Good point. I did not mean to imply otherwise, but quite a few of the organizations that joined 9/12 were anti-republican too.

Like with all such protests, who organizes it or conceives it does not control either the attendees or the ultimate message.

9/20/2009 11:28:08 PM

wait, are we actually arguing whether Glenn Beck was the driving force for 9/12 protests?

Really?

HELLO PEOPLE
http://www.the912project.com/ - Title: "Glenn Beck - The 912 Project"

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/223279/march-31-2009/the-10-31-project

9/21/2009 12:59:52 AM

Obama the Omnipresent

Quote :

"WASHINGTON — As President Obama prepares for his speed date with the Sunday morning talk shows, a familiar question dogs his aides: 'How much Obama is too much Obama?' Even by the norms of his ubiquity, Mr. Obama has been on an especially prodigious media binge lately, pitching his health care plan seemingly everywhere but the Food Channel and Fox News."

Quote :

"All that has sparked another debate over the O word — 'overexposure' — which has become a principal topic around the White House in recent days. Is the president cheapening his currency by being so visible? Or is he simply being media savvy? "

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/18/us/politics/18memo.html

Politics Today: Too Much Obama?

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/09/18/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5319589.shtml

9/21/2009 1:53:00 AM

SEPTEMBER 21, 2009. Obama's Nontax Tax
On a Sunday show, the President offers a revealing definition.

Quote :

"President Obama didn't make much news on his round of five Sunday talk shows yesterday, with one notable exception. The President revealed a great deal about his philosophy of government and how he defines a tax increase. It turns out the President thinks a health-care tax is not a tax if he thinks the tax is for your own good. Appearing on ABC's "This Week," Mr. Obama was asked by host George Stephanopoulos about the "individual mandate." Under Max Baucus's Senate bill that Mr. Obama supports, everyone would be required to buy health insurance or else pay a penalty as high as $3,800 a year. Mr. Stephanopoulos posed the obvious question about this kind of coercion when "the government is forcing people to spend money, fining you if you don't [buy insurance]. . . . How is that not a tax?" "Well, hold on a second, George," Mr. Obama replied. "Here's what's happening. You and I are both paying $900, on average—our families—in higher premiums because of uncompensated care. Now what I've said is that if you can't afford health insurance, you certainly shouldn't be punished for that. That's just piling on. If, on the other hand, we're giving tax credits, we've set up an exchange, you are now part of a big pool, we've driven down the costs, we've done everything we can and you actually can afford health insurance, but you've just decided, you know what, I want to take my chances. And then you get hit by a bus and you and I have to pay for the emergency room care, that's . . ." "That may be," Mr. Stephanopoulos responded, "but it's still a tax increase." (In fact, uncompensated care accounts for about only 2.2% of national health spending today, but that's another subject.) Mr. Obama: "No. That's not true, George. The—for us to say that you've got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase. What it's saying is, is that we're not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore . . ." In other words, like parents talking to their children, this levy—don't call it a tax—is for your own good. Mr. Stephanopoulos tried again: "But it may be fair, it may be good public policy—" Mr. Obama: "No, but—but, George, you—you can't just make up that language and decide that that's called a tax increase." "I don't think I'm making it up," Mr. Stephanopoulos said. He then had the temerity to challenge the Philologist in Chief, with an assist from Merriam-Webster. He cited that dictionary's definition of "tax"—"a charge, usually of money, imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes." Mr. Obama: "George, the fact that you looked up Merriam's Dictionary, the definition of tax increase, indicates to me that you're stretching a little bit right now. . . ." Mr. Stephanopoulos: "I wanted to check for myself. But your critics say it is a tax increase." Mr. Obama: "My critics say everything is a tax increase. My critics say that I'm taking over every sector of the economy. You know that. Look, we can have a legitimate debate about whether or not we're going to have an individual mandate or not, but . . ." Mr. Stephanopoulos: "But you reject that it's a tax increase?" Mr. Obama: "I absolutely reject that notion." If you can follow this reasoning, then you probably also think that a new entitlement is the best way to reduce entitlement spending. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the Senate's individual mandate will result in new revenues of some $20 billion over 10 years because some people will choose to opt out of ObamaCare—or because they can't afford to buy in, given that other taxes and regulation will make health care more expensive. If that $20 billion doesn't count as tax revenue, then what is it? And for that matter, what doesn't count as a nontax under Mr. Obama's definition? All taxes can be justified in the name of providing some type of service, however wasteful. Mr. Obama complains that "My critics say everything is a tax increase," as if that is his political problem. His real problem is that the individual mandate really is a tax, but the President doesn't want voters to think of it that way, because taxes are unpopular."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204488304574425294029138738.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

