Random Thoughts for a Friday

Posted Friday, September 25, 2009, at 9:11 AM
View 30 comments
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. Please note that those who post comments on this website may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.
  • very nice mike, especially about the nfl being boring i am tired of watching players that don't care make millions to do so

    -- Posted by S&DC on Fri, Sep 25, 2009, at 9:51 AM
  • Reviewing Republican Senator Lamar Alexander's "LITTLE BOOK," granting it was produced as a presidential campaign piece, there is a huge amount of truth.

    Major legislation is getting to be too sweeping, carrying too much in a single package -- "Ten Pounds of Mud in a Five Pound Sack," as Dolly Parton describes some of her stage attire.

    When bills exceed 1,000 pages, no senator or representative can or will read the entire bill.

    Staff will be assigned 100-200 pages each to summarize and discuss with the boss in open meetings. That's the reality of practical offices.

    Alexander stresses progress on major issues can best be accomplished in steps, possibly two or three steps on things all sides can agree to.

    The only problem, when the Conservative GOP gets control, they will not allow "little steps" to reach the floor of either house on matters such as Health Care Reform.

    There are numerous areas where "little steps" starting in the 1970s would have relieved minor problems which have grown to be major disasters.

    Unfortunately, the only compromises came when the GOP was in the majority and everyone else had to compromise 90% to get anything accomplished.

    Then in joint conference committees, the 10% gain was dimished to a 2% gain.

    The counter is that when the Democrats have a filibuster proof majority, and they attempt to secure a bi-partisan package, there is no compromise from the conservative legislators.

    Our founding fathers established a brilliant governmental structure of three divisions, providing checks and balances, designed to produce centrist/moderate compromises.

    When any faction refuses to negotiate toward an honest compromise, it reduces the system to gridlock.

    Gridlock has existed for 100 years on universal health care. Republican and Democratic Presidents have sought to move the debate into action.

    The Republican presidents have most often found their support in Democratic ranks.

    Democratic presidents have consistently been labeled socialists and communists and worse by conservatives. The current situation simply includes more vitriolic and extremist attacks.

    The only option remaining for Democrats with a filibuster proof majority, is to write the strongest legislation which can be agreed to within their own ranks and pass it.

    This appears to be what is taking place now.

    Maybe, some day we will be able to learn how to debate civilly and achieve needed "small steps" compromise.

    -- Posted by HerndonHank on Fri, Sep 25, 2009, at 10:41 AM
  • *

    When I used the term figurative "head" that's exactly what I meant. I know that Michael Steele is the voted leader of the GOP, but frankly I see a lot more people listening and paying attention to what Beck and Limbaugh have to say over what Michael Steele has to say. I didn't miss anything. When Michael Steele called out Rush Limbaugh called out Rush, he almost immediately apologized as have several elected officials. No one apologizes to Michae Steele.

    I honestly believe the Republicans are upset because a Democrat was appointed and not a Republican. But they are ignoring their own party's exact same issue.

    When someone resigns or dies while in office and if someone is appointed to replace them before and election is held, the governor typically selects someone from his party. Both sides do it and for anyone Republican and Democratic to call out the other party for doing is hypocritical.

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Fri, Sep 25, 2009, at 11:51 AM
  • *

    Do you really consider 5 members of the Senate and at the most 20 members of House to be much of the DemocratIC Congress?

    In poll after poll, Americans overwhelmingly support the public option, yet in Congress public option is being held up by the Republican Party and what they call themselves as "Blue Dog" Democrats. It should come as no surprise that the "Blue Dog" Democrats pockets are lined with money from the health insurance companies.

    Something else to not, when the banks crashed last year I heard quite a few Republicans and ultra-Conservatices shouting to let them go bankrupt, let them go out of business. Now all of a sudden when the government is trying to give Americans a more affordable option to the price gouging Insurance companies, Republicans and ultra Conservatives are acting like the multi-billion dollar companies are going to bankrupt overnight.

    There's just an obvious gap in logic and it amazes me that people are standing up for people making millions of dollars a year off the backs of workers, cutting insurance on people, and price gouging.

