Cleo's Mom

And this is different than how all other presidents get things done how? Oh, wait, I know, it's because it's Obama. Deficits, spending, and backroom deals were okay under bush. You do know bush did backroom deals, don't you? I hope I am not the first to tell you that.

Obama healthcare plan nixes Ben Nelson's 'Cornhusker Kickback' deal By Jordan Fabian - 02/22/10 11:00 AM ET President Barack Obama’s healthcare reform proposal released Monday eliminates controversial funds given to Nebraska as part of a deal to win the support of centrist Sen. Ben Nelson (D).

DeLay admonished by ethics subcommittee after offering to endorse congressman's son in exchange for his vote DeLay admonished for offering endorsement of Smith's vote in exchange for his vote. In September 2004, a House ethics subcommittee admonished then-Majority Leader Tom DeLay after the subcommittee concluded that DeLay had told then-Rep. Nick Smith (R-MI) he would endorse the congressional bid of Smith's son if Smith voted for the prescription drug benefit. According to the ethics committee's report, DeLay testified to the subcommittee "that he did say words to the effect of: 'I will personally endorse your son. That's my final offer.'

from the new republic: If you want to see true manipulation of the legislative process, you have to go back to late 2003--and the push to get the Medicare drug bill through the House of Representatives. The Republicans famously waited until the last minute to release a bill and, as I understand it, did not bother to post a version online. Democratic staffers told me recently they had to scan the bill, by hand, in order to send it around. (Note: I couldn't find any accounts of the articles about this episode, but it's consistent with what I remember hearing at the time.) When it came time to vote, the Republicans discovered they didn’t have enough support to pass the bill. Their solution? Hold the voting open past the usual fifteen minutes, until they could persuade enough members to switch their votes. An hour went by, then another, and then another. The New York Times would later describe what transpired as "an extraordinary bout of Republican arm-twisting." At one point, then House Majority Leader Tom DeLay approached Nick Smith, a Republican congressman from Michigan, and offered to endorse his son’s congressional candidacy if Smith would vote “aye.” Smith would later allege that he was offered more than endorsement. Specifically, he said that somebody offered to dump $100,000 into his son’s campaign funds--a promise that might have constituted bribery. Smith never said whether it was DeLay or somebody else; indeed, he eventually retracted the accusation altogether. But many observers suspect the bribe was offered and, in any event, a House ethics panel eventually reprimanded DeLay simply for offering the endorsement. (Slate’s Timothy Noah was all over the story, if you want to read the clips.) The architects of the Medicare drug bill also seem to have engaged in some intimidation. In the summer before the vote, at a time when Republicans were promising their bill would cost only $400 billion, Richard Foster, the official actuary for Medicare, made his own projection and concluded it would cost much more, between $500 and $600 billion. The difference might have been enough to alienate some fiscal conservatives and, given the tight margins, enough to kill the bill altogether. The projection had been made by the request of members of Congress. But Tom Scully, who was then head of Medicare and Medicaid services, ordered Foster not to share that information. Foster would later testify that Scully threatened to fire him if he disobeyed; a Democratic congressional staffer said that Scully told her he’d “fire [Foster] so fast his head will spin” if Foster reported the estimates. Scully denied saying such things, but an internal government investigation determined that Scully had indeed made the threat. (It also determined that the threat was not illegal, since, by law, Scully had the right to control the flow of information to Congress.) Reprimands, threats.

Actually he got things done by -now hold on- BECAUSE HE WAS VOTED IN BY A BIG MAJORITY AND WAS SPENDING HIS CAPITAL- AND THE DEMOCRATS HAVE THE MAJORITY AND MAJORITY RULES. But should you be naive enough to think the republicans don't engage in back room deals here are two examples that happened recently: Republican Sen. Christopher Bond, R-MO, put a hold on the appointment of Martha Johnson to the General Service Administration (a non-political position) to pressure the government into approving a building project in Kansas City. Republican Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala. - has placed a hold on all outstanding Obama administration nominations- about 70 high level government positions - until his state gets a tanker contract and a counterterrorism center.

I have never called you personally a racist. I have called the teabaggers that, though. And I stand by that label. So, you cited one person who voted for Obama and now joins the teabaggers. That does not make a trend. There are those on these boards who voted for bush and regretted it. It happens both ways, but that is not what the tea party is about.

But I am going to give you a warning. If you call me a racist one more time, I am going to report you.

Do you remember when a news organization sought out republican congressmen outside of congress and just asked them to say YES or NO if they believed Obama was born in the U.S. Only one of about 10 would say yes. The rest ran away and wouldn't comment. My stupid congressman held himself up in the capital bookstore pretending to look at a book for 20 minutes. He finally had to write a letter to the editor of our paper explaining his bizzare behavior and after a long, rambling letter conceded that Pres. Obama was born in the U.S. In, other words, he had to do damage control. But say it on camera when he had the chance? Perish the thought!! And these are the republican politicians that people want to elect more of?

The federal government mandates the taxes we pay and when we have a draft mandates that people of a certain age sign up. Also, mandated health insurance is to protect those of us who pay for those who don't have insurance and go to the ER, which costs all of us. So, it is for our protection.

They say: Follow the money $$$ From an organizational point of view, the tea parties are a prime example of “astroturfing”, top-down machinations operating under the guise of a faux grassroots movement—like a phony, conservative version of MoveOn.org, but operated by a corporate puppetmaster. In this case, as was reported in The Atlantic and ThinkProgress, they are being led by corporate lobbyist-run, Republican-affiliated front groups and think-tanks: FreedomWorks, a conservative action group led by former U.S. House Majority Leader Dick Armey; the free-market group Americans For Prosperity, and the online-oriented, free-market group DontGo Movement, which was born out of last year’s offshore drilling debate in Congress. These organizations are writing the press releases and talking points, thinking up the ideas for the signs, setting up the conference calls, you name it. Americans For Prosperity operates through the generosity of philanthropies such as the ultra-conservative Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation (which bankrolled Ward Connerly’s anti-affirmative action ballot initiatives, and The Bell Curve author Charles Murray), and the pro-oil drilling Koch Family foundations. In accordance with the interests of Armey’s client base FreedomWorks has lobbied for the privatization of Social Security, and the deregulation of the life insurance industry. It supports the status quo in America’s use of fossil fuels, and has lobbied against healthcare reform. Further, FreedomWorks has received funding from telephone giants Verizon and AT&T, and has opposed net neutrality legislation that would keep the Internet democratic and open. One FreedomWorks funder is the Scaife Foundation, from Richard Mellon Scaife, key patron of the American Right.

My point with the signs and with the teabaggers is this: I don't care if they hate Obama, are racist, think he wasn't born here, want him impeached, etc.. My point is I am sick and tired of the media portraying them and they portraying themselves as just your everyday average person who is angry and fed up with the government. THAT IS BULLS**T. PLAIN AND SIMPLE. They are phoneys. Have been from day one. I just wish they would be honest and say they hate Obama, didn't vote for him and don't want a black man in the white house. They are phoneys because the man who started one of the earliest tea party groups had his sign with the N word 38 days after Obama took office. So it had NOTHING to do with policy and everything to do with the man. (SEE BELOW) This is how the tea party started. Then they tried to say it was about spending, the deficit, healthcare. Those were just all smokescreens to disguise their hatred of Obama. Plus so many of these people have shown how incredibly stupid they are about these issues. They don't even have a clue about the taxes they pay. All of these things took place under bush. The surplus turned into a deficit with runaway spending on 2 tax cuts for the rich, a big giveaway to Pharma, and 2 wars. NOT A PEEP OUT OF THESE PEOPLE. BECAUSE BUSH WAS THEIR MAN, WHITE AND REPUBLICAN, JUST LIKE THEY LIKE 'EM. But the teabaggers are cowards. They don't want to show their true colors and they write off the racists signs, the offensive signs, the violence, etc... as just a few bad apples. I don't believe that to be the case. I think it is the whole movement, whose goal is to take over this government and give it to the rich and corporate america, which is what the republicans do best. One thing I've noticed about these people - and I've posted some of these signs for comic relief - is that they can't spell worth s**t. They seriously need to take a remedial spelling course. Well, maybe when Pres. Obama fixes NCLB, they can qualify.

Here it is: Now, will everyone quit telling us to stop using that term? It's what they are proud to be.

I will do some additional research to find the picture of the old tea partier wearing the "Proud to be a Teabagger" button next to his "I love Jesus" key chain. If there were buttons, they were being sold. Someone had to order them. I posted it before. I'm not sure on what thread. They brought on that name themselves and are now trying to backpedal. Sorry, the toothpaste is already out of the tube.

Ok, this one is a toss-up. I can’t decide which is more disgusting. Is it the picture of poor deceased Terri Schiavo, the actual picture of someone’s grandmother in their coffin, or using a graphic photo of the Twin Towers in flames. Maybe its the fact that they had the nerve have an American flag and a quote from the Bible on this entire piece of crap. So now Nancy Pelosi is a Nazi too? The sign was held by a 16 year old kid. According to Andrew Sullivan the protestor is comparing an attempt to privately ensure millions of people currently uninsured is the equivalent of this: Action T4 (German: Aktion T4) was a program, also called Euthanasia Program, in Nazi Germany spanning October 1939 until August 1941, during which physicians killed 70,273 people specified in Hitler’s secret memo of September 1, 1939 as suffering patients “judged incurably sick, by critical medical examination”, but described in a denunciation of the program by Cardinal Galen as long-term inmates of mental asylums “who may appear incurable”. Wouldn't be a teabag party with out a birther sign more birther fun Just in time for Halloween, it's the hearse from the Munsters Shout-out to Dick Cheney Just had to give this sign an honorable mention...

More Far-Right Violence? Anti-Immigrant Suspects In Arizona Killing Have Ties To White Supremacists By Zachary Roth - June 16, 2009, 12:48PM The recent murders of a Kansas doctor who performed late-term abortions and of a guard at the National Holocaust Museum have stoked fears of a rise in right-wing extremist violence -- just as that much-maligned DHS report predicted. And now it looks like we've got another one to add to the list... According to local law enforcement, three people posing as police officers forced their way into the home of Raul Flores in Arivaca, Arizona, about 10 miles from the Mexican border, on May 30. They shot and killed Flores and his nine-year-old daughter, and wounded Flores' wife. The three, Shawna Forde, Jason Bush, and Albert Gaxiola, were arrested and charged last Thursday and Friday. But here's where it gets interesting: Forde's brother, Merrill Metzger, has told the Arizona Daily Star that Forde had been talking recently about "starting a revolution against the United States government," and had said she planned to recruit members of the Aryan Nations as part of a plan to rob drug cartels.

More evidence that the teabaggers don't know what they're yapping about: And finally Question #3 (the reality based answer to which should be on billboards across the country) Question #3: Have personal taxes gone up or down under President Obama? Teabagger Answer #3: No brainer - two thirds thought they had gone up. Reality Answer #3: To quote Bartlett: As noted earlier, federal taxes are very considerably lower by every measure since Obama became president. And given the economic circumstances, it's hard to imagine that a tax increase would have been enacted last year. In fact, 40% of Obama's stimulus package involved tax cuts. These include the Making Work Pay Credit, which reduces federal taxes for all taxpayers with incomes below $75,000 by between $400 and $800. According to the JCT, last year's $787 billion stimulus bill, enacted with no Republican support, reduced federal taxes by almost $100 billion in 2009 and another $222 billion this year. The Tax Policy Center, a private research group, estimates that close to 90% of all taxpayers got a tax cut last year and almost 100% of those in the $50,000 income range. For those making between $40,000 and $50,000, the average tax cut was $472; for those making between $50,000 and $75,000, the tax cut averaged $522. No taxpayer anywhere in the country had his or her taxes increased as a consequence of Obama's policies. from: dailykos

Or allow the workers to form a union and negotiate a contract just like the greedy CEO's do.

Paul Krugman: Extremists capture the GOP They don't just disagree; they consider Obama illegitimate Saturday, March 27, 2010 I admit it: I had fun watching right-wingers go wild as health reform finally became law. But a few days later, it doesn't seem quite as entertaining -- and not just because of the wave of vandalism and threats aimed at Democratic lawmakers. For if you care about America's future, you can't be happy as extremists take full control of one of our two great political parties. To be sure, it was enjoyable watching Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., warn that by passing health reform, Democrats "will finally lay the cornerstone of their socialist utopia on the backs of the American people." Gosh, that sounds uncomfortable. And it's been a hoot watching Mitt Romney squirm as he tries to distance himself from a plan that, as he knows full well, is nearly identical to the reform he himself pushed through as governor of Massachusetts. His best shot was declaring that enacting reform was an "unconscionable abuse of power," a "historic usurpation of the legislative process" -- presumably because the legislative process isn't supposed to include things like "votes" in which the majority prevails. A side observation: One Republican talking point has been that Democrats had no right to pass a bill facing overwhelming public disapproval. As it happens, the Constitution says nothing about opinion polls trumping the right and duty of elected officials to make decisions based on what they perceive as the merits. But in any case, the message from the polls is much more ambiguous than opponents of reform claim: While many Americans disapprove of Obamacare, a significant number do so because they feel that it doesn't go far enough. And a Gallup poll taken after health reform's enactment showed the public, by a modest but significant margin, seeming pleased that it passed. But back to the main theme. What has been really striking has been the eliminationist rhetoric of the GOP, coming not from some radical fringe but from the party's leaders. John Boehner, the House minority leader, declared that the passage of health reform was "Armageddon." The Republican National Committee put out a fundraising appeal that included a picture of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi surrounded by flames while the committee's chairman declared that it was time to put Pelosi on "the firing line." And Sarah Palin put out a map literally putting Democratic lawmakers in the cross hairs of a rifle sight. All of this goes far beyond politics as usual. Democrats had a lot of harsh things to say about former President George W. Bush -- but you'll search in vain for anything comparably menacing, anything that even hinted at an appeal to violence, from members of Congress, let alone senior party officials. No, to find anything like what we're seeing now you have to go back to the last time a Democrat was president. Like President Barack Obama, Bill Clinton faced a GOP that denied his legitimacy -- Dick Armey, the second-ranking House Republican (and now a Tea Party leader) referred to him as "your president." Threats were common: Mr. Clinton, declared Sen. Jesse Helms of North Carolina, "better watch out if he comes down here. He'd better have a bodyguard." (Mr. Helms later expressed regrets over the remark -- but only after a media firestorm.) And once they controlled Congress, Republicans tried to govern as if they held the White House, too, eventually shutting down the federal government in an attempt to bully Mr. Clinton into submission. Mr. Obama seems to have sincerely believed that he would face a different reception. And he made a real try at bipartisanship, nearly losing his chance at health reform by frittering away months in a vain attempt to get a few Republicans on board. At this point, however, it's clear that any Democratic president will face total opposition from a Republican Party that is completely dominated by right-wing extremists. For today's GOP is, fully and finally, the party of Ronald Reagan -- not Reagan the pragmatic politician, who could and did strike deals with Democrats, but Reagan the anti-government fanatic, who warned that Medicare would destroy American freedom. It's a party that sees modest efforts to improve Americans' economic and health security not merely as unwise, but as monstrous. It's a party in which paranoid fantasies about the other side -- Mr. Obama is a socialist, Democrats have totalitarian ambitions -- are mainstream. As a result, it's a party that fundamentally doesn't accept anyone else's right to govern. In the short run, Republican extremism may be good for Democrats, to the extent that it prompts a voter backlash. But in the long run, it's a very bad thing for America. We need to have two reasonable, rational parties in this country. And right now we don't

You are so right. I read the book "Idiot America" which I have quoted on this forum. It talks about how the conservative message is about selling units. It's all about sales. So true. I also read an analysis by someone in PR who said the whole political movement is about selling an idea. That is why, he said, they could get poor people to protest increases in capital gain taxes. And that is why we see the middle class voting against their own self-interests when they vote for those who stand with wall street instead of main street.

Why it's increasingly difficult to take Rasmussen polls seriously July 07, 2009 12:49 pm ET by Eric Boehlert The surveys seem to exist solely to advance GOP talking points. Meaning, Rasmussen at times appears to function less as a legitimate polling firm and more as the polling wing of the RNC. Today's new survey about Sarah Palin and the repercussions of her "No mas" moment is a perfectly example. You quote their polls often. I will stand with the more reputable Gallup poll that I posted that more people than didn't thought passing the healthcare bill was a good thing.

June 10, 2009 RIGHT-WING VIOLENCE.... In light of the shootings at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in D.C. this afternoon, allegedly committed by white supremacist James Von Brunn, Matt Yglesias noted, "I hope that everyone who mau-maued the Department of Homeland Security for expressing concern about this kind of thing feel appropriately ashamed of themselves." It's hardly an unreasonable point. Two months ago, Richard Poplawski, a right-wing extremist, allegedly gunned down three police officers in Pittsburgh, in part because he feared the non-existent "Obama gun ban." A few weeks ago, Scott Roeder, another right-wing extremist, allegedly assassinated Dr. George Tiller in Kansas. A few hours ago, Von Brunn, another right-wing extremist, allegedly opened fire at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum. There are other recent examples that bear similar characteristics. This story out of Tennessee from last year continues to haunt. Knoxville police Sunday evening searched the Levy Drive home of Jim David Adkisson after he allegedly entered the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church and killed two people and wounded six others during the presentation of a children's musical. [...] Inside the house, officers found "Liberalism is a Mental Health Disorder" by radio talk show host Michael Savage, "Let Freedom Ring" by talk show host Sean Hannity, and "The O'Reilly Factor," by television talk show host Bill O'Reilly. The shotgun-wielding suspect in Sunday's mass shooting at the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church was motivated by a hatred of "the liberal movement," and he planned to shoot until police shot him, Knoxville Police Chief Sterling P. Owen IV said this morning. Adkisson, 58, of Powell wrote a four-page letter in which he stated his "hatred of the liberal movement," Owen said. "Liberals in general, as well as gays." Obviously, we're dealing with sick individuals here. There are key differences between violent right-wing radicals and mainstream Americans who happen to be conservative. Indeed, I'm not suggesting that conservative activists are necessarily dangerous, violent people. I am suggesting that it makes sense of the Department of Homeland Security to coordinate and communicate with law enforcement agencies about potentially violent extremists -- of every ideological stripe -- to help prevent tragedies like the ones we've seen lately. The DHS report specifically addressed the possibility of violence from anti-abortion radicals and anti-Semitic extremists. And in the last two weeks, Tiller was assassinated and a white supremacist opened fire at the Holocaust Memorial Museum. The Republican hysteria over the DHS report -- which was, by the way, initiated by a Bush administration official -- was always based more on a partisan scheme than reality, but the incessant complaints look especially misguided today. And since this was written you can add the right wing terrorist who flew his small plane into the IRS building, killing one person. Oh, and BTW, the teabagger who blogged and encouraged throwing bricks through windows of democrats who voted yes on healthcare? Well, he sits at home all day collecting his government disability checks. Now, why hasn't he refused this "socialism" that he fears is being promoted with this bill. Hmmm!

To answer your question, this kind: Bush: 'Bring on' attackers of U.S. troops WASHINGTON (AP) — President Bush said Wednesday that American troops under fire in Iraq aren't about to pull out, and he challenged those tempted to attack U.S. forces, "Bring them on." Pres. Obama challenged the republican AG's to file a lawsuit they will lose, whereas bush challenged Al-Qaeda to attack our soldiers. Very mature. Probably as mature as looking under his oval office desk for WMD that soldiers died looking for.

Exactly. To listen to those stupid teabaggers you'd think everything was great under bush and the deficit, unemployment and the bad economy started on January 20, 2009.

I know it's hard to separate fact from fiction when there is so much of the latter out there. But I appreciate that at least you realize it. LeighaMason has some good advice.

DUH!! No, it's because he already has healthcare. If you like your healthcare you keep it. Why would he want to change it? :tt1: Is this too difficult a concept for you to understand?