A week after he secured the release of two American journalists in North Korea, Bill Clinton enjoys a better favorable rating than his wife, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, a new poll reveals.
In the Rasmussen Reports survey, 58 percent of respondents said they view the former president favorably, and 40 percent view him unfavorably. A Rasmussen poll released last week found that 53 percent of respondents have a favorable opinion of Hillary, and 43 percent have an unfavorable view.
Posted by: Bobby ||
08/17/2009 12:56 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
how would you like to be the unfortunate "short-straw" staffer that has to tell her? What would you wear? Kevlar striped-pantsuit?
Posted by: Frank G on the road ||
08/17/2009 13:51 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Bill Clinton didn't secure their release. He was just the pick-up man. The deal was done before he ever set foot in the airplane.
Posted by: Deacon Blues ||
08/17/2009 14:15 Comments ||
Top||
Connecticut Sen. Christopher Dodd has been released from the hospital after undergoing surgery for prostate cancer.
A statement from his office said the 65-year-old was released Saturday from Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York. Dodd spokesman Bryan DeAngelis said the senator is recovering well and is home in East Haddam with his family.
The five-term Democrat announced last month that he had been diagnosed with an early, treatable stage of cancer. He expects to return to a full Senate schedule later this month. Dodd has said that the cancer will not affect his plans to seek a sixth term next year. He is chairman of the Senate banking committee and is playing a leading role in the effort to overhaul the nation's health care system.
Posted by: Fred ||
08/17/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#2
One must wonder if he stayed in a VIP suite at the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. Of course if he did, he would have had no personal knowledge of his opulent surroundings.
#5
Oh the poor guy! We should obviously stop badgering him about his loans, his sweetheart deal on an Irish cottage, his donations from the outfits he was supposed to be overseeing, his tertiary syphyllis... OK I made the last one up.... I think..
If you planned to check out a library book, visit a city clinic or have your garbage picked up on Monday, you're out of luck.
The City of Chicago will basically be closed for business on Aug. 17, a reduced-service day in which most city employees are off without pay, according to a release from the Office of Budget and Management. City Hall, public libraries, health clinics and most city offices will be closed.
Emergency service providers including police, firefighters and paramedics will be working at full strength, but most services not directly related to public safety, including street sweeping, will not be provided, the release said.
That also includes garbage pickup. Residents who receive regular collection on Mondays should expect trash to be picked up the following day, the release said. Some other customers may experience a one-day delay as collectors catch up.
As part of the 2009 budget, three reduced-service days were planned for 2009, days which are unpaid for all affected employees -- the Friday after Thanksgiving; Christmas Eve; and New Year's Eve. The City Council recently approved moving the reduced-service day planned for New Year's Eve to Monday.
The 2009 budget anticipates saving $8.3 million due to the reduced-service days.
In addition to reduced service days, all non-union employees were asked to take a series of furlough days and unpaid holidays, and most non-sworn union employees agreed to similar unpaid time off.
"Every dollar we save from these measures helps to save jobs, and in the long-term, maintain services for Chicagoans," Mayor Daley said in the release. "This plan relies on most of our civilian employees to be part of the solution to our very serious budget challenges. I want to thank them again for their sacrifice."
Posted by: Fred ||
08/17/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Someone call that insect Daily. Tell him I need my dry cleaning.
It didn't take long for the debate over President Barack Obama's push to overhaul the U.S. health care system to degenerate into a depressing brawl.
Critics of the proposal focus on non-existent death panels, as if Obama's main goal is to systematically kill off unhealthy, unworthy Americans. Supporters says opposition is driven by racial animus, as if there isn't a history in U.S. politics of public resistance to big changes in medical care. Both sides, ridiculously enough, accuse each other of actions with Nazi overtones.
We wish the debate would get back to the basics specifically, two key claims routinely made by the president, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.
The first claim is that a health overhaul actually would save vast amounts of money in the long run. In June, the Congressional Budget Office shredded this assertion with a study showing that the two main proposals before the Senate would add $1 trillion and $1.6 trillion in debt over the next 10 years.
This led Obama and other Democratic leaders to float a series of trial ballons on what taxes might be raised to cover this gap. When each met a hostile reception from rank-and-file lawmakers, what did the president, Pelosi and Reid do? They went back to their old claims that a health overhaul would save money.
The president said so in comments last week at a New Hampshire town hall. Pelosi and Reid made the assertion in a USA Today column.
