those of us who voted for Obama want real, meaningful health care insurance reform; he should forget taking away single payer, then public option, and whatever else will be removed; and he should forget the bipartisanship since the other side has well defined what they want, ie, no reform. we also voted for him to get out of the horrible wars in the middle east, a useless endeavor; and we also wanted him to take care of our economic horrors; what has he done? cut his ideas for health care reform, increased the afghanistan fiasco, keeps iraq running as before and took in all the same economic crooks that came from the same pot as before, those who go from the private firm, then government, back and forth. i think he is running on a one term platform given the way he is letting others do what he should be doing. he has no doubt chosen the wrong people who are advising him and proving that we still have a one party system.

Who's Blocking Health Care Reform Now? Blue Dogs? Senate Dems? House Progressives? Or the White House Itself? / Obama is not liberal
09/02/2009 / http://tinyurl.com/ksxq3e
Anyone who can add knows Republicans are not blocking universal health care. The performances of Republican teabaggers at a few town halls notwithstanding, there are just not enough Republicans in the House and Senate to block anything. The president and his party can roll over Republican opposition any time they want to.
Blue dog Democrats aren't to blame for blocking the White House health care bills either. The political careers of many House blue dogs are the creation of White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, who as head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee dispensed them bags of corporate cash to win primary elections against left leaning Democrats. The interests that owned Rahm, and still do, own his successor at DCCC, so the blue dogs are White House puppies it can rein it any time it chooses.
If progressives like Donna Edwards can be blamed for blocking health care reform, it's only because they are choosing to follow the White House lead and settle for “health insurance reform” instead. The White House itself, and our First Black President are the biggest political obstacles to achieving health care for every American, along with the corporate media which controls the public debate.
http://blackagendareport.com/?q=content/whos-blocking-health-care-reform-now-blue-dogs-senate-dems-house-progressives-or-white-house

OBAMA PICKED ALL CORPORATE HACKS IN HIS CABINET!

NOT ONE LIBERAL OR EVEN ONE CONSERVATIVE!

The difficulty is that Obama seems to have gotten his objectives mixed up with his "ways and means."

His priority seems to be the "public option" but this is a method. What is it that he wants to accomplish? Like everyone else, his is a flat list of mutually competing objectives. What is his priority among his objectives?

Quite candidly, this process is rank. At the end of the day, there will be a party line vote on a bill that no one has read.

I would rather watch sausage being made; the smell is better.

So far, I am very disappointed with his stance on several issues. If he abandons his campaign promises on healthcare, he will not get my vote in 2012.

I do not think that the public option should be abandoned. It's just like the drug bill the insurance companies watering down the bill to keep their profits high. When are our senators going to start representing the people and not big busines? The public option is absoultely necessary to reduce the cost of Healthcare in this country. Stop listening to the insurance company propaganda.

Richard French is such a Daddy's boy. If it wasn't that Dad owns the station he would have to get himself a real job -- now he's trying to take on Glenn Beck?? Good luck little Richard. I had no idea RNN was such a liberal facing station - guess that's why I don't watch it. Personally I think responsible, adult type people can take better care of themselves than the government can -- but I guess people like Richard are always looking for someone to take care of them -- hence the backing of Obama and his plan for taking over -- takng care of America. Grow up young Richard --

Rahm Pushing Triggers Through Olympia Snowe / Obama is not liberal
September 2, 2009 / http://tinyurl.com/kqdxwx
I thought it was weird when Olympia Snowe suddenly started pushing triggers. Rahm Emanuel has been lobbying for them since early in the year, and lately the White House has been trying to burnish the image of "triggers" by pressing liberal validators into service. And now, according to Marc Ambinder, lo and behold

Senior White House officials, in conversations with reporters today, are floating the idea that President Obama is secretly negotiating with Sen. Olympia Snowe over a health care compromise that would phase in a government-funded health care alternative if private insurance companies fail to meet quality and cost benchmarks over a certain period of the time.

