John McCain misrepresents the concept of bipartisanship in his protestations from the senate floor. When he says “This isn’t bi-partisan,” he is essentially claiming, “You are practicing the same old politics and unless you do it our way, we will resist cooperation and blame you for it.”
The Democrats need to distinguish between the meaning of “bipartisan,” (involving everyone in the process of decision-making), and the implication “you must have significant Republican support and votes.”
Obama was elected to take the country in a new direction, and to my mind he intends to include the Republicans assistance. In the recent battle over the stimulus plan, the Republicans were invited to help shape the package. Unfortunately they have almost unanimously refused to get involved constructively. They seem stuck in a discredited world-view where tax cuts solve every problem, and where the only purpose of opposition is to take a stubborn position: “No”.
This is exactly the “usual Washington politics” that we voted to change. I’m glad Obama brought out the sword of clear thinking, saying, for example, “They say this isn’t a stimulus package, this is a spending bill. What did they think a stimulus is?” I say, extend an open hand to the Republicans, but don’t forget why you were elected.
Let’s be honest. We didn’t really expect Congress to come up with a "bold" stimulus plan, did we? But do we agree that NO action will only aggravate our current crisis?
The GOP surprised us when it failed to respond more constructively to the bipartisan overture from Barack Obama. I personally witnessed the precedent-setting bipartisan dinner for his defeated opponent (my photo of the President-elect at the dinner honoring McCain, January 19) and noted the subsequent meetings with Congressional Republicans. And what did we get in the way of proposals from the loyal opposition? More of the dogma-driven, supply-side ideology that contributed to our current mess: tax cuts!
On the other hand, GOP critics have a point: the bill that passed the House and was embraced by Obama essentially is an accumulation of favorite Democratic spending proposals.
What is missing is CHANGE. The CHANGE Obama advocated in his campaign for the Presidency. The CHANGE that won him a resounding mandate to govern for four years. The CHANGE from policies that have worked to benefit few and imperil many. Where are the first steps toward affordable health care, a sustainable green economy and alternative energy? And why are we not moving boldly to address the systemic failures that underlie the current crisis in credit markets?
Obama asked for ideas. And Paul Krugman and Robert Reich, among others, obliged. But what these brilliant men offer is predictable: rationales for orthodox Keynesian solutions and concern about labor market distortions, respectively. More is needed, not just in additional spending, but in fresh ideas that advance the President's policy agenda. So, if suggestions are still welcomed, here is my two-cents worth. And please do keep the CHANGE.
Health Care
Obama has promised the nation affordable health care similar to his own Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP), to be available to all by the end of his first term. There is no need to back off this goal. Health care is one of the largest drags on our economy and the stimulus bill provides a real opportunity to begin managing its cost. In addition to the bill’s provisions to help state governments fund Medicare and work projects, I suggest that the federal government reimburse all state and local governments for their employer's share of health care for the rest of this year. In exchange, recipients may not fire government workers and must commit to integrating their health care plans with the existing FEHBP starting in 2010. That provides additional and immediate financial assistance to state and local governments, while paving the way for the establishment of a Public Employees Health Benefits Program. By January 2010, the federal government’s negotiated health care program would expand its base and economies of scale. The next step will be to apply the system to businesses, and subsequently to capture the un- and under-insured.
Energy Independence
Most honest leaders recognize that in due course government will have to produce the substantial additional revenue to pay for the stimulus. But good luck finding a politician willing to propose increasing taxes of any kind. So let me suggest instead a hefty tariff on imported oil to fund the “green economy.” A tariff of 50 percent or more on the landed cost of all imported energy (probably with some form of accommodation for our NAFTA partners) can be justified because of national security as well as the external costs to our environment inherent in the use of fossil fuels. And such a levy would promote conservation, subsidize domestic production, and help to fund and protect our investments in alternative energy. This is a measure that should be welcomed by Republicans who advocate "drill, baby, drill” as well as environmentalists interested in promoting clean energy. The windfall earned by American producers could be invested domestically or taxed as profits. And while there may be a marginal increase of fuel cost at the pump, it will pale in comparison with the amounts we forked over to foreign potentates rather than our own Treasury these past few years, when oil was effectively 200% greater than its current price.