9/21/2009 7:22:55 AM

Former CIA Directors Urge Obama to End CIA Interrogation Probe

Quote :

"Sept. 18 (Bloomberg) -- Seven former directors of the Central Intelligence Agency urged President Barack Obama in a letter to end an investigation into CIA interrogations of terror suspects conducted during the Bush administration. The directors, who served under Democratic and Republican presidents, said agency officials revealed 'fewer than 20 instances' of alleged abuse when Justice Department prosecutors looked into the program four years ago. That probe resulted in the prosecution of one CIA contractor. Attorney General Eric Holder’s decision on Aug. 24 'to reopen the criminal investigation creates an atmosphere of continuous jeopardy for those whose cases the Department of Justice previously declined to prosecute,' they wrote today. Signing the letter were Michael Hayden, Porter Goss, George Tenet, John Deutch, James Woolsey, William Webster and James Schlesinger. White House spokesman Ben LaBolt said the White House 'doesn’t make decisions about investigations' and declined to comment further."

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a29nGs3Brcco

If this investigation continues, it will definitely affect Obama's credibility. If he drops the investigation, it will also affect his credibility with certain parts of his constituency.

It's a pickle.

9/22/2009 7:40:26 PM

I agree with you. Investigating members of the CIA for torturing prisoners will definitely affect his credibility.

.....Maybe not the same way you believe it will affect his credibility. But I do agree that it will affect it in some way.

9/22/2009 10:08:22 PM

^^

Quote :

"In other breaking news, Erik Prince announces that he believes criminal prosecutions of Blackwater are unwarranted; Wall Street CEOs -- past and present -- conclude that an investigation of fraud and abuse among investment banks would serve no real purpose; Alberto Gonzales reveals his opposition to any proceedings against DOJ lawyers who acted in bad faith; police unions announce that the problem of brutality is overstated and there's no need for added oversight; medical doctors agree that malpractice lawsuits need to be limited; and a poll of felons currently in prison reveal that 99% of them believe that the country would have been better off if it had just let bygones be bygones and decided not to proceed with prosecutions in their particular case."

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/09/19/cia/index.html

9/22/2009 11:35:37 PM

^^ and ^ So, I'll take it that you have no retort?

BTW, Ahmadinejad is in country--can't Obama go ahead and have that meeting "without preconditions" now? Just asking.

9/23/2009 8:42:14 AM

i think the retort is simply that they think investigating alleged CIA torture should be done and that CIA people probably aren't the ones to be asking about whether we should investigate or not.

9/23/2009 9:05:01 AM

Whoever sent down the order to torture should be in jail for life.

Whoever tortured people should be in jail for 5 years.

We didn't allow the Nazis to get away with "I was just following orders," did we?

9/23/2009 9:26:03 AM

^^^ the retort, dipshit, is that it's no fucking surprise at all that former CIA directors are not in favor of the gov't investigating current CIA directors and employees, and past actions that may have occurred under their supervision.

9/23/2009 9:49:48 AM

Quote :

"We didn't allow the Nazis to get away with "I was just following orders," did we?"

I wouldn't consider letting them go into exile in Brazil or letting them become CIA operatives against the Soviet Union much of a punishment.

9/23/2009 12:59:06 PM

Speaking of letting people go free...

9/23/2009 1:08:19 PM

Quote :

"the retort, dipshit, is that it's no fucking surprise at all that former CIA directors are not in favor of the gov't investigating current CIA directors and employees, and past actions that may have occurred under their supervision."

agentlion

That was unnecessary, asshole. So, all former CIA directors are torture bosses trying to save their own asses? Are you fucking serious with that lame bullshit?

1. Prove it.

2. Does this include Panetta?

STFU and go get some better talking points.

9/23/2009 1:55:49 PM

1. This is what the investigation is trying to ascertain?

9/23/2009 2:21:52 PM

Quote :

"That was unnecessary, asshole. So, all former CIA directors are torture bosses trying to save their own asses? Are you fucking serious with that lame bullshit?"

How do you expect anyone to prove this, if you don't want people looking into what the CIA has been doing?

