Health Care Bill Advances, as Harry Reid Trumps Sarah Palin

Sarah Palin may have the headlines.

But Harry Reid has a health-care reform bill, and it is advancing. Indeed, with Saturday night's 60-39 Senate vote to open a historic debate on the measure, the movement humanize America's healthcare system -- which began almost 70 years ago -- is closer to a congressional breakthrough than at any time in its history.

"Ted would be happy," Reid said Saturday night, invoking the name of the late Senator Edward Kennedy, D-Massachusetts, who spent a political lifetime championing health care reform.

"We have the momentum that is going to keep this process moving," added Reid, who declared, "Now is the time to make sure all Americans have access to affordable healthcare."

No, this does not mean that healthcare reform is inevitable, or that what may be achieved will be sufficient. Saturday night's vote was merely a first step -- and a procedural one at that.

But it does mean that the anti-reformers -- who take their marching orders from Palin's Facebook page and Twittering -- are having hard time preventing progress.

It is not for lack of effort, mind you.

Palin made a game effort on Saturday to block the Senate consideration of the Reid's reform measure.

The most talked about Republican of the moment took time from her Going Rogue book tour used her Twitter account to issue a call to arms to the nine percent of Americans who tell pollsters they want her to lead the country:

Thot I'd stick w tour news on Twitter but can't help digress: Call senators! Tell 'em KILL THE BILL tonite;horrible govt healthcare takeover

Senate healthcare takeover debate begins in an hour. Pls call senators if u care about another 1/6th of our economy swallowed up by Big Govt

But, while Palin and the death-panel fabulists who would follow her off any cliff may be getting most of the media attention these days, they for an old, not-exactly "camera-ready" legislator named Harry Reid.

Palin and her enraged Republican spent the last week ranting and raving about the perils of public programs. And everyone from Oprah Winfrey to the Sean Hannity tuned in.

So where was Reid?

Quietly talking up health care reform inside the Democratic caucus, gently prodding moderate Democrats to do the right things, and if appeals to their morality did not prevail showing them polls that indicated the vast majority of Americans still favor real reform of a broken system.

Slowly, the scared and uncertain Democrats came home. Reid worked 'em in Washington, while grassroots activists prodded them at home.

In the end, the Democrats who were needed heard far more from union members and Organizing for America stalwarts than from the Palinites, who were still trying to figure out their mentor's oblique Twitter message.

Pennsylvania Senator Bob Casey, a steady foe of abortion rights, said he could live with Reid's bill, even if it did not contain the rigid restrictions on reproductive rights that had been attached to the House health-care reform legislation in the form of the Stupak amendment.

Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson, perhaps the most conservative member of the Democratic caucus, said he believed it was appropriate to open a debate on the bill.

So did the scared southerners from states that voted overwhelmingly for Republican John McCain (and, yes, Sarah Palin) in 2008: Louisiana's Mary Landrieu and Arkansas' Blanche Lambert Lincoln.

Even Joe Lieberman came around, as those familiar with how much the Connecticut Independent-Democrat relies on Reid to maintain his perch in the Senate pecking order knew he would.

When it came time to count the votes, Reid had the 60 he needed.

And health-care reform had cleared a major hurdle.

This is a big deal for a lot of reasons.

First, it reminds all of us in the media we all should have been paying more attention to Harry Reid than Sarah Palin this week.

Second, it suggests that the Democrats might yet prove to be as coherent a force as the "Party of 'No'" Republicans -- which is no small matter, as congressional Democrats outnumber congressional Republicans by a 3-2 margin.

Third, it confirms that health-care reform is still very much on the agenda -- despite the best efforts of Palin and her compatriots to "KILL THE BILL" and of pundits to pen its obituary.

There are still no guarantees that America will get the national health-care reform it needs -- the Senate bill has plenty of problems.

It does not even mean that America will get the modest reform that might reasonably be expected from this Congress and this President. There will still be much wrangling in the Senate, much wrangling in the conference committee that seeks to reconcile differing House and Senate bills and much wrangling in the House, where the abortion divide seems to run deeper and create greater challenges.

But Harry Reid finished the week with a healthcare reform bill that was clearing the necessary hurdles.

And Sarah Palin finished it with a Twitter message that contributed about as much to the debate as has the fine Alaskan whine that is her book.

Comments (171)

1. Jesus John, you sound like you are drunk with glee on what doesn't amount to a hill of beans here.

   What kind of crock of spit is this. This silly bill for all intents and purposes is dead. Yeah, there will be debate to pacify anyone who thinks there should be some kind of reform but this is by no means a victory for democrats or America.

   Wouldn't it have been better to include republicans and compromise so a bill really could pass a final vote? But if any kind of bill does pass it will be so watered down, will not have any vestige of a public option and will not be acceptable to most democrats, and will be virtually unrecognizable to what Obama promised..

   And what exactly does this have to do with Sarah Palin. She has no input what so ever. She's a common citizen with a facebook page like any other citizen.

   What is this obsession that you liberals have with Sarah Palin. It's getting nauseating. You think this is a defeat for her? She hasn't even begun to make her case to the people yet. The American people haven't even been heard or considered with regards to this bill yet.

   Calm yourself down John. It will be a cold day in hell that THIS bill ever sees the President's signature.

   Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/22/2009 @ 12:19am

2. Congress has a 27% approval rating before this vote, dare they attempt to pass this socialistic power takeover? The ones voting for it probably won't be around when its repealed!

   Posted by BigPasture at 11/22/2009 @ 01:32am

3. As the Senate weighs a 2,074-page healthcare "reform" bill, supporters of a government option for medical coverage consider this the finest federal initiative since the Emancipation Proclamation. Yet today's headlines show government severely bungling its current healthcare duties. Expanding Uncle Sam's medical portfolio is a prescription for fraud, fiscal incompetence, and rampant mismanagement on the clinical front lines.

   Fraud devours some $60 billion -- or 13.3 percent -- of Medicare's $452 billion budget. "Rather than stealing $100,000 or $200,000," federal prosecutor Kirk Ogrosky said on October 25's "60 Minutes," criminals "can steal $100 million."

   One thief named "Tony" told CBS' Steve Kroft that he robbed $20 million from Medicare. It was "real easy," "Tony" said. "It was like taking candy from a baby." He registered bogus medical companies, bought stolen doctor and patient ID numbers, and then billed Medicare for phantom wheelchairs, phony artificial limbs, and more. Medicare soon delivered $20,000 to $40,000 electronically into "Tony"'s bank account -- daily.

   Senator Charles Grassley (R–Iowa) recently found that Medicare administrators received 30 serious fraud warnings over three years, primarily during the Bush Administration, and simply ignored half of them. Medicare failed to investigate complaints that it reimbursed one company for injected drugs "at doses that were not medically feasible," one letter explained. Rather than the proper $74 per dose, Medicare sent this provider $4,464.

   Another recent report uncovered $18.1 billion in improper Medicaid payments, or 9.6 percent of that program's claims. Lacking the "evil and greedy" private insurers' profit motive, government managers have no incentive to uproot such malfeasance.

   Posted by BigPasture at 11/22/2009 @ 01:47am

4. Meanwhile, doctors routinely wait and wait to get paid less and less by Medicaid. According to Athena Health's PayerView report, North Carolina is the fastest state Medicaid system, paying doctors in 40.6 days. Still, it lags Coventry Health Care, the eighth-fastest national payer it measured, needing 38.5 days to issue checks. (Medicare Part B was ranked fifth at 33.4 days.) Among 14 Medicaid systems that Athena rated, six take 77.7 to 89.7 days to pay. Medicaid of New York is the biggest deadbeat, averaging 160.9 days (or nearly six months) before whipping out its checkbook.

   Medicaid systems also reject claims more than do private insurers. While Humana, the No. 1-ranked national payer, has a 5.3 percent denial rate, No. 7 Medicare Part B spurns 8.7 percent of claims. Among Medicaid systems, No. 1 Illinois denies 9.1 percent of its claims. Medicaid of California's refusal rate is 19.5 percent, while No. 12 New York's is 34.1 percent. Fourteenth-rated Florida denies 38.8 percent of Medicaid claims.

   Government reimbursements also trail inflation. In 1997, Medicare paid general surgeons $574 for each complex hemorrhoidectomy. In 2008, that procedure paid $390. This is barely half the $770 needed to equal inflation.

   "Physicians feel that increased government intervention in healthcare will force them to be even more indentured to Medicaid and Medicare which perpetually appear to be on the verge of collapse," says Dr. Soumi Eachempati, M.D., Associate Professor of Surgery and Public Health at Manhattan's Weill Cornell Medical College.

   Posted by BigPasture at 11/22/2009 @ 01:48am

5. The government option currently impedes distribution of the swine-flu vaccine. Washington has injected little more than confusion into this situation. According to early promises, 120 million doses were to be deployed by mid-October. Now, only 30 million doses will be on hand, but not until late November.

   "I think we led expectations of availability to be higher than they have been," Assistant Surgeon General Anne Schuchat told the Senate Homeland Security Committee on Tuesday. "That, I think, can lead to frustration."

   Senator Susan Collins (R–Maine) scolded Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius for offering senators "generalizations and non-answers" on this vital matter.

   The government option in medicine speeds taxpayer dollars into the hands of crooks, stalls payments to honest doctors, and stymies Americans desperate for swine-flu shots. Imagine how much more the government option could accomplish with a trillion dollars and an appetite for one-sixth of the U.S. economy.

   Posted by BigPasture at 11/22/2009 @ 01:49am

6. No question about it, Medicare has become a gravy train for corporate profiteers. Medicare Part D was an unprecedented Repub giveaway for Big Pharmaceutical profiteers - the govt. buying medications in wholesale quantities but paying retail prices, and refusing to seek out better deals in Canada or elsewhere.

   The public option can work if govt. uses its purchasing power to fix prices, instead of 'negotiating' giveaways to politically connected contractors. That's why Repubs fear the public option - it could be the beginning of running the govt. like a business, and the beginning of the end of govt. as corporate welfare state.

   Posted by samcrossett at 11/22/2009 @ 06:27am

7. "Even Joe Lieberman came around, as those familiar with how much the Connecticut Independent-Democrat relies on Reid to maintain his perch in the Senate pecking order knew he would. "

   Wasnt it just a while back that Joe was feted on Fox News and by the right-wing bloggers as a solid vote to uphold the filibuster???

   Seems Joe likes the cheers from the ditto-head crowd....but knows where his bread is buttered.

   Posted by Mask at 11/22/2009 @ 07:25am

8. It's becoming more, and more embarassing that women actually admire this goofball Palin. I really hope she does run for President as that will ensure another 4 years for President Obama. Palin is what she appears to be, and it's so easy to say this. Palin is an ignorant instigator who does nothing to help women to advance in this Nation.

   She is not your best friend ladies. So stop with the ignorant praise.

   Posted by sheila60 at 11/22/2009 @ 07:26am

9. Posted by BigPasture at 11/22/2009 @ 01:32am

   Rio, Rasmussen had Congressional approvat at NINE PERCENT (9%) once...

   in July 2008. Oddly we don't have a Republican Congress today (after Nov. 2008)....do we???

   Posted by Mask at 11/22/2009 @ 07:27am

10. Medicaid systems also reject claims more than do private insurers. While Humana, the No. 1-ranked national payer, has a 5.3 percent denial rate, No. 7 Medicare Part B spurns 8.7 percent of claims. Among Medicaid systems, No. 1 Illinois denies 9.1 percent of its claims. Medicaid of California's refusal rate is 19.5 percent, while No. 12 New York's is 34.1 percent. Fourteenth-rated Florida denies 38.8 percent of Medicaid claims.