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Fri, Sep 25, 2009, at 3:23 PM
  • *

    The comparisons between our proposed Health Care to Canada's and the UK's rings hollow since they are nothing alike. Having said that people are taken better and live longer in both Canada and the UK systems than in the United States.

    People who can't afford health insurance right now or are going bankrupt because of their health insurance already have nothing to loose.

    I think the argument that I've enjoyed most is those on Medicare or Medicaid demanding that the government keep their hand out of their health insurance. Who do they think runs those programs?

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Fri, Sep 25, 2009, at 6:21 PM
  • mike, where were you when the dems in massachusetts changed the rule because they were fearful a republican gov might appoint a republican IF j kerry won the election?

    -- Posted by doodle bug on Fri, Sep 25, 2009, at 7:23 PM
  • *

    doodle, I wasn't writing a blog at the time, so how could I have said anything. It's hypocritical, as I have said, for either party to complain about changing laws or appointing people from the same party to fill positions because both sides do it.

    I guess I'm not seeing what you are seeing Sceptre, because I haven't seen any secrecy towards this plan or any supposed gag orders. They have been working on this since before summer, and it is nearly impossible to keep anything this big a secret, especially since everything is posted on either the House (primarily) or the Senate websites.

    I want to know what the Republican plans are. All we've heard since the beginning is that they are opposed to the entire thing, but to date the only thing I've heard from the Republicans as a way to reform is working on the malpractice suits, which is a good start, but that only puts a really small band-aid on the problem.

    The Baucus bill, which was supposed to be a accumulating of Democratic and Republican ideas was absolutely panned on both sides.

    It reminds me of the stimulus package debate. In a committee, the Democrats made a deal with the Republicans and put 145 Republican Amendments on a bill. The Republicans then came right back and wanted to debate every single one of them. When the bill finally passed the committee with every single Republican Amendment in it, every Republican on the committee voted no on it.

    The statistics are plain as day. People live longer, are healthier, survive longer in the Canadian and British systems than in the American systems.

    With the public option, people who cannot afford health care and people wanting cheaper health care, would have the CHOICE to switch to or buy into the governments insurance plan. This would save taxpayers money. These are the people that wait until they are at their worst and then go to the emergency room, which comes out of everyone's pocket.

    If you like your plan that you have you don't have to take the option. It really is that simple.

    What I would really like to see with this debate, which is an absolute pipe dream, is to see both sides have an absolute honest debate. But because neither side is willing to do that, what we will end up getting, if anything is passed at all, is absolute crap. This is the greatest country in the world and we SHOULD have the greatest health care system in the world. But the fact remains, we don't.

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Sat, Sep 26, 2009, at 6:16 AM
  • *

    An interesting poll has just come out from CBS/NY Times. Now before anyone discredits the poll and declare that it is biased to favor Obama and the Democrats, take a look at the poll.

    55% polled don't believe Obama has explained his plans to change the health care system

    76% polled don't believe the Republicans have explained their plans.

    But the question to note was the question asking about the public option, or as they put it in the poll, a government-administered plan, like Medicare, to compete with private health insurance plans. 65% approve, 26% don't approve. That is overwhelming.


    There are several more questions that show that Americans are confused about what's going on in Congress, which isn't surprising. It also shows Americans are increasingly tiring of the war in Afghanistan and don't believe the military action in Afghanistan has changed the threat of terrorism, as 55% say that it has stayed the same, 27% say it has decreased, 17% say it has increased.

    By the way, Sceptre, could you provide me a link to the poll showing 56% of Americans not wanting health insurance as proposed by Obama?

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Sat, Sep 26, 2009, at 6:48 AM
  • *

    The cease and disist notice that went out to insurance companies is pretty well known Michael. Since I have not seen what was sent out, I can't say what exactly was in the letter sent by insurance companies, but the fact that the Obama administration felt it necessary to limit the "dialog" bothers me plenty. If the information sent out was blatently false, then I'd say Obama has a duty to inform people otherwise, but putting a clamp on insurance companies is a mistake. It would be more effective to make the insurance company look like liers than to shut them up. Would sure make people wonder what the truth really is. I still wonder...