And it's practically a forgone conclusion that the CIA has been torturing people for a while... there was rumblings about black sites at least since the Clinton era. I know that you know this, and I know that you also understand the the US has more than likely been torturing people for that long, so i'm not sure why you're acting like they've been squeaky clean.

The best thing we can really do at this point is to abandon the Bush-era Republican mantras about how torture is necessary, and just make it the official position (once again...) that the US doesn't and won't torture, because that's how it should be.

But, Bush got caught torturing, and we have to do something about it in order to maintain our leverage in calling out other countries on their various human rights abuses. We need a scapegoat, in effect.

9/23/2009 2:26:02 PM

^ You're an idiot.

Lebanese man is target of first rendition under Obama
August 22, 2009

Quote :

"Reporting from Alexandria, Va. - A Lebanese citizen being held in a detention center here was hooded, stripped naked for photographs and bundled onto an executive jet by FBI agents in Afghanistan in April, making him the first known target of a rendition during the Obama administration. Unlike terrorism suspects who were secretly snatched by the CIA and harshly interrogated and imprisoned overseas during the George W. Bush administration, Raymond Azar was flown to this Washington suburb for a case involving inflated invoices."

Quote :

"Justice Department lawyers have denied any misconduct in the case."

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/afghanistan/la-na-rendition22-2009aug22,0,2566307.story

U.S. Says Rendition to Continue, but With More Oversight
August 24, 2009

Quote :

"WASHINGTON — The Obama administration will continue the Bush administration’s practice of sending terrorism suspects to third countries for detention and interrogation, but pledges to closely monitor their treatment to ensure that they are not tortured, administration officials said Monday. Human rights advocates condemned the decision, saying that continuing the practice, known as rendition, would still allow the transfer of prisoners to countries with a history of torture. They said that promises from other countries of humane treatment, called 'diplomatic assurances,' were no protection against abuse. 'It is extremely disappointing that the Obama administration is continuing the Bush administration practice of relying on diplomatic assurances, which have been proven completely ineffective in preventing torture,' said Amrit Singh, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union, who tracked rendition cases under President George W. Bush."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/25/us/politics/25rendition.html

And I'll ask again:

Quote :

"2. Does this include Panetta?"

[Edited on September 23, 2009 at 2:38 PM. Reason : .]

9/23/2009 2:33:07 PM

Quote :

"Does this include Panetta?"

yes. why would he want to submit to investigations?

9/23/2009 2:36:12 PM

Change We Can Believe In?

9/23/2009 2:39:04 PM

i mean i know you reflexively use that whenever criticizing obama. but it really seems stupid in this instance.

9/23/2009 2:40:46 PM

^ Perhaps you're right.

Change We Can Believe In

And if you'd just read my post above, you'll answer your own question.

9/23/2009 2:42:39 PM

seeing as all you did was call someone stupid then post a story about rendition to an american prison for an expressed reason where there will presumably be a trial, it doesn't have a whole lot to do with the topic at hand.

9/23/2009 2:45:49 PM

^ Incorrect.

9/23/2009 2:50:05 PM

what is incorrect?

9/23/2009 2:51:36 PM

^ nothing.

He apparently doesn't have the reading comprehension skills to understand the point being made... for the second time on this page alone. Sad.

9/23/2009 3:20:24 PM

The point was self-evident. In any event, Obama continues to mislead:

Budget chief contradicts Obama on Medicare costs(AP) – 19 hours ago

Quote :

"WASHINGTON — Congress' chief budget officer on Tuesday contradicted President Barack Obama's oft-stated claim that seniors wouldn't see their Medicare benefits cut under a health care overhaul. The head of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, Douglas Elmendorf, told senators that seniors in Medicare's managed care plans could see reduced benefits under a bill in the Finance Committee. The bill would cut payments to the Medicare Advantage plans by more than $100 billion over 10 years."

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gJK9ly3ovzfflxGjV-dxk2sLILKgD9ASOPSO2

9/23/2009 6:22:41 PM

http://twitter.com/TheOnion/status/4323993453
BREAKING: Democrats Hoping To Take Control Of Congress From Republican Minority In 2010

9/24/2009 4:56:29 PM

^^it's so self-evident that you can't even defend your point. as usual.


[Edited on September 24, 2009 at 4:59 PM. Reason : diff thing.]