    Government reimbursements also trail inflation. In 1997, Medicare paid general surgeons $574 for each complex hemorrhoidectomy. In 2008, that procedure paid $390. This is barely half the $770 needed to equal inflation.

    Posted by BigPasture at 11/22/2009 @ 01:48am

    Clearly, Mr. Nichols is spot on here. This vote is a big deal. Now, hopefully, the media and others can concentrate on the relative merits of specific proposals. Mrs. Palin and the crazies can be sidelined by actual patriotic, serious, thinking Americans (you know the 'good' kinds of Americans) who should make healthcare a right everyone has access to.

    Sadly, the bills before us are not as much reform as necessary, yet they are at least pointed in the right direction.

    Mr. Pasture's rant against medicare and medicaid seem to suggest that greater oversight and tighter rules would be desireable. Of course, his distrorted lens of partisanship refuses to acknowledge this. If a procedure like a complex hemorroidectomy becomes more routine and available, does that not suggest the price should drop? I guess not for private insurers whose fraud and waste are built in to thier system.

    As for the flu vaccine- setting aside the fact that the problems of production came from private companies, HHS has actually done commendable work in a difficult and unwieldy circumstance.

    Posted by erazma at 11/22/2009 @ 07:40am

11. Lieberman (Deputy Dog) is a good example of what a politician should not become. A huge flip flopper. He votes for his pocketbook. He, and his wife have a huge investment in the insurance companies. That's why they do not want a fair healthcare reform bill. That would dig into their own pockets! Get a clue folks!

    We simply must stop listening to the protestors for this reform. Do some background checks, and find out who is their lobbyists, and you just might get a clue as to why some protest more than others. It has absolutely nothing to do with the bill. Term limits would stop this nonsense in the future. Before you go praising the Senator Mary from Louisana? She is being bought, and after her horrible failure of the Katrina fiasco? I would think she really needs to go in 2014. I just wish her term was over in 2010.

    Posted by sheila60 at 11/22/2009 @ 07:52am

12. to give credit where credit is due, a huffpost blogger called rcambell said it well:

    "it's the politics of ME versus the politics of WE. For that generation to survive the depression and a world war, what we call the "greatest generation" realized they were all in the boat together and only by helping each other and being as one could they make it through. That sense of unitedness, the WE, lasted for about 50 years: 1930-1980. Regardless of which party was in power, the politicians themselves came out of that cohesive experience of surviving poverty and war so there was always compromise to include some of the other party's positions as having validity. Jimmy Carter was the last President to adhere to the philosophy of WE.

    The Reagan Revolution and the rise of the conservative movement laid out a vision that it's all about anti-taxation, anti-government, promoting personal greed, pro-military and winning at any cost---ME, ME, ME. I believe a strong case can be made that it was more than a little race driven. Some folks felt their taxes were too high and didn't approve of LBJ's Great Society and resentment toward its beneficiaries grew. Nonetheless, that ME mentality has by now been drummed into almost two generations of Americans."

    This is the context of the health care reform fight. I give credit to President Obama for trying to bring back that sense of WE. Plus, though it's often seen as a weakness by the right, I applaud Mr. Obama for always acting as a statesman when confronting vitriolic partisanship. Of course, things will not change overnight iregarding the divide Reagan promoted, but it's a start.

    Posted by erazma at 11/22/2009 @ 08:00am

13. The reform legislation is a small step in the proper direction.Health coverage for all at an affordable price.Is that a crass or a lofty goal?It is hard for me to imagine that 2 of every 5 Senators has chosen to either stay silent on this issue or attempt to block it at every step of the way.The Republicans have acted with no shame on this issue of the day.They have "framed" the issue as ideology.Let's face it people there are 2 camps here. One backs the insurance companies and the policies that have 1 in 7 uninsured and a large group of Americans reeling from large increases in premium prices.The second camp has chosen to fight these policies and is working for health care for all.Big Pissture is laughable,he always provides great statistics. I will provide this statistic.Medicare got 8 Republican votes in the Senate when it was passed. Now the party of "Me" is trying to scare seniors into worrying about losing parts of their coverage.The Republicans negotiated elevated drug prices with their pals at Big Pharma during GWB's watch.So with as bad as some of the Democrats have been during this process, they are still head and shoulders above the conservatives supporting the insurance companies.

    Posted by whatozz at 11/22/2009 @ 08:47am

14. "Quietly talking up health care reform inside the Democratic caucus, gently prodding moderate Democrats to do the right things, and if appeals to their morality did not prevail showing them polls that indicated the vast majority of Americans still favor real reform of a broken system. "

    This is liberal speak for buying off the Sens from La and Neb , and threatening Leiberman with his chairmanships. And this was just to get it to the floor for debate. Prodding and appeals to morality??? Yea ok Nichols so much for journalistic integrity. LOL If this is what Reid had to do just to get it debated does anyone care to speculate what it will cost him to get it passed? Liberal politics at its best.

    Posted by limoman at 11/22/2009 @ 08:47am

15. "She hasn't even begun to make her case to the people yet"

    (except for running for VP, quitting her job as governor, being on oprah, fox, the today show, the cover of newsweek, and crossing the country on a national book tour)

    Posted by darladoon at 11/22/2009 @ 09:25am

16. it's hard to imagine sarah palin having a "case" against healthcare reform.

    "well, charlie, we obviously gotta cut taxes, dontcha' know?"

    Posted by darladoon at 11/22/2009 @ 09:26am

17. "LOL If this is what Reid had to do just to get it debated does anyone care to speculate what it will cost him to get it passed? Liberal politics at its best.

    Posted by limoman at 11/22/2009 @ 08:47am | ignore this person | warn this person "

    Except that he only needs 51 votes to get it passed whereas he needed 60 to get it debated.

    Posted by brunowe at 11/22/2009 @ 09:32am

18. Umm burnowe he needs 60 votes to get cloture to get it voted on Duhhh

    Posted by limoman at 11/22/2009 @ 09:51am

19. limoman, you lost, its a start, let the games begin.

    Posted by Denise29 at 11/22/2009 @ 10:14am

20. Limoman,it is obvious where you stand. Do me a favor and think about what health care reform really means.It might be hard to imagine for you but health care for all Americans. Do you really believe that all of the stories written about the insurance companies are false? Do you think the greed is O.K.?Your concern isn't what is in the legislation,it is about ideology. Perhaps that is how conservatives can feel good about not caring about others in this debate. They have made it "sterile".

    Posted by whatozz at 11/22/2009 @ 10:21am

21. Sarah Palin has nothing to do with this debate,she obviously does not have the intellectual credentials to even weigh in on the matter.

    Posted by whatozz at 11/22/2009 @ 10:23am

22. Yes denise you are correct , the only way that this will get passed is by the use of behind closed doors games that the liberals are famous for .Afterall if they were truthful about this bill that will raise everyones taxes , cut medicare benefits while increasing everyones cost for their healthcare plans it wouldnt have a chance in hell of passing .

    Posted by limoman at 11/22/2009 @ 10:25am

23. It's simple, one is either all greed-inspired and bought-off by the multinational corporations- heart and soul, likes not only being screwed, but likes seeing others getting screwed too-- or one can be counted on as part of 'We the People'.

    http://www.jstor.org/pss/3653829

    Posted by hsuBfools at 11/22/2009 @ 10:46am

24. Posted by limoman at 11/22/2009 @ 10:25am

    We all know how committed you boobs are to preserving Medicare. Save the goofy "get the govt out of my Medicare & Social Security" line for people just a little less smarter than yourself.

    Posted by Sorelish at 11/22/2009 @ 10:47am

25. limoman, wasn't just a couple of years ago that you guys wanted to invest medicare in the stock market? How would have that worked out hmmm? Now you want to save it? You guys just go with whichever way the wind blows, a bunch of parrots, gasbags.

    Posted by Denise29 at 11/22/2009 @ 10:53am

26. <So where was Reid?

    Quietly talking up health care reform inside the Democratic caucus, gently prodding moderate Democrats to do the right things, and if appeals to their morality did not prevail showing them polls that indicated the vast majority of Americans still favor real reform of a broken system.>

    Translation-buying votes with 100 million dollar bribes -Democratic politics at work

    And then these marxist clowns who blog here applaud the Democratic corruption. And they will continue to do so as long as their end goal is met-the destruction of our constitutional republic and the implementation of European style socialism.

    Jefferson would vomit at the thought of what his party has become

    Posted by antisocialist at 11/22/2009 @ 11:15am

27. limoman, wasn't just a couple of years ago that you guys wanted to invest medicare in the stock market? How would have that worked out hmmm? Now you want to save it? You guys just go with whichever way the wind blows, a bunch of parrots, gasbags.

    Posted by Denise29 at 11/22/2009 @ 10:53am

    Total lie.

    What was proposed was to let people have the option of investing outside of Social Security-NOT Medicare.

    And no one ever said or proposed only investing in the stock market.

    You could invest in bonds, Annuities, Life Insurance, REIT's.

    With many variable premium life insurance policies paying 9% annual premiums over extended periods, a young person could have both a tax free retirement, an equity program for difficult times in their life, and an safety net for children and spouse.

    Posted by antisocialist at 11/22/2009 @ 11:20am

28. OK, Anti, excuse meeee, SOCIAL SECURITY, my mistake, but same point.

    Posted by Denise29 at 11/22/2009 @ 11:38am

29. This is the most simplistic post you have made in quite a while. You do not mention your party that supports big insurance.Of course you a libertarian and support nothing but the Constitution.The Constitution that has to expand to reflect modern day reality.Now you call me a Marxist clown. For someone who actually knows what Marxism is but supports modern day Maoism it seems as though you are having an identity crisis.Do I support Democratic corruption?Not for one minute but you seem to support Republican corruption.Again you will say you are a libertarian.The point is this,our republic has stood the test of much stronger threats than health care reform.You as a war monger know this,as one that has watched our forays into Central America,South America, and now the Middle East.You stretch the Constitution to fit your needs.You are fear mongering from this direction,it fits in with the conservatives general method of discourse.

    Posted by whatozz at 11/22/2009 @ 11:47am

30. That's why Repubs fear the public option - it could be the beginning of running the govt. like a business, and the beginning of the end of govt. as corporate welfare state.

    Posted by samcrossett at 11/22/2009 @ 06:27am

    LOL! You're talking so much nonsense!

    The Repubs have been wanting the govt. to run "like a business" for how long now? You know, along the pretty easy concept of taking in more than you pay out?

    You are a Clear and Present Danger to common sense.....and I'm glad....ROTFLMAO!

    Posted by Happy at 11/22/2009 @ 11:55am

31. Ya Happy, the republican want the govt to run like a business huh, where have you been for the last 8 years, hmmmm? Their way hasn't worked out so well now has it, time to try it our way.

    Posted by Denise29 at 11/22/2009 @ 12:04pm

32. but likes seeing others getting screwed too-- or one can be counted on as part of 'We the People'.

    http://www.jstor.org/pss/3653829

    Posted by hsuBfools at 11/22/2009 @ 10:46am

    You mean like the rest of us getting screwed by Reid as he does a "WE" with Landreau?

    Please, your blind faith in govt is unfounded, as are most libers when it comes to the constitution...none of the health care legislation is constitutional other than the ability to bring the vote up for a vote.

    It is neither reform nor health care. Its Marxism.

    Posted by YourJomamma at 11/22/2009 @ 1:01pm

33. "Health Care Bill Advances, as Harry Reid Trumps Sarah Palin "

    All Harry did was trump his opponent in the next election as he loses his seat as well as his ass, and Harry will watch this thing collapse under its own collective weight as it it gutted....

    then we will see Joe Liberman filibuster.

    Even if it passes, the next congress in 2010 will destroy it and the people of the US will cheer.

    Who knowa where Sara will be...maybe she will move to Nevada...

    Posted by YourJomamma at 11/22/2009 @ 1:04pm

34. "#

    Umm burnowe he needs 60 votes to get cloture to get it voted on Duhhh

    Posted by limoman at 11/22/2009 @ 09:51am | ignore this person | warn this person"

    Umm limoman, if he got the 60 votes to get it debated he'll have the sixty votes for the vote. He only needs to not to lose too many people who will vote against it on the merits (just Lieberman, Lincoln, Landrieu & Nelson), DUHHHH!

    Posted by brunowe at 11/22/2009 @ 1:14pm

35. Sweeteners for the South

    By Dana Milbank Sunday, November 22, 2009

    Staffers on Capitol Hill were calling it the Louisiana Purchase.

    On the eve of Saturday's showdown in the Senate over health-care reform, Democratic leaders still hadn't secured the support of Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.), one of the 60 votes needed to keep the legislation alive. The wavering lawmaker was offered a sweetener: at least $100 million in extra federal money for her home state.

    And so it came to pass that Landrieu walked onto the Senate floor midafternoon Saturday to announce her aye vote -- and to trumpet the financial "fix" she had arranged for Louisiana. "I am not going to be defensive," she declared. "And it's not a $100 million fix. It's a $300 million fix."

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/22/2009 @ 2:37pm

36. Does Reid's Bill provide for the following?

    1. Tort Reform.

    2. Shoring up of Medicare and Medicare.

    3. Catastrophic illness insurance.

    4. Elimination of insurance companie's prior condition refusal.

    5. Elimination of public option provision.

    6. Elimination of any taxpayer dollars used to finance abortion.

    If not, this bill has two chances for passage, slim and none.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/22/2009 @ 2:42pm

37. Anyone who is feeling pretty good today about the democrats ability to keep this travesty of a bill alive should consider the following.

    Connecticut is the insurance capitol of the world. It's insurance industry along with it's defense industry account for the state's ability to stay afloat in a sea of states going under.

    Connecticut has two Senators, Joe Lieberman and Chris Dodd. Lieberman is on record as stating that any bill with any form of public option in it would meet his disapproval and a no vote. Lieberman has no choice.

    Chris Dodd is skating on thin ice with all the polls pointing to his defeat in the next election because of his involvment in the housing bust and his own dealings in recieving favors on his own mortgage. The one way he could regain the favor of voters and the media in Ct. would be to vote no on the health care bill, citing the interests of the economy of his state which would be seriously adversly affected with it's passage.

    Being the political animals that both Dodd and Lieberman are, I think we can expect both of them to be voting no for their own political survival.

    Mary Landrieu is bought and paid for like a common whore and Blanch Lincoln will probably end up voting no.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/22/2009 @ 2:58pm

38. we need single payer simplicity if we wish to compete in business with our international competitors.

    time for people to get pissed and act out. the righties think that holding this up will smear obama. perhaps, but i think they will be the ones smeared. people want REAL health care, not another goddamned windfall to the health insurance parasites who have killed and hurt MILLIONS.

    the insurance company execs and all the simpering pols who sold their pathetic excuses for souls should be tried and shot.

    but that would be a perfect world and not the one i live in.

    murderous parasites.

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/22/2009 @ 3:13pm

39. 6. Elimination of any taxpayer dollars used to finance abortion.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/22/2009 @ 2:42pm

    I'll whack this hornet's nest with a stick.

    Hey, why is it ok to use staggering amounts of tax $$ to kill real existing innocent humans in other countries (drones, air strikes, collateral damage)....

    but spend one public cent to help a women make her own choices and *kaboom*, all of a sudden the innocent 'people' matter?

    Posted by Blair Wooff at 11/22/2009 @ 4:06pm

40. "Lieberman is on record as stating that any bill with any form of public option in it would meet his disapproval and a no vote. Lieberman has no choice. "

    Lieberman has already voted against cloture with such a bill. He and Dodd can cover themselves by a vote against the bill itself.

    Posted by brunowe at 11/22/2009 @ 4:19pm

41. Posted by Blair Wooff at 11/22/2009 @ 4:06pm

    Apples and oranges, a silly argument that requires no further answer.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/22/2009 @ 4:37pm

42. "Apples and oranges, a silly argument that requires no further answer"

    then you're pro-orange, and anti-apple

    Posted by darladoon at 11/22/2009 @ 4:49pm

43. Posted by darladoon at 11/22/2009 @ 4:49pm

    maybe pro-(agent)orange?

    only kills the innocents we don't like.

    Posted by Blair Wooff at 11/22/2009 @ 6:45pm

44. WHY doesn't Vermont, or some other progressive state, pass state level single payer? There's no reason to wait on absurdly flawed federal care.

    Posted by Sam87 at 11/22/2009 @ 7:02pm

45. I can't wait until this thing gets signed.

    Posted by kirquaker at 11/22/2009 @ 9:22pm

46. Giving this kind of power to the Federal Government is a horrible mistake. It is not "we the people" anymore.

    How

    can

    you

    not

    see

    that

    ?!

    Posted by freiheit1 at 11/22/2009 @ 9:23pm

47. I can't wait until this thing gets signed. Posted by kirquaker at 11/22/2009 @ 9:22pm

    WOW! You are a fast reader!

    Or just not a "details" guy?

    Either way, you are a fool and will get what ignorance deserves.

    Posted by freiheit1 at 11/22/2009 @ 9:25pm

48. Posted by Sam87 at 11/22/2009 @ 7:02pm

    Great question! Gosh! Maybe it's because none of this is about our health care!

    Posted by freiheit1 at 11/22/2009 @ 9:28pm

49. Hey, why is it ok to use staggering amounts of tax $$ to kill real existing innocent humans in other countries (drones, air strikes, collateral damage).... but spend one public cent to help a women make her own choices and *kaboom*, all of a sudden the innocent 'people' matter? Posted by Blair Wooff at 11/22/2009 @ 4:06pm

    False argument.

    Neither is okay.

    Do you agree? Or do you believe the murder of the unborn is okay, but killing of civilians in war isn't?

    Neither is okay. But you are no different than your opposition if you are pro choice.

    Posted by freiheit1 at 11/22/2009 @ 9:34pm

50. Hey, why is it ok to use staggering amounts of tax $$ to kill real existing innocent humans in other countries (drones, air strikes, collateral damage)....

    but spend one public cent to help a women make her own choices and *kaboom*, all of a sudden the innocent 'people' matter?

    Posted by Blair Wooff

    All innocent people matter . But for Blair and Darla and all the other lefties who use this inappropriate argument let me explain the difference. ITS THE LAW!!! Its called the Hyde amendment . Im not in favor of any innocent humans being killed whether they are in the middle east or in a womans womb . If you are so opposed to your tax dollars being used to kill innocents then vote for like minded individuals into office and have them change the constitution and make it illegal to declare war .

    And perhaps Darla you can explain why you are so opposed to defenseless people being killed in war but are ok with killing defenseless children in a womans womb?

    Posted by limoman at 11/22/2009 @ 9:42pm

51. "And perhaps Darla you can explain why you are so opposed to defenseless people being killed in war but are ok with killing defenseless children in a womans womb?"

    if i was "pro-life," then you could ask me that question. i am not the one supporting an escalation of violence in afghanistan. you are.

    but i'll answer your question anyway: when a woman decides to get an abortion, she is not killing a "defenseless child." she is killing a "fetus."

    when an american soldier drops a bomb on a village in afghanistan, and kills a bunch of children, then obviously he is killing "defenseless children." he is not killing fetuses.

    the difference is so obvious that i can't believe i have to actually spell it out for you.

    Posted by darladoon at 11/22/2009 @ 9:49pm

52. "Or do you believe the murder of the unborn is okay"

    abortion is legal, frei. in case you forgot.....

    ergo, it is not "murder"

    Posted by darladoon at 11/22/2009 @ 9:50pm

53. Thanks Darla, I'm not contending it isn't "legal" though.

    My argument is it is immoral.

    If you'll recall, slavery was legal in the US once. That certainly didn't make it moral. Did it?

    Posted by freiheit1 at 11/22/2009 @ 9:57pm

54. Nichols admires the "leadership" of Harry Reid?

    Is it really leadership to pay the prostitute for doing what a prostitute does?

    Posted by usc1 at 11/22/2009 @ 10:11pm

55. Or maybe to be more accurate...we should call a spade a spade...this was a BRIBE.

    And whose money was he bribing her with? Oh yeah...mine. Politics as usual.

    Posted by usc1 at 11/22/2009 @ 10:14pm

56. but i'll answer your question anyway: when a woman decides to get an abortion, she is not killing a "defenseless child." she is killing a "fetus." when an american soldier drops a bomb on a village in afghanistan, and kills a bunch of children, then obviously he is killing "defenseless children." he is not killing fetuses. the difference is so obvious that i can't believe i have to actually spell it out for you. Posted by darladoon at 11/22/2009 @ 9:49pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Darla, you make an interesting argument. Have you by chance read Peter Singer's cursory position on abortion? Your argument is similar in thrust to his: namely what is personhood? From my reading of it, he blows away the previous philosophical argument in favor of abortion by Judith Jarvis Thomson in "A Defense of Abortion." However, I think both Peter Singer and Mary Anne Warren in "On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion" make a similar arguments concerning the personhood of the fetus.

    You can take a look at Peter's argument here: http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/1995----03. htm

    and Mary's here: http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/warren_article. html

    Posted by hdthoreau at 11/23/2009 @ 05:20am

57. Killing is killing Darla

    Posted by limoman at 11/23/2009 @ 06:36am

58. 2. Shoring up of Medicare and Medicare. ----Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/22/2009 @ 2:42pm

    Give us the details on that, gunny. How exactly do you want to "shore up" Medicare and Medicaid?

    ((Betting he can't....it's just a GOP talking point. Sounds good, but meaningless.))

    Posted by Mask at 11/23/2009 @ 07:25am

59. Arguing in 3 syllables, with question:

    tort reform

    shore it up

    kill the bill

    demon crats

    go sarah

    no freebies

    no pro choice

    war is good

    when's Beck on?

    Posted by Blair Wooff at 11/23/2009 @ 07:49am

60. Posted by limoman at 11/22/2009 @ 08:47am

    Got news for ya...that is how it is done in DC, liberal, conservative or middle.

    ---

    with killing defenseless children in a womans womb?

    Posted by limoman at 11/22/2009 @ 9:42pm

    They are not children. they are collections of cells unable to survive outside the womb. Yes, that makes me feel better about abortion describing it that way. If abortion is made illegal, how much more in taxes are you willing to pay to help feed, clothe and house those children. I assume that you think that most abortions are by liberals, and liberals are unable to take care of their own.

    If the "right" is so damn concerned about children, why the opposition to health insurance reform that would help parents pay for healthcare? Why the opposition to the S-CHIPS program a couple of years ago? Why are there 80,000 children languishing in foster care?

    Posted by crabwalk at 11/23/2009 @ 08:31am

61. Where in any of the bills being debated is there "horrible govt healthcare takeover "?

    Is it just under "death panels"?

    What will come out will be a bill that is what the insurance companies will tolerate, nothing more. They write the checks that support the congress critters in our republic.

    Just as AIG got what they needed out of Bush, so to will Humana get what it needs from Obama (secret Marxist!)

    Posted by crabwalk at 11/23/2009 @ 08:39am

62. Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/22/2009 @ 2:58pm

    WOW Gun!

    Actual reality!

    Impressive.

    Ibble is on too, though. We are competing against the other industrial powers, and they have better systems for paying for care. And then there is China, which uses replaceable billions of people in place of curing them. If we let "1/6" of our economy be controlled by a group of execs (beeyro-crats) whose sole interest is their profit, we will fail to compete.

    Posted by crabwalk at 11/23/2009 @ 08:45am

63. The insurance industry would love to have a government secured cartel position over health insurance.

    It would provide perfect collusion current government oversight and eventually eliminate all competition and the high costs and risk of innovation.

    We lose.

    And I will never understand the child-like faith and trust we have in politicians. When human nature, not to mention our Constitution, dictates their power be controlled and limited!

    Posted by freiheit1 at 11/23/2009 @ 09:47am

64. The Repubs have been wanting the govt. to run "like a business" for how long now? You know, along the pretty easy concept of taking in more than you pay out?

    Posted by Happy at 11/22/2009 @ 11:55am

    --guess W. missed the memo! but bush the elder and reagan didn't--they both RAISED taxes!

    Posted by urmygyro at 11/23/2009 @ 10:03am

65. Why are there 80,000 children languishing in foster care?

    Posted by crabwalk at 11/23/2009 @ 08:31am

    Experts I've spoken with on the subject of foster care cite most foster children in the system are there because of substance abuse and the ensuing poverty and destruction of their parents.

    So the problem, as I see it, isn't that the children are born. The problem is substance abuse. Do you feel terminating the 'fetuses' of substance abuse is the best way to combat the issue?

    Good plan. What's next, the termination of children whose parents watch Glen Beck? ;-)

    Posted by freiheit1 at 11/23/2009 @ 10:10am

66. --they both RAISED taxes!

    Posted by urmygyro at 11/23/2009 @ 10:03am

    So your position is that the Magic administration should raise $1.4 Trillion in anuual taxes to balance the "business" of Gubberment? Just want to make sure where you stand.

    Posted by Happy at 11/23/2009 @ 10:18am

67. New Rasmussen poll has the public opposing the healthcare bill 56% to 38%. That's too bad. There was a real opportunity to help the needy. Instead, the progressive contingent pushed greater collectivism over helping people. The let their ideology trump human suffering. It really is a shame.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/23/2009 @ 11:02am

68. Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/23/2009

    The truth is, if this health care takeover is passed in it current condition, or even close, 2010 will make 1994 look like a Sunday School Social event.

    Here is another real fear, and from GALLOP, not the hated Rasmussen...

    what will Bushfools do...

    Obamas popularity is falling and Sarahs is rising....and will soon cross and exchange positions...

    Sara more popular than Obie?

    The weeping and gnashing of teeth has just begun...the left will go even further over the cliff...

    Posted by YourJomamma at 11/23/2009 @ 11:12am

69. It is very clear that the answer is a personalized VAT linked to a national ID card. Just think of the revenue the government could make if every single transaction and every single price on every good or service in the country could be tailored to the individual. When the member of a marginalized victim group buys a loaf of bread, they would get the loaf of bread, and a $5 bill. When an evil oppressor buys a loaf of bread, it will cost $5 + 0.01% of their net worth. The advantages of this system are obvious. No matter what your income or net worth, you will never be able to command resources above the average. After we put this in place, we can turn to the social deconstruction of gravity, since it is an oppressive force that inversley privileges mass.

    Posted by sntauri at 11/23/2009 @ 11:14am

70. --they both RAISED taxes! Posted by urmygyro at 11/23/2009 @ 10:03am

    So your position is that the Magic administration should raise $1.4 Trillion in anuual taxes to balance the "business" of Gubberment? Just want to make sure where you stand.

    Posted by Happy at 11/23/2009 @ 10:18am | ignore this person | warn this person

    --so your position is reagan and george h.w. bush were wrong!

    Posted by urmygyro at 11/23/2009 @ 11:23am

71. Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/23/2009 @ 11:02am

    Keep in mind this is the same "unbiased" Rasmussen who told these guys (and us) that "Congress has a 9% approval rating...single digits!" in July of 2008....

    and then found it hard to explain why Republicans didn't re-take Congress last year?!?!?!???

    heheh

    Posted by Mask at 11/23/2009 @ 11:42am

72. and then found it hard to explain why Republicans didn't re-take Congress last year?!?!?!???

    heheh

    Posted by Mask at 11/23/2009 @ 11:42am

    We all know why the Repubs didn't hold or retake congress...they were fired...as they should have been for not being conservative, their base rightfully stayed home.and the dems will be fired soon, too...

    You don't need GALLOP or RASMUSSEN to tell you that. Repubs were fired for over spending and being corrupt...just as the Dems are doing now, and as corrupt as they are now...just look at Reid and his "Louisana Purchase"...

    Excellent campaign footage...use the actual events..

    Posted by YourJomamma at 11/23/2009 @ 12:30pm

73. Posted by crabwalk at 11/23/2009 @ 08:45am | ignore this person | warn this person

    don't know if you have been following the "perils of ibble", but i'm now in western NC trying to help start up a renewable energy company. we have a big job coming up in early 10, and intend to employ between 12 and 14 within the first year of operation.

    we want to provide health coverage, but...

    EVERYONE, including progressives, in business tells us in no uncertain terms that to do so spells death for a small start-up firm like ours...

    and looking at the numbers, they are right.

    how can american business be expected to compete when as a result of a STUPID SOMETHING FOR NOTHING GRASSHOPPER IDEOLOGY, we insist on saddling business with onerous, costly, time consuming bullshit that EVERY OTHER ADVANCED SOCIETY PROVIDES THROUGH THE PUBLIC SECTOR!!!!

    and does so profitably???!!!

    goddamn! the supposed worshipers of "pure" capitalism are business's worst enemy! they prefer piratical bubble-ponzi SLOTH AND ROBBERY to creating real wealth, real sustainable growth and the security needed for a comfortable and healthily consuming consumer class...

    i'm so goddamned sick of ideologies and the halfwit tools who serve them. sickening, stupid, little minds...

    but bound and determined to prove themselves right regardless of observable reality and the terrible consequences of their stupid ideologies...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/23/2009 @ 12:56pm

74. True. No one hates capitalism more than a capitalist. And then put TWO of them together, as soon as the cigars are lit, their first discussion is how they can conspire to control the wholesale and consumer markets, maximize profit and eliminate competition.

    The proper role of government is to prevent capitalists from their human nature drive to corruption. You know, that cool checks and balances idea we're supposed to see in government applying to the market too.

    Except unfortunately, our politicians constitute that second capitalism hating capitalist in the room.

    Until that changes, we as both citizens and consumers will see our freedoms erode.

    Serf's up!

    Posted by freiheit1 at 11/23/2009 @ 1:18pm

75. Posted by YourJomamma at 11/23/2009 @ 12:30pm

    Not talking about 2006, John....2008. The Dems had Congress a year ago, July....remember?

    and Scotty Rasmussen was out there telling you (and us) that they had "single digit approval...lowest in years...9%".

    Yet just 4 months later....Pelosi still Speaker, Reid still Majority Leader.

    What happened? We ALL KNOW Rasmussen can't be wrong...so it must be some kind of ACORN trick or something, right???

    Posted by Mask at 11/23/2009 @ 1:29pm

76. Isn't debating poll results always a waste of time? Oh wait, it's Mask posting. That explains it. Never mind.

    Posted by freiheit1 at 11/23/2009 @ 1:33pm

77. Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/23/2009 @ 12:56pm

    Neither business nor govt should be involved in the healthcare offered to individuals and families.

    Posted by antisocialist at 11/23/2009 @ 1:34pm

78. EVERYONE...tells us in no uncertain terms that to do so spells death for a small start-up firm like ours...

    how can american business be expected to compete when....we insist on saddling business with onerous, costly, time consuming bullshit that EVERY OTHER ADVANCED SOCIETY PROVIDES THROUGH THE PUBLIC SECTOR!!!!

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/23/2009 @ 12:56pm

    ibble,

    I think in all seriousness and a desire to see your venture succeeds, even with Gubber subsidies which I oppose in almost ALL cases, I think you need some serious attitude adjustment, or, at the very least, suspend your objections to (your) perceived flaws of our system.

    It should be very, very clear to you, American businesses have competed very well in its history. I seriously doubt when IBM or Dell were founded, they provided HC to their first employees.

    For you to already adopt the mindset of a medium or large business, able to handle higher employee overhead while also offset that added cost with economy of scale (marketing, admin./payroll, purchasing, etc.), and feeling guilty or pissed off that you can't afford to, is a huge alarm bell to me....and quite possibly, your business partner.

    As a startup, your ONLY job is to make sure it survives the first 2~3 years and fet its infrastructure in shape for growth. As you grow and perhaps proper, market conditions will essentially tells you whether you need, or must, provide HC.

    You need to lighten up on capitalism's uglier (but quite necessary) side and get your head straight. You are about to embark on the most thrilling ride of your life...something not many teachers will EVER DO....but, it's a war out there and real money (even not yours) and real personal efforts will be on the line.

    Be warned, your competitor/enemies will show no mercy!

    Posted by Happy at 11/23/2009 @ 2:21pm

79. Remember, ibble, ONLY if you are successful in taking care of Job ONE, that's yourself and your partner, will you ever have the opportunity to treat your employees with a heavy dose of paternalism.

    There is an excellent article on how the current HC Bills are yet again, another generational theft of the young for the benefit of the old.....as the young will have to purchase insurance in order to subsidize the old whose insurance, under the Senate Bill pending debate, is capped at no more than twice that of the young even though they consume 4~5 times in HC than the young.

    I mention this with the thought that possibly, your first employees will be young while your partner & yourself could be the only admin./managerial staff.

    Posted by Happy at 11/23/2009 @ 2:29pm

80. For any reader under 40, why are you allowing Magic to do this?

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/11 /23/the_assault_on_the_young_contd_99244.html

    November 23, 2009

    The Assault on the Young (Cont.)

    By Robert Samuelson

    Posted by Happy at 11/23/2009 @ 2:32pm

81. LOL! You're talking so much nonsense!

    The Repubs have been wanting the govt. to run "like a business" for how long now? You know, along the pretty easy concept of taking in more than you pay out?

    You are a Clear and Present Danger to common sense.....and I'm glad....ROTFLMAO!

    Posted by Happy at 11/22/2009 @ 11:55am

    Running gov't like a business is the LAST thing that should happen; it would simply invite even more corruption than we already have (on BOTH sides of the aisle). Also, there is no profit motive in running gov't like a business, because the purpose of gov't is to implement laws and policies that benefit all citizens; the purpose of business is to raise shareholder's stock prices and serve their customers.

    We are already a nation of consumers instead of producers. We need to get back to producing instead of consuming; Reagan started the consuming craze (ME, ME, ME is absolutely right!) and it's time that we turned back to being a country of "WE WE WE."

    Larry and Happy and the rest will call this "European Socialism," while I will simply call it "being a good neighbor" since after all, we are all in this together.