The trio need to be pressed on what they know that the CBO doesn't. They also need to explain why just a month ago they implicitly acknowledged there were no cost savings by seeking tax hikes to finance the overhaul.
The second claim is that a health overhaul would not affect individuals who are satisfied with their existing insurance plans.
Really? The day the overhaul took effect, businesses that now provide health insurance at an average cost of 12 percent to 14 percent of payroll would have the option of dropping their coverage and paying a fee equal to 8 percent of their payroll to the federal government, which would provide the benefit.
Obama, Pelosi and Reid have to know that this would give businesses a huge incentive to drop coverage, thus affecting millions of Americans who are happy with their existing plans.
The private coverage that did survive this federal assault wouldn't be home-free yet, however. After a grace period of a few years, all health insurance would have to meet federal standards. By every indication, these standards would greatly expand what health plans have to cover, leading to a big increase in the cost of premiums.
This issue and the cost question are what the debate should focus on not the sideshows. Democrats need to back their claims.
Unfortunately, cable-TV and talk-radio hosts seem far more interested in sideshows than substance. Invoking the specter of death panels, racism and Nazism may help the ratings, but it isn't helping America.
#1
If "death panels" were non-existent in the House Bill, why did the Senate version drop the applicable provisions?
Oh, that would be 'three' questions.
Posted by: Mullah Richard ||
08/17/2009 11:46 Comments ||
Top||
#2
> Obama, Pelosi and Reid have to know that this would give businesses a huge incentive to drop coverage, thus affecting millions of Americans who are happy with their existing plans.
To be honest, employee oriented treatment(i.e. insurance as a deductible benefit) caused structural problems. You'd be better off paying for it yourself, it is after all YOUR health, not your companies.
#4
Any health care bill that might go into effect will have a great number of 'gotchas,' 'didn't expect thats' & 'WTFs' built into it by the amendment & House/Senate bill reconciliation process.
#5
Judging from the pi$$ed responses of the town hall meeting attendees; no one but Pelosi, Reid, and Obama believed that ObamaCare would save money or that it would not affect your current healthcare. So much for the lying and trying to sell this stinking albatross to the masses. ObamaCare is about consolidating power within the federal government and buying votes. There are no altruistic motives here. If ObamaCare is so great how about Congress and the President jump on board first and lead by example. Otherwise screw off.
#2
The more I see of the majority of Congress critters and Senators, the more I'm convinced , it's an easy way to keep the dangerous ones away from the neighborhood. So, it's no certainty she won't be re-elected.
This is Calfiornia, where Obama stickers are still proudly displayed, a $2 billion high speed train bond passed and over 60% of the legislature would keep raising taxes rather than slow the growth of expenditures.
#4
Don't get your hopes up. I've seen Fiorina speak at computer conventions. She is so lackluster that I was actually embarrassed for her. Not to mention that she failed so miserably at HP that the Board of Directors paid her $21 million to leave.
Posted by: Steve White ||
08/17/2009 14:01 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Stop repeat offenders....
Quit re-electing them....
Posted by: Big Unavinter6171 ||
08/17/2009 16:54 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Yes, and she'd be our clown ...
There's that way of looking at it. But she's pissed a lot of people off. Also, at some point Republicans have to learn that they need to do better than the likes of John McCain or Carly Fiorina.
Here's what pissed me off: instead of attempting to bring HP up to snuff in the personal computer market, she bought Compaq. Instead of attempting to compete she bought the competition. Then she laid off thousands of workers in both companies. It was no sweat to her. She got her $21 million. And it was all perfectly legal (well, maybe, if you don't look too close at the pretexting scandal). But if that's her brand of capitalism I'll vote for somebody else.
#11
I more than most have suffered under Babs Boxer's tenure. But Carly aint bringing her down. I really truly wish we had someone that could. Maybe if she had a personaity makeover carly coudl take her? More than that it would take Jesus Christ running as a Republican to move some votes in that direction.
The White House for the first time Sunday seemed to acknowledge that people across the country received unsolicited e-mails from the administration last week about health care reform, suggesting the problem is with third-party groups that placed the recipients' names on the distribution list.
In a written statement released exclusively to FOX News, White House spokesman Nick Shapiro said the White House hopes those who received the e-mails without signing up for them were not "inconvenienced" by the messages. I got one from The One a couple of months back, then another from The Angry One. I unsubscribed from both, since I was not impressed by the Presidential Seal.