    I also believe Obama is stalling the troop request for Afganistan as long as possible to keep the focus on health care... not necessarily a bad thing on one hand as this is the first time we've had a shot at some decent changes to health care. Not good for the troops fighting.

    Sceptre mentioned his benchmark for health insurance is his current plan. Not a bad place to benchmark as I think reasonable people would do the same. I did read an interesting statement about it... "... if you don't have health insurance or can't afford what you have, then it's a crisis".

    Even folks like Sceptre and me with good coverage have to remember how much costs can go up. I experienced a huge increase in costs when we moved to Nebraska because the same type coverage is not available in this area. Statistice show health costs up 83% in ten years, mine went up that much in one day... how long can we sustain that type of cost increase in this country?

    -- Posted by Brian Hoag on Sat, Sep 26, 2009, at 8:52 AM
  • *

    Sceptre, honestly, throughout the history of this country how many presidents have passed any kind of legislation that was meant to cover them as well? Why, all of a sudden is this a requirement for the Obama Whitehouse?

    To answer your question yes we would still have a problem with health care. We have a corrupt system place that raises coverage costs as they see fit, cancel insurance as they see fit, and set prices as they see fit. The education and morality of people is not in question here, it's the fat cats who continue to get rich off the back of Americans and are also a very powerful lobbying group.

    You also say that the government is not supposed to be a Nanny State. Do you then support getting rid of Medicare, Medicaid, and the VA?

    I will also say that I personally believe that your statement of Americans running scared from Obama is a little bit over the top.


    I have to be honest, as much as I have followed the news, I haven't heard a thing about the cease-and-disist order handed down by the Obama Administration. At the likelihood of being called a shill for the Obama Administration, if this has happened (again I haven't heard about but I'm not saying it hasn't happened) then it is long overdue. Some of the commercials I've seen sponsored by the insurance companies are just blatant lies and meant to scare older people, not inform.

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Sat, Sep 26, 2009, at 12:08 PM
  • *

    Having said all that, I will admit that I completely brain dead from the Healthcare debate and hope that something (whether passage or failure) comes soon so we can move on to something else.

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Sat, Sep 26, 2009, at 12:10 PM
  • mike, i know i havent been following all the debate closely enough. i would be interested in a link that has statistics showing the british and canadian citizens living longer and healthier than in the u.s. if you post it, i WILL read it.

    i appreciate that you admit there is also hypocrisy on the left side

    -- Posted by doodle bug on Sat, Sep 26, 2009, at 12:12 PM
  • *

    Michael - Here is a link about Humana's letter...


    DB - Here is a list of the US and each country that has a higher life expentancy... The first number is average, then men, then women. The world listed chart can be seen at... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy

    World average 67.2 65.0 69.5

    1 Japan 82.6 79.0 86.1

    2 Hong Kong ( PRC) 82.2 79.4 85.1

    3 Iceland 81.8 80.2 83.3

    4 Switzerland 81.7 79.0 84.2

    5 Australia 81.2 78.9 83.6

    6 Spain 80.9 77.7 84.2

    7 Sweden 80.9 78.7 83.0

    8 Israel 80.7 78.5 82.8

    9 Macau ( PRC) 80.7 78.5 82.8

    10 France (metropolitan) 80.7 77.1 84.1

    11 Canada (20% above world average) 80.7 78.3 82.9

    12 Italy 80.5 77.5 83.5

    13 New Zealand 80.2 78.2 82.2

    14 Norway 80.2 77.8 82.5

    15 Singapore 80.0 78.0 81.9

    16 Austria 79.8 76.9 82.6

    17 Netherlands 79.8 77.5 81.9

    18 Martinique ( France) 79.5 76.5 82.3

    19 Greece 79.5 77.1 81.9

    20 Belgium 79.4 76.5 82.3

    21 Malta 79.4 77.3 81.3

    22 United Kingdom 79.4 77.2 81.6

    23 Germany 79.4 76.5 82.1

    24 U.S. Virgin Islands ( US) 79.4 75.5 83.3

    25 Finland 79.3 76.1 82.4

    26 Guadeloupe ( France) 79.2 76.0 82.2

    27 Channel Islands ( Jersey and Guernsey) ( UK) 79.0 76.6 81.5

    28 Cyprus 79.0 76.5 81.6

    29 Ireland 78.9 76.5 81.3

    30 Costa Rica 78.8 76.5 81.2

    31 Puerto Rico ( US) 78.7 74.7 82.7

    32 Luxembourg 78.7 75.7 81.6

    33 United Arab Emirates 78.7 77.2 81.5

    34 South Korea 78.6 75.0 82.2

    35 Chile 78.6 75.5 81.5

    36 Denmark 78.3 76.0 80.6

    37 Cuba 78.3 76.2 80.4

    38 United States 78.2 75.6 80.8


    -- Posted by Brian Hoag on Sat, Sep 26, 2009, at 12:33 PM
  • *

    A new poll has come out by Daily KOS that is done by Research 2000. Daily KOS is a liberal site, but Research 2000 is known to do really good and fair polls. They were one of the first to show the downtrending of Obama's poll numbers.

    For all we here about how Democrats are in trouble in Congress and how the nation as a whole distrusts Congress but as their numbers show it's a little more complicated than that.

    While the Congressional Democratic leaders numbers are dismal (Pelosi is at 34, Reid is at 31) they both almost double the Congressional Republican leaders numbers (McConnell at 18, Boehner at 12).

    The number to note though is the favorable number for the parties themselves. They both are seen unfavorable by Americans (50 for the Democrats, 68 for the Republicans) the favorable numbers for the Democrats are quite a bit higher for the Democrats (40-22).


    doodle bug, I will do the research and look up those numbers again. I have seen them with my eye, but as I'm prone to do I didn't bookmark them or remember the page they were on, but I will look for them and post them later today.

    As far as admitting hypocrisy on the left, I have always admitted that. Politicians are hypocrites no matter which party they belong to. Especially in today's climate where cheap political points are more important than the welfare of this country.

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Sat, Sep 26, 2009, at 12:35 PM
  • *

    Just for the record I believe that ALL Americans should get the same coverage afforded to US Congress members.

    doodle bug, here is the website where I found the info, it is a pdf


    The information I am primarily talking about begins on page 56 but please do read the entire report.

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Sat, Sep 26, 2009, at 2:06 PM
  • mike, brian, g.i.

    thanks for the links; havent read them at this time, but fully intend to do so. (just now took time to look at the websites) i am surprised that we are so far down the list. i have looked at the links and was amazed at some of the info; i.e. cuba just ahead of the u.s. in life expectancy at birth. i guess, with all our faults, i would still rather live here than anywhere else in the world. and i would expect the same emotion from anyone for their own homeland.

    -- Posted by doodle bug on Sat, Sep 26, 2009, at 3:25 PM
  • *

    I would without a doubt rather be living here than any other country in the world, but I also see room for improvement.

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Sat, Sep 26, 2009, at 4:09 PM
  • of course there is room for improvement. just get rid of all the liberals (that truly is meant as a joke). there are some conservatives that need changed too (lol)

    -- Posted by doodle bug on Sat, Sep 26, 2009, at 5:23 PM
  • Can't understand this secrecy bit.

    Pres. Obama campaigned on the Health Care Reform, detailing what is needed repeatedly.

    He spoke to the joint session, detailing his PROPOSALS to Congress.

    The Congress is attempting to DISPOSE of those PROPOSALS.

    Every PROPOSED BILL has been posted on the Internet, even before adoption was announced to the press.

    Montana' Sen. Baucus tried for months to achieve a bi-partisan draft in the Senate Finance Committee, without a single Republican willing to support anything resembling a bill which would get the Democrats' votes for passage.

