Obama
- Thread starter Lumi
- Start date
looks like dems got the 60 votes now
the holdout bribed them out of 10 million medicare for his state. what a guy
First President in history to get this health care passed after so many years of corruption and profit.
What a leader.
He will have done the impossible.
First of many new good changes to move America forward.
And we are not as hated by other countrys anymore. Geez imagine that Rove, Cheney, George w. Romney
warmongers and liars one and all of them for too long. :00hour
the holdout bribed them out of 10 million medicare for his state. what a guy
First President in history to get this health care passed after so many years of corruption and profit.
What a leader.
He will have done the impossible.
First of many new good changes to move America forward.
And we are not as hated by other countrys anymore. Geez imagine that Rove, Cheney, George w. Romney
warmongers and liars one and all of them for too long. :00hour
Senate Dems reach 60 vote threshold on health bill
ShareThisPrint E-mail By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR
The Associated Press
WASHINGTON ? Democratic leaders secured the support of Sen. Ben Nelson to provide the 60th and deciding vote for sweeping health care legislation in the Senate, capping a year of struggle and a final burst of deadline bargaining on President Barack Obama's top domestic priority.
"I know this is hard for some of my colleagues to accept and I appreciate their right to disagree," he said at a news conference in the Capitol, referring to the abortion issue. "But I would not have voted for this bill without these provisions."
He also noted he had successfully fended off attempts to provide for a government-run insurance option to compete with private insurers.
The Congressional Budget Office estimated the revised measure would lower deficits by $132 billion over a decade, with the possibility of much higher reductions in the subsequent decade.
At the White House, Obama cited those numbers in hailing the legislation as "the largest deficit reduction plan in a decade." In a brief statement, the president also said the country is "on the cusp of making health care reform a reality."
Forecasters said the bill would expand coverage to roughly 94 percent of eligible Americans under age 65, a total that excludes illegal immigrants.
Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada said the measure "will finally level the playing field between American families and the insurance industry."
With Nelson's decision, Obama's Senate allies appear on track to pass the legislation by Christmas, overcoming unanimous Republican opposition and aswirling early winter snowstorm. The House passed its version of the legislation last month, and final compromise talks are expected quickly.
At its core, the measure is designed to spread coverage to tens of millions who lack it, while banning insurance company practices such as denial of coverage on the basis of pre-existing medical conditions. The White House also wants the legislation that eventually makes it through Congress to slow the rate of growth in national medical spending overall.
Nelson disclosed his decision as Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., unveiled a final series of changes designed to solidify support. Among them was an increase in the Medicare payroll tax of 0.9 percent on income over $200,000 a year for individuals and $250,000 for couples. The bill earlier raised those taxes by 0.5 percent.
The legislation includes new limits designed to limit insurance company profits and overhead, by requiring them to spend 80 percent of their premium income on medical care for individual insurance policies, and 85 percent for group policies. The industry says such a limitation is unnecessary because profits generally are in the single digits.
The estimated 30 million Americans purchasing coverage through new insurance exchanges would have the option of signing up for national plans overseen by the same office that manages health coverage for federal employees and members of Congress. Those plans would be privately owned, but operated on a nonprofit basis, as many Blue Cross Blue Shield plans are now.
The option amounts to a consolation prize for liberals, who failed to include a government-run alternative.
Additionally, insurance companies would be barred immediately from denying coverage to children because of a pre-existing health condition. The prohibition on denial of coverage for adults would not take effect in the Senate bill until 2014, a disappointment for consumer advocates.
On abortion, the measure would let a state disallow coverage in new insurance exchanges by passing a law to that effect. Additionally, it sets up a mechanism to segregate funds that would be used to pay for abortions from federal subsidy dollars flowing to health plans.
Federal law now prohibits public money for abortions, except in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother. From the beginning, the issue has been how those restrictions would be applied to a new stream of federal money under the overhaul bill.
The developments occurred as Republicans dug in to delay the inevitable for as long as possible. They objected when Reid sought permission for Nelson to announce his decision in a speech on the Senate floor, then forced Senate clerks to spend hours reading aloud the text of the 383-page package of changes.
Republican opposition, coupled with Senate rules requiring 60 votes to overcome a filibuster, gave Nelson enormous leverage as he pressed for concessions that included stronger restrictions on abortions to be covered by insurance policies offered in a newly overhauled health care system.
The final agreement with Nelson was sealed late Friday night after marathon negotiations in Reid's Capitol office a few steps off the Senate floor. Reid telephoned Obama with the news.