"The White House e-mail list is made up of e-mail addresses obtained solely through the White House Web site. The White House doesn't purchase, upload or merge from any other list, again, all e-mails come from the White House Web site as we have no interest in e-mailing anyone who does not want to receive an e-mail," the statement said. "If an individual received the e-mail because someone else or a group signed them up or forwarded the e-mail, we hope they were not too inconvenienced." Like Barneys and Amazon, which you can block, but they still keep coming...
The White House previously would not answer questions on how the e-mails landed unsolicited in so many inboxes. White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs on Thursday said he couldn't give an answer until he saw who received the e-mails because he unlike his boss doesn't have "omnipotent clarity."
Yet the White House ignored repeated offers from FOX News to share with the administration such e-mail addresses, to help determine how the recipients ended up on the White House distribution list. We're formulating our response and polishing our omipotence to complete clarity.
Shapiro said Sunday that those recipients can unsubscribe if they want, "by clicking the link at the bottom of the e-mail or (telling) whomever forwarded it to them not to forward such information anymore." He said the White House is trying to correct the problem. But we never said it WAS a problem! No, never!
"We are implementing measures to make subscribing to e-mails clearer, including preventing advocacy organizations from signing people up to our lists without their permission when they deliver petition signatures and other messages on individuals' behalf," he said.
One possible reason for the confusion is that advocacy groups, when dealing with online petitions, are sending in their membership lists whenever they make contact with the White House - the e-mail addresses affiliated with those members could then become embedded in the White House distribution list. The White House indicated its Web site managers are going to seek out and block online petitions so that people can only sign up for information individually. Must've had the Acorn Option turned on.
Posted by: Bobby ||
08/17/2009 07:41 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
One possible reason for the confusion is that advocacy groups, when dealing with online petitions, are sending in their membership lists whenever they make contact with the White House -the e-mail addresses affiliated with those members could then become embedded in the White House distribution list.
Or then again, it could have been mischievous lepricons. NEXT please.
The Atlantic by Marc Ambinder The message is getting a bit confused
An administration official said tonight that Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius "misspoke" when she told CNN this morning that a government run health insurance option "is not an essential part" of reform.
"She's just the secretary of DHHS. What does she know?"
This official asked not to be identified in exchange for providing clarity about the intentions of the President.
Perhaps you could tell Bambi so that he too could have 'clarity' about his intentions ...
The official said that the White House did not intend to change its messaging and that Sebelius simply meant to echo the president, who has acknowledged that the public option is a tough sell in the Senate and is, at the same time, a must-pass for House Democrats, and is not, in the president's view, the most important element of the reform package.
"We have always been at war with Eastasia." They seriously think that they're going to get Blue Dog Democrats in the House to vote for this monster if key provisions are not going to pass in the Senate? What can they possibly offer the BDDs to compensate for angry constituents already being heard?
Cash and workers at election time.
A second official, Linda Douglass, director of health reform communications for the administration, said that President Obama believed that a public option was the best way to reduce costs and promote competition among insurance companies, that he had not backed away from that belief, and that he still wanted to see a public option in the final bill.
"Nothing has changed," she said. "The President has always said that what is essential that health insurance reform lower costs, ensure that there are affordable options for all Americans and increase choice and competition in the health insurance market. He believes that the public option is the best way to achieve these goals."
"We have always been at war with..."
A third White House official, via e-mail, said that Sebelius didn't misspeak. "The media misplayed it," the third official said.
The media aren't supposed to play. They're supposed to report.
Appearing on Face the Nation, press secretary Robert Gibbs said that fostering competition and choice were non-negotiable, but the specific mechanism designed to do so was up for discussion. That's been interpreted as a signal that the White House is getting behind the idea of adding publicly owned health cooperatives to the menu of choices that consumers without insurance will recieve. Still, this isn't exactly a walk-back -- the White House, Gibbs included, have mused favorably about the co-ops before.
It is exactly a walk-back. Just not yet completed.
Co-operatives are murky enough in concept that, with the right murky legislative language, they can be anything Bambi and ACORN want them to be ...
On Saturday, Mr. Obama defended the public plan before an audience in Colorado Springs. At the same time, he said that the government option was not the single critical element of reform, pointing instead to the provisions preventing insurance companies from discriminating against people, requiring them to offer plans to everyone, and capping premium increases. "The public option, whether we have it or we don't have it, is not the entirety of health care reform. This is just one sliver of it. One aspect of it," Obama said.