Reestablish a ‘Risk-Free’ Investment Benchmark
Explanations for our current credit crisis and financial market meltdown abound, including the Washington Post's excellent series. But absent from all the expert analyses is any mention of the Treasury Department's October 2001 decision to discontinue issuing 30-year Bonds. That decision, on the heels of 9/11 and the cusp of Bush's costly war on terror, both lowered mortgage yields and prompted increased sales of bundled mortgages marketed as alternative 'risk-free' instruments, which in turn fueled the housing bubble and distorted both government and corporate credit point spreads. Treasury Bond auctions have resumed, but a clear provision to finance America’s recovery through borrowing would repair yield spreads – both between short and long term sovereign debt and in relation to all other debt instruments. Transparent budget financing will help re-establish more realistic risk pricing and global confidence in the US economy. But the 30-year Bond will not regain its position as a benchmark for 'risk-free' long-term investment if Fed meddling in the market, as it proposes to do with its planned purchase of Treasuries from troubled banks. In fact, this central-bankers-gone-wild approach will only create a greater Treasury bubble that will seriously aggravate our problems. Once markets are allowed to properly price the cost and risk of our recovery without Fed manipulation, global confidence in the US economy has a chance to be recover.
So Pay the Bill, and Keep the CHANGE
Barack Obama attended his last inaugural event, the Staff Ball, at the DC Armory on January 21. But he arrived after a performance by the opening act, Arcade Fire. So here are some insightful lysircs from their “Intervention”:
You say it's money that we need As if we're only mouths to feed I know no matter what you say There are some debts you'll never pay
You say it's money that we need
As if we're only mouths to feed
I know no matter what you say
There are some debts you'll never pay
The message is relevant to the stimulus bill now before Congress.
We can act responsibly and cautiously if we:
Pay the Bill and Keep the CHANGE.
As an independent voter who was/is a strong Obama supporter I'm watching the stimulus legislation negotiations for signs that the new administration will deliver on the promise of change to the partisan political process. So far I'm encouraged that Obama and the Republican leadership are at least talking and have some hope that the result will be better, more balanced legislation.
Just by way of background, in 2000 President Bush had also run partly on the promise of a bipartisan approach. Apparently he was not sincere because there was almost nothing bipartisan about his 8 years except briefly after the 2001 attacks when the Democrats came to him.
I believe that Obama is sincere about bipartisanship but I'm still afraid that the strong partisan currents will sweep his good intentions away. I'm enough of a realist to understand that partisanship will remain, but enough of an idealist to hope that our elected representatives may sometimes choose in favor of the greater good of the country rather than partisan advantage and that balanced, moderate legislation may sometimes result.
In the latest report on the stimulus neogtations I see both good and bad signs http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/24/AR2009012400661.html.
Bad:
- The Republicans say they were completely shut out of the stimulus drafting process
- The legislation bears some Congressional Chrismas tree imprints; such as money for the National Endowment for the Arts. (I don't object to funding the arts but don't understand why that should be in the jobs bill. Bills should be kept clean and specific to their purpose, not used as a way to sneak in funding for other things in a non-transparent manner)
- The bill will be very expensive and I don't understand how our country will ever pay off all its debts and if/when foreigners stop buying our Treasury bills we'll be ruined
Good:
-Obama met with the Republican leadership, listened to their input, and hopefully gave them reason to be constructive and bipartisan in their turn
- One of the ideas that Obama and the Democrats will reportedly consider is abatement of the effect of the AMT tax. (This tax is an abomination because it continually increases without Congressional transparency and accountability. And its abatement is arguably stimulative to the economy so it is not another Christmas tree ornament.)
On Sunday, Republican Colin Powell, retired Army 4-star general, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and former Secretary of State endorsed Barack Obama.