Officials said the federal government would pick up Nebraska's entire cost of a Medicaid expansion in the bill. Other states will have to begin picking up a portion of the added expanse beginning in 2017.
:scared :SIB
Nelson already rejected one proposed offer on abortions as insufficient, and the presence in the talks of Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., indicated additional changes were on the table.
Boxer has a strong record in favor of abortion rights. She told reporters as she left the Capitol at the end of Friday evening there had been progress made on the issue of separating personal funds, which may be used to pay for abortions, from federal dollars, which may not.
The issue is contentious because the legislation provides federal subsidies to help lower and middle-income families afford insurance and the other federal health care programs ban the use of government money to pay for abortions.
Gone from the bill is a tax on cosmetic surgical procedures, including Botox injections. Instead, Senate Democrats are proposing a 10 percent sales tax on tanning salons, to be paid by the person soaking up the rays. The Food and Drug Administration says ultraviolet radiation from tanning can increase the risk of skin cancer.
In an article she wrote in Saturday's Washington Post, Vicki Kennedy, the widow of Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., said that while the Senate bill is imperfect, it would achieve many of the goals her husband fought for over four decades.
"I humbly ask his colleagues to finish the work of his life, the work of generations, to allow the vote to go forward and to pass health care reform now. As Ted always said, when it's finally done, the people will wonder what took so long," she said.
.................................................................
woo woo :00hour ___
ShareThisPrint E-mail By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR
The Associated Press
WASHINGTON ? Democratic leaders secured the support of Sen. Ben Nelson to provide the 60th and deciding vote for sweeping health care legislation in the Senate, capping a year of struggle and a final burst of deadline bargaining on President Barack Obama's top domestic priority.
"I know this is hard for some of my colleagues to accept and I appreciate their right to disagree," he said at a news conference in the Capitol, referring to the abortion issue. "But I would not have voted for this bill without these provisions."
He also noted he had successfully fended off attempts to provide for a government-run insurance option to compete with private insurers.
The Congressional Budget Office estimated the revised measure would lower deficits by $132 billion over a decade, with the possibility of much higher reductions in the subsequent decade.
At the White House, Obama cited those numbers in hailing the legislation as "the largest deficit reduction plan in a decade." In a brief statement, the president also said the country is "on the cusp of making health care reform a reality."
Forecasters said the bill would expand coverage to roughly 94 percent of eligible Americans under age 65, a total that excludes illegal immigrants.
Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada said the measure "will finally level the playing field between American families and the insurance industry."
With Nelson's decision, Obama's Senate allies appear on track to pass the legislation by Christmas, overcoming unanimous Republican opposition and aswirling early winter snowstorm. The House passed its version of the legislation last month, and final compromise talks are expected quickly.
At its core, the measure is designed to spread coverage to tens of millions who lack it, while banning insurance company practices such as denial of coverage on the basis of pre-existing medical conditions. The White House also wants the legislation that eventually makes it through Congress to slow the rate of growth in national medical spending overall.
Nelson disclosed his decision as Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., unveiled a final series of changes designed to solidify support. Among them was an increase in the Medicare payroll tax of 0.9 percent on income over $200,000 a year for individuals and $250,000 for couples. The bill earlier raised those taxes by 0.5 percent.
The legislation includes new limits designed to limit insurance company profits and overhead, by requiring them to spend 80 percent of their premium income on medical care for individual insurance policies, and 85 percent for group policies. The industry says such a limitation is unnecessary because profits generally are in the single digits.
The estimated 30 million Americans purchasing coverage through new insurance exchanges would have the option of signing up for national plans overseen by the same office that manages health coverage for federal employees and members of Congress. Those plans would be privately owned, but operated on a nonprofit basis, as many Blue Cross Blue Shield plans are now.
The option amounts to a consolation prize for liberals, who failed to include a government-run alternative.
Additionally, insurance companies would be barred immediately from denying coverage to children because of a pre-existing health condition. The prohibition on denial of coverage for adults would not take effect in the Senate bill until 2014, a disappointment for consumer advocates.
On abortion, the measure would let a state disallow coverage in new insurance exchanges by passing a law to that effect. Additionally, it sets up a mechanism to segregate funds that would be used to pay for abortions from federal subsidy dollars flowing to health plans.
Federal law now prohibits public money for abortions, except in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother. From the beginning, the issue has been how those restrictions would be applied to a new stream of federal money under the overhaul bill.
The developments occurred as Republicans dug in to delay the inevitable for as long as possible. They objected when Reid sought permission for Nelson to announce his decision in a speech on the Senate floor, then forced Senate clerks to spend hours reading aloud the text of the 383-page package of changes.