This has been a refrain the White House has used for weeks, but not until Saturday did Mr. Obama voice it so explicitly.
The perception that the White House had backed away from the public plan has roiled many prominent Democrats, who took to their blogs, and to Twitter, to protest.
#3
pointing instead to the provisions preventing insurance companies from discriminating against people, requiring them to offer plans to everyone, and capping premium increases.
All along, the plans have been for the federal government to mandate all private Health Insurance companies accommodate for pre-existing conditions, increase payouts, and cap premiums. So why would these greedy ghouls agree to such onerous regulations? After all, this would drastically cut into their bottom line? And after being called dishonest and villains, why would private Health Insurance companies continue their multi-million dollar campaign - actually promoting the Presidents Health care reform? Well, it starts to make sense once you figure out that the only way this scheme will work is to require everyone to purchase Health insurance under penalty of law.
You have the right to be healthy. Anything unhealthy behavior can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to a Health Insurance Agent. If you cannot afford a Health Insurance Agent, one will be appointed for you. Do you understand these rights?
#4
Then I guess Obama misspoke too when he said that the Public Option wasn't essential for reform.
You know, I heard him say the same thing you did, Black Bart. We must be getting old and our hearing must be failing or something. Yeah, that's the ticket!
Posted by: Mullah Richard ||
08/17/2009 11:53 Comments ||
Top||
In the aftermath of Sen. Sherrod Brown's appearance on health-care reform Wednesday at Ohio State University, a number of people complained that Brown made little effort to advise area residents he would be there talking about the nation's hottest topic.
That apparently was not a problem for supporters of Brown, who had ample notice that the senator would hold a roundtable discussion on health care. The day before the event, Democratic organizations were urging people to show up and support "one of our greatest advocates for health-care reform."
That prompted complaints that Brown wanted to pack the event with supporters in an effort to avoid a confrontation on health care.
No way, says Brown's staff. Meghan Dubyak, a Brown spokeswoman, said the event was posted on the senator's Web site "before the event, either the day before or early that morning."
She pointed out that nearly 500 people showed up, forcing Brown's staff to find larger rooms to accommodate the crowd. "The senator stayed for a full hour and one-half answering questions," Dubyak said. "As anyone who was there could see, the crowd was diverse in opinion."
But a trail of e-mails and phone calls suggests that Democratic organizations had a heads-up about the event that everyday people did not have.
At 1:31 p.m. on Tuesday, Brian Rothenberg, executive director of ProgressOhio, an independent organization closely linked to the Democratic Party, sent an e-mail urging backers of President Barack Obama's health-care changes to show up.
"We need you to hold a sign in support of health-care reform, be positive and smile for the cameras," Rothenberg wrote. He said a number of different groups supporting health care -- including the Service Employees International Union -- would be there.
At 1:49 p.m. Tuesday, Brown's staff sent a media advisory about the event. When asked about the event Tuesday, Dubyak said space would be limited.
A Dispatch reporter called Brown's staff Tuesday night and said she could not find the event posted on the senator's Web site. The staffer first insisted it was there and then said it would soon be posted.
The Dispatch and local radio and TV then noted the event would be held the next day. That apparently prompted some of the hundreds of people to show up.
Posted by: Fred ||
08/17/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
When it comes to having past views that should frighten every American citizen, Ezekiel Emanuel (see above editorial) has nothing on the president's "chief science adviser," John P. Holdren. The combination of Mr. Holdren with Dr. Emanuel should make the public seriously concerned with this administration's moral compass concerning care for the old and weak.
Earlier this month, Mr. Holdren served as co-chairman when the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology met for the first time. It's a disgrace that Mr. Holdren is even on the council. In "Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment," a book he co-authored in 1977 with noted doomsayers Paul R. and Anne H. Erlich, Mr. Holdren wrote: "Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society."
In case compulsory abortion wasn't enough to diffuse his imaginary population bomb, Mr. Holdren and the Erlichs considered other extremist measures. "A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child, despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than vasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men," they wrote. "The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control."
It gets worse. The Holdren-Erlich book also promotes "Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods." After noting that, well, yes, there were "very difficult political, legal and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems," Mr. Holdren and his co-authors express hope that their idea may still be viable. "To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements," they wrote. "It must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets or livestock."