"I come to the conclusion that because of his ability to inspire, because of the inclusive nature of his campaign, because he is reaching out all across America, because of who he is and his rhetorical abilities -- and we have to take that into account -- as well as his substance -- he has both style and substance -- he has met the standard of being a successful president, being an exceptional president. I think he is a transformational figure. He is a new generation coming into the world -- onto the world stage, onto the American stage -- and for that reason I'll be voting for Senator Barack Obama."
Powell's experience and intellect
Ken Adelman, a lifelong conservative Republican who worked for Goldwater, Nixon, Ford, and Reagan, just endorsed Barack Obama. "Temperament" and "judgment" were his main reason for favoring Obama:
When the economic crisis broke, I found John McCain bouncing all over the place. In those first few crisis days, he was impetuous, inconsistent, and imprudent; ending up just plain weird. Having worked with Ronald Reagan for seven years, and been with him in his critical three summits with Gorbachev, I've concluded that that's no way a president can act under pressure.
Second is judgment. The most important decision John McCain made in his long campaign was deciding on a running mate.
That decision showed appalling lack of judgment. Not only is Sarah Palin not close to being acceptable in high office -- I would not have hired her for even a mid-level post in the arms-control agency. But that selection contradicted McCain's main two, and best two, themes for his campaign -- Country First, and experience counts. Neither can he credibly claim, post-Palin pick.
These sure are weird times when I find myself agreeing with two prominent Republicans. Maybe that shows that Obama can work across the aisle -- and not just in Congress, but across the nation -- more effectively than McCain.
The Last Refuge
It used to be said that “Patriotism was the last refuge of scoundrels.” Today that mantra should be updated to recognize that scurrilous patriotism comes in many flavors, the most scurrilous being “bipartisan”.
The same White House that stampeded herds of mindless Senators and Congressmen of both parties into voting for the massive Patriot Act, which few of them had actually read, is now trying to stampede herds of mindless Senators and Congressmen of both parties into voting for a $700 billion dollar bailout of greedy Wall Street financiers, for a bailout that the White House neither explained nor do our Senators and Congressmen understand.
The brazenness of Secretary Paulson, the current stampede's scaremonger-in-chief, and his faithful sidekick Dr. Bernanke is breath taking. Years ago when I was a sometime consultant, I wrote proposals that obtained millions of dollars in funding. Reflecting my old school training, my proposals were dozens of pages long, and the more funding I sought, the more extensive the rationale for my requests. But now comes Secretary Paulson submitting a three page proposal that requests $700 billion whose only rationale is “If you don’t give us all this money, the sky will fall” … Amazing. It conjures images of ruthless pirates … hedge fund managers … and Turkey-Lurkey … :-)
But whereas few voices were raised against the ill-advised Patriot Act, the nation is more fortunate this time around. So I say “three cheers” for the Republican members of the House of Representatives who resisted Senator McCain’s impulsive call for “bipartisan” compliance and raised their voices in strenuous objections to this blackmail. I say even louder cheers for the 200 economists who placed their professional reputations on the line when they went on the record by signing a public statement that declared the Secretary’s proposal to be unfounded. Some of these economists have also proposed alternative strategies that seem to be far more plausible and would costs us tax payers far less than the Paulson-Bernanke gambit.
Not being an economist, I cannot conduct a professional assessment of the Paulson-Bernanke proposal nor of the proposed alternatives. However I can use my common sense as a tax payer to ask some obvious questions that the Secretary and the Fed’s Chairman have not deigned to answer : How did they estimate the $700 billion price tag? Was it based on a worst case scenario? What was their best case estimate? What would happen if we only invested half or some other fraction of that amount? Does it all have to be placed on the line immediately or can we make a number of substantially smaller multi-year investments?
I am made all the more suspicious of Messrs. Paulson and Bernanke by their recent actions. Having listened for the last three decades to the tirades from successive Republican Administrations against the evils of industrial policy and the perils of government bureaucrats trying to pick winners and losers, I was greatly surprised when these two bureaucrats arranged for JPMorgan Chase to purchase Baer Sterns and Washington Mutual at fire sale prices -- thereby making it the largest financial institution in the U.S. -- with no signs of their having solicited extensive competitive bids for these plums. In other words, they picked a winner and backed it twice.