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/23/2009 @ 2:53pm

82. And so it came to pass that Landrieu walked onto the Senate floor midafternoon Saturday to announce her aye vote -- and to trumpet the financial "fix" she had arranged for Louisiana. "I am not going to be defensive," she declared. "And it's not a $100 million fix. It's a $300 million fix."

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/22/2009 @ 2:37pm

    Slinger, you do know that New Orleans has yet to be rebuilt and that Louisiana actually need that money that Reid offered, right? Have you been to New Orleans since Katrina? I have, twice...and it's pretty depressing, even after all these years.

    As for how it was done, that's how the Senate works, or didn't you know that? It's worked that way under Republicans and it works that way under Dems. Nothing actually new here, but yet you seem to think that something horrible happened.

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/23/2009 @ 2:58pm

83. Being the political animals that both Dodd and Lieberman are, I think we can expect both of them to be voting no for their own political survival.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/22/2009 @ 2:58pm

    Over 60% of the people of Connecticut support a public option. If Dodd and Lieberman vote for the bill with a public option, they will be doing the will of their constituents, but you have no answer to that, do you?

    If they are so worried about being reelected, don't you think doing what the majority of their voters want is a good idea?

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/23/2009 @ 3:01pm

84. Posted by Happy at 11/23/2009 @ 2:21pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    thanks, hap. don't worry...we both decided that health insurance is not doable.

    researching competition right now, in fact. yup, its rough...that's life.

    your observations about the historic success of american business are spot on - but...

    our competition has changed and evolved. we cannot ignore these changes and trust that all the old ways will continue to lead to success.

    the romans and every other failed success story went there too...

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

    as a matter of fact, several of our initial employees will be old farts with lots of experience in business and the technological side of things...

    in fact we will probably initially be about 50% young, hungry, go-getters, 40% experienced old farts with one last umph in 'em, and my partner and myself.

    but when yer right, yer right, hap. thanks.

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/23/2009 @ 3:03pm

85. And so it came to pass that Landrieu walked onto the Senate floor midafternoon Saturday to announce her aye vote -- and to trumpet the financial "fix" she had arranged for Louisiana. "I am not going to be defensive," she declared. "And it's not a $100 million fix. It's a $300 million fix."

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/22/2009 @ 2:37pm

    Slinger, you do know that New Orleans has yet to be rebuilt and that Louisiana actually need that money that Reid offered, right? Have you been to New Orleans since Katrina? I have, twice...and it's pretty depressing, even after all these years.

    As for how it was done, that's how the Senate works, or didn't you know that? It's worked that way under Republicans and it works that way under Dems. Nothing actually new here, but yet you seem to think that something horrible happened.

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/23/2009 @ 2:58pm

    Nonsense. The billions sent to NO were sqaundered on conflicting regulations and 200 years of corrupt Dem politics down there..

    What we have just whitnessed is the..

    "Second Louisiana Purchase"...

    only this time the tax payers got screwed.

    Again.,

    Posted by YourJomamma at 11/23/2009 @ 3:08pm

86. What happened? We ALL KNOW Rasmussen can't be wrong...so it must be some kind of ACORN trick or something, right???

    Posted by Mask at 11/23/2009 @ 1:29pm

    9% or 29%...for congress

    its a race to the bottom. The only poll that really matters is election day.

    But even as only a reflection of the past or a trend...it doesn't look good for the collectivists in Washington, or here.

    Posted by YourJomamma at 11/23/2009 @ 3:10pm

87. Posted by Happy at 11/23/2009 @ 2:29pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    furthermore, HAP, let me say this about myself...

    my urge to save the world and my frustrations at my inability to do so all by myself right away...

    i work out largely by spewing my bizarre rants at places such as this...

    my partner, a technical genius, should follow my example, i think...he gets too easily involved in grand schemes, crusading struggles to perfect the world and eradicate evil, and though i admire the fire and combative dedication to justice and decency and all...

    well...

    some men are best sent far afield and left alone to do what they do best with minimal distractions from an imperfect and imperfect-able world...

    while others try to navigate through it and take out their frustrations in places it will not rebound with disastrous consequences...lol...

    don't confuse my mighty roar here with how i deal with the world...i got it.

    and again, thanks for the advise.

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/23/2009 @ 3:17pm

88. advice

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/23/2009 @ 3:18pm

89. "The only poll that really matters is election day.

    But even as only a reflection of the past or a trend...it doesn't look good for the collectivists in Washington, or here."----Posted by YourJomamma at 11/23/2009 @ 3:10pm

    So they "don't matter"...except when they sound good to you?...Gotcha.

    BTW, that 9% to 29%...that's from July LAST YEAR to TODAY.

    What's the trend-line on that, John???

    Posted by Mask at 11/23/2009 @ 3:26pm

90. Larry and Happy and the rest will call this "European Socialism," while I will simply call it "being a good neighbor" since after all, we are all in this together.

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/23/2009 @ 2:53pm

    you have nothing to do with my choices on taking care of my health. And I have nothing to do with your choices.

    It is not an issue that applies to some "we are all in this together".

    Posted by antisocialist at 11/23/2009 @ 4:06pm

91. Nonsense. The billions sent to NO were sqaundered on conflicting regulations and 200 years of corrupt Dem politics down there..

    What we have just whitnessed is the..

    "Second Louisiana Purchase"...

    only this time the tax payers got screwed.

    Again.,

    Posted by YourJomamma at 11/23/2009 @ 3:08pm

    Do you even know how many "billions" were sent to New Orleans? Please enlighten us....

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/23/2009 @ 4:07pm

92. I agree with gunslinger. Cold day in hell. We should hasten it's approach. Can't negotiate drug prices. No real public option. The watered down version now on the table is so mutilated it should be killed altogether. Not a game changer? Game changer. I don't think this bill will be passed but if it is it will set health care policy in stone for the next 30 years. We'll all be screwed while a few people get very wealthy.

    Posted by jazzis4u at 11/23/2009 @ 4:16pm

93. you have nothing to do with my choices on taking care of my health. And I have nothing to do with your choices.

    It is not an issue that applies to some "we are all in this together".

    Posted by antisocialist at 11/23/2009 @ 4:06pm

    Larry, my post was not about health care; it was about becoming a nation of producers instead of consumers.

    I don't THINK you have an argument with THAT idea, do you?

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/23/2009 @ 4:21pm

94. gunslinger1,

    Up above, you asked the libs:

    "......What is this obsession that you liberals have with Sarah Palin. It's getting nauseating....."

    We on the political right will have to stock up on plenty of Maalox or Tums or Rolaids or other anti-nausea medicine, you betcha, because the lib obsession has only begun and will continue in full force for the next 11 or so years.

    (3 years until the next Presidential election and 8 years of her Presidency).

    After that it will settle down to an occasional swipe or dig such as the left still does to Ronald Reagan years after his Presidency, so after 2021 liberals will have to look for a new Conservative to mock and condemn and crucify.

    I had thought that the left's angst about George W. Bush was unprecedented and unique, but I guess it was just par for the course.

    Posted by sjchermak at 11/23/2009 @ 4:22pm

95. "......What is this obsession that you liberals have with Sarah Palin. It's getting nauseating....."

    SJ, its like the gift that never stops giving! she's a joke AND represents all the most reprehensible and irritating traits and ideological non sequiturs imaginable in the modern american fringe right...

    AND she comes scarily close to the way LOTS of folks thought prior to the failure of that ideology...

    PLUS, she's being currently backed, packaged, and sold to the american public by precisely the same ideologized buzillionaires who engineered the "conservative" take-over of the country for the last four decades...

    she's an empty pants suit and tool. and not very bright, nor articulate. did we not get enough of that for 8 years?

    so fantasize all you want about boffin her while yer waxing the carrot, but see her for what she is...

    which is no plus for your side - just the opposite.

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/23/2009 @ 4:39pm

96. So they "don't matter"...except when they sound good to you?...Gotcha.

    BTW, that 9% to 29%...that's from July LAST YEAR to TODAY.

    What's the trend-line on that, John???

    Posted by Mask at 11/23/2009 @ 3:26pm

    Gotcha? Who..Bushfools who disappears when polling swings down?

    The only polls that matter on election day.

    Even you have to admit Obama is dropping. Whether or not I like the polls or if I predicted Hillary the nomineee..doesn't matter except election day..does it not?

    Posted by YourJomamma at 11/23/2009 @ 4:45pm

97. Even you have to admit Obama is dropping. Whether or not I like the polls or if I predicted Hillary the nomineee..doesn't matter except election day..does it not?

    Posted by YourJomamma at 11/23/2009 @ 4:45pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    yup. big O's numbers look a lot like reagan's and clinton's at this point in their presidencies...

    so...don't really mean much whether you are a righty wishing ill or a lefty fearing your own shadow...

    when yer right, yer right...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/23/2009 @ 4:48pm

98. so...don't really mean much whether you are a righty wishing ill or a lefty fearing your own shadow...

    when yer right, yer right...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/23/2009 @ 4:48pm

    So, what will they say(all the theys) when instead of the country raising into a renewed prosperity, it sinks further in the tank...will they blame Obama, or Bush...

    Reagan changed the course of the country profoundly and the economy wxploded in growth. You had to be asleep at the wheel or an ikidiot not to get in on the rising tide that lifted all boats,.... and Clinton really followed and received the benefits...but Bush(both) altered the course as they never believed in Reagans views...and Obama is Bush times 10...and we are crashing by design now.

    Posted by YourJomamma at 11/23/2009 @ 5:02pm

99. Do you even know how many "billions" were sent to New Orleans? Please enlighten us....

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/23/2009 @ 4:07pm

    Yes. And have spent considerable time there..a friend lives on Lake Ponchatrain.

    But here is a link for you to help.

    http://www.fema.gov/news/newsrelease.fema?id=49383

    Posted by YourJomamma at 11/23/2009 @ 5:13pm

100. Posted by YourJomamma at 11/23/2009 @ 5:02pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     if and if and if...we shall see. i think the slide has been halted now...barely...

     but again, look at reagan's first term...

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/23/2009 @ 5:18pm

101. but again, look at reagan's first term...

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/23/2009 @ 5:18pm

     But Reagans policys were designed to grow the economy on the private side, create the conditions that fosters growth in the private sector to create more jobs and did just that...the Obama policies can't possibly grow the private sector..and won't....it sucks out all the private money and grows govt instead.

     Posted by YourJomamma at 11/23/2009 @ 5:26pm

102. But here is a link for you to help.

     http://www.fema.gov/news/newsrelease.fema?id=49383

     Posted by YourJomamma at 11/23/2009 @ 5:13pm

     YJ, how stupid do you think I am? Even I, stupid liberal that I am) know that New Orleans is not in Mississippi.

     Try again with another link, sweetie pie.

     BTW, nice to know so many FEMA dollars went to Mississippi, home of Haley Barbour, the Republican governor.

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/23/2009 @ 5:42pm

103. You liberal/socialists need to keep pushing your socialized medicine plan. The Republicans need 25 seats to take over the House and 5 to take over the Senate, and they need all the help they can get. Push harder! Don't worry about public opinion!

     Health Care Reform Support for Health Care Plan Falls to New Low Monday, November 23, 2009 Email a Friend Email to a Friend ShareThis Advertisement

     Just 38% of voters now favor the health care plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats. That's the lowest level of support measured for the plan in nearly two dozen tracking polls conducted since June.

     The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 56% now oppose the plan.

     Half the survey was conducted before the Senate voted late Saturday to begin debate on its version of the legislation. Support for the plan was slightly lower in the half of the survey conducted after the Senate vote.