Republican opposition, coupled with Senate rules requiring 60 votes to overcome a filibuster, gave Nelson enormous leverage as he pressed for concessions that included stronger restrictions on abortions to be covered by insurance policies offered in a newly overhauled health care system.
The final agreement with Nelson was sealed late Friday night after marathon negotiations in Reid's Capitol office a few steps off the Senate floor. Reid telephoned Obama with the news.
Officials said the federal government would pick up Nebraska's entire cost of a Medicaid expansion in the bill. Other states will have to begin picking up a portion of the added expanse beginning in 2017.
:scared :SIB
Nelson already rejected one proposed offer on abortions as insufficient, and the presence in the talks of Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., indicated additional changes were on the table.
Boxer has a strong record in favor of abortion rights. She told reporters as she left the Capitol at the end of Friday evening there had been progress made on the issue of separating personal funds, which may be used to pay for abortions, from federal dollars, which may not.
The issue is contentious because the legislation provides federal subsidies to help lower and middle-income families afford insurance and the other federal health care programs ban the use of government money to pay for abortions.
Gone from the bill is a tax on cosmetic surgical procedures, including Botox injections. Instead, Senate Democrats are proposing a 10 percent sales tax on tanning salons, to be paid by the person soaking up the rays. The Food and Drug Administration says ultraviolet radiation from tanning can increase the risk of skin cancer.
In an article she wrote in Saturday's Washington Post, Vicki Kennedy, the widow of Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., said that while the Senate bill is imperfect, it would achieve many of the goals her husband fought for over four decades.
"I humbly ask his colleagues to finish the work of his life, the work of generations, to allow the vote to go forward and to pass health care reform now. As Ted always said, when it's finally done, the people will wonder what took so long," she said.
.................................................................
woo woo :00hour ___
Legislature to focus on ethics in 2010
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
On the first day of the 2010 Legislative session, expect the state Capitol?s basket for incoming legislation to be piled high with new ethics reform bills. Some have already been filed.
Nothing spurs reform like scandal, and the Georgia House had just had a whopper ? the career immolation of Speaker Glenn Richardson (R-Hiram).
Now, the crowd under the Gold Dome has taken a sudden interest in tightening rules.
?It has suddenly become very fashionable to talk ethics,? said David Ralston, the Republican caucus? choice for new speaker.
He said he is looking for ?real change? and would like to see a reform package, not just one bill.
Ralston said he has been flooded with ideas in recent days and expects a package of reforms to come out of the session. He wants to see limits on spending by lobbyists on travel and gifts for legislators. To set a positive tone, he said, he would ban candy and flowers from being delivered to the speaker?s office and no lobbyists will be allowed into the speaker?s office without an appointment.
He said also wants the Legislature to look at rules and laws so ?you behave the way your mama would want you to behave.?
Joe Wilkinson (R-Sandy Springs), who heads the House Ethics Committee, said he?s ready.
?The [House] Ethics Committee is prepared to act immediately on any and all legislation,? he said. Some changes being considered include:
● Severe limits on how much lobbyists can spend on gifts, food and trips for legislators. Georgia is one of only 11 states that have no limits, but such expenses must be reported. Limit proposals have ranged from $100 per event to no more than a cup of coffee.
● Permanent funding and an expansion of powers for the State Ethics Commission. Currently the watchdog panel must seek funding annually from the very body it is supposed to watch. And its role is limited mostly to responding to complaints and collecting disclosures. It does no auditing. Rick Thompson, the former executive secretary of the Ethics Commission who now runs an ethics compliance consulting business, said Georgia needs an ethics czar with more authority and more money.
● Expanding the state?s Open Records Act to include the Legislature. Currently, the House and Senate are exempt from the act so all correspondence and other records involving legislators is kept private.
● Imposing a period that departing legislators would have to wait before they could start lobbying.
Ralston said there used to be great resistance to such ideas from the House leadership.
?That?s all changed,? he said.
Ethics advocates are as excited as they have been in years that they can pass tough new rules.
?There is an opportunity for real change,? said Rep. Wendell K. Willard (R-Sandy Springs), chair of the House judiciary committee, who is revising his own ethics legislation to submit when the Legislature returns on Jan. 11.
Willard submitted a bill last year that would limit to $100 the amount lobbyists could pay for legislators when taking them out to dinner or to an event. Willard said few legislators were interested in his bill.
?It was dead on arrival,? he admitted.
He planned to resubmit it this year anyway? but he wasn?t hopeful. Then the Richardson imbroglio hit, and ?lo and behold, all these things started to unfold,? he said.