Unlike many other angry citizens, I recognize that there is no way that the greedy, short-sighted perpetrators of our current crisis can be forced to give back their ill-gotten gains. By now most of their extravagant bonuses and fabulous stock options have probably been converted into gold bars, T-bills, and other safe havens. Nor would they be forced to sell their yachts or cancel their plans to send their children to Harvard if their firms went bankrupt. As John F. Kennedy observed: life is unfair. So vengeance has no place in any proposed solution to our current crisis. We can only expect that whatever measures are eventually adopted will make it substantially more difficult for selfish miscreants to perpetrate similar scams that jeopardize the nation’s financial well-being in the future.
If you like this suggestion, please share it with others so that it can get some attention. This needs to be done!
The $700 bailout plan is geared mostly toward Main Street and many homeowners know this. There have been little specifics about how the money used for the bailout plan will help middle-class Americans. I believe there is a way to make a statement to Americans that Barack Obama cares about the dilemma fo middle-class Americans, and at the same time will work in a bipartisan fashion to bring the bill about to help Wall-Street.
For those banks/mortgage companies that Washington seeks to bail out of bad mortgages - those same companies should help out middle-class americans by lowering their mortgages to the current value of their home. If they do this, then the government's bailout plan will pick up the difference. In other words, if a homeowner owes $500K on their mortgage, but their home is only worth $465K, then the bank will lower their mortgage to $465K and the government will take the loss for $35K. This will allow the homeowner to sell their home if they need to or reduce their payments to a price that is more in line with what they can get back from their home. Either way, the homeowner is helped, the banks are helped and the president that implements this plan is seen as coming up with a program that really helps the average American.
Homes will be able to be purchased and sold again, helping to jumpstart the economy once more. Please consider this as it is a clear step toward helping Americans and is something the Republicans will either agree to or risk being seen as not wanting to help the average American.
Best Regards,
Shelton Alexander
Dear Blog Buddies,
Sarah Palin gave a very effective political speech last night and she must have been under enormous pressure. She has undoubtedly added alot of heat to this campaign.
Steady now!
Steady!
A cool hand and a strong response is what is called for here.
Instead of aggression, meanness, sarcasm and distortion offer ASSERTION, STRAIGHT TALK, CLARITY and POSITIVITY.
Serve to unite people by NOT descending to the TACTICS (YES TACTICS!) of aggression, meanness, sarcasm, and distortion. Do not be lured into this! That's the purpose of the tactic, to push you off balance and stray from your message and what you stand for.
Stand for UNITY.
Talk about the issues. Reach out. Open conversations.
Be very clear about your stance and the DATA that supports your case.
BE STRONG. BE FIRM.
BE ASSERTIVE not aggressive, BE POSITIVE not mean and negative, OFFER STRAIGHT TALK not sarcasm and cynicism, BE CLEAR on facts and data, don't overstate your case and do not distort the facts.
OFFER CONTRAST.
"Battles are won by slaughter and maneuver. The greater the general, the more he contributes in maneuver, the less he demands in slaughter."
Winston Churchill
Maneuver, my friends, do not slaughter!!
Stay cool!
Laura
www.yourpotentialpower.com
A straightforward "Wall St. Journal" story today is wonderfully self-explanatory:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121859149525535519.html?mod=fpa_mostpop
I recall early in the Bush Administration when Bush told his then Secretary of the Treasury, Paul O'Neill, to convene a meeting (I believe) to address future federal budget deficits. Paul O'Neill, being the independent thinker he is, planned to invite the smartest economists from all political points of view. I remember hearing that the Bush Administration nixed that idea and gave O'Neill a list of acceptable partisan economists who would advance the Bush agenda.
This has been the hallmark of the Bush Administration: quell descent and promote loyalty. Not long after this, O'Neill resigned from his post. Looking back now, Bush's insistance on surrounding himself with loyal partisan economists doesn't appear to have been a very wise choice.