     Prior to this, support for the plan had never fallen below 41%. Last week, support for the plan was at 47%. Two weeks ago, the effort was supported by 45% of voters.

     Intensity remains stronger among those who oppose the push to change the nation's health care system: 21% Strongly Favor the plan while 43% are Strongly Opposed.

     Rasmussen Reports is continuing to track public opinion on the health care plan on a weekly basis. Next week's Monday morning update will give an indication of whether these numbers reflect a trend of growing opposition or are merely statistical noise.

     Posted by pontificus at 11/23/2009 @ 6:39pm

104. Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/23/2009 @ 4:39pm

     The eruption of fear, loathing, hate, and venom directed by the left towards Sarah Palin is very reminiscent of that directed towards Ronald Reagan. It's a very good sign indeed, for her, and for the country she will probably lead starting 2012. Despite the nearly unanimous propaganda issuing forth from the liberal-controlled MSM, her popularity is now at 43 percent, and is trending higher; it will probably eclipse Obama's downward trending popularity (current 47-48 percent), with the help of a few months more of his socialist policy-pushing and big spending. No wonder you folks are so unhinged about her! I'd be scared too!

     It'll be nice to have someone a little more qualified than Obama as President! However, I have to give kudos to the left and their mouthpieces in the MSM for convincing a majority of Americans that Palin is unqualified to be President - and then getting people to vote for someone even more unqualified, Barack Obama! That was quite a feat!

     Posted by pontificus at 11/23/2009 @ 6:56pm

105. Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/23/2009 @ 5:42pm

     Congress passed several bills.

     The first was a 10.5 billion aid to all Katrina affected areas.

     http://tinyurl.com/ylh7x77

     the next was a 7.5 billion homeowner aid bill to Louisiana citizens

     http://tinyurl.com/y8t36nm

     And this

     $14.7 billion in improvements to levees and drainage and other storm protection measures.

     http://tinyurl.com/yb5op3n

     Posted by antisocialist at 11/23/2009 @ 7:24pm

106. "WOW! You are a fast reader!

     Or just not a "details" guy?" _

     Huh? Thanks for the post, idiot.

     Posted by kirquaker at 11/23/2009 @ 10:40pm

107. It'll be nice to have someone a little more qualified than Obama as President! However, I have to give kudos to the left and their mouthpieces in the MSM for convincing a majority of Americans that Palin is unqualified to be President - and then getting people to vote for someone even more unqualified, Barack Obama! That was quite a feat!

     Posted by pontificus at 11/23/2009 @ 6:56pm

     What are these mythical qualifications for President that Sarah Palin has? And since she already has them, why didn't her team win the White House last year?

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/24/2009 @ 12:33am

108. Posted by antisocialist at 11/23/2009 @ 7:24pm

     Yes, Congress passed lots of bills. How much of that money was actually spent in New Orleans?

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/24/2009 @ 12:35am

109. Sir: Your vitriolic article is also vicious and extremely vindictive!

     The duty, professionalism and responsibility of a journalist are to report the NEWS with impartiality.

     You have failed all those qualities. You sound like an eviscerated Democrat.

     Please change job or go back to a journalistic school.

     Regards, Robert Rosati, Los Angeles, CA

     Posted by siculus at 11/24/2009 @ 12:52am

110. Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/24/2009 @ 12:33am

     "What are these mythical qualifications for President that Sarah Palin has? And since she already has them, why didn't her team win the White House last year?"

     The 'Sarah Palin is unqualified' meme you liberals pushed in the last election is one of the great brainwashing scams ever put over on the American people. Sarah Palin is more qualified than Obama to be President, my friend. Obama is perhaps the least qualified person ever elected to the Presidency, and we learn every day why his lack of experience in, well, practially ANYTHING is an absolute disaster for this country. And still, you repeat, with a straight face, that Palin is unqualified? What kind of drugs are you taking?

     Posted by pontificus at 11/24/2009 @ 03:41am

111. Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/24/2009 @ 12:33am

     "And since she already has them, why didn't her team win the White House last year?"

     Obviously, there were many people like yourself who voted for Obama regardless of the fact that he was less experienced than Sarah Palin, thus demonstrating that experience doesn't really matter at all when it comes to liberals evaluating their own candidates.

     Posted by pontificus at 11/24/2009 @ 03:51am

112. John Nichols wrote:

     "The death panelist-in-chief rallied her followers to "KILL THE BILL.""

     So now, according to Nichols, Sarah Palin herself is the 'death panelist-in-chief', because she opposes the socialized medicine the Dems are pushing? I think the left's delusions are starting to border on the clinical. Nichols' statement reminds me of Seinfeld's David Putty "Greasemonkey? I'll tell you who's the greasemonkey! YOU"RE THE GREASEMONKEY!!!" lol

     Nichols, you're not even making sense. Which, of course, matters not a whit to the average Nation reader. It's a shared delusion. Along with the idea that Sarah Palin is unqualified - but Obama is?

     Posted by pontificus at 11/24/2009 @ 04:03am

113. <i>Posted by pontificus at 11/23/2009 @ 6:56pm </i>

     I'm sorry. Sarah Palin is nowhere near Reagan's league.

     Posted by Thrawn at 11/24/2009 @ 04:45am

114. Posted by Thrawn at 11/24/2009 @ 04:45am

     "I'm sorry. Sarah Palin is nowhere near Reagan's league."

     Yet.

     And if a nobody know-nothing like Obama with no credentials can be elected, surely Sarah Palin can. She's the antithesis - and hopefully the antidote.

     Posted by pontificus at 11/24/2009 @ 05:20am

115. Ponti-your laughable theory of experience makes me laugh.I know you like the attractive ex governor.Now she is an accomplished writer of mush. Next she will be an accomplished historian and naturalist. Go shriek at someone else you fool. You have plenty of good righty blogs to rub your hands in glee and post on.Go think about the term light weight. Then go to the mirror and see yourself holding Sarah's book and wow there is a pair of them.

     Posted by whatozz at 11/24/2009 @ 05:28am

116. Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/23/2009 @ 12:56pm

     Glad to hear that you are going entrepreneurial!

     Has to make the Nation cons go bzzzttt on many levels. Don't you know that the long term answer to our energy problems is to drill baby drill!!!

     ------

     Serf's up!

     Posted by freiheit1 at 11/23/2009 @ 1:18pm

     LMAO!!!

     ---------

     Neither business nor govt should be involved in the healthcare offered to individuals and families.

     Posted by antisocialist at 11/23/2009 @ 1:34pm

     So, it should be delivered for free by...whom? Your liberalism has been peeking out from the hemorrhoid lately.

     ----

     and Obama is Bush times 10...and we are crashing by design now.

     Posted by YourJomamma at 11/23/2009 @ 5:02pm

     Is that Bush "One of the Ten Greatest Presidents ever"?

     10 to the 10th?

     Wonder what "Obie" had to do with credit default swaps and the next Implosion... private equity companies over extending their extreme capitalism.

     Please explain how ACORN and Obama created the next financial crisis created by the likes of Cerebus and the Carlyle Group.

     Who are some of the names associated with these companies, though hardly responsible for them?......

     George Bush

     Dan Quayle

     Goldman Sachs

     Bear Stearns

     I do not see ACORN listed under any company literature, do you John?

     Posted by crabwalk at 11/24/2009 @ 07:03am

117. Posted by pontificus at 11/24/2009 @ 05:20am

     HEY ponti!!

     Another democratic Witch Hunt is under way...

     SC gov Sanford is being prodded with pitchforks from demons...

     "The four Republicans who co-sponsored the measure contend he was derelict in his duty and wrong to mislead staffers into thinking he was hiking the Appalachian Trail."

     Or is this in line with Palins whining... darn ethics panels, worse than DEATH PANELS!!

     I am still waiting for the description of how the latest HC bill is a "government takeover". Seems like if you clowns are going to make statements like this, and follow Sarah, you would have a quick answer to this simple question.

     Also waiting for some policy statements form Lipstick, why don't you clue me in Ponti...what would Sarah do with China? Would she send Todd, or God?

     Posted by crabwalk at 11/24/2009 @ 07:07am

118. SJ, snatauri and ponti...

     please view the Oprah interviews with Palin and Jenna Jameson...then tell us, honestly, which of the two you think is the more intelligent.

     Posted by crabwalk at 11/24/2009 @ 07:09am

119. Posted by pontificus at 11/23/2009 @ 6:39pm

     As noted to Maasch, Ponti....that's the same Rasmussen that put Congressional job approval for the Democratic Congress at nine percent (9%)....

     in July 2008....

     Did we get "Speaker John Boehner" in November 2008????

     Posted by Mask at 11/24/2009 @ 08:00am

120. Posted by Mask at 11/24/2009 @ 08:00am

     Hey MASK, when I saw this in an article on the recently exposed GRU Global Warming fraud, I thought of you and your habitual method of reasoning - read on as to why:

     "In response to an article challenging global warming that was published in the journal Climate Research, CRU head Phil Jones complains that the journal needs to "rid themselves of this troublesome editor"-hopefully not through the same means used by Henry II's knights. Michael Mann replies:

     I think we have to stop considering "Climate Research" as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal.

     Note the circular logic employed here. Skepticism about global warming is wrong because it is not supported by scientific articles in "legitimate peer-reviewed journals." But if a journal actually publishes such an article, then it is by definition not "legitimate.""

     See how the global warming hysterics say 'of course I'm open to reasoned debate - from legitimate sources' - but then they say, 'of course, anyone who disagrees with me is not legitimate'. Just like you! Isn't that special?

     Posted by pontificus at 11/24/2009 @ 10:02am

121. Posted by crabwalk at 11/24/2009 @ 07:07am

     As usual, CRABBIE, (and just like MASK), your posts tell more about yourself than they do about your purported targets. You assume, for example, that despite his lies I support Sanford just because he's a Republican? Wrong. I think the guy's obviously a liar in the Clinton mold. You're projecting your partisanship on me, I think.

     Posted by pontificus at 11/24/2009 @ 10:08am

122. Posted by Mask at 11/24/2009 @ 08:00am

     Typical shoot the messenger from you, MASK. Gallup is not far behind Rasmussen - just wait.

     What are you going to say now? 'Of course I'm open to any data which contradicts my worldview - as long as I can believe the source. And of course, no legitimate source - which Rasmussen obviously is not - would ever contradict my worldview."

     Sweet.

     Posted by pontificus at 11/24/2009 @ 10:12am

123. Know the alliances created. Are we ever going to get anyone in the insurance companies executed or put in jail for life for the trail of death and broken lives their premeditated negligence for profit establish:

     http://tinyurl.com/yfm9f4q

     Most likely not if health insurance/multinational corporations, once again beat down 'We the People'.

     And all because a few worms like burrowing in the remains of others.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 11/24/2009 @ 10:48am

124. Posted by pontificus at 11/24/2009 @ 10:08am

     Actually Ponti it is you that project. I never assumed you were for Sanford, I just assumed that because 4 republicans co-signed that YOU would call it a "democratic witch hunt". I did this based on your history of doing just that. Was that wrong of me?

     Posted by crabwalk at 11/24/2009 @ 11:05am

125. Posted by hsuBfools at 11/24/2009 @ 10:48am

     Geez SHUB, bitter much? Did it ever occur to you that more people do and would die under shoddy government-managed health care than they do and would under government-regulated private enterprise?