But it?s a long and circuitous road from a bill?s introduction to the governor?s desk. Any such legislation will have to pass through committee rooms and hallways peopled by lobbyists and legislators less than eager for more scrutiny and restriction. It?s like sending Little Red Riding Hood through the forest to Grandma?s house. More than likely, she?ll run into at least one wolf.
Richardson probably would have blocked ethics legislation if he was still speaker. He was generally hostile to new ethics rules, open records or expanding public meeting laws. Ironically, he now has become the chief reason why such legislation has a good chance of passage.
When his personal problems exploded this fall, they exposed an unseemly world where powerful legislators carry on close relationships with lobbyists outside public scrutiny.
Richardson announced in November that he had attempted suicide because he was depressed over his failed marriage. He said he was recovering and planned to carry on as speaker. But then this month, Richardson?s ex-wife went on television and said he had an affair with the lobbyist for a company seeking passage of a particular bill. Richardson was a co-sponsor of the bill. Richardson?s ex-wife also accused him of threatening to use state agencies to harass her. Richardson announced his resignation within days of the television broadcast.
Ralston said none of the legislation being considered now would deal directly with Richardson?s situation. If the allegations are true, what Richardson already violated ethics rules, he said.
?You can?t legislate good behavior,? Ralston said. ?You can?t legislate common sense.?
Ralston said however, that the atmosphere at the Capitol in recent years led to a loosening of standards, and that atmosphere has to change.
?We definitely got off track, big time,? said Rep. Tommy Smith (R-Nicholls), who made a bid to be the next speaker but then dropped out before the vote.
Smith, who has been in the House for more than 30 years, said the Legislature needs to be more transparent in how it conducts business. He said the Legislature needs to consider including itself in the Open Records Act and other changes.
The Democratic minority in the House has already dusted of some of their bills and filed them for the new session. Their proposals include:
● No gifts for legislators of more than $25.
● Lower contribution limits for campaigns.
● Granting authority for the state ethics commission to investigate conflict of interests allegations.
● Adding an abuse-of-power clause to state ethics rules.
As the minority party, the Democrats are unlikely to drive any ethics reform this session. And Republicans are quick to point out that many of these ethics changes could have been made years ago when the Democrats controlled both houses and the governor?s office.
Gov. Sonny Perdue, who has pushed ethics reform in past years, may submit new legislation this year or he may let the Legislature produce its own, said spokesman Bert Brantley.
University of Georgia professor Charles Bullock, an expert on Georgia and Southern politics, said ethics legislation is a good thing to pass in this tight budget year because for the most part, ?it doesn?t cost you anything.?
He said historically scandal has always been followed by reform. ?It takes a scandal to get legislators to embrace this,? he said. ?If there isn?t a scandal, they figure nobody?s looking.?
Thompson, the former Ethics Commission chief, said the overall goal should be absolute transparency, so voters can see how the people?s business is being conducted.
?No cloud, no fog,? he said.
While ethics changes are being bandied about, some urged caution. Stefan Passantino, an attorney at McKenna, Long & Aldridge who specializes in representing clients on ethics issues, said he thinks more transparency would be good, but he worries about too many rules burdening well-meaning legislators and lobbyists while not really stopping people from acting inappropriately.
?The wrong new rules won?t stop bad behaviors. It?s more likely to be a pitfall for those already trying to follow the rules.?
What actually happens in the coming months to change the legislator-lobbyist relationship from a last call slow dance to a ballroom waltz is anybody?s guess. But some kind of change is likely.
Ralston, who ran in 2008 against Richardson for speaker and lost his committee chairmanship as a result, said the scandal has shocked many voters, who want substantive reform.
?Georgians don?t want us to do this in a hasty way,? he said. ?But they do want us to do it.? \
..............................................................
we dont care when they do it . Just fawking do it.
Crooks and under the table millionaires the whole lot of them
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
On the first day of the 2010 Legislative session, expect the state Capitol?s basket for incoming legislation to be piled high with new ethics reform bills. Some have already been filed.
Nothing spurs reform like scandal, and the Georgia House had just had a whopper ? the career immolation of Speaker Glenn Richardson (R-Hiram).
Now, the crowd under the Gold Dome has taken a sudden interest in tightening rules.
?It has suddenly become very fashionable to talk ethics,? said David Ralston, the Republican caucus? choice for new speaker.
He said he is looking for ?real change? and would like to see a reform package, not just one bill.