That is the part that has bothered me most about the Bush Administration, and Barack Obama is stepping up like a true leader and showing how it should be done.
Sorry Rachel Maddow, you're usually dead on but you sure missed this one. On having the courage and forethought to meet with Bush's economic advisors, Barack is doing exactly the right thing!
Hello Everyone,
I wanted to let everyone know that I am co-hosting a Unite for Change Event in Milwaukee this weekend. It is on Saturday at 11:00 am. I apologize for the late notice but if anyone can afford to take a few hours to drive up here it will definitely be worth it. Here's the link for the event: http://my.barackobama.com/page/event/detail/4g8q9
I can help anyone out with directions and possibly a place to stay. Also keep in mind, Summerfest is this weekend- so you could maybe even make it worth the trip.
If you have any questions please feel free to email me or call me at 262-332-0661.
-Nicky
Up until today I had not chosen a Democratic candidate (the funny thing about the name Democratic...its a process isn't it? I mean we're taking part in a democratic process, right? Well, more like a republic in the Plutonian sense of the word, but who's counting. The funny names oppressive institutions give themselves to sell tickets...why can't we just vote for the right person for the job, why does it HAVE to be party oriented?). My man was Ron Paul, and still would be if it was reasonable.
Barack has certainly shown that he's got an idea of what he hopes to do. That idea, to me, is still not as good as Senator Paul's ideology, but its certainly better than Senator McCain's. To me Senator Clinton and Obama were too similar to call. That is not to be confused with too close to call. Personally I liked Clinton's tough edge on forced medical insurance changes, but the change will inevitably dictate itself (or so it would seem).
And so here I am, another Independent voting for Obama...voting for change. I'm on board, completely and totally. I know Obama is now our only hope for survival, both economically and socially. He can do many things my main guy, Ron Paul, couldn't do and to that extent I am very excited about his nomination. He seems to genuinely believe in our need for change, and to that extent I am even more grateful!
Here's an idea for change: A unity ticket.
If I understand this correctly Senator Obama has the option to choose his own running mate, right? True change would be a bipartisan ticket. Of course, as a Ron Paul guy, I'd recommend Ron Paul as VP, but really I just think diversifying power structure is the key to objective government. Lincoln diversified his cabinet and look what that got him...besides shot...he was arguably the best President we've ever had! He was also the last Independent candidate to win a major election (at the time it was Dem's and Wigs, Republicans were a 3rd party). A Dem/Repo ticket would almost be a 3rd party Unity ticket. That would be true change.
With the untimely death of Unity08.com all we have is the hope that a candidate that proclaims change will truly usher it in. Good luck Senator, good luck.
Obama inspires me as Robert Kennedy and George McGovern back in the olden days. I am so tired of the hate that has developed between the parties. I was raised in Washington state and was blessed with politicians who did the best for their constituents.We had "Straight Arrow" Dan Evans who was a republican and the best Governer and Senator I have ever seen. He was talked into being a Senator as he thought it was still the wonderful debating body. What I'm trying to say is that I don't vote along party lines.
Until
2004.
It was so easy to vote in 2004...just vote democrat all the way down the list.
The anger, embarrassment, shame and fear this insane current president has generated throughout the world has enabled the politics of division. Obama is the first politician in a generation that has gotten this old jaded man's juices flowing. For a Friday three day weekend night this blurb has gone on too long.
Bye for now,
marc
Good Morning Everyone,
I just posted this on my blog on the DNC's partybuilders site. This is such an important issue I am posting it here as well.
A fellow blogger, and I am so sorry I don’t remember who it was, shared some information recently about supporting our military people in Iraq and Afghanistan, one of the links given was for anysoldier.com. Have any of you ever gone in there to read about our men and women over there and look at the pictures they've posted? If not you really should; I believe it will be an eye opener for a lot of people.
As I read about the different units with young men and women, most of them kids, from all over the United States and looked at their pictures it wasn’t long before I started noticing a very disturbing pattern. Our military is not, in very plain English, NOT, providing our women with the very basic of necessities that women need.