     Posted by pontificus at 11/24/2009 @ 11:08am

126. Posted by crabwalk at 11/24/2009 @ 11:05am

     "Actually Ponti it is you that project. I never assumed you were for Sanford, I just assumed that because 4 republicans co-signed that YOU would call it a "democratic witch hunt". I did this based on your history of doing just that. Was that wrong of me?"

     Let's put it this way, CRABBIE. If you ever get anything right, I'll let you know.

     Posted by pontificus at 11/24/2009 @ 11:10am

127. So Ponti, I also need some help with the explanation of why Reagans tax cuts brought us Clintons economy, but Bush's tax cuts are not bringing us business investment and job creation.

     ACORN?

     And, again, where is the "government takeover" of health care in the senate bill? Honestly, I have not read the bill, but I assume you, Sarah and FREIHEIT have, as you are warning us to beware such a takeover.

     Posted by crabwalk at 11/24/2009 @ 11:12am

128. Gold up another seven soon-to-be-worthless dollars today. Hope and Change! That's pretty much all we'll have left, soon. Blind hope and change in our pockets.

     Gee, who would have thought that doubling the national debt in one year, printing hundreds of billions of dollars, and spending like there's no tomorrow would fail to inspire worldwide confidence in the US dollar?

     Oh, well, lots of us did. Just no-one who voted for Obama, I guess.

     Posted by pontificus at 11/24/2009 @ 11:13am

129. Posted by pontificus at 11/24/2009 @ 11:10am

     So, the republican run examination of the Plame debacle was a "democratic witch hunt", but the republican ethics investigation of Sanford is not?

     Just want to make sure I have this down.

     Posted by crabwalk at 11/24/2009 @ 11:14am

130. Posted by crabwalk at 11/24/2009 @ 11:12am

     "And, again, where is the "government takeover" of health care in the senate bill? Honestly, I have not read the bill, but I assume you, Sarah and FREIHEIT have, as you are warning us to beware such a takeover."

     Sorry, CRABBIE, I only reason with reasonable people. I've learned that you can't reason someone out of something that they weren't reasoned into to begin with. That leaves you out. Post something amusing, however, and I might respond, just for fun.

     Posted by pontificus at 11/24/2009 @ 11:16am

131. We on the political right will have to stock up on plenty of Maalox or Tums or Rolaids or other anti-nausea medicine, you betcha, because the lib obsession has only begun and will continue in full force for the next 11 or so years.

     --the hilary clinton obsession on the right for the past almost 20 years so far exceeds any attention palin will ever dream of getting.

     Posted by urmygyro at 11/24/2009 @ 11:17am

132. I may also need help with this "ponti-f-logic"

     One reason mistreatment of prisoners is OK by the neo-cons is that it does not rise to the level of Saddams practices, or: "We are not quite as bad as Saddam."

     With

     Obama is unqualified to be president, Sarah is as qualified as Obama, therefore it is appropriate for people to follow her, or: "It is OK to follow somebody as bad or unqualified as the person the neo-cons despise"

     Whats up with this logic? Core values? I thought liberals were mentally diseased and one would think ya'll would set higher standards than us handicapped folk. Or, is it that as long as you can slide an electron between the two ethical questions/candidates then ergo; yours is clearly the superior position/candidate?

     Posted by crabwalk at 11/24/2009 @ 11:20am

133. Posted by pontificus at 11/24/2009 @ 11:16am

     So, as usual, having NOTHING with which to back your claims, you take the honorable way out, you cut and run!!!

     You have me stymied, that's for sure. Socrated into a corner, with nowhere for me to go.

     Just like your links to Palins position on Chinese devaluation of their currency and what should be done to combat it. Stymied!

     DRAT! Those darn meddling kids!

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

     --the hilary clinton obsession on the right for the past almost 20 years so far exceeds any attention palin will ever dream of getting.

     Posted by urmygyro at 11/24/2009 @ 11:17am

     Completely different, just ask Ponti.

     Hillary killed Vince Foster. So far, no bodies have been found that are linked to Palin. Dead fish yes, human bodies...not so many.

     Posted by crabwalk at 11/24/2009 @ 11:27am

134. Posted by pontificus at 11/24/2009 @ 10:02am

     Ponti, what is the REPUBLICAN PARTY's official position on the reality of Global Warming?

     Posted by pontificus at 11/24/2009 @ 10:12am

     No, no messenger shooting. Merely pointing out that Rasmussen tends to "bend" his poll results a little askew from reality....like his "9% approval" poll back in July 2008, and the PICK-UP of seats by Democrats in November 2008...

     or his "McCain gains the lead in Mississippi" polls during last year's election. (as if McCain was somehow in danger of losing MS). Rasmussen is THE "go-to" pollster for Rush, Drudge, etc.....even more so than Fox News/Opinion Dynamics or yes, even Gallup.

     Doesn't that ever make you ...curious????

     Posted by Mask at 11/24/2009 @ 11:27am

135. Does anyone know what happened to Reagans Big Tent?

     Was it sold to our new ally in the Middle East?

     http://tinyurl.com/yld2eho

     Posted by crabwalk at 11/24/2009 @ 11:43am

136. You gotta love it. First Nancy Pelosi eekes out a two vote win over the DEMOCRATS and then Harry Reid gets exactly the 60 DEMOCRAT

     Posted by wredner at 11/24/2009 @ 11:45am

137. "Ponti, what is the REPUBLICAN PARTY's official position on the reality of Global Warming? "

     I don't speak for the Republican Party.

     However, what is very concerning to me is that the quesiton of whatever dangers there may be from global warming and any rational discussion of effects as well as reasonable remedies, if any are needed, are out the window at this point. The quesiton has clearly been hijacked by those with an agenda - by scientists seeking funding, by political movements (e.g., the left) allied with governments seeking additional tax revenues and power over individual choices, and individuals like Al Gore seeking to make a killing.

     Posted by pontificus at 11/24/2009 @ 11:47am

138. Posted by wredner at 11/24/2009 @ 11:45am

     "You gotta love it. First Nancy Pelosi eekes out a two vote win over the DEMOCRATS and then Harry Reid gets exactly the 60 DEMOCRAT"

     It's Obama's new bipartisanship. He's got his Party, and everyone else can go to hell. Hope and Change!

     Posted by pontificus at 11/24/2009 @ 11:49am

139. You gotta love it. First Nancy Pelosi eekes out a two vote win over the DEMOCRATS and then Harry Reid gets exactly the 60 DEMOCRAT votes he needs to be able to start to discuss the bill. Major victory declared (misson accomplished?) And this is the government that you want to provide our health care.

     The Democrats are like the old joke. Team A and Team B are playing football. The game is almost over and neither team has scored. Team A gets an idea. Team B is pretty stupid so we will blow a whistle, Team B will think the game is over and leave the field. We can then score and win the game. So Team A blows a whistle, Team B leaves the field, and three plays later Team A scores. Lets go DEMS!!!

     Posted by wredner at 11/24/2009 @ 11:50am

140. Does Ponti go out on Blustery Days?

     Hephalumps are known to meander on Blustery Days, tracks covered by nasty storm clouds.

     Posted by crabwalk at 11/24/2009 @ 11:51am

141. Posted by pontificus at 11/24/2009 @ 11:49am

     What exactly are the GOP's plans to bring affordable health care to people?

     And, why didn't they institute those plans while in power for 6 years?

     ACORN?

     Barnie Frank?

     Busy winning two wars?

     Stymie me, brother!

     Posted by crabwalk at 11/24/2009 @ 11:54am

142. Hint: few want "the government to provide health care".

     What many want, and see in action worldwide, is for the govt to collect the money and distribute it to those that DO provide the actual care. By removing the insurance company bureaucrats we may save up to 28%.

     Like Sweden, Japan, Germany (quasi private/public), which of course are places similar to Cuba!!

     Posted by crabwalk at 11/24/2009 @ 11:57am

143. What many want, and see in action worldwide, is for the govt to collect the money and distribute it to those that DO provide the actual care. By removing the insurance company bureaucrats we may save up to 28%.

     Posted by crabwalk at 11/24/2009 @ 11:57am

     More accurately...

     What many want, and see in action worldwide, is for the govt to collect the money and distribute it!

     No need to thank me!

     Posted by sntauri at 11/24/2009 @ 12:06pm

144. not worth arguing about anymore....another boondoggle spending bill that we cannot afford.

     "kill" the dems......no, make that "kill" congress...they are worthless human beings.

     Posted by brianm at 11/24/2009 @ 12:08pm

145. The 'Sarah Palin is unqualified' meme you liberals pushed in the last election is one of the great brainwashing scams ever put over on the American people. Sarah Palin is more qualified than Obama to be President, my friend. Obama is perhaps the least qualified person ever elected to the Presidency, and we learn every day why his lack of experience in, well, practially ANYTHING is an absolute disaster for this country. And still, you repeat, with a straight face, that Palin is unqualified? What kind of drugs are you taking?

     Posted by pontificus at 11/24/2009 @ 03:41am

     I didn't ask you why Obama is unqualified. I asked you a couple of questions which you didn't answer because you HAVE no answers: What are these mythical qualifications for President that Sarah Palin has? And since she already has them, why didn't her team win the White House last year?

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/24/2009 @ 12:19pm

146. Sorry, CRABBIE, I only reason with reasonable people. I've learned that you can't reason someone out of something that they weren't reasoned into to begin with. That leaves you out. Post something amusing, however, and I might respond, just for fun.

     Posted by pontificus at 11/24/2009 @ 11:16am

     Translation: pontificus can't refute crabwalk's logic.

     Posted by BlackFrancis at 11/24/2009 @ 12:31pm

147. You gotta love it. First Nancy Pelosi eekes out a two vote win over the DEMOCRATS and then Harry Reid gets exactly the 60 DEMOCRAT

     Posted by wredner at 11/24/2009 @ 11:45am

     That's called politics, my friend; that's exactly how the system works in Congress.

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/24/2009 @ 12:52pm

148. Posted by hsuBfools at 11/24/2009 @ 10:48am Did it ever occur to you that more people do and would die under shoddy government-managed health care Posted by pontificus at 11/24/2009 @ 11:08am

     New con worms pulling out the very same turds they rummage around in, is some feat! But a feat they perform as easily as they throw their own mothers and daughters, sons and fathers asunder-- for a shiny coin.

     There is proof corporate health insurers kill people for profit. There is no proof a public option, one that can be changed and regulated easier than the corporate strangle hold corporate health insurers currently have on our nation. And a wormy strangle hold it is.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 11/24/2009 @ 1:11pm

149. There is proof corporate health insurers kill people for profit. There is no proof a public option, one that can be changed and regulated easier than the corporate strangle hold corporate health insurers currently have on our nation. And a wormy strangle hold it is.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 11/24/2009 @ 1:11pm

     I think I love you! :-)

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/24/2009 @ 1:26pm

150. Add a .50 tax to every fast food order which exceeds 500 total calories. With the millions of those sold every day in America, that would help illuminate the issue, discourage the consumption a little, and toss billions of dollars into the kitty to finance health reform -- saw a cool site; Balkingpoints ; incredible satellite view of earth

     Posted by reg373 at 11/24/2009 @ 2:24pm

151. Posted by crabwalk at 11/24/2009 @ 11:54am

     "What exactly are the GOP's plans to bring affordable health care to people?"

     Well, we would start by NOT bankrupting the country.

     "And, why didn't they institute those plans while in power for 6 years?"

     Because you, and tens of millions of Gimmecrats like you, have been brainwashed into thinking that other people owe you a living.