    This is where the nation is stuck, with HONEST poll after poll showing at least 75% of all voters want effective Health Care Reform with some form of public option available to those who cannot secure Health Insurance coverage elsewhere.

    Some of the big changes have passed as separate items attached to previously proposed bills from 1968.

    There is no question the American people want:

    An end to "pre-existing conditions" precluding any insuror from accepting an application.

    An end to "old employer work-based insurance" ending when the employment ends and "new employer work-based insurance" taking effect 30-90 days after the worker changes jobs -- for whatever reson.

    Insurors canceling coverage when the "insured" gets sick, then demanding premiums as much as 2,000% higher than the previous coverage for the insured party to receive mediocre coverage.

    Bringing U.S. prescription drug costs in line with the prices charged globally.

    The American health insurance companies posted $2.5-BILLION collective NET profits in 1998 and $12.5-BILLION collective NET profits in 2008.

    During this same period, health care costs just about doubled.

    The higher health care costs for the insured people, the more premiums rise -- and the more profits the HEALTH INSURANCE companies report.

    At the same time, pharmaceutical companies are reporting steadily increasing profits, because they are free to raise medication retail prices as much as 500% -- AND THIS FOR prescription drugs which were developed 40-50 years ago and have long since begun generating huge profits because the research and development were long since paid for several times over.

    I'm just an old country businessman. But these numbers would not require me to ask any CPA if these skyrocketing medical, drug and insurance costs are sustainable.

    We are up to 20% of our Gross National Product being devoured for health care expenses, and that total is increasing annually, if not monthly.

    Does anybody doubt that when that 20% grows to 30%, we will be bankrupt nationally.

    I have waited in a Major Teaching Hospital Emergency Room for 13 hours with an injured senior needing stitches -- because the entire staff was engaged in treating babies, children, adults and seniors from uninsured families who could not secure or afford insurance.

    After treating charity cases for 13 hours, my friend was shown to an examining room, the wound was finally cleaned (I was denied cleaning materials for the entire period), a tetanus shot given because the wound had been dirty so long -- a local pain-killer injected and three stitches put in. The doctor was present about 7.5 minutes by the clock.

    The Hospital worked with lighting speed to present the bill of $4,185.73.

    Will every one who believes that bill was reasonable for the ten minutes of service not rendered for 13.5 hours -- Please forward $100 to help pay their idea of a reasonable bill?

    -- Posted by HerndonHank on Sun, Sep 27, 2009, at 8:35 AM
  • Sceptre,

    Which VA Medical Center are you using.

    I have used at least ten Medical Centers, and satellite primary care facilities.

    Non-medical staff attitudes vary greatly -- from absolutely "******" and "negative" toward veteran patients, to "better than superb" in at least half the ten facilities I've used.

    MEDICAL STAFF is without exception -- superb.

    Since service in the facility you use is bad, and I BELIEVE YOU, the answer is to contact another center and transfer -- while reporting the problems with the original center.

    I moved across country to have the best VAMC care in the nation at all levels.

    At my age, to receive the best care for free, it was worth the move.

    And yes, prior to this, I have always been on work-attached group programs. In fact, having negotiated many of the group contracts.

    The last five years as I got older, service from the company which had been receiving premiums for me for 25 years, deteriorated to abysmal.

    Which is why I went to the nearest VA Clinic

    If you want me to carry your problem "upstairs," I can guarantee the contacts to pass the word.

    This president gave assembled VAMC directors their marching orders in early February -- With no slack for them providing the best service.

    Funding has increased, supplies are ample, staff has increased --IN WHAT WAS A SUPERIOR OPERATION BEFORE.

    We both know there is strong disagreement between us politically, but you deserve the high quality of VA Medical Service I am receiving.

    -- Posted by HerndonHank on Sun, Sep 27, 2009, at 8:54 AM
  • Mike,

    I thought that you resolved to stop throwing gasoline on fire with your blogs?

    The attacks and hate are right back.

    If you want to keep this forum don't repeat what got you removed in the first place.

    Just my humble opinion.