To put it gently from men making the requests “the females are asking for girlie things and “needs” – “My female soldiers need the items that only women know about and understand”.
In polite terms from some, “Please send feminine hygiene products as our PX carries very little of this for them and it is always in short supply” – “Female products can be hard to come by” – “items for females are tampons they are a hard find out here”
To put it in plain English from others,”please continue to send feminine items (ie. feminine wipes, pads, liners, tampons)…” - “for the females: Nonscented baby wipes, Tampons (plastic), Thin pads, These specifics we don't have or can't get very often in our area” – “Most of our female soldiers are going without necessary feminine products i.e. tampons, spray, napkins, etc”
This is beyond deplorable! Once I began seeing the pattern, I spent hours reading the different requests. This is not just a few units asking, requesting, and even almost begging for these items, this is a majority of units with women in Combat Areas. Not only are these items in extremely short supply but also as far as a PX or “shopette” goes they are either very small carrying very, very, little that goes very quickly and/or are miles away and therefore not easily accessible.
Our government has spent over $500 BILLION dollars on this war and our soldiers are NOT being taken care of. Where is all that money going?
FIVE HUNDRED BILLION DOLLARS and our government cannot even provide the basic of necessities for our military people… please tell me I am not the only one angered by this.
Other than female hygiene products the one thing requested by many men and women are just letters from home. It doesn’t matter if you’re a stranger they are homesick and most have a long time before they will see home again. All they want is to know someone cares about them, knows they are there and to hear a little about our everyday life in the states. When I repeatedly read of the soldiers that still have not received one piece of mail from anyone…just a simple letter… and “how sad it is to see these soldiers faces when their name is not called at mail call”, I cried. Most of the ones that don’t receive any mail are single, many with no families. I wanted to adopt every one of them right then and there; I still do.
I have been going into anysoldiers.com every night for the past week desperately trying to think of some way of helping these women and any men and women that don’t receive a simple letter; I’ve lost sleep almost every night because of this dilemma. My emotions range from anger to tears. Common sense hit me first, I am not wealthy or even close, I cannot adopt them all, I must choose whom I can help realistically but that still doesn’t ease my mind much as that still leaves thousands of women and men that are going without. I’ve come to the conclusion that I must do what most of these women and men cannot do, I am asking all of you for your help to help them.
It’s so easy and at the least it will only cost you a postage stamp, at the most, well that depends on what you can afford and how much you want to help but whichever you can do either one will fill your heart with a most wonderful feeling. Just go to anysoldiers.com, read their FAQ real quick to familiarize yourself with the site, it will only take you a few minutes and is worth reading! They have a very nice search feature that so you can sort the contacts by sex, state, branch, country etc. As they say on their site, Warning, this is addicting! I would like to add that before you decide to request a contacts address to make sure you are ready to respond by either a letter or a letter and a package otherwise people assume those requests will be responding.
I am especially asking all the women on here to spread the word and start putting together basic needs care packages for the women we have overseas and this includes women in remote regions of Afghanistan and Germany but most are in Iraq. If you can’t afford to send a package on your own get with your family and friends and do one together and don’t forget to add one or two special girlie items such as nice smelling lotion or nice shampoo and conditioner. Have the kids do pictures the next time you have play dates to include too. Whatever you can put together and send they will so dearly love and appreciate however, you need to keep in mind that you may not hear back from your soldier/unit since many are in situations that don’t allow them to do so, or they don’t have the means; most of them do try though.
As of this past January, the US Post Office has put together a special overseas care package mailing kit that costs you nothing and even though you only pay postage as far as either New York or California, they have lowered the cost of postage on these special packages and mailers making it even cheaper to send.
If you are one of those that love to send letters to Washington then please start doing so for the sake of our soldiers. It doesn’t matter if you are a Hillary, Obama or McCain supporter, the important thing is that our military women and men are not being taken care of the best they can be and should be and we all need to take action on it now.
Jan
Two dirty words that aren't dirty seperately but together turn into a raging fiasco if not used in an ever so delicate fashion. What are those words?
