokeswoman Linda Douglass told Fox News during a break in the summit.
But why do people support some elements of the bill while opposing the bill overall? Some Democrats blame Republican misinformation. Some believe it's because the bill isn't yet a reality, and people would love it, if it were only passed. Others say the public is just stupid.
Few Democrats can accept the possibility that voters are telling them their whole approach is wrong. Big, comprehensive legislative proposals just make people nervous.
"We don't do comprehensive well," Republican Sen. Lamar Alexander said at the health summit. "We've watched the comprehensive, economywide, cap and trade. We've watched the comprehensive immigration bill ... we've watched the comprehensive health care bill. And they fall of their own weight."
That's what's happening now. And it's something Democrats would know, if they had listened to one of their leading pollsters.
Back during the 2004 presidential race, there was a debate going on inside the John Kerry campaign. Should the Democratic candidate push bold, far-reaching proposals, or should he balance boldness with more modest initiatives?
Pollster Stanley Greenberg did some research. He found that, when considered individually, Kerry's most sweeping plans were more popular with voters than his more modest ones. "Voters are ready to respond to new ideas, particularly bold ones," Greenberg wrote.
To further test the idea, Greenberg put together a hypothetical Kerry agenda -- he called it "Bold Kerry" -- which included all of the candidate's bold ideas.
Voters balked. They were uneasy with the big agenda, even though they liked some elements of it. "While voters are clearly open to bold initiatives to major problems, they may be less attracted to the candidate who wants to act boldly in every area, without exception," Greenberg concluded. "All together, that may have suggested an expanding scope for government beyond what people felt they could trust."
And that is what is happening now with health care. Ever since Inauguration Day, the White House has acted on the assumption that, because voters elected Barack Obama, they want "Bold Obama." All the evidence suggests that is wrong.
At the end of the summit, Obama said that if he can't reach an agreement with Republicans -- and there's no chance if the existing bill stays on the table -- then "we've got to go ahead and make some decisions." That means jamming the bill through Congress against the public's wishes. And if there's still dispute, Obama said, "that's what elections are for."
He's right. This is an issue that won't be fully settled until November.
Byron York, The Examiner's chief political correspondent, can be contacted at byork@washingtonexaminer.com. His column appears on Tuesday and Friday, and his stories and blog posts appears on www.ExaminerPolitics.com ExaminerPolitics.com.
Tags:
Chief Political Correspondent
February 26, 2010
"There have been a lot of comments from every Republican about the polls," President Obama said near the end of the mind-numbing White House summit on health care reform. "What's interesting is when you poll people about the individual elements in each of these bills, they're all for them."
What Obama was addressing was a dilemma that drives Democrats crazy. Polls show the public supports some parts of the Democratic national health care reform plan, but adamantly opposes the comprehensive bill now dying a slow death on Capitol Hill.
Just look at the latest survey from CNN and Opinion Research. When asked if they support "preventing health insurance companies from dropping coverage for people who become seriously ill," 62 percent say yes. When asked whether they support "requiring all large and midsized businesses to provide health insurance for their employees," 72 percent say yes. And when asked if they support "preventing health insurance companies from denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions," 58 percent say yes.
On the other hand, asked what Congress should do on health care -- pass the current bill, start work on an entirely new bill, or stop working on the issue altogether -- a huge majority opposes the Democratic proposal now on the table. Just 25 percent of those surveyed want to see the bill passed. Forty-eight percent want Congress to start over, and 25 percent want lawmakers to stop working on health care altogether. Put those last two together, and an overwhelming majority of 73 percent do not want Congress to pass the current bill.
The White House is cherry-picking the news it likes; that's what Obama was doing when he said the public is "all for" elements of the bill. But bring up the polls showing people just don't want the current bill, and the administration gets a little dodgy.
"Who knows what is in those polls, how they were taken, when they were taken?" White House health care spokeswoman Linda Douglass told Fox News during a break in the summit.
But why do people support some elements of the bill while opposing the bill overall? Some Democrats blame Republican misinformation. Some believe it's because the bill isn't yet a reality, and people would love it, if it were only passed. Others say the public is just stupid.
Few Democrats can accept the possibility that voters are telling them their whole approach is wrong. Big, comprehensive legislative proposals just make people nervous.
"We don't do comprehensive well," Republican Sen. Lamar Alexander said at the health summit. "We've watched the comprehensive, economywide, cap and trade. We've watched the comprehensive immigration bill ... we've watched the comprehensive health care bill. And they fall of their own weight."
That's what's happening now. And it's something Democrats would know, if they had listened to one of their leading pollsters.
Back during the 2004 presidential race, there was a debate going on inside the John Kerry campaign. Should the Democratic candidate push bold, far-reaching proposals, or should he balance boldness with more modest initiatives?