    -- Posted by wallismarsh on Sun, Sep 27, 2009, at 11:28 AM
  • Mike,

    Nothing in your randonm thoughts are true. Why do you even try? Maybe the gazette should have banned your lying.

    Obama hasn't lowered anyone's taxes yet. Where is your proof? Once they pass cap and trade, everyone's expenses will go up considerably to pay expensive taxes for the manufacturers. How is that not a tax?

    Obama has what 20-some Czars that don't answer to congress, only Obama himself? How is that not expansion of government? Is that even legal?

    The president has overseen monetary spending that all together exceed all past administrations combined. Where is any shred of proof for the idiotic lies you are spreading? I'd sure like to see it.

    We have taken over hundreds of banks, car companies, ins companies, etc. How is this not expansion of government? I'd like you to define "size of government" for me and the rest of everyone here.

    -- Posted by Justin76 on Sun, Sep 27, 2009, at 4:01 PM
  • *

    Justin, I will be glad to answer your questions if you can be more respectful in your responses. I will not flag your comment if you re-post your questions without violating the terms of service set forth by RUST COMMUNICATIONS.

    As it stands you are in violation of the first: Do not disrespect the privacy and views of others (you are disrespecting my views by using the term "idiotic".

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Sun, Sep 27, 2009, at 5:43 PM
  • *

    By creating an account on this website you agreed to the terms and services laid out by Rust Communications, if you had a problem with them, then you should have notified Rust Communications of your issues.

    If someone violates the terms of use, it is my responsibility as the person that writes this blog to notify Rust Communications of that violation.

    Agreeing to rules and then breaking them and then having action taken against the person breaking the rules is not censorship.

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Sun, Sep 27, 2009, at 8:30 PM
  • *

    Karl, please, I am asking you to be civil. I admit that using the term, "frothing at the mouth", was a wrong headed decision and I apologize for that.

    I will also ask that if you demand respect for the Republican Party then show respect for my party by calling the party by the correct name, it is the Democratic Party, not the Democrat Party. There has never been a Democrat Party in existence in the United States.

    With that settled I will ask that we get back on topic.

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Sun, Sep 27, 2009, at 9:32 PM
  • There's nothing I can do about the fact that your views are dillusional and you're outright lying. You can flag my comment if you want, I don't care.

    You are walking a fine line Mike. You have the power to disrespect people of other viewpoints than you in so many ways, and then turn around and call foul, when things don't go your way, as they always do.

    I don't I remember calling you and idiot, and I'm pretty sure the proof is still there. I do remember saying that these lies you cannot back up are idiotic. There is a difference. Now you can either choose to engage in something you stirred up when you chose to grossly distort the truth, or you can run behind the cover of your "pass" and flag everything that threatens your percieved intelligence.

    Now, let's have some of your answers and hold the whine, I don't drink.

    -- Posted by Justin76 on Mon, Sep 28, 2009, at 9:10 AM
  • *

    Here are your answers Justin

    As for cap-and-trade, it hasn't passed yet, so that's why it is not a tax. It is virtually impossible to be taxed for something that isn't law.

    The proof is in the writing so to speak. The stimulus bill which has been lamented so much over the past 8 months cut taxes for roughly 95% of Americans, not to mention the extra money that was put into everyone's paychecks.

    As far as "czars" go, a person can't compile a true list of czars since there are positions that media and other people refer to as czars but simply are not, so we will go with appointees, some are approved by Congress, some are created by Congress, some are appointed by President.

    Obama has 35 appointees, Bush had 46.

    "Czars" have been around since FDR was president and every president, expect Kennedy (although that is questioned) has had "czars". Since FDR Democratic presidents have had 76, Republican have had 70. So the question still remains, why is this only being questioned now?

    George W. Bush, during his term appointed people to positions that were supposed to be approved by Congress during their recesses. The most notable being Michael Bolton to the UN, who had Congress actually taken action, more than likely would not have been approved. In other words, Bush took what some would consider, unconstitutional and illegal actions to appoint people to positions that are only supposed to be approved by Congress.