Gun Control
I know that some may be cheering, some moaning and some fuming already so I'm going to force you to click through so that you can read my whole proposal before you can pass judgement.
Two of the big cannards of the Clinton campaign & its attempt to push Hillary over Obama are that Obama
1. is wrongheaded to talk about accomplishing anything via bipartisanship
2. doesn't have as good a health care plan as Hillary, particularly because he isn't really interested in truly universal health care coverage.
Here, from The New Republic's Jan. 30, 2008 edition, is this week's G-Blog "Quote of the Week," and a factual response to Hillary's criticisms of Obama:
Obama's determination to embrace would-be adversaries sounds just a little naive, given the scorched-earth strategy Republicans and their lobbyist friends have waged... [But as] it happens, Obama has his own history with health care reform. From 1997 to 2004, as a member of the Illinois Senate, Obama advocated several proposals to make medical care more accessible, culminating...in a bill designed to force the creation of a universial coverage system for Illinois...[these] provide a window into the governing style he would pursue there.Time after time, Obama broght adversaries into the process early, heard out their concerns, then fashioned compromises many of them ultimately supported. In other words, he used the very strategy he's been describing on the campaign trail...And yet, if you talk to liberals in Springfield, the ones who've spent decades fighting for universal health care, you don't hear a lot of disappointment with him. As far as they are concerned, Obama's signature inclusiveness was always a means to an end--a way to push the limits of reform rather than accept them. And, they say, it worked. ...Whatever the meris of his presciption, [Obama's] commitment to make medical care more affordable isn't in question. Or, at least, it shouldn't be.
Obama's determination to embrace would-be adversaries sounds just a little naive, given the scorched-earth strategy Republicans and their lobbyist friends have waged...
[But as] it happens, Obama has his own history with health care reform. From 1997 to 2004, as a member of the Illinois Senate, Obama advocated several proposals to make medical care more accessible, culminating...in a bill designed to force the creation of a universial coverage system for Illinois...[these] provide a window into the governing style he would pursue there.
Time after time, Obama broght adversaries into the process early, heard out their concerns, then fashioned compromises many of them ultimately supported. In other words, he used the very strategy he's been describing on the campaign trail...
And yet, if you talk to liberals in Springfield, the ones who've spent decades fighting for universal health care, you don't hear a lot of disappointment with him. As far as they are concerned, Obama's signature inclusiveness was always a means to an end--a way to push the limits of reform rather than accept them. And, they say, it worked.
...Whatever the meris of his presciption, [Obama's] commitment to make medical care more affordable isn't in question. Or, at least, it shouldn't be.
They are coming over.
9% of registered Republicans in the VA primary voted for... OBAMA!
Nice vid for those moderate Republicans who are tired of the same ole crap from Washington and want CHANGE
Click Here for Video
All candidates have experience for they have all participated in activities and learned from these involvements. When evaluating the “experience” of a candidate, the important consideration rests upon the type of activities in which that person has been involved and what that individual has learned as a result.
Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and other Bush administration officials were considered “experienced” when they came into office because they had held governmental and administrative positions in the past. However, their ability to analyze and derive meaningful insights from these past performances was clouded by philosophical beliefs that distorted reality and substituted wishful thinking for sound judgment.
Barack Obama has the experience needed to become an effective President. He has worked as a community organizer, bringing various interests together to effect positive change. He has been a professor of constitutional law, exploring the meaning and application of the fundamental basis of American government. He has stood for elective office, communicating with the voters and understanding their hopes and desires. He has held elective office, bringing divergent positions together to focus on common goals in order to enact meaningful change. In his writings it is obvious that throughout his life, Barack Obama has continually analyzed the interaction between his circumstances and life situations and his perceptions and beliefs in order to draw meaningful insights, to grow and mature, and to establish the standards and grounding for good decision making.
Of all the candidates, Barack Obama is the most experienced in terms of bringing people together, building consensus, and effecting bipartisan action. He is an experienced leader that can be trusted to conduct the office of President in a positive and effective manner.