Most Americans can be forgiven for thinking that mass sterilization through drinking water is never acceptable and that someone who supported such horrors should have no place on a prestigious White House council. The question naturally arises why President Obama chooses to surround himself with extremists like Mr. Holdren or Dr. Emanuel. No matter how much they claim their views have "evolved," health and science under Obamacare would be a frightening prospect with people like this advising the president.
Posted by: Fred ||
08/17/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[8 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Inquiring minds must ask if Emanuel has a Mengele, 'escape to South America' plan should we ever be liberated from this Washington madness.
That bunch of nuts, who I think may be more dangerous than anyone but the Taliban, go around touting at their rallies that the ideal human population of the earth is "zero" and all of their brainless minions and nebishes cheer.
Don't they realize that they are technically human?
Geez or are they so selfish that they don't want children and don't want any one else to either?
Posted by: James Carville ||
08/17/2009 11:11 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Rahm's brother in case you missed the connection....
#4
The madness will only increase. Control was only an illusion. The various problems were never resolved. We now have too many issues and as I said before war is close at hand. O will strike out to reestablish his control. He is not JFK and I believe he is insecure enough to jump into war at the worst possible time. You can rule a people so long as they will allow you. So he will control media, population control, food, energy, jobs, money and all with the blessings of the Liberal Dems. When he points his finger it is at all of us.
Progressive online activists prefer Rep. Joe Sestak (D-Pa.) over Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) by a landslide margin, according to results of a Netroots Nation straw poll released Saturday. The poll also showed significant resistance to passing a health reform plan without a public option.
The online poll of 252 attendees, which took place Thursday and Friday at the annual gathering of progressive bloggers and activists, found that 48 percent supported Sestak for the Pennsylvania Democratic Senate nomination, compared to just 10 percent who backed Specter.
Exactly one-third said they didn't know which candidate they supported and seven percent said neither.
The results reflect Sestak's popularity among bloggers and progressive online activists, and the same groups' wariness toward Specter, a five-term incumbent who switched parties and became a Democrat in April.
Posted by: Fred ||
08/17/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The poll also showed significant resistance to passing a health reform plan without a public option.
Lawmakers are debating along party lines whether the outrage expressed at town hall meetings around the country is representative of wide opposition to healthcare reform.
Democrats, led by one of the party's newest members, Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.), said Sunday those shouting at town halls represent a minority of Americans. As such, Specter and others said Congress should be careful not to let the events drive substance on the healthcare legislative debate.
"I think we have to bear in mind that although those people need to be heard and have a right to be heard, that they're not really representative of America, in my opinion," Specter said on ABC's "This Week."
Specter's town halls with angry residents received considerable media attention all week, but he said they shouldn't dominate public debate. Specter also suggested the town halls are a part of a political effort to bring down President Barack Obama.
"We have to be careful here not to let those town meetings dominate the scene and influence what we do on health policy... There's a real effort here to make this the president's 'Waterloo' ... We can't allow these meetings to dominate the political process. That would be destructive of what we need to do," he said.
Posted by: Fred ||
08/17/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I respect you for following through Specter. I respect Toomey more.
"Those people" ARE America, and to discredit them through your narrow exixtance and short lived is to demean them. I AM those people you bastard.
Demean me at your peril you jerkoff.
noun 1. a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them.
2. any body of persons viewed as a commonwealth.
3. a state in which the head of government is not a monarch or other hereditary head of state.
You better listen to us, or we will put you out of a job. Fact, not fiction.
The funny thing is, I've voted for Specter every time he was up for election during my political lifetime. I don't think he understands what he's done. He's sucking up to the Democratic activists, who apparently hate him, judging from the Netroots straw poll. He's alienated a significant fraction of his squish Republican supporters - those who were actual moderates, and not just third-way types who made a fetish of 'moderation'. The conservatives have *always* hated him, and mostly voted for him with one hand & the other holding their nostrils closed.
The rate he's going, the only people who'll vote for him are those who don't pay attention & just recognize his name as being The Guy Who You Vote For. That's what, twenty-thirty percent of the electorate?
Posted by: Mitch H. ||
08/17/2009 13:19 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Is the demographic make-up of Congress Members really "representative of America"...