Ralston said he has been flooded with ideas in recent days and expects a package of reforms to come out of the session. He wants to see limits on spending by lobbyists on travel and gifts for legislators. To set a positive tone, he said, he would ban candy and flowers from being delivered to the speaker?s office and no lobbyists will be allowed into the speaker?s office without an appointment.
He said also wants the Legislature to look at rules and laws so ?you behave the way your mama would want you to behave.?
Joe Wilkinson (R-Sandy Springs), who heads the House Ethics Committee, said he?s ready.
?The [House] Ethics Committee is prepared to act immediately on any and all legislation,? he said. Some changes being considered include:
● Severe limits on how much lobbyists can spend on gifts, food and trips for legislators. Georgia is one of only 11 states that have no limits, but such expenses must be reported. Limit proposals have ranged from $100 per event to no more than a cup of coffee.
● Permanent funding and an expansion of powers for the State Ethics Commission. Currently the watchdog panel must seek funding annually from the very body it is supposed to watch. And its role is limited mostly to responding to complaints and collecting disclosures. It does no auditing. Rick Thompson, the former executive secretary of the Ethics Commission who now runs an ethics compliance consulting business, said Georgia needs an ethics czar with more authority and more money.
● Expanding the state?s Open Records Act to include the Legislature. Currently, the House and Senate are exempt from the act so all correspondence and other records involving legislators is kept private.
● Imposing a period that departing legislators would have to wait before they could start lobbying.
Ralston said there used to be great resistance to such ideas from the House leadership.
?That?s all changed,? he said.
Ethics advocates are as excited as they have been in years that they can pass tough new rules.
?There is an opportunity for real change,? said Rep. Wendell K. Willard (R-Sandy Springs), chair of the House judiciary committee, who is revising his own ethics legislation to submit when the Legislature returns on Jan. 11.
Willard submitted a bill last year that would limit to $100 the amount lobbyists could pay for legislators when taking them out to dinner or to an event. Willard said few legislators were interested in his bill.
?It was dead on arrival,? he admitted.
He planned to resubmit it this year anyway? but he wasn?t hopeful. Then the Richardson imbroglio hit, and ?lo and behold, all these things started to unfold,? he said.
But it?s a long and circuitous road from a bill?s introduction to the governor?s desk. Any such legislation will have to pass through committee rooms and hallways peopled by lobbyists and legislators less than eager for more scrutiny and restriction. It?s like sending Little Red Riding Hood through the forest to Grandma?s house. More than likely, she?ll run into at least one wolf.
Richardson probably would have blocked ethics legislation if he was still speaker. He was generally hostile to new ethics rules, open records or expanding public meeting laws. Ironically, he now has become the chief reason why such legislation has a good chance of passage.
When his personal problems exploded this fall, they exposed an unseemly world where powerful legislators carry on close relationships with lobbyists outside public scrutiny.
Richardson announced in November that he had attempted suicide because he was depressed over his failed marriage. He said he was recovering and planned to carry on as speaker. But then this month, Richardson?s ex-wife went on television and said he had an affair with the lobbyist for a company seeking passage of a particular bill. Richardson was a co-sponsor of the bill. Richardson?s ex-wife also accused him of threatening to use state agencies to harass her. Richardson announced his resignation within days of the television broadcast.
Ralston said none of the legislation being considered now would deal directly with Richardson?s situation. If the allegations are true, what Richardson already violated ethics rules, he said.
?You can?t legislate good behavior,? Ralston said. ?You can?t legislate common sense.?
Ralston said however, that the atmosphere at the Capitol in recent years led to a loosening of standards, and that atmosphere has to change.
?We definitely got off track, big time,? said Rep. Tommy Smith (R-Nicholls), who made a bid to be the next speaker but then dropped out before the vote.
Smith, who has been in the House for more than 30 years, said the Legislature needs to be more transparent in how it conducts business. He said the Legislature needs to consider including itself in the Open Records Act and other changes.
The Democratic minority in the House has already dusted of some of their bills and filed them for the new session. Their proposals include:
● No gifts for legislators of more than $25.
● Lower contribution limits for campaigns.
● Granting authority for the state ethics commission to investigate conflict of interests allegations.
● Adding an abuse-of-power clause to state ethics rules.
As the minority party, the Democrats are unlikely to drive any ethics reform this session. And Republicans are quick to point out that many of these ethics changes could have been made years ago when the Democrats controlled both houses and the governor?s office.
Gov. Sonny Perdue, who has pushed ethics reform in past years, may submit new legislation this year or he may let the Legislature produce its own, said spokesman Bert Brantley.
University of Georgia professor Charles Bullock, an expert on Georgia and Southern politics, said ethics legislation is a good thing to pass in this tight budget year because for the most part, ?it doesn?t cost you anything.?