That's great. Not satisfied with working through Blue Dogs any more, Rahm is now using Republicans to write his trillion dollar bailout of the health care industry. Is this a great country or what.
And what does the White House think of the 60 Democrats in the House who pledged to vote against any bill that does not have a public plan?
http://campaignsilo.firedoglake.com/2009/09/02/rahm-pushing-triggers-through-olympia-snowe/

Last I checked"BIPARTISANSHIP"abandoned the President long ago.

I agree with you, Robert, 100%. What is Obama thinking?

Obama's woes are caused by his radical left social agenda that alienate middle America big time, in spite his outrageously free ride from the Liberal Mainstream Media.

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

Obama Is Losing His Base By:

September 04, 2009

The polls this week are a disaster for Barack Obama. Scott Rasmussen has his approval dropping to 45 percent, after several weeks at 49 percent. John Zogby has it even lower — at 42 percent.
Beneath the superficial data lies even worse news for the president. Not only is he losing support, but he is losing his political base. Young people — under 30 — long a key element of his support, give him no better than break-even ratings with 41 percent approving and 41 percent disapproving of the job he is doing according to Zogby. And only 75 percent of Democrats, who have supported Obama strongly in the past, now approve of the job he is doing.

Zogby reports that this low approval by his fellow partisans represents a slide of more than 10 points over the summer. Even blacks are becoming tepid in their backing for Obama, with only 74 percent approving of the job he is doing (also a drop of more than 10 points). Hispanics, who voted for Obama by a margin of more than 40 points, now break even, 36-36, on their rating of his job in office.

Independents, the key swing group in our politics, now deliver a sharply negative 37-50 verdict on Obama's performance in office, and the elderly also give him negative ratings by 42-51.

Now that Obama, weakened with lower ratings, confronts his party in Congress, he has few good options.

He obviously cannot get 60 votes for his health care proposals in their current form. No Republican will support them, and it is unlikely that moderate Democrats will vote with him.

If he tries to pass the program with 50 votes using reconciliation procedures, he may also fail.


Most likely Democratic Sens. Byrd, W.V.; Conrad, N.D.; Lincoln, Ark.; Pryor, Ark.; Nelson, Neb; Bayh, Ind.; and Landrieu, La., and independent Sen. Lieberman (Ct) would oppose such a move and others — like Hagan, N.C., Feinstein, Calif., Johnson, S.D.; and Dorgan, N.D., might be right behind them. Stripped of moderate support, it is unlikely that Obama will be able to push through so radical a program with a bare 50 votes.
And if Obama waters down his proposals to attract Republican and moderate Democratic support, he will probably begin to lose votes on the left, endangering his prospects in the House and perhaps adding to his dilemma in the Senate.

Finally, the longer he takes to resolve this political problem, the more his ratings will continue to slip and his power to achieve any resolution will diminish. No president with support in the 30s will be able to push through a program like health care.

Historians will record that health care reform crippled the Obama presidency, as it did Bill Clinton's in 1993. Of course, Clinton was able to move to the center and secure re-election in 1996, but one wonders if a true believer like Obama would have such ideological flexibility. He has shown a willingness to move to the center on foreign policy, leaving troops in Iraq and adding them in Afghanistan. On the domestic front, only on education policy has he been willing to embrace centrist positions.

By the end of September, he'll wish he stayed in Martha's Vineyard!

Obama's woes are caused by his radical left social agenda that alienate middle America big time, in spite his outrageously free ride from the Liberal Mainstream Media.

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

Obama Is Losing His Base::

September 04, 2009

The polls this week are a disaster for Barack Obama. Scott Rasmussen has his approval dropping to 45 percent, after several weeks at 49 percent. John Zogby has it even lower — at 42 percent.
Beneath the superficial data lies even worse news for the president. Not only is he losing support, but he is losing his political base. Young people — under 30 — long a key element of his support, give him no better than break-even ratings with 41 percent approving and 41 percent disapproving of the job he is doing according to Zogby. And only 75 percent of Democrats, who have supported Obama strongly in the past, now approve of the job he is doing.