#8
No. However, most Americans would rather not bother with the whole mess - until it bites them in the pocketbook [like a Stamp Act] to get their focused attention. Probably be better to simply draft people from the voter rolls to get a cross section. It would quickly clear the voter rolls as well of the dead, illegal, or multiple registered.
In a small middle school library a man is shouting and wagging a finger at Rep. Tom Perriello. Perriello, a Democrat who represents Virginia's mostly rural 5th District extending from Charlottesville to the North Carolina border, has just embarked on his monthlong listening tour, and residents are unloading their anger about the Democratic agenda.
They're mad about government spending, legislation aimed a curbing global warming and, most of all, plans to create a massive public health care system that would cover all of the nation's uninsured.
"So you're going to steal my money," shouted the middle-aged man as he waved a miniature copy of the Constitution at Perriello, "and give it to somebody else who is not even a citizen?"
Elected eight months ago over Republican incumbent Virgil Goode by a thin margin, Perriello faces a daunting challenge. The 34-year-old must try to help his party pass a sweeping plan to overhaul both the nation's health care system and its energy production while not alienating and angering constituents who chose Republican John McCain over Barack Obama 51 percent to 48 percent.
"The Democratic leaders know I'm an independent and know I'm going to vote what I think is right," Perriello told The Washington Examiner. "And people in my district really respect that I'm showing up and having the conversation."
Perriello is one of 30 or so Democratic members of Congress who are fighting to hold seats usually occupied by Republicans. They cruised to victory in the Bush-backlash election of 2006 and Barack Obama's history-making run in 2008, but now the political winds have turned against them.
"I think that there is a great opportunity for this district to be Republican again," said Tucker Watkins, the longtime chairman of the 5th Congressional District Republican Committee, who has been meeting with a dozen possible candidates. "Congressman Perriello has not lived up to his pledge of working overtime, and he has voted against the wishes of the district over and over."
Supporters say Perriello is not the standard rank-and-file Democrat his opponents portray him to be. He voted against releasing the second $350 billion in bailout funds for the nation's troubled financial sector, and he cast a "no" vote on Obama's budget proposal. Perriello also opposed a bill to give the Food and Drug Administration authority to regulate tobacco, still widely grown in the district.
"I think his values reflect the district," Virginia Democratic Party Chairman Richard Cranwell said. "I think he has asserted his independence and that is reflected in his votes."
Posted by: Fred ||
08/17/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Supporters say Perriello is not the standard rank-and-file Democrat his opponents portray him to be.
Well then, he and his 'rational' fellow Donks had better get a replacement for Pelosi and her 'senior ranking' mobsters on the chairmanships or, yes indeedie, he is a rank and file Donk.
Days after his son quit his Senate job under pressure, an angry Sen. Pedro Espada warned other lawmakers he'll be keeping tabs on future hires.
Espada (D-Bronx) told the Daily News he never has publicly raised the issue when the family and "girlfriends" of fellow lawmakers were on the state payroll. Upset at what he called the "pinata" treatment of his son, Pedro G. Espada, and the mostly anonymous quotes from lawmakers ripping the hiring, the senator warned all gloves are off.
"I'm not going to be a vigilante, but I am going to be vigilant," Espada said. "I'm going to know why people are hired and what their job descriptions are." He added that "everybody (will be) cutting out all the nonsense about relatives, girlfriends. It's over, it's over, it's over."
The lawmaker refused to name names about hiring abuses.
He said he appreciates the support he got from some Democrats, but "I will not forget some of the ugly things that some of the other so-called anonymous sources had to say. It's personal, damn right. I'd like to meet a father or mother who wouldn't be upset by this."
Pedro G. Espada was recently hired as a $120,000-a-year Senate employee. He quit this week after aides in Attorney General Andrew Cuomo's office began looking into whether the senator was involved in the hiring, which would violate state law.
Critics say the younger Espada was hired as payback after his father returned to the Democratic fold to end a Senate stalemate. The senator has vehemently denied playing a role or that there was a quid pro quo.
Meanwhile, Sen. Reuben Diaz asked Cuomo to "determine the number of family members of state legislators, commissioners and department heads" on the Legislature's payroll.
Betcha the legislature's payroll would drop by a third if Senator Espada's follow-up were effective... some of whom would have to be rehired because they were competent as well as connected.
Posted by: Fred ||
08/17/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I don't mind "Connected" If "Competent"
If not, begone.