He said historically scandal has always been followed by reform. ?It takes a scandal to get legislators to embrace this,? he said. ?If there isn?t a scandal, they figure nobody?s looking.?
Thompson, the former Ethics Commission chief, said the overall goal should be absolute transparency, so voters can see how the people?s business is being conducted.
?No cloud, no fog,? he said.
While ethics changes are being bandied about, some urged caution. Stefan Passantino, an attorney at McKenna, Long & Aldridge who specializes in representing clients on ethics issues, said he thinks more transparency would be good, but he worries about too many rules burdening well-meaning legislators and lobbyists while not really stopping people from acting inappropriately.
?The wrong new rules won?t stop bad behaviors. It?s more likely to be a pitfall for those already trying to follow the rules.?
What actually happens in the coming months to change the legislator-lobbyist relationship from a last call slow dance to a ballroom waltz is anybody?s guess. But some kind of change is likely.
Ralston, who ran in 2008 against Richardson for speaker and lost his committee chairmanship as a result, said the scandal has shocked many voters, who want substantive reform.
?Georgians don?t want us to do this in a hasty way,? he said. ?But they do want us to do it.? \
..............................................................
we dont care when they do it . Just fawking do it.
Crooks and under the table millionaires the whole lot of them
Karl Rove is a liar and a scoundrel. He is not a patriot but a pure partisan, as his own record proved long before now.
The other night Rove lied about the liberal reaction to the Sept. 11 attacks and again exploited patriotism for narrow partisan advantage in a time of war. He seeks to divert public opinion from the failures of the Bush administration by suppressing dissent, stigmatizing "liberals" and returning to the same old tactics that the Republican far right has used ever since the McCarthy era.
His unhinged rhetoric is a sign of deep worry within the White House, of course, as polls continue to show deepening public alienation from the president and growing skepticism about the war in Iraq. Most Americans now understand that they have been deceived about the war from the beginning, and most doubt the Bush administration's strategy for extricating our troops. Moreover, Rove must cope with Republicans as well as Democrats who are openly dissenting from the administration line, not only regarding Iraq but on the Bolton nomination and Social Security privatization.
Evidently Rove believes that demonizing Democrats and liberals will distract the nation from the Bush administration's failures. That tactic has certainly served him well in the past, when he managed to divert attention from the failure to deal with the terrorist threat before 9/11, the failure to speak honestly about the alleged threat from Iraq and the failure to plan intelligently for the Iraq invasion and its aftermath. We have paid an enormous price for those failures, yet cynical Rove still thinks he can convince us that this is all the fault of "liberals."
As a New Yorker who stood on my street and watched the Twin Towers fall, I take strong personal exception to Rove's ugly slander against "liberals." According to him, liberals "saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers." That broad-brush smear is false, and Rove knows it.
The truth is that liberal New York -- and the vast majority of American liberals and progressives -- stood with the president in his decision to invade Afghanistan and overthrow the Taliban. On the day of the attacks, I wrote a column that endorsed "hunting down and punishing" those responsible because the dead deserved justice -- and noted that when the culpability of Osama bin Laden and the Taliban was established, the United States "is fully capable of dealing with them."
Six weeks after 9/11 and two weeks after the United States started bombing the terrorist camps in Afghanistan, I appeared on CBS's "Early Show" to support the Bush administration's actions. Correspondent Lisa Birnbach made the point that liberals and Democrats who had once opposed the war in Vietnam were standing shoulder to shoulder with a president they didn't much like (and, although she didn't mention it, whose legitimacy they continued to doubt).
Noting the ubiquitous presence of American flags as we walked around the very liberal neighborhood where I live, Birnbach said, "This old lefty [Conason] is suddenly siding with the White House."
Responding to her question about the U.S. war against al-Qaida and the Taliban, I told Birnbach: "I'm not going to say I agree with every policy this administration will pursue, but so far, so good." Although she sounded surprised, the fact is that I was scarcely alone on the liberal left in expressing those sentiments.
In the aftermath of 9/11, liberal Democrats on Capitol Hill stood proudly with conservative Republicans to pledge their support for military action against al-Qaida and the Taliban. The wobbly weakness of George W. Bush's initial response to the terror strikes went unmentioned, as did anything else that might hint at dissension at a moment of crisis. When Bush delivered his powerful speech to a joint session of Congress on Sept. 20, 2001, he won standing applause across the bitter divide left by the 2000 election. For the first time in memory, Democratic congressional leaders declined free airtime to answer a Republican presidential address.