9/24/2009 4:57:40 PM

Howard Fineman
The Limits of Charisma
Mr. President, please stay off TV
Published Sep 26, 2009

Quote :

"If ubiquity were the measure of a presidency, Barack Obama would already be grinning at us from Mount Rushmore. But of course it is not. Despite his many words and television appearances, our elegant and eloquent president remains more an emblem of change than an agent of it. He's a man with an endless, worthy to-do list—health care, climate change, bank reform, global capital regulation, AfPak, the Middle East, you name it—but, as yet, no boxes checked 'done.' This is a problem that style will not fix. Unless Obama learns to rely less on charm, rhetoric, and good intentions and more on picking his spots and winning in political combat, he's not going to be reelected, let alone enshrined in South Dakota. The president's problem isn't that he is too visible; it's the lack of content in what he says when he keeps showing up on the tube. Obama can seem a mite too impressed with his own aura, as if his presence on the stage is the Answer. There is, at times, a self-referential (even self-reverential) tone in his big speeches. They are heavily salted with the words 'I' and 'my.' (He used the former 11 times in the first few paragraphs of his address to the U.N. last week.) Obama is a historic figure, but that is the beginning, not the end, of the story. There is only so much political mileage that can still be had by his reminding the world that he is not George W. Bush. It was the winning theme of the 2008 campaign, but that race ended nearly a year ago. The ex-president is now more ex than ever, yet the current president, who vowed to look forward, is still reaching back to Bush as bogeyman. He did it again in that U.N. speech. The delegates wanted to know what the president was going to do about Israel and the Palestinian territories. He answered by telling them what his predecessor had failed to do. This was effective for his first month or two. Now it is starting to sound more like an excuse than an explanation. Members of Obama's own party know who Obama is not; they still sometimes wonder who he really is. In Washington, the appearance of uncertainty is taken as weakness—especially on Capitol Hill, where a president is only as revered as he is feared. Being the cool, convivial late-night-guest in chief won't cut it with Congress, an institution impervious to charm (especially the charm of a president with wavering poll numbers). Members of both parties are taking Obama's measure with their defiant and sometimes hostile response to his desires on health care. Never much of a legislator (and not long a senator), Obama underestimated the complexity of enacting a major 'reform' bill. Letting Congress try to write it on its own was an awful idea. As a balkanized land of microfiefdoms, each loyal to its own lobbyists and consultants, Congress is incapable of being led by its 'leadership.' It's not like Chicago, where you call a guy who calls a guy who calls Daley, who makes the call. The president himself must make his wishes clear—along with the consequences for those who fail to grant them. The model is a man whose political effectiveness Obama repeatedly says he admires: Ronald Reagan. There was never doubt about what he wanted. The Gipper made his simple, dramatic tax cuts the centerpiece not only of his campaign but also of the entire first year of his presidency. Obama seems to think he'll get credit for the breathtaking scope of his ambition. But unless he sees results, it will have the opposite effect—diluting his clout, exhausting his allies, and emboldening his enemies. That may be starting to happen. Health-care legislation is still weeks, if not months, from passage, and the bill as it stands could well be a windfall for the very insurance and drug companies it was supposed to rein in. Climate-change legislation (a.k.a. cap-and-trade) is almost certainly dead for this year, which means that American negotiators will go empty-handed to the Copenhagen summit in December—pushing the goal of limiting carbon emissions even farther into the distance. In the spring Obama privately told the big banks that he was going to change the way they do business. It was going to be his way or the highway. But the complex legislation he wants to submit to Congress has little chance of passage this year. Doing Letterman again won't help. It may boost the host's ratings, Mr. President, but probably not your own."

http://www.newsweek.com/id/216210?GT1=43002

[Edited on September 28, 2009 at 7:25 PM. Reason : ^^ LOL! ]

9/28/2009 7:24:55 PM

NEWSFLASH: Conservatives unhappy no matter what Obama does!

9/28/2009 7:55:48 PM

Are you saying Fineman is a conservative?

9/29/2009 1:01:09 AM

NEWSFLASH

9/29/2009 8:03:07 AM

Not really a credibility issue but I thought it was interesting:

Quote :

"First lady Michelle Obama vowed Monday to "take no prisoners" as she and her husband launch an unprecedented bid for Chicago's 2016 Olympic bid. "It's a battle -- we're going to win -- take no prisoners," the first lady said with a smile at a roundtable discussion with reporters in the White House State Dining Room. She compared the intense lobbying effort to the 2008 presidential campaign, noting that in the election campaign, a lot of voters made their decision in the final days. She said members of the International Olympic Committee may do the same."