     Posted by pontificus at 11/24/2009 @ 3:04pm

152. Too late Ponti, you guys already bankrupted us, remember?

     Posted by Denise29 at 11/24/2009 @ 3:19pm

153. It'll be nice to have someone a little more qualified than Obama as President!

     Posted by pontificus at 11/23/2009 @ 6:56pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     ponti...are you telling me that an empty pants suit, mushmouthed milf who could not even finish ONE LOUSY TERM as governor of one of the smallest pop states in the union, who appears to be possessed of perhaps an 8th grade reading level, who believes in excorcisms and was shadily associated with a political party which included seditious talk about leaving the union and forming the republic of john birch...

     IS MORE QUALIFIED TO BE PRESIDENT THAN BARACK OBAMA?!?!?!?!?!

     i'll not bother to list his accomplishments compared to her's...wiki "barack obama" yourself...

     or are you one of those moronic teabaggers who think he warnt borned heer, and is the manchurian candidate for the world liberal conspiracy???

     are you, ponti?

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/24/2009 @ 3:23pm

154. I am SHOCKED, SHOCKED, that those in Congress would play politics to push a bill forward.

     SHOCKED!

     Posted by schnellerheinz at 11/24/2009 @ 4:28pm

155. Too late Ponti, you guys already bankrupted us, remember?

     Posted by Denise29 at 11/24/2009 @ 3:19pm

     No, FDR and the Dems did that 64 years ago when they passed the Social Security Act and the New Deal

     Posted by antisocialist at 11/24/2009 @ 4:32pm

156. Yo, Ponti...you still haven't provided all those qualifications that Sarah Palin has to be President....nor have you answered my question regarding why, if she already has those qualifications, her team didn't win last year....

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/24/2009 @ 4:35pm

157. ...but yet, the Reagan fetishists will wax all nostalgic and stuff on how Ron so MASSIVELY trimmed back the size of guvmint, and fought off those nasty unions, and all that good stuff, which should, of course, make FDR's moment in ths sun, well, irrelevant in modern times...

     Posted by schnellerheinz at 11/24/2009 @ 4:36pm

158. ...unless, of course, there's more MYTH than REALITY to all that Reagan stuff.

     Posted by schnellerheinz at 11/24/2009 @ 4:38pm

159. No, FDR and the Dems did that 64 years ago when they passed the Social Security Act and the New Deal

     Posted by antisocialist at 11/24/2009 @ 4:32pm

     Larry, the Social Security Act and the entire New Deal were responses to the Depression, into which America was led by the Republicans policies, just like we were led into the current Recession by Republican policies.

     Social Security was intended to provide a way for our seniors to retire from work and not have to live in squalor, which is exactly what was happening across this great nation before Social Security became law.

     The New Deal lifted this country out of Depression, put millions of people to work, and helped build our (now failing) infrastructure.

     You are being intellectually dishonest (not surprisingly) if you somehow think that Republican policies would have done either of those things.

     Since Reagan, the ONLY solutions put forth by Republicans to fix our numerous problems are to cut taxes, cut taxes, cut taxes. Well, W and the Republican Congress did that...and look where we are now: the worst recession since the Depression, two unpaid for wars (going into hock because W didn't want to pay for his wars: he would rather have YOUR GRANDCHILDREN pay for his wars), a wrecked economy and millions jobless.

     Thanks Republicans!

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/24/2009 @ 4:42pm

160. Since Reagan, the ONLY solutions put forth by Republicans to fix our numerous problems are to cut taxes, cut taxes, cut taxes. Well, W and the Republican Congress did that...and look where we are now: the worst recession since the Depression, two unpaid for wars (going into hock because W didn't want to pay for his wars: he would rather have YOUR GRANDCHILDREN pay for his wars), a wrecked economy and millions jobless.

     Thanks Republicans!

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/24/2009 @ 4:42pm

     Imagine this is late Oct., 2010....and your above words w/slight modifications:

     Since Bush 43, the ONLY solutions put forth by Democrats to fix our numerous problems are to spend, spend, spend. Well, O and the Democratic Congress did that...and in just 2 years, wracked up as much deficits as Bush 43 did in 8 years, and look where we are now: the worst recession since the Depression, and now 3 years deep, two unpaid for wars (going into hock because O didn't want to pay for his wars: he would rather have YOUR GRANDCHILDREN pay for his wars), a wrecked economy and millions jobless.

     Thanks Democrats!

     Posted by Happy at 11/24/2009 @ 5:31pm

161. Ya, what Stephen_Carver says Anti!

     Posted by Denise29 at 11/24/2009 @ 6:01pm

162. Since Bush 43, the ONLY solutions put forth by Democrats to fix our numerous problems are to spend, spend, spend. Well, O and the Democratic Congress did that...and in just 2 years, wracked up as much deficits as Bush 43 did in 8 years, and look where we are now: the worst recession since the Depression, and now 3 years deep, two unpaid for wars (going into hock because O didn't want to pay for his wars: he would rather have YOUR GRANDCHILDREN pay for his wars), a wrecked economy and millions jobless.

     Thanks Democrats!

     Posted by Happy at 11/24/2009 @ 5:31pm

     Happy, did you know that just today someone in Congress (not sure who) came out with a plan to tax everyone to pay for the wars? Bet you Republicans won't like that, will you, even though both were started by a Republican.

     As for turning the economy around...I guess you would have preferred going into another Depression, instead of the recession brought on by W's policies. I also assume that you think an economy like ours (the largest in the world, can be turned around on a dime. Well, St. Reagan couldn't do it (it took a couple of years), and then ya'll complain about Obama's stimulus, and your main complaint was that it wouldn't do anything in less than two years. So, you acknolwdged even then that it would take a couple of years to get out of the hole your side made for our country.

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/24/2009 @ 6:06pm

163. Happy, did you know that just today someone in Congress (not sure who) came out with a plan to tax everyone to pay for the wars?

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/24/2009 @ 6:06pm

     I've got plans too! Plans are cheap.....I go through bunches of "plans" before anything real comes out of them, don't you?

     I've got plans to tour space, for one!

     Posted by Happy at 11/24/2009 @ 6:49pm

164. Well, St. Reagan couldn't do it (it took a couple of years),...

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/24/2009 @ 6:06pm

     Reagan's inherited mess was bigger in quite a few ways than what Magic stepped into.....the big one is Inflation! While you don't sound old enough to have first-hand experience but let's suppose you do.

     Anybody half-ass educated knew that it was going to take some time time to wring inflation out...those that didn't, drove Reagan's poll down. We knew his policies would succeed....and I'll betcha now, very, very few Obamabots have any confidence that by 2011, employment and the economy would be rip-roaring. Fess up if you think so....all that Hope and Change shouldn't be all wasted, should it?

     Posted by Happy at 11/24/2009 @ 6:56pm

165. Larry, the Social Security Act and the entire New Deal were responses to the Depression, into which America was led by the Republicans policies, just like we were led into the current Recession by Republican policies.

     The New Deal lifted this country out of Depression, put millions of people to work, and helped build our (now failing) infrastructure.

     You are being intellectually dishonest (not surprisingly) if you somehow think that Republican policies would have done either of those things.

     Since Reagan, the ONLY solutions put forth by Republicans to fix our numerous problems are to cut taxes, cut taxes, cut taxes. Well, W and the Republican Congress did that...and look where we are now: the worst recession since the Depression, two unpaid for wars (going into hock because W didn't want to pay for his wars: he would rather have YOUR GRANDCHILDREN pay for his wars), a wrecked economy and millions jobless.

     Thanks Republicans!

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/24/2009 @ 4:42pm

     Just spouting Democratic talking points doesn't make your statements true.

     Outline for me in a couple of bullet points what Republican policies created the Depression

     Here's a little help for you

     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression

     SS & the New Deal never took the US out of recession. The US did not exit the recession until the expenditures for WWII.

     Thanks to the Taxcuts of JFK, Reagan, and Bush, we have seen Federal Revenues GROW each time we have had tax cuts.

     As I've told you before, you leftists continue to lie about the effects of the wars on our debt.

     We have 40 Trillion in Medicare unfunded debt-none of it because of Iraq or Afghanistan.

     The two wars combined represent less than 2% of the US budget.

     Try another angle using facts

     Posted by antisocialist at 11/24/2009 @ 7:59pm

166. Posted by antisocialist at 11/24/2009 @ 7:59pm

     Hey anti-humanity fecal worm infested brain, logic this:

     During FY 2008, the federal government collected approximately $2.52 trillion in tax revenue.

     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget

     Added to the amount spent through 2008, it would mean the Iraq war will have cost taxpayers a total of about $694 billion. By comparison, the Vietnam War cost $686 billion in inflation-adjusted dollar...

     http://fairuse.100webcustomers.com/mayfaire/latimes0213.htm

     Isn't that an unpaid expenditure of about 35% of the money collected to actually pay for what our gov spends? Or is your worm worn mental state saying that the prostitutes in Nevada ranches and/or other small business entrepreneurs are secretly unbeknownst to anyone but you-- patriotically paying for the wars?

     Posted by hsuBfools at 11/24/2009 @ 11:09pm

167. More for the worms to squirm:

     "The GNP was 34% higher in 1936 than in 1932 and 58% higher in 1940 on the eve of war. That is, the economy grew 58% from 1932 to 1940 in 8 years of peacetime, and then grew 56% from 1940 to 1945 in 5 years of wartime."

     http://tinyurl.com/n8sgb5

     Posted by hsuBfools at 11/24/2009 @ 11:33pm

168. What if we had a war 'for' healthcare. By that I mean instead of training our youth to kill, hire, teach and train hundreds of thousands if not millions to heal-- doctors, nurses and physical trainers! Imagine hundreds of thousands of trainers knocking on doors across America asking 'out of shape' people to learn how to improve their health. Our public/political figures rah-rah-ing us into healthy productive/positive action. Trainers/health providers taking over neighborhoods/blocks, for group calisthenics, jogging/biking, yoga, tai chi, weights,...etc. Building community enthusiasm for truly living their lives. People outside playing and building productive lives for America!

     And totally counter to the new con worms and ticks wants and needs: profiteering from death and destruction.

     And in other words-- for our national health vs our and others death.

     Why is this not a preferable alternative (argument) for job creation to that to spending it on war?

     Why do people even listen to the lowly worms and blood sucking ticks?

     Posted by hsuBfools at 11/25/2009 @ 12:36am

169. Just a thought.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 11/25/2009 @ 12:45am

170. Posted by pontificus at 11/24/2009 @ 3:04pm

     So, again, you have nothing.

     The conservative repubs did in fact continue to bankrupt the country when they had both houses of congress and the Big House.

     Where was your outrage then? Bush almost doubled the national debt. As I recall, you defended him tooth and nail against "traitors" that would question him during war. What changed?

     What I cannot understand is; why pontificus cannot answer basic questions?

     He could not supply a single piece of evidence supporting his assertion that the Plame debacle was a demoncratic witch hunt, or that she was not covert. He cannot, or will not, produce a single piece of legislation proposed by republicans that would make our healthcare system better. He cannot, or will not, produce a list of Palins policy statements. I also eagerly await his explanation as to why the Bush tax cuts do not appear to be producing jobs, nothing forthcoming.

     However, he can claim to have won the argument.

     Posted by crabwalk at 11/25/2009 @ 07:35am

171. Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/22/2009 @ 2:42pm |

     Perhaps this would a good time to clarify your position. How exactly are you simultaneously supporting an extension of Medicare and Medicaid (government run healthcare programs) while opposing the creation a government health insurance program?

     Posted by nkurland at 11/25/2009 @ 10:19am