Zogby reports that this low approval by his fellow partisans represents a slide of more than 10 points over the summer. Even blacks are becoming tepid in their backing for Obama, with only 74 percent approving of the job he is doing (also a drop of more than 10 points). Hispanics, who voted for Obama by a margin of more than 40 points, now break even, 36-36, on their rating of his job in office.

Independents, the key swing group in our politics, now deliver a sharply negative 37-50 verdict on Obama's performance in office, and the elderly also give him negative ratings by 42-51.

Now that Obama, weakened with lower ratings, confronts his party in Congress, he has few good options.

He obviously cannot get 60 votes for his health care proposals in their current form. No Republican will support them, and it is unlikely that moderate Democrats will vote with him.

If he tries to pass the program with 50 votes using reconciliation procedures, he may also fail.


Most likely Democratic Sens. Byrd, W.V.; Conrad, N.D.; Lincoln, Ark.; Pryor, Ark.; Nelson, Neb; Bayh, Ind.; and Landrieu, La., and independent Sen. Lieberman (Ct) would oppose such a move and others — like Hagan, N.C., Feinstein, Calif., Johnson, S.D.; and Dorgan, N.D., might be right behind them. Stripped of moderate support, it is unlikely that Obama will be able to push through so radical a program with a bare 50 votes.
And if Obama waters down his proposals to attract Republican and moderate Democratic support, he will probably begin to lose votes on the left, endangering his prospects in the House and perhaps adding to his dilemma in the Senate.

Finally, the longer he takes to resolve this political problem, the more his ratings will continue to slip and his power to achieve any resolution will diminish. No president with support in the 30s will be able to push through a program like health care.

Historians will record that health care reform crippled the Obama presidency, as it did Bill Clinton's in 1993. Of course, Clinton was able to move to the center and secure re-election in 1996, but one wonders if a true believer like Obama would have such ideological flexibility. He has shown a willingness to move to the center on foreign policy, leaving troops in Iraq and adding them in Afghanistan. On the domestic front, only on education policy has he been willing to embrace centrist positions.

By the end of September, he'll wish he stayed in Martha's Vineyard!

Networks censor health care debate:
ABC and NBC take one for Team Obama

September 6, 2009

The major TV networks don't even let revenue get in the way of their biased coverage in favor of President Obama's agenda.

ABC and NBC in particular seem afraid of a simple 30-second advertisement. Both networks have refused to run an ad proposed for national telecast by the League of American Voters, a nonprofit group with 15,000 members. The supposedly offensive ad makes the simple claim that the proposed government-run health care program would ration medical care.

ABC won't run the ad because it says it is "partisan." NBC won't run it because that network says it questions the ad's facts. So what does the script of this horribly troublesome ad say? Here it is:

"How can Obama's plan cover 50 million new patients without any new doctors? It can't. It will hurt our seniors, end Medicare as we know it, ration coverage and care, limit life-saving medicines, impose long delays on cancer treatment and other vital surgery. It's happening in England and in Canada. Don't let it happen here. Tell Congress to protect American health care."

Actually, we have some serious gripes about the ad too, primarily because the League of American Voters accepts and propagates questionable statistics coming from the Obama administration. The true number of uninsured in this country is dramatically less than half of the 50 million claimed. The ad also accepts the administration's presumption that being uninsured means going without health care. As we have pointed out previously, a survey by ABC/USA Today/Kaiser Foundation found that 70 percent of the uninsured who expressed an opinion were satisfied with their health care.

Despite falling back on dodgy numbers, the sentiment and logic expressed in the ad hit the mark. Increasing demand for health care increases prices and costs. If more people are offered health care, and more total money is not allocated for services, the increase in cost that results from covering additional new patients can be offset only by cutting services for somebody else. That sounds like rationing to us.

It's hardly surprising that NBC does not share these concerns. The liberals who control that network's programming just don't believe the Democrats' plans will result in rationing.