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Mon, Sep 28, 2009, at 1:31 PM
  • *

    I was doing a compare and contrast between Obama and Bush. Both parties that hold the presidency are guilty of it.

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Mon, Sep 28, 2009, at 2:21 PM
  • Hey Karl of Manifesto fame,

    Simple fact, Pres. Obama inherited a recession verging on depression from the previous group.

    He had early on researched the nation's top talent in every area previously identified as presenting major concern and questions.

    From these people, he appointed people qualified to represent him in gathering facts and presenting them back to an existing "Task Force" working in that area. After each of these task forces has reviewed all information, including those from the President's appointed representative -- a final selection of options are presented to the President,usually in a four-hour session.

    CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN professionals serving as the President's personal representative reporting on those final sessions report the President routinely listens to all presentations for three to three and a half hours -- then starts asking "laser guided questions."

    There is no secret among task force members which way the President is leaning, and the participants are reporting virtually the entire group finds his decisions logical and valid, based upon evidence and facts.

    Of major importance, President Obama had never met the majority of those people appointed, nor had he any personal or political connection to the majority of task force members.

    IN DIRECT CONTRAST to virtually all previous modern, Democratic and Republican.

    Reagan and Nixon had the heavy preponderance of "California Mafia" cronies.

    Carter brought the Georgia Mafia.

    Clinton named friends from the Arkansas Mafia.

    Both Bushes and LBJ imported their totally different Texas Mafias.

    President Obama has appointed few Chicago or Illinois Democrats, virtually no one from Hawaii.

    That previous administration made it into office with a Florida election, operated by GOP officials, headed by Bush Three-- aka Brother Jeb.

    A legal recount of that election was forcibly stopped by a raging mob, lead by GOP congressional aides [fully identified with videos and still photos]. The glaringly obvious rejection of valid Democratic ballots by Florida's GOP election officials on the initial count is a matter of record. The bi-partisan recount showed Democratic gains at a rate which clearly would have changed the result.

    The final Supreme Court result was split on party lines -- not on law. Not declaring the vote recount complete, but stopping the recount which had been disrupted by the GOP organized mobs,including congressional aides on the federal payroll.

    Then in 2004, we had precincts with an 80% Democratic registration, which received a handful of non-functional [How do you spell BROKEN BEFORE DELIVERY] voting machines. More than 70% of all voters in several large precincts did not even get to vote.

    Those denied ballots would clearly have resulted in victory for the Democrats.

    Your outrage toward FACTS OF RECORD is puzzling.

    As a proven fiscally conservative businessman, who has been advocating Work-Fare, rather than Welfare, for more than 40 years -- WHEN FACED WITH FACTS WHICH CHALLENGE MY POSITION, I take those FACTS into serious consideration.

    Frequently, those unpleasant facts mean I at least modify business directions. At other times,I have canceled projects or found more opportunity in those unpleasant facts.

    But, I have never been foolish, or stupid enough,

    to ignor unpleasant facts.

    -- Posted by HerndonHank on Mon, Sep 28, 2009, at 5:26 PM
  • Mike, you have still failed to outline your definition of the size of government.

    Then you guys act like it was conservatives that minted these appoitees as czars. It was your own guy.

    I'll just leave you with this from a liberal-leaning magazine I subscribe to called National Geographic: in the last inssue in the Adventurer supplement I also get was an article on specific places to live with reguards to the ecomonic state and what that means for you living in that area. Well, they proclaim that the DC areas is buzzing with busy bees and new jobs as the Obama administration has created over 3000 new jobs there. Would you like me to fax the article to you?

    I also never stated that cap and trade was set to law....yet, it of course is just like a billion other control and choke laws the liberals have been waiting to force down America's throat if they got the right guy in office to let 'em do it, and they have.

    Your $7 a week tax cut won't mean much if cap and trade is passed as we'll all, except for rich politicians, be swallowed in cost of living increases and more debt to survive because of it.

    -- Posted by Justin76 on Mon, Sep 28, 2009, at 8:24 PM
Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration: