Town Meetings Calming Down?

[Guest]

I haven't read much about the outrage being exhibited at town meetings to discuss the proposed healthcare reforms recently. Maybe they aren't considered "hard news" anymore. But there have been many articles written de-bunking many of the accusations made at the meetings.

In a recent CNN.com article it said...

"Wendell Potter, a former insurance company communications executive (VP of Public Relations at CIGNA), told CNN that the insurance industry deliberately spreads false information with the goal of disrupting the debate.

The insurance industry hires public relations firms that create front groups to try to destroy health care reform by using terms like 'government takeover of the health care system' or we are heading down a 'slippery slope toward socialism' or 'we're going to kill your grandma' because of these health care regulations,' said Potter, now a senior fellow at the Center for Media and Democracy, which calls itself a nonpartisan watchdog group on public relations spin.

Asked to respond to Potter's accusation, the director of strategic communications at America's Health Insurance Plans, Robert Zirkelbach, acknowledged in an e-mail Wednesday that the group opposes some aspects of Democratic health care proposals."

Read the whole CNN article, with what has been found about several of the accusations about the proposals on the table, at... http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/20/health.care.bad.info/index.html

[Guest]

Could be just my mood the last few days on this VK, but.....

This President WILL have his health reform, and folks like you will praise it to high heavens no matter what it says or does to the nation or the economy, and our children and grandchildren will either spend their life "fixing" it or in a country that will, in my opinion, not even resemble what this country is supposed to be.

The federal government will not only set the salaries (I suppose you read that they want all the incomes of insurance execs now..that will join the info already collected on financial and auto execs) but will be intrusive in all aspects of our life.

Cutting costs in health care has been lost to a political agenda !!!!

[Guest]

I think a good half the people don't have a clue what's about to happen to them... and all of us.

[Guest]

"The message of the various Tea Party protests, which predated this summer's ahistorical media panic over town hall "lynch mobs," has been pretty simple, says Matt Kibbe, president of FreedomWorks, the nonprofit that has helped organize the protests, told Reason magazine this spring. "It was: stop spending so much money, stop borrowing so much money, and stop bailing out people who were irresponsible."

"Meanwhile the administration wants to make college loans a federal "entitlement," national "service" a household word, and video games a target of presidential wrath. The default mindset is government involvement, not private choice.

Americans didn't vote for big government last November. They voted for a guy who looked like he could keep his cool in the heat of battle. If Obama wants to regain that cool, he needs to rein in the power-grabbers in Washington."

http://www.nypost.com/php/pfriendly/print.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nypost.com%2Fseven% 2F08232009%2Fpostopinion%2Fopedcolumnists%2Fits_th e_big_government__stupid_186067.htm


THIS is what the town hall meetings are about...isolating the fear that this country feels to ONE SINGLE issue is not correct, in my opinion. In 7 months....SEVEN MONTHS.......look at how the government is in our lives.....and MOST IF NOT ALL of it is being done with NO DISCUSSION, and that fact should not be lost on americans.

The NO DISCUSSION on such large impact things is flat out scary !

As frightened as I was about the election, when a stimulus bill was passed that was almost HALF pork after the candidate of change said that would never happen, and the bill was never read, I knew the road we were about to travel.

This entire debate on the one issue of health care will end up. NO MATTER THE FACTS, with the President and those wonderful leaders of congress ramming something through and saying how this had to be done and those bad guys on the other side just wouldnt give...this is going to happen no matter what happens in reality in the next few months. AND THIS STATMENT IS IN NO WAY a support statement for the Republican party..simply a statement on the current administration and congress !

[Guest]

I might add VK, that your stressing of imaginative items that oppose the "bill" forgets that our President is not very forthcoming on this issue either...

His constant misrepresnetation of how many are uninsured.....and recently his constant talk about how you can keep your insurance if you like it...

"The most consequential misrepresentation in the health care debate is when Obama and other supporters claim that if people like their doctor and their insurance plan, they will get to keep them. The reason for the heavy stress on that reassurance is the belief that health care reform that jeopardizes what people currently have isn't going anywhere.

The promise is false, however, even by the terms of the committee bills. Existing plans are grandfathered in, but only for five years. After that, they have to meet the new federal mandates, whatever they turn out to be. In the interim, they can accept no new enrollees."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/08/22/obamas_health_care_whopper_is_bigger_97989.html

This same writer makes this point...

"The heart of the Obama reform, supported by virtually all congressional Democrats, is to treat health insurance companies as national public utilities. The federal government would determine the benefit packages they could offer. Pricing decisions would be strictly limited and profits capped."

[Guest]

"The message of the various Tea Party protests, which predated this summer's ahistorical media panic over town hall "lynch mobs," has been pretty simple, says Matt Kibbe, president of FreedomWorks, the nonprofit that has helped organize the protests, told Reason magazine this spring. "It was: stop spending so much money, stop borrowing so much money, and stop bailing out people who were irresponsible."

"Meanwhile the administration wants to make college loans a federal "entitlement," national "service" a household word, and video games a target of presidential wrath. The default mindset is government involvement, not private choice.

Americans didn't vote for big government last November. They voted for a guy who looked like he could keep his cool in the heat of battle. If Obama wants to regain that cool, he needs to rein in the power-grabbers in Washington."

http://www.nypost.com/php/pfriendly/print.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nypost.com%2Fseven% 2F08232009%2Fpostopinion%2Fopedcolumnists%2Fits_th e_big_government__stupid_186067.htm


THIS is what the town hall meetings are about...isolating the fear that this country feels to ONE SINGLE issue is not correct, in my opinion. In 7 months....SEVEN MONTHS.......look at how the government is in our lives.....and MOST IF NOT ALL of it is being done with NO DISCUSSION, and that fact should not be lost on americans.

The NO DISCUSSION on such large impact things is flat out scary !

As frightened as I was about the election, when a stimulus bill was passed that was almost HALF pork after the candidate of change said that would never happen, and the bill was never read, I knew the road we were about to travel.

This entire debate on the one issue of health care will end up. NO MATTER THE FACTS, with the President and those wonderful leaders of congress ramming something through and saying how this had to be done and those bad guys on the other side just wouldnt give...this is going to happen no matter what happens in reality in the next few months. AND THIS STATMENT IS IN NO WAY a support statement for the Republican party..simply a statement on the current administration and congress !

Bucco, I'm just curious about how government has entered or changed your life within the past 7 months??? I'm not being sarcastic, I really want to know how YOU feel this on a day to day basis?

It is my hope and belief that President Obama will return from vacation, call in and focus on the Blue Dog Democrates, have more than enough votes and get exactly what he wants in health reform, including the Pulic Option. That's my opinion and I have a right to it.

If if were me, I'd say, "I've tried the bi-partisan route, it's not working... ENOUGH!" And get on with it.

[Guest]

So far, BO has lied about pretty much everything. In a way I almost hope they ram it through anyway. I believe they call it the nuclear option. That will spell their political death in 2010 and 2012 and probably for some time to come.

Then we can do the same thing we did in California and start to repel it all. With any luck we'll get a TRUE conservative as president in 2012 and we can start undoing their damage. And I mean a TRUE conservative, not another Bush or McCain.

The last straw was when our very liberal governor Gray Davis doubled the cost of car registrations among other things and the people of California recalled him and ran him out of town. The first thing the new governor did was repeal all his crazy new taxes. Unfortunately the liberal legislature continued on their spending spree and drove CA even further into the ditch as they've been doing for years.

BO and his crew are one big walking lie. Not that it's any different with other politicians but at least we'll have a chance for a course correction.

But I suppose there will alway be those that will gladly trade their freedom for government programs and promises. barf

[Guest]

So far, BO has lied about pretty much everything. In a way I almost hope they ram it through anyway. I believe they call it the nuclear option. That will spell their political death in 2010 and 2012 and probably for some time to come.

Then we can do the same thing we did in California and start to repel it all. With any luck we'll get a TRUE conservative as president in 2012 and we can start undoing their damage. And I mean a TRUE conservative, not another Bush or McCain.

The last straw was when our very liberal governor Gray Davis doubled the cost of car registrations among other things and the people of California recalled him and ran him out of town. The first thing the new governor did was repeal all his crazy new taxes. Unfortunately the liberal legislature continued on their spending spree and drove CA even further into the ditch as they've been doing for years.

BO and his crew are one big walking lie. Not that it's any different with other politicians but at least we'll have a chance for a course correction.

But I suppose there will alway be those that will gladly trade their freedom for government programs and promises. barf

DK, If you're thinking about a TRUE conservative, like, oh, um, Sarah Palin... don't bet the farm. The true conservative base is shrinking before our eyes. It's not gonna happen.

And as far as CA goes, how's Schwarzenegger working out??? Not too good I hear. My daughter lives in CA. What a mess!

[Guest]

Actually you are totally incorrect. Latest polls show people who consider themselves conservative out number those who don't in every single state. But you know what? Let's discuss this again in 2010 and see.

Schwarzenegger is not a conservative. I was born and lived in CA for 48 years so I know a thing or two about the state.

[Guest]

...This President WILL have his health reform, and folks like you will praise it to high heavens no matter what it says or does to the nation or the economy...There you go again, Bucco. Please don't tell me what I will do or how I will react to a future political developments. You have been consistent in your criticism of this President and this administration, regardless of what they've done. In fact, it's hard to believe that anyone could be so consistently wrong, but your criticism is your right. But as you well know, Bucco, I have praised this administration when I think they've done well as I've been critical of some other things they've done. Please don't paint me into the same one-sided, ideologically-unyielding, and ignore-the-facts political posture you so consistently demonstrate.
... MOST IF NOT ALL of it is being done with NO DISCUSSION...The NO DISCUSSION on such large impact things is flat out scary !...This entire debate on the one issue of health care will end up. NO MATTER THE FACTS, with the President and those wonderful leaders of congress ramming something through and saying how this had to be done and those bad guys on the other side just wouldnt give...this is going to happen no matter what happens in reality in the next few months....Yep. That's exactly what's going to happen. In fact, commentators from both the left (Tavis Smiley) and right (Joe Scarborough) on Face The Nation this morning say that's what should happen. Both observed that the American people spoke loudly in November, 2008 and gave the Democrats the legislative majority to do just about anything they want (until 2010, at least). Both the commentators as well as the members of Congress interviewed on the Sunday shows also say that "ramming it thru" is what is likely. It's just too bad that there is such an absence of statesmanship in the Congress to permit some meeting of the ideological minds. Short of that, something does need to be rammed thru to begin to correct our critical healthcare problems. If one side is trampled on as the result, so be it. The electorate has another chance to speak in 2010....With any luck we'll get a TRUE conservative as president in 2012 and we can start undoing their damage. And I mean a TRUE conservative, not another Bush or McCain......don't bet the farm. The true conservative base is shrinking before our eyes. It's not gonna happen...If that's what the majority of Americans want, it'll happen. But if they vote as they have in many past elections, for the incumbents that are there and who have established the connections to raise campaign contributions to buy their way into re-election, like Chelsea said...it's not gonna happen. My reasons are in addition to those she cited (and will not reflect the way I intend to vote), but my conclusion is the same...it ain't gonna happen.

[Guest]

The one and only reason why BO and his constitutional wrecking crew came to power was the American people bought every single one of his lies. Their margin of victory wasn't that large anyway.

People's eyes are being opened every day and they see him for what he really is. A far left radicle, no experience, community organizer and they don't like it.

But like I said, there will always be those who put their faith in and buy into government lies and programs that are only meant to bolster their own power and authority.

They don't put their faith into the American people, freedom, God or even themselves. It's all about what will the government do for me today and how can I make other people pay for it.

BTW, speaking of Sarah Palin. If I had to turn my family's budget over to her or BO I choose her any day of the week. Of course if you think like a liberal you'd turn it over to BO. He'd end up fleecing everyone else and you'd probably end up with their money. However, I prefer to earn my way and take care of my own family as opposed to leaving it up to someone else.

[Guest]

Yep. That's exactly what's going to happen. In fact, commentators from both the left (Tavis Smiley) and right (Joe Scarborough) on Face The Nation this morning say that's what should happen.
I think you need to go back and listen to the show again. While this WAS the position of Smiley, it most certainly was NOT the position of Scarborough. Scarborough said that he "can" force the issue, but never that he "should". In fact he said quite the opposite at the end when asked what the President "should" do. He said the President should get the liberals (Pelosi, Waxman) together with the moderates (McCaskill, Bayh) and then lead them to a compromise rather than force through a strictly liberal agenda.

[Guest]

...Scarborough said that he "can" force the issue, but never that he "should"....He said the President should get the liberals (Pelosi, Waxman) together with the moderates (McCaskill, Bayh) and then lead them to a compromise rather than force through a strictly liberal agenda.Yeah, you're right. But the impression I was left with, from the comments of both Smiley and Scarborough, was that the President should stop pussy-footing around trying to get a bi-partisan bill with the GOP leadership and focus his efforts to get the Democrats in line. Bayh, Pelosi, Waxman and McCaskill are Democrats, of course, and the point the commentators seemed to be making was that President Obama is not likely to make any further progress with attempts at bi-partisanship with the GOP and should simply play hardball to whip all the Democrats in line to pass a bill with the elements which he desires. What I did seem to hear both commentators saying is that if he expects to get a bill passed in a timely manner, he'll need to whip those of his own party into shape, like the examples they used of how LBJ used to do it. Sorry if I left a different impression with my post.

[Guest]

Bucco, I'm just curious about how government has entered or changed your life within the past 7 months??? I'm not being sarcastic, I really want to know how YOU feel this on a day to day basis?

It is my hope and belief that President Obama will return from vacation, call in and focus on the Blue Dog Democrates, have more than enough votes and get exactly what he wants in health reform, including the Pulic Option. That's my opinion and I have a right to it.

If if were me, I'd say, "I've tried the bi-partisan route, it's not working... ENOUGH!" And get on with it.


This government has NOT AFFECTED ME ONE IOTA thus far...NOT ONE SINGLE BIT. NEVER SAID IT DID !

I am more concerned with the country than what it is doing to me at present and I feel it on a daily basis only in that perspective !

I would be curious as to why you would ask...do you not have the same concern ?

[Guest]

There you go again, Bucco. Please don't tell me what I will do or how I will react to a future political developments. You have been consistent in your criticism of this President and this administration, regardless of what they've done. In fact, it's hard to believe that anyone could be so consistently wrong, but your criticism is your right. But as you well know, Bucco, I have praised this administration when I think they've done well as I've been critical of some other things they've done. Please don't paint me into the same one-sided, ideologically-unyielding, and ignore-the-facts political posture you so consistently demonstrate.
Yep. That's exactly what's going to happen. In fact, commentators from both the left (Tavis Smiley) and right (Joe Scarborough) on Face The Nation this morning say that's what should happen. Both observed that the American people spoke loudly in November, 2008 and gave the Democrats the legislative majority to do just about anything they want (until 2010, at least). Both the commentators as well as the members of Congress interviewed on the Sunday shows also say that "ramming it thru" is what is likely. It's just too bad that there is such an absence of statesmanship in the Congress to permit some meeting of the ideological minds. Short of that, something does need to be rammed thru to begin to correct our critical healthcare problems. If one side is trampled on as the result, so be it. The electorate has another chance to speak in 2010.If that's what the majority of Americans want, it'll happen. But if they vote as they have in many past elections, for the incumbents that are there and who have established the connections to raise campaign contributions to buy their way into re-election, like Chelsea said...it's not gonna happen. My reasons are in addition to those she cited (and will not reflect the way I intend to vote), but my conclusion is the same...it ain't gonna happen.


Ok...again I get this same old tired lecture...

There you go again, Bucco. Please don't tell me what I will do or how I will react to a future political developments. You have been consistent in your criticism of this President and this administration, regardless of what they've done. In fact, it's hard to believe that anyone could be so consistently wrong, but your criticism is your right. But as you well know, Bucco, I have praised this administration when I think they've done well as I've been critical of some other things they've done.


My comment on how you will react is simply based on your posts on this thread...it is how I think you feel. I have not, except MAYBE one time ever heard your criticize THIS PRESIDENT..I have heard you criticize strategy or underlings action, but I can be wrong, but except for his strategy never heard a criticism of his idealogy !

You can say that I have been wrong, AND THIS IS YOUR RIGHT, but I am not wrong as he has been everything he said he would not be...tranparent, open, non political and he has told some whoppers.

And I will make it a point to come on when I think he has done something right...I tend to stay away from discussions on which I do not feel confident but on this man and his idealogy I feel VERY FIRM, but I promise you I will begin to come on to satisfy you and compliment him when I think he has done good (like for example his speech to the NAACP).

When we talk of ignoring facts, please include yourself in that...I am comfortable in my shoes saying I predicted EVERYTHING he is doing over a year ago. As with your link that began this thread, you spin it all one way....about the misinformation at the public hearings but you totally ignore any questions of this administrations mis information ! You only criticize strategy !

I am fully aware of how many on the far right have misconstrued facts and caused fear but I am also aware of what the WH and congress is doing with facts. I will never ever forgive the stimulus bill...a fraud in total... taking advantage of the fears of this country and that is what it was.(you probably excuse the President and blame only the congress...I do not) Bank bailouts...the only folks who made out in that was the banks !

I love it when folks like you say we need to "RAM" something through. Why does it have to be RAMMED through as you say, and I have no doubt of anything other than that happening.

You can say "If one side is trampled on as the result, so be it." I am not sure of who you speak but RAMMING it through is ALL we have seen much of in this adminstration, albeit only 7 months of it.

And finally as you want to call me so wrong...I think I am closer to correct than you by a long measure THUS FAR on how we both felt on election day.
MUCH MUCH CLOSER, but frankly I hope in the long run you win your battle with me !

[Guest]

the point the commentators seemed to be making was that President Obama is not likely to make any further progress with attempts at bi-partisanship with the GOP

Again, that was Smiley's take. Scarborough's had a different twist. He said that Obama has never tried to be bipartisan. Instead, Obama initially tried to push through a liberal agenda (the Pelosi plan) but it was stymied by the moderates and Blue Dogs. It was only then that he tried to placate both sides of the Democratic Party. Obama hasn't paid any attention to the Republican viewpoint except where it overlapped with that of the Blue Dogs.

If you follow Scarborough's beliefs about health care, you would know that the last thing that he would ever want to see happen is for Obama to start playing hardball with his own party and push through the liberal plan. He has been very critical of Obama playing to the left on all the other issues such as Cap and Trade, the bloated budget bill and a stimulus bill that was nothing more than an early Christmas present for the far left.

[Guest]

...I think I am closer to correct than you by a long measure THUS FAR on how we both felt on election day.
MUCH MUCH CLOSER...Great! I hope you feel better as the result of your deep thinking about how this President has performed versus how you predicted he'd perform. Maybe it's just a self-fulfilling prophesy. Just leave me out of it, please.

[Guest]

Great! I hope you feel better as the result of your deep thinking about how this President has performed versus how you predicted he'd perform. Maybe it's just a self-fulfilling prophesy. Just leave me out of it, please.

Actually, I feel lousy about it frankly, and while your memory is convenient you must recall me saying many times during the campaign and since that I hope you are right and I am wrong !

Trust me VK, you, even though you dont think so, are not the only one who thinks about what is going on and reads and pays attention...you are much better at conveying it on here but you are not the ONLY informed person around....there are others of us who pay close attention.

I want the country to succeed, not any one man.....and while you feel that any criticism of our President is something that is ....well, so ordinary.....I have not changed since before he was even a candidate and there are many many others who see the lying and deception that is going on.

[Guest]

...Obama has never tried to be bipartisan. Instead, Obama initially tried to push through a liberal agenda (the Pelosi plan) but it was stymied by the moderates and Blue Dogs. It was only then that he tried to placate both sides of the Democratic Party. Obama hasn't paid any attention to the Republican viewpoint except where it overlapped with that of the Blue Dogs....There's no sense debating what the two guys said on TV this morning. Little to be gained, I think, in parsing the words they said.

On the issue of the Obama "liberal agenda", I assume you're talking about healthcare reforms. It's been pretty widely reported that the White House never really sent a detailed plan to the Congress, only a set of guiding principles (100% coverage, public option, preventive medicine, etc.). The various bills floating around have been created by the House and Senate committees in response to one another. Somewhere along the line, 161 amendments suggested by the GOP were accepted and became a part of the Senate Finance Committee's version of the proposed legislation. If that's not at least some bi-partisanship, I don't know what it should be called. But even with all that input, the leaders of the GOP caucus say their members will vote 100% NO to any kind of proposed reform legislation unless any new insurance provided to those not now insured will be provided by the for-profit insurance companies. There has been some discussion of an "insurance co-operative", but at last count the GOP leadership has said even that would be unacceptable.

What I think will happen is what the two guys on Meet The Press said was possible--that the POTUS concentrates his efforts on getting agreement within his own party, then any form of the reform legislation desired by the Democrats can and probably will be passed. I wouldn't be surprised if most of those 161 amendments agreed to by the Democratic-controlled committees weren't stripped out of the final legislation as the result of the continued deep divide between the parties. That will set off another several weeks of moaning and wailing by the GOP, whose suggestions will probably be spurned.

If it plays out this way, I won't be surprised. From the GOP standpoint, the downside is that few of their ideas will be included in the final legislation. The upside, I suppose, is that the bill will be purely a Democratic product. They will be totally responsible for how it works out. The U.S. electorate can then decide whether they like it or not when making their voting decisions next year and in 2012.

The whole process works a lot better when there are some real statesmen in Congress. Where oh where have they all gone?

[Guest]

Somewhere along the line, 161 amendments suggested by the GOP were accepted and became a part of the Senate Finance Committee's version of the proposed legislation. If that's not at least some bi-partisanship, I don't know what it should be called.

When looking at quantitative numbers there are enough amendments to fool the casual observer into thinking that a bipartisanship effort was made. However, when you scratch below the surface, most of the amendments were technical in nature (minor wording changes, etc.) Also, there were many hundreds of amendments from the GOP that were rejected. I'm sure the Dems had it calculated to put a bi-partisan face on a bill that they essentially kept lockstep with their ultimate objectives. You may not know what it is called other than bipartisanship, but to me it looks like window dressing to give the media some talking points to use against the Republicans.

[Guest]

...to me it looks like window dressing to give the media some talking points to use against the Republicans.At the end of the day, I think whatever healthcare reform bill is passed will be almost completely what the Democrats want. There will be a lot of GOP wailing about the absence of bi-partisanship. But when you think about it, why should there be any? The Democrats won a 78 seat majority in the House and a 60-40 majority in the Senate. If one wants to talk about a "public mandate", the Democrats got one in 2008...big time. Talking about seeking the input of the opponent is a real nicety, but nothing more. Whatever party wins that kind of a majority really doesn't have to listen to what their opponents say or want at all. That's simply the way the game is played. If the public wants something different, they have a chance to change it in 2010 and again in 2012. In the meantime, why waste time wailing about not being consulted? Politics isn't practiced by Mr. Niceguys, either before or now.

[Guest]

"A Washington Post-ABC News survey found that fewer than half of Americans — 49 percent — say they believe the president will make the right decisions for the country. That's down from 60 percent at the 100-day mark in his presidency.

The poll shows Obama's overall approval is 57 percent, 12 points lower than it was at its peak in April. Fifty-three percent disapprove of the way he's handling the budget deficit and his approval on health care continues to deteriorate."


For years the libs screamed about bi-partisanship when they weren't in power. Now you're saying we don't need it? Let's see what they say about bi-partisanship when the balance of power changes in 2010.

[Guest]

"A Washington Post-ABC News survey found that fewer than half of Americans — 49 percent — say they believe the president will make the right decisions for the country. That's down from 60 percent at the 100-day mark in his presidency.

The poll shows Obama's overall approval is 57 percent, 12 points lower than it was at its peak in April. Fifty-three percent disapprove of the way he's handling the budget deficit and his approval on health care continues to deteriorate."