The case against ABC is more egregious. This is the same network that gave the Obama administration uncritical free airtime during June's ABC-White House health care special to promote Mr. Obama's plan while rejecting Republican offers to buy ads to counter the partisan propaganda. ABC now claims the League of American Voters' ad is partisan. But simply opposing a government takeover of health care doesn't make the group or its views partisan; Americans of all stripes are against the power grab. An August Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll found that such a government takeover is opposed by 21 percent of Democrats, 50 percent of independents and 81 percent of Republicans.

ABC and NBC are losing credibility and viewers. One major cause of the networks' demise is their willingness to put objectivity aside to carry water for Mr. Obama and his big-government policies.

Even though he's now gone, it's just another outrageous example of a "Free Pass" from the Liberal Press.

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

“Green Jobs Czar” is a 9-11 ‘Truther’:

2009 September 3

It’s now been discovered that Van Jones, President Obama’s “Green Jobs Czar” is a member of the 9-11 “Truther” movement. Glenn Beck told viewers tonight that although he wanted to lead his program with this revelation, in fairness to the White House he held off until half-way into his show to give the administration time to respond. They never did. While some might think that Beck gets unduly agitated about some of his topics, this ought to be truly chilling to anyone with more than two functioning brain cells. Beck reported that Jones’ signature appears on the 9-11 Truth Statement, an open letter demanding an investigation into whether the United States government knew about the attacks in advance and allowed them to happen or even worse — deliberately staged them for some unstated benefit to Bush administration insiders. His name appears along with the signatures of Ed Asner, Janine Garafolo, former GA Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, and then-president of Code Pink, Jodie Evans.
How has this man been allowed to get this close to a sitting U.S. President? As Beck correctly pointed out, there are only two possible answers to that question: 1) Total incompetence on the part of FBI officials tasked with the vetting process for presidential advisors; or (both more likely and much more serious): 2) President Obama has known all along about this and other alarming facts regarding Mr. Jones and has no problem with any of them.

Think about that for a moment.

Newsreal’s bloggers have been following the Van Jones controversy for some time now (see here, here, and here), but at this point some very serious questions need to be asked. As guest Michelle Malkin told Beck on this same show:

“I think it’s very important to look at what he (Jones) did, particularly in the San Francisco and Oakland schools. This man was unleashed on classrooms during the late 1990s to crusade on behalf of Mumia Abu-Jamal (a notorious convicted cop killer).”

Jones, it has also been reported, founded Copwatch in the San Francisco bay area in the 1990s. This organization, among other things, has fomented antagonism and racial grievances between minorities and law enforcement. Another of their key objectives was apparently to undermine California’s juvenile justice system. According to Michelle Malkin’s research, Jones has been working hard to create a synthesis between his hard left anti-American belief system and radical environmentalism. It is this sort of “stealth” hybrid ideology which he has now brought to the White House as one of President Obama’s closest advisors.

Beck also pointed out that Jones recently gave a speech addressed to San Quentin inmates, urging them to get released and then help him “Form a cadre to repower and retrofit America.” Malkin quite understandably wondered, “Just what exactly does that mean?” Furthermore, according to Malkin, Valerie Jarrett, White House Senior Advisor, who was the driving force in bringing Van Jones into Obama’s closest circle, is also very close with Michelle Obama, who apparently shares Black Nationalist and radical sympathies.

Is it reasonable to ask now whether Barack Obama’s true agenda is even more radical than some of his harshest critics claimed during the presidential campaign? You decide.

the rebubuke was absolutely necessary. Rep. Wilson threw the ball out onto the field of play and then wants to be excused from the rules of the game. His behavior was disrespectful and the reaction is not politcal but civil. He was not attending The Jerry Springer show.Did he forget where he was and that the entire nation and the world were watching?

Nice post

Fun to read

Fun to read

Isn't the initial commenter telling the real truth or what??

Really nice post

fun to read

great article

awesome post

Thanks for helping out, excellent info .

woh I like your content , saved to fav! .

so much superb information on here, : D.

I conceive this web site contains very excellent pent content content .

I always was concerned in this subject and stock still am, thankyou for posting .