"We want America to speak with one voice tonight and we want enemies and the whole world and all of our citizens to know that America speaks tonight with one voice," said Rep. Richard Gephardt, then the House Democratic leader. "We have faith in [Bush] and his colleagues in the executive branch to do this in the right way."
Tom Daschle, then the Senate Democratic leader, stood with his Republican counterpart, Trent Lott, to show bipartisan support for the president. "Tonight there is no opposition party," said Lott. "We stand here united, not as Republicans and Democrats, not as Southerners or Westerners or Midwesterners or Easterners, but as Americans." Daschle echoed Lott: "We want President Bush to know -- we want the world to know -- that he can depend on us."
Even Rep. Maxine Waters, the liberal Los Angeles Democrat who at the time was among Bush's toughest critics on the left, praised him without reservation. "He hit a home run," she said. "We may disagree later, but now is not the time."
Among the other liberal journalists who backed Bush was Jacob Weisberg, now editor of Slate magazine, who has published several volumes mocking Bush's difficulties with the English language.
Weisberg said then, "He was very shaky at first, but I resisted the urge to write a piece saying that, because I didn't think it was appropriate ... Bush deserves the benefit of the doubt to an enormous degree. He needs to rally the nation. I want to contribute to that effort to the extent that I can."
But we now know that even then, at the peak of national unity, Rove was planning to make suckers of the Democrats and liberals who had spoken out in support of the president. He didn't care about bipartisan cooperation, or about the benefit of the doubt that Democrats had given Bush. He behaved as a partisan, not a patriot.
Rove would soon discard the inspiring presidential rhetoric that had joined Americans across race, religion and ideology. The slogan of a nation at war that blossomed on billboards, bumper stickers and storefronts -- "United We Stand" -- was no longer operative.
Or so Rove explained to his fellow "patriots" at a closed meeting of the Republican National Committee during their winter conference in Austin, Texas. Less than four months after Bush's Sept. 20 address to the joint session of Congress, he was scheming to win the midterm elections by transforming the "war on terror" into a war on Democrats.
"We can go to the country on this issue, because they trust the Republican Party to do a better job of protecting and strengthening America's military might and thereby protecting America," he said. Provocative as those remarks were, they were mild compared with the kind of slanders that ensued against Daschle -- who was paired with Saddam and bin Laden -- and many other Democratic candidates.
So when vicious little Ken Mehlman, the RNC chairman, claims that Rove was referring only to Michael Moore, he's lying too. I expect no apologies from either of them or their bullying supporters. They should expect none when those they have insulted and betrayed tell them what they are.
............................................................
this is years ago , but how can we forget
The other night Rove lied about the liberal reaction to the Sept. 11 attacks and again exploited patriotism for narrow partisan advantage in a time of war. He seeks to divert public opinion from the failures of the Bush administration by suppressing dissent, stigmatizing "liberals" and returning to the same old tactics that the Republican far right has used ever since the McCarthy era.
His unhinged rhetoric is a sign of deep worry within the White House, of course, as polls continue to show deepening public alienation from the president and growing skepticism about the war in Iraq. Most Americans now understand that they have been deceived about the war from the beginning, and most doubt the Bush administration's strategy for extricating our troops. Moreover, Rove must cope with Republicans as well as Democrats who are openly dissenting from the administration line, not only regarding Iraq but on the Bolton nomination and Social Security privatization.
Evidently Rove believes that demonizing Democrats and liberals will distract the nation from the Bush administration's failures. That tactic has certainly served him well in the past, when he managed to divert attention from the failure to deal with the terrorist threat before 9/11, the failure to speak honestly about the alleged threat from Iraq and the failure to plan intelligently for the Iraq invasion and its aftermath. We have paid an enormous price for those failures, yet cynical Rove still thinks he can convince us that this is all the fault of "liberals."
As a New Yorker who stood on my street and watched the Twin Towers fall, I take strong personal exception to Rove's ugly slander against "liberals." According to him, liberals "saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers." That broad-brush smear is false, and Rove knows it.
The truth is that liberal New York -- and the vast majority of American liberals and progressives -- stood with the president in his decision to invade Afghanistan and overthrow the Taliban. On the day of the attacks, I wrote a column that endorsed "hunting down and punishing" those responsible because the dead deserved justice -- and noted that when the culpability of Osama bin Laden and the Taliban was established, the United States "is fully capable of dealing with them."