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/29/michelle.obama.olympics/index.html

Apparently the President himself is now going to Copenhagen as well. Between this and his incessant touring / pep rallies it is becoming apparent that we elected a cheerleader-in-chief. Personally, I'm fine with his political incompetence and I much prefer a president with a diminished role. Thoughts?

[Edited on September 29, 2009 at 9:03 AM. Reason : on the other hand, Chicago has no business getting the Olympics]

9/29/2009 9:02:39 AM

Quote :

"on the other hand, Chicago has no business getting the Olympics"

have you ever been to chicago? it's far better than atlanta certainly.

9/29/2009 9:14:25 AM

Yeah, but we're comparing it to Rio, Tokyo, or Madrid . . . not Atlanta. In fairness I've been to none of them and would like to go to all of them, but Chicago is definitely at the bottom of the list. Besides, in the last 30 years we've had Salt Lake, Atlanta, Los Angeles, and Lake Placid, NY. I don't expect it to come here.

9/29/2009 9:27:35 AM

i'd far prefer it to be in chicago. because i might actually go in that case. oh yeah and it would help america. but why should obama try to do that?

[Edited on September 29, 2009 at 9:30 AM. Reason : and that decision is up to the IOC or whatever]

9/29/2009 9:30:04 AM

would it really though? It'd help Chicago, arguably, but is America really any better off because Atlanta had the Olympics, or Salt Lake City? Again, I have no problem with him going off doing this. The fewer politicians plying their trade in DC the better off America is, but I thought I'd bring it up.

From a political perspective, it seems an interesting choice when you have a poorly fairing and rather ambitious legislative agenda at home. Perhaps he's looking for momentum should he help win the games for Chicago.

9/29/2009 9:32:17 AM

You're acting as if Obama was the first to implement the permanent campaign.

9/29/2009 9:33:46 AM

yes. tourism dollars never hurt. especially when a lot of the people likely wouldn't come to america otherwise. and if it goes well, it could spur travel to area for years.

and this seems like a fairly natural fit, since obama is from chicago. you think other presidents wouldn't have done the same if olympics were likely to come to their neck of the woods? you can be sure that other world leaders will be there to make the pitch for their countries to host.

[Edited on September 29, 2009 at 9:36 AM. Reason : .]

9/29/2009 9:35:16 AM

^^ He's certainly taken it to another level.

9/29/2009 9:35:48 AM

because you're looking for it.

unless you're talking about him going to other countries to speak. but believe it or not, that often helps us get what we want from those other countries.

[Edited on September 29, 2009 at 9:40 AM. Reason : .]

9/29/2009 9:36:47 AM

A considerable amount of commentary from both the left and the right has brought attention to the fact that the man is a perpetual campaigner. Quite frankly, that is all he has ever really done and that is about all he is good at politically. He has no legislative chops, he has no deal-making skill, he just gives a good speech.


There is nothing wrong with him giving inspiring speeches abroad and, like I said, I prefer his legislative incompetence domestically. Believe it or not, though, foreign policy is a bit more complicated than placating the masses with friendly words. The idea that a President can deliver a thumping speech at the UN and the rest of the world will just roll over to our demands is rooted in the US-centric perception of the left that the policy of other nations is only a reaction to our words, as if they have no proactive designs of their own.

I'm just making observations, you're the one rushing to defend him.

9/29/2009 9:40:37 AM

Quote :

"I'm just making observations, you're the one rushing to defend him."

no you're not. this is the typical non-committal bullshit cowards on here do all the time. "i'm just making observations. i don't actually CARE about anything. no way i have bias."

i'm not defending him as much as i'm saying you're full of shit.

do i think obama is great? no. he has fallen short on many things. but he has also taken on a fairly large number of issues already. maybe you don't like his answers to those issues. but to complain about what his administration has done and then say that he has done nothing but make pretty speeches is fucking stupid.

[Edited on September 29, 2009 at 9:57 AM. Reason : eg you think that info about that secret iranian nuke plant just happened to come out before g20?]

9/29/2009 9:50:32 AM

Quote :

"He's certainly taken it to another level."

Oh please.

So you'll have me believe that he's deliberately fighting against the people in enacting healthcare reform, while claiming he's running a permanent campaign?

It's one or the other.