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
08/17/2009 13:32 Comments ||
Top||
Gov. Paterson is falling further and further behind possible primary opponent Andrew Cuomo, a stunning new poll shows.
Paterson's going to do a Roland Burris and get out of the way. Otherwise the seat is lost to the Pubs, and MoDo will become shrill and shrewish ...
Become?
Cuomo, the state's attorney general, leads Paterson in a potential 2010 gubernatorial primary by a 61%-15% margin, a Quinnipiac University poll released today found. That's up from Cuomo's 57%-20% lead in Quinnipiac's last poll in late June. "I don't know how he can run," said one prominent Democrat of Paterson.
But Gov. Patterson is blind, so he can't see what you're talking about, anonymous prominent sir.
Things are so bad for Paterson, the state's first black governor, that Cuomo leads among registered black Democrats by a nearly 2 to 1 margin.
And Cuomo, who angered many Democrats in 2002 when he mounted an unsuccessful primary effort against party favorite Carl McCall, should have free rein to challenge Paterson. Democrats by a 52%-38% margin said they don't believe a primary would be divisive and help the GOP in the general election. "Pols and pollsters never say never, but it's sure getting hard to stay even-handed" about Paterson and Cuomo, Quinnipiac University Polling Institute director Maurice Carroll said. "The question is: How one-sided can it get?"
Posted by: Fred ||
08/17/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
David Paterson probably lags behind Pedro Espada and Hiram Monserrate, too. Dead man walking indeed.
Drudge has this white flag -- but we had it first!
Bowing to Republican pressure and an uneasy public, President Barack Obama's administration signaled Sunday it is ready to abandon the idea of giving Americans the option of government-run insurance as part of a new health care system.
Facing mounting opposition to the overhaul, administration officials left open the chance for a compromise with Republicans that would include health insurance cooperatives instead of a government-run plan. Such a concession probably would enrage Obama's liberal supporters but could deliver a much-needed victory on a top domestic priority opposed by GOP lawmakers.
Officials from both political parties reached across the aisle in an effort to find compromises on proposals they left behind when they returned to their districts for an August recess. Obama had wanted the government to run a health insurance organization to help cover the nation's almost 50 million uninsured, but didn't include it as one of his three core principles of reform.
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said that government alternative to private health insurance is "not the essential element" of the administration's health care overhaul. The White House would be open to co-ops, she said, a sign that Democrats want a compromise so they can declare a victory.
Under a proposal by Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., consumer-owned nonprofit cooperatives would sell insurance in competition with private industry, not unlike the way electric and agriculture co-ops operate, especially in rural states such as his own.
With $3 billion to $4 billion in initial support from the government, the co-ops would operate under a national structure with state affiliates, but independent of the government. They would be required to maintain the type of financial reserves that private companies are required to keep in case of unexpectedly high claims.
"I think there will be a competitor to private insurers," Sebelius said. "That's really the essential part, is you don't turn over the whole new marketplace to private insurance companies and trust them to do the right thing."
Posted by: Fred ||
08/17/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
This is not a victory. Tort reform, reduction in state mandates and cross border competition would be.
Posted by: Mullah Richard ||
08/17/2009 8:51 Comments ||
Top||
#6
I imagine they'll still come up with some sort of mandatory coverage that would be worse than a decent public option for a large part of the country. Like mandatory insurance purchases for small businesses.
#7
Mandatory 'minimums' on personal, auto, business liability, etc. are already being discussed and implemented in some states.
More payout to the lawyers.
Posted by: Mullah Richard ||
08/17/2009 11:32 Comments ||
Top||
#8
The CO-OP alternative being proposed would have government funding, government regulations and government-subsidized management. It's a Trojan Horse designed to put the effective and overwhelming public opposition back to sleep. Don't fall for the ambush. No good solutions can come out of Washington except tort-reform and interstate portability and universal health care tax relief...
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
A week after he secured the release of two American journalists in North Korea, Bill Clinton enjoys a better favorable rating than his wife, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, a new poll reveals. 
Connecticut Sen. Christopher Dodd has been released from the hospital after undergoing surgery for prostate cancer.
If you planned to check out a library book, visit a city clinic or have your garbage picked up on Monday, you're out of luck. 
It didn't take long for the debate over President Barack Obama's push to overhaul the U.S. health care system to degenerate into a depressing brawl.
Gov. Paterson is falling further and further behind possible primary opponent Andrew Cuomo, a stunning new poll shows.