Pollster Stanley Greenberg did some research. He found that, when considered individually, Kerry's most sweeping plans were more popular with voters than his more modest ones. "Voters are ready to respond to new ideas, particularly bold ones," Greenberg wrote.
To further test the idea, Greenberg put together a hypothetical Kerry agenda -- he called it "Bold Kerry" -- which included all of the candidate's bold ideas.
Voters balked. They were uneasy with the big agenda, even though they liked some elements of it. "While voters are clearly open to bold initiatives to major problems, they may be less attracted to the candidate who wants to act boldly in every area, without exception," Greenberg concluded. "All together, that may have suggested an expanding scope for government beyond what people felt they could trust."
And that is what is happening now with health care. Ever since Inauguration Day, the White House has acted on the assumption that, because voters elected Barack Obama, they want "Bold Obama." All the evidence suggests that is wrong.
At the end of the summit, Obama said that if he can't reach an agreement with Republicans -- and there's no chance if the existing bill stays on the table -- then "we've got to go ahead and make some decisions." That means jamming the bill through Congress against the public's wishes. And if there's still dispute, Obama said, "that's what elections are for."
He's right. This is an issue that won't be fully settled until November.
Byron York, The Examiner's chief political correspondent, can be contacted at byork@washingtonexaminer.com. His column appears on Tuesday and Friday, and his stories and blog posts appears on www.ExaminerPolitics.com ExaminerPolitics.com.
Tags:
Saturday, February 27, 2010
The Sham Wow Summit
Posted by Erick Erickson (Profile)
Thursday, February 25th at 10:56PM EST
41 Comments
There are many reasons the Republican Party is often referred to as the Stupid Party. Many Republicans thought that after the President overshadowed the GOP at their Baltimore retreat last month, going to Blair House yesterday would just be another PR disaster.
It was anything but.
The GOP won the day so convincingly that even the traditional media had to praise the party for talking issues.
Contrast that with Barack Obama who scowled, berated, lied, and harassed the attendees — not to mention filibustered them.
In the most ironic moment of the day, Barack Obama lectured Virginia Congressman Eric Cantor on having the Democrats’ 2,700+ page health care bill on his desk at the meeting. Obama called it a “prop.” At the same time, Democrats were in the newspapers admitting that, in effect, Barack Obama was using the GOP as a prop in a vain effort to show bipartisanship on health care.
There is bipartisanship on health care. There is bipartisan opposition to it. The Democrats must realize today that they would get nothing out of the meeting. They will now try to force health care deform through Congress on a majority vote in each house.
Only a couple of years ago, Barack Obama praised the filibuster claiming it was what the founding fathers wanted to prevent the tyranny of the majority. Now he is intent on ignoring the filibuster and ramming through health care deform.
If nothing else, today shows the American public that the Republicans have a better agenda, better ideas, and are willing to stand up and oppose a reckless scheme that will increase health care costs.
Thursday, February 25th at 10:56PM EST
41 Comments
There are many reasons the Republican Party is often referred to as the Stupid Party. Many Republicans thought that after the President overshadowed the GOP at their Baltimore retreat last month, going to Blair House yesterday would just be another PR disaster.
It was anything but.
The GOP won the day so convincingly that even the traditional media had to praise the party for talking issues.
Contrast that with Barack Obama who scowled, berated, lied, and harassed the attendees — not to mention filibustered them.
In the most ironic moment of the day, Barack Obama lectured Virginia Congressman Eric Cantor on having the Democrats’ 2,700+ page health care bill on his desk at the meeting. Obama called it a “prop.” At the same time, Democrats were in the newspapers admitting that, in effect, Barack Obama was using the GOP as a prop in a vain effort to show bipartisanship on health care.
There is bipartisanship on health care. There is bipartisan opposition to it. The Democrats must realize today that they would get nothing out of the meeting. They will now try to force health care deform through Congress on a majority vote in each house.
Only a couple of years ago, Barack Obama praised the filibuster claiming it was what the founding fathers wanted to prevent the tyranny of the majority. Now he is intent on ignoring the filibuster and ramming through health care deform.
If nothing else, today shows the American public that the Republicans have a better agenda, better ideas, and are willing to stand up and oppose a reckless scheme that will increase health care costs.
Chile earthquake
Overnight an 8.8 earthquake hit Concepcion, Chile.Expect before the day is over that Obama spokesman, Robert Gibbs will have a press conference in order to discuss how Geoge Bush is responsible.
Our thoughts and prayers go out to the people of Chile. Know one thing for sure.....you will get help from America. We are always coming to the rescue to suffering people around the world.
Our thoughts and prayers go out to the people of Chile. Know one thing for sure.....you will get help from America. We are always coming to the rescue to suffering people around the world.
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Attention America
VERY QUIETLY OBAMA'S CITIZENSHIP CASE REACHES THE SUPREME COURT
AP- WASHINGTON D.C. - In a move certain to fuel the debate over Obama's qualifications for the presidency,the group "Americans for Freedom of Information" has Released copies
of President Obama's college transcripts from Occidental College . Released
today, the transcript school indicates that Obama, under the name Barry Soetoro,
received financial aid as a foreign student from Indonesia as an undergraduate.
The transcript was released by Occidental College in compliance with a court
order in a suit brought by the group in the Superior Court of California.
The transcript shows that Obama (Soetoro) applied for financial aid and was awarded a fellowship for foreign students from the Fulbright Foundation Scholarship program. To qualify,
for the scholarship, a student must claim foreign citizenship.
This document would seem to provide the smoking gun that many of Obama's detractors have been seeking. Along with the evidence that he was first born in Kenya and there is no record
of him ever applying for US citizenship, this is looking pretty grim. The news
has created a firestorm at the White House as the release casts increasing doubt
about Obama's legitimacy and qualification to serve as President article titled,
"Obama Eligibility Questioned," leading some to speculate that the story may
overshadow economic issues on Obama's first official visit to the U.K. In a
related matter, under growing pressure from several groups,
Justice Antonin Scalia announced that the Supreme Court agreed on Tuesday to hear arguments concerning Obama's legal eligibility to serve as President in a case brought by Leo
Donofrio of New Jersey . This lawsuit claims Obama's dual citizenship
disqualified him from serving as president. Donofrio's case is just one of 18
suits brought by citizens demanding proof of Obama's citizenship or
qualification to serve as president.
Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation has released the results
of their investigation of Obama's campaign spending. This study estimates that Obama has spent upwards of $950,000 in campaign funds in the past year with eleven law firms in 12 states for legal resources to block disclosure of any of
his personal records. Mr. Kreep indicated that the investigation is still
ongoing but that the final report will be provided to the U.S. attorney general,
Eric Holder. Mr. Holder has refused to comment on the matter.
LET OTHER FOLKS KNOW THIS NEWS, THE MEDIA WON'T !
Subject: Issue of Passport?
While I've little interest in getting in the middle of the Obama birth issue
Paul Hollrah over at FSM did so yesterday and believes the issue can be resolved by Obama answering one simple question: What passport did he use when he was shuttling between
New York , Jakarta , and Karachi ?
So how did a young man who arrived in New York in early June 1981, without the price of a hotel room in his pocket, suddenly come up with the price of a round-the-world trip just a month later?
And once he was on a plane, shuttling between New York , Jakarta , and Karachi , what passport was he offering when he passed through Customs and Immigration?
The American people not only deserve to have answers to these questions, they must have answers. It makes the debate over Obama's citizenship a rather short and simple one.
Q: Did he travel to Pakistan in 1981, at age 20?
A: Yes, by his own admission.
Q: What passport did he travel under?
A: There are only three possibilities.
1) He traveled with a U.S.. Passport,
2) He traveled with a British passport, or
3) He traveled with an Indonesia passport.
Q: Is it possible that Obama traveled with a U.S. Passport in 1981?
A: No.. It is not possible. Pakistan was on the U.S. State Department's "no travel" list in1981.
Conclusion: When Obama went to Pakistan in 1981 he was traveling either with a British passport or an Indonesian passport.
If he were traveling with a British passport that would provide proof that he was born in Kenya on August 4, 1961, not in Hawaii as he claims. And if he were traveling with an Indonesian passport that would tend to prove that he
relinquished whatever previous citizenship he held, British or American, prior
to being adopted by his Indonesian step-father in 1967.
Whatever the truth of the matter, the American people need to know how he managed to become a "naturalborn" American citizen between 1981 and 2008..
Given the destructive nature of his plans for America, as illustrated by his speech before Congress and the disastrous spending plan he has presented to Congress,the sooner we
learn the truth of all this, the better. What is the truth?
AP- WASHINGTON D.C. - In a move certain to fuel the debate over Obama's qualifications for the presidency,the group "Americans for Freedom of Information" has Released copies
of President Obama's college transcripts from Occidental College . Released
today, the transcript school indicates that Obama, under the name Barry Soetoro,
received financial aid as a foreign student from Indonesia as an undergraduate.
The transcript was released by Occidental College in compliance with a court
order in a suit brought by the group in the Superior Court of California.
The transcript shows that Obama (Soetoro) applied for financial aid and was awarded a fellowship for foreign students from the Fulbright Foundation Scholarship program. To qualify,
for the scholarship, a student must claim foreign citizenship.
This document would seem to provide the smoking gun that many of Obama's detractors have been seeking. Along with the evidence that he was first born in Kenya and there is no record
of him ever applying for US citizenship, this is looking pretty grim. The news
has created a firestorm at the White House as the release casts increasing doubt
about Obama's legitimacy and qualification to serve as President article titled,
"Obama Eligibility Questioned," leading some to speculate that the story may
overshadow economic issues on Obama's first official visit to the U.K. In a
related matter, under growing pressure from several groups,
Justice Antonin Scalia announced that the Supreme Court agreed on Tuesday to hear arguments concerning Obama's legal eligibility to serve as President in a case brought by Leo
Donofrio of New Jersey . This lawsuit claims Obama's dual citizenship
disqualified him from serving as president. Donofrio's case is just one of 18
suits brought by citizens demanding proof of Obama's citizenship or
qualification to serve as president.
Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation has released the results
of their investigation of Obama's campaign spending. This study estimates that Obama has spent upwards of $950,000 in campaign funds in the past year with eleven law firms in 12 states for legal resources to block disclosure of any of
his personal records. Mr. Kreep indicated that the investigation is still
ongoing but that the final report will be provided to the U.S. attorney general,
Eric Holder. Mr. Holder has refused to comment on the matter.
LET OTHER FOLKS KNOW THIS NEWS, THE MEDIA WON'T !
Subject: Issue of Passport?
While I've little interest in getting in the middle of the Obama birth issue
Paul Hollrah over at FSM did so yesterday and believes the issue can be resolved by Obama answering one simple question: What passport did he use when he was shuttling between
New York , Jakarta , and Karachi ?
So how did a young man who arrived in New York in early June 1981, without the price of a hotel room in his pocket, suddenly come up with the price of a round-the-world trip just a month later?
And once he was on a plane, shuttling between New York , Jakarta , and Karachi , what passport was he offering when he passed through Customs and Immigration?
The American people not only deserve to have answers to these questions, they must have answers. It makes the debate over Obama's citizenship a rather short and simple one.
Q: Did he travel to Pakistan in 1981, at age 20?
A: Yes, by his own admission.
Q: What passport did he travel under?
A: There are only three possibilities.
1) He traveled with a U.S.. Passport,
2) He traveled with a British passport, or
3) He traveled with an Indonesia passport.
Q: Is it possible that Obama traveled with a U.S. Passport in 1981?
A: No.. It is not possible. Pakistan was on the U.S. State Department's "no travel" list in1981.
Conclusion: When Obama went to Pakistan in 1981 he was traveling either with a British passport or an Indonesian passport.
If he were traveling with a British passport that would provide proof that he was born in Kenya on August 4, 1961, not in Hawaii as he claims. And if he were traveling with an Indonesian passport that would tend to prove that he
relinquished whatever previous citizenship he held, British or American, prior
to being adopted by his Indonesian step-father in 1967.
Whatever the truth of the matter, the American people need to know how he managed to become a "naturalborn" American citizen between 1981 and 2008..
Given the destructive nature of his plans for America, as illustrated by his speech before Congress and the disastrous spending plan he has presented to Congress,the sooner we
learn the truth of all this, the better. What is the truth?
Joy Behar and Bill Maher
When you get two malcontents together don't be surprised when the hate spills out at a rapid pace. Yesterday these two morons thought it was humorous to laugh about Dick Cheney and his recent heart attack. Pity they can't see how ignorant that look.
Ms Behar needs major surgery for her attitude and Maher certainly could use a face and brain transplant. Both feel they are superior, pity the rest of us don't think they are special.
Ms Behar needs major surgery for her attitude and Maher certainly could use a face and brain transplant. Both feel they are superior, pity the rest of us don't think they are special.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Mi Rep. Thaddeus McCotter
This young man is a rising star in the Republican party and continues to thrill those who are fortunate enough to hear him speak. I don't know when he hit the scene, but he is leaving his mark along the way.
At a recent speech at CPAC, McCotter left the crowd awed with his ability at the podium. Where were the teleprompters that are required at the President's appearances?McCotter captured the audience with his charm, humor and genuine appeal.
Telling the truth to a crowd of angry citizens who are fed up with the bumbling government currently in power. He was a nice breath of fresh air.
Now that is what I call HOPE AND CHANGE!
At a recent speech at CPAC, McCotter left the crowd awed with his ability at the podium. Where were the teleprompters that are required at the President's appearances?McCotter captured the audience with his charm, humor and genuine appeal.
Telling the truth to a crowd of angry citizens who are fed up with the bumbling government currently in power. He was a nice breath of fresh air.
Now that is what I call HOPE AND CHANGE!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)