9/29/2009 10:00:39 AM

Legislatively, he hasn't accomplished much of anything. He has failed thus far to pass health reform, he has failed to close Guantanamo Bay, he has failed to establish a solid exit plan for Iraq, and he has failed to rally support for the Afghan war which he supports. Right now, Cash for Clunkers is his most notable legislative success.


What he has managed to do, is unilaterally, and with dubious Constitutional authority, dictate to a privately run company it's corporate structure. In doing so, he pretty much ignored the claims of GMs creditors in order to pay off the Unions which helped get him elected.


I do have a bias, but not against Obama specifically, I have a bias against corruption and the exercise of power beyond those powers dictated by the law of the land, namely the Constitution, because I believe in a nation of laws. Did I bitch about the Patriot Act? You're goddamned right I did.

Like I said, I've made specific observations. You don't like them and have replied in rather vague terms. *shrug*

Quote :

"So you'll have me believe that he's deliberately fighting against the people in enacting healthcare reform, while claiming he's running a permanent campaign?"

I don't see the contradiction. I'm arguing that he's more comfortable doing television appearances and speeches than working directly with congressmen in crafting a bill. George Bush didn't do this himself, but he had an active staff which did. Clinton enjoyed being deep in the weeds. Part of Hiliary's objection to Barack Obama was the fact that she had done her time and understood congress and understood policy. Barack Obama doesn't.

9/29/2009 10:01:30 AM

I would definitely go to the Olympics if they were held in Chicago. I can only imagine how badass that would be.

Quote :

"do i think obama is great? no. he has fallen short on many things. but he has also taken on a fairly large number of issues already."

Sure he has "taken on" a lot of big issues, but nothing has come of them. In my opinion he'd be better off tackling some of these huge issues one at a time, instead of trying to force a lot of BS through at once.

[Edited on September 29, 2009 at 10:45 AM. Reason : g]

9/29/2009 10:39:12 AM

I will say that Chicago would most likely have A LOT of work to do getting it ready to host the Olympics. Could certainly create some jobs and a little bit of economic revitalization in the area.

9/29/2009 10:43:40 AM

Uh, getting the Olympics is a big deal for any country, I can't think of a reason why a President wouldn't want to go campaign for that. What a dumb thing to ride him on.

As far as health care, everyone needs to chill the fuck out. We're already closer to a health care reform bill passing than at any other point in history. Things are more or less right on track, and Obama has played this about the only way he could. This article sums things up pretty nicely.

http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2009/9/28/142630/927

Basically, we just need to wait for the Senate Finance Committee to vote a bill through, and things will start moving.

As for his other promises, the idea that he's accomplished nothing is absolutely ludicrous. There is even a website that has done all the work for you, so you have no excuse for sounding like an idiot.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/rulings/promise-kept/

[Edited on September 29, 2009 at 11:11 AM. Reason : :]

9/29/2009 11:09:25 AM

Quote :

"No. 502: Get his daughters a puppy"

clearly a hard-politics website.

Quote :

"No. 346: Appoint an assistant to the president for science and technology policy"

Stop the presses boys, Obama appointed an assistant!

Almost every single "promise-kept" story on there involved the phrase "stimulus money includes". Barack Obama didn't actually do anything there. Most of the promises Obama kept weren't kept by him, they were executed by congress and he signed them into bill without a political fight. This is not politically impressive.


But you make a point, I used poor words to describe Obama. He is quite adept at working with congress on issues of mutual agreement and spending more money. He has that skill level 1 ability in Washington. Nothing on that website is remotely politically impressive and most of it is only connected to Barack Obama in that he didn't veto it.

Quote :

"As far as health care, everyone needs to chill the fuck out. We're already closer to a health care reform bill passing than at any other point in history."

Personally, that is not a cause for chilling the fuck out, but allowing that the bill is a good in and of itself (highly questionable) the Democrats are likely to have to use reconciliation in order to pass it. Even with 60 votes in the Senate, it doesn't appear they're going to be able to pull off a filibuster proof majority. As it is the Bacus bill is a disaster in waiting, but I'm sure the insurance companies will take the blame.

9/29/2009 11:27:37 AM

Quote :

"I will say that Chicago would most likely have A LOT of work to do getting it ready to host the Olympics"

Maybe they could start by collecting up all the 2x4s from the Gangs.

http://www.myfoxchicago.com/dpp/news/metro/video_derrion_albert

9/29/2009 11:28:35 AM