For years the libs screamed about bi-partisanship when they weren't in power. Now you're saying we don't need it? Let's see what they say about bi-partisanship when the balance of power changes in 2010.

DK: I agree with you that there will be a change in 2010. I hope the change is significant. What I dread is all the mudslinging we will be subjected to over the next two years. I am tired of hearing the deficit is so high because things are much worse than we expected.

[Guest]

At the end of the day, I think whatever healthcare reform bill is passed will be almost completely what the Democrats want. There will be a lot of GOP wailing about the absence of bi-partisanship. But when you think about it, why should there be any? The Democrats won a 78 seat majority in the House and a 60-40 majority in the Senate. If one wants to talk about a "public mandate", the Democrats got one in 2008...big time. Talking about seeking the input of the opponent is a real nicety, but nothing more. Whatever party wins that kind of a majority really doesn't have to listen to what their opponents say or want at all. That's simply the way the game is played. If the public wants something different, they have a chance to change it in 2010 and again in 2012. In the meantime, why waste time wailing about not being consulted? Politics isn't practiced by Mr. Niceguys, either before or now.

So, the only reason we vote for people is not their capacity to see what's in the best interests of their district, we just want to find people who can toe the line as dictated by the DNC or RNC! After all, the DNC and RNC know what's best for us, and whichever party has the majority just tells us which "NC" should be dictator-for-a-term.

Say, why bother having a Congress at all where elected folk represent districts? We could just count noses and then simply turn over all "congressional stuff" to the party "leaders" at either 430 S. Capitol Street SE or 310 First Street, Washington, DC 20003. After all, what the party leadership think is right is all that matters.......

[Guest]

There will be a lot of GOP wailing about the absence of bi-partisanship. But when you think about it, why should there be any? The Democrats won a 78 seat majority in the House and a 60-40 majority in the Senate. If one wants to talk about a "public mandate", the Democrats got one in 2008...big time.
That's the mistake that every majority makes - thinking that they won a mandate on every single issue. That is simply not the case. Many people voted Democratic because of the war, others because of the economy, others because they were disillusioned with deficit spending by the Republicans, others because of social issues, others because they didn't like Palin, etc., etc. If health care had been the single major issue of the campaign, then the Dems would be correct in assuming that they had a mandate. It was not and they do not. If they were astute they would look at the polling data to see that the public is not behind their position.

[Guest]

DK: I agree with you that there will be a change in 2010. I hope the change is significant....By the way, just like you and DK, I too hope there is a major league turnover in the Congress in 2010. I know I'll be doing my small part to make it happen.

[Guest]

So, the only reason we vote for people is not their capacity to see what's in the best interests of their district, we just want to find people who can toe the line as dictated by the DNC or RNC!...Not necessarily true, but that seems to be the end result. New high-minded people get elected to Congress and they are immediately whipsawed into following the orders of the party leaders. Those are the guys and gals who got their positions as the result of being re-elected so many times that they know the ins and outs of how to beat the newbies into submission.

Is this the system that the founding fathers had in mind?

[Guest]

That's the mistake that every majority makes - thinking that they won a mandate on every single issue. That is simply not the case. Many people voted Democratic because of the war, others because of the economy, others because they were disillusioned with deficit spending by the Republicans, others because of social issues, others because they didn't like Palin, etc., etc. If health care had been the single major issue of the campaign, then the Dems would be correct in assuming that they had a mandate. It was not and they do not. If they were astute they would look at the polling data to see that the public is not behind their position.

:agree::agree:

[Guest]

Not necessarily true, but that seems to be the end result. New high-minded people get elected to Congress and they are immediately whipsawed into following the orders of the party leaders. Those are the guys and gals who got their positions as the result of being re-elected so many times that they know the ins and outs of how to beat the newbies into submission.

Is this the system that the founding fathers had in mind?
If the nation has so degenerated that our representatives are nothing but party hacks who respond like Pavlonian dogs when their masters riign the campaign contribution bell - and we as voters accept this conduct - then the next amendment to the US Constitution should change the Preamble to read "We, The Sheeple"

Is this the legacy we leave behind?