Six weeks after 9/11 and two weeks after the United States started bombing the terrorist camps in Afghanistan, I appeared on CBS's "Early Show" to support the Bush administration's actions. Correspondent Lisa Birnbach made the point that liberals and Democrats who had once opposed the war in Vietnam were standing shoulder to shoulder with a president they didn't much like (and, although she didn't mention it, whose legitimacy they continued to doubt).
Noting the ubiquitous presence of American flags as we walked around the very liberal neighborhood where I live, Birnbach said, "This old lefty [Conason] is suddenly siding with the White House."
Responding to her question about the U.S. war against al-Qaida and the Taliban, I told Birnbach: "I'm not going to say I agree with every policy this administration will pursue, but so far, so good." Although she sounded surprised, the fact is that I was scarcely alone on the liberal left in expressing those sentiments.
In the aftermath of 9/11, liberal Democrats on Capitol Hill stood proudly with conservative Republicans to pledge their support for military action against al-Qaida and the Taliban. The wobbly weakness of George W. Bush's initial response to the terror strikes went unmentioned, as did anything else that might hint at dissension at a moment of crisis. When Bush delivered his powerful speech to a joint session of Congress on Sept. 20, 2001, he won standing applause across the bitter divide left by the 2000 election. For the first time in memory, Democratic congressional leaders declined free airtime to answer a Republican presidential address.
"We want America to speak with one voice tonight and we want enemies and the whole world and all of our citizens to know that America speaks tonight with one voice," said Rep. Richard Gephardt, then the House Democratic leader. "We have faith in [Bush] and his colleagues in the executive branch to do this in the right way."
Tom Daschle, then the Senate Democratic leader, stood with his Republican counterpart, Trent Lott, to show bipartisan support for the president. "Tonight there is no opposition party," said Lott. "We stand here united, not as Republicans and Democrats, not as Southerners or Westerners or Midwesterners or Easterners, but as Americans." Daschle echoed Lott: "We want President Bush to know -- we want the world to know -- that he can depend on us."
Even Rep. Maxine Waters, the liberal Los Angeles Democrat who at the time was among Bush's toughest critics on the left, praised him without reservation. "He hit a home run," she said. "We may disagree later, but now is not the time."
Among the other liberal journalists who backed Bush was Jacob Weisberg, now editor of Slate magazine, who has published several volumes mocking Bush's difficulties with the English language.
Weisberg said then, "He was very shaky at first, but I resisted the urge to write a piece saying that, because I didn't think it was appropriate ... Bush deserves the benefit of the doubt to an enormous degree. He needs to rally the nation. I want to contribute to that effort to the extent that I can."
But we now know that even then, at the peak of national unity, Rove was planning to make suckers of the Democrats and liberals who had spoken out in support of the president. He didn't care about bipartisan cooperation, or about the benefit of the doubt that Democrats had given Bush. He behaved as a partisan, not a patriot.
Rove would soon discard the inspiring presidential rhetoric that had joined Americans across race, religion and ideology. The slogan of a nation at war that blossomed on billboards, bumper stickers and storefronts -- "United We Stand" -- was no longer operative.
Or so Rove explained to his fellow "patriots" at a closed meeting of the Republican National Committee during their winter conference in Austin, Texas. Less than four months after Bush's Sept. 20 address to the joint session of Congress, he was scheming to win the midterm elections by transforming the "war on terror" into a war on Democrats.
"We can go to the country on this issue, because they trust the Republican Party to do a better job of protecting and strengthening America's military might and thereby protecting America," he said. Provocative as those remarks were, they were mild compared with the kind of slanders that ensued against Daschle -- who was paired with Saddam and bin Laden -- and many other Democratic candidates.
So when vicious little Ken Mehlman, the RNC chairman, claims that Rove was referring only to Michael Moore, he's lying too. I expect no apologies from either of them or their bullying supporters. They should expect none when those they have insulted and betrayed tell them what they are.
............................................................
this is years ago , but how can we forget
All the rhetoric aside
I am not feeling very good about Climatak and Obamacare going thru, now, NOW ! a 3rd party looks good and that TWAT Sarah Palin is the name being mentioned!
FUCK ! Hold me, I'm scared, I'm going to the garage to pack my pipe
I am not feeling very good about Climatak and Obamacare going thru, now, NOW ! a 3rd party looks good and that TWAT Sarah Palin is the name being mentioned!
FUCK ! Hold me, I'm scared, I'm going to the garage to pack my pipe
Sarah would more votes than Ralph Nader used to but she would ruin things for the Republican nominee.
Maybe that is her agenda.
It would give her alot of power to get other things she wants.
Maybe that is her agenda.
It would give her alot of power to get other things she wants.
..........................................................
I think she shaves her mustache
