http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_NY_SPECIAL_ELECTION_BOEHNER?SITE=WCNC&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

WASHINGTON (AP) -- House Republican leader John Boehner says the GOP wants moderates in the party and calls the special election for a New York congressional seat an unusual situation.

Am I the only one here that thinks moderate Republicans are worthless? Did the Republicans learn anything from the last election?

And what do we have here?

No one looks to a moderate for leadership. Who runs out into the street and says, "I really need someone who is indecisive with little conviction to lead the way!" This is absurd. I say this not only because I'm a Conservative, but because history has shown that moderate Republicans don't win elections! At least not on merit. Moderate Republicans tend to win only if the other candidate is completely worthless (way-too-far left). Can anyone name a race where a moderate Republican won by a small margin? Moderate Republicans draw votes away from third party candidates (often more Conservative) who might otherwise win elections.

Democrat moderates are a different story. Moderate Democrats are a requirement for a party that does not click with the majority of the population. The Democrat Party must run moderates (or politicians who come off that way). If they were to run candidates based on their "actual" far-left ideology they wouldn't stand a chance. The Democrat leadership knows this.

Republicans on the other hand have a different problem. The Republican brand has been associated with Conservatism for so long that moderate Republican candidates seem fake. After all, why would you associate yourself with a traditionally Conservative party if you don't hold those beliefs? Moderate Republicans are often viewed as frauds.

Does anyone look at a moderate Democrat candidate and think, "I wonder if that candidate really is that [middle of the road]"? Many people doubt that liberal candidates "really" believe what they are saying. The moderate Democrat is often viewed by Democrat voters as reaching for the left, but not "really" going there. Democrat voters seem to ignore Democrats when they say things which the voter disagrees. Democrat voters seem to reason that far-fetched (Leftist) ideas are "ploys" never to come to fruition. This allows Democrats to slide to the left with less political damage. The Democrat voter often does not pay attention to what is said during a campaign, because they ignore what they consider to be pandering. If a candidate is likable, people will often assume that they are going to "do the right thing." This is why it's important for Democrats to be "Strategically Ambiguous [my quote]," this allows democrats to say one thing and do another, while never being pinned down. You can't fail to live up to expectations when no one knows what those expectations are. Because of this, Democrats are almost never held accountable by their voters.

Does anyone look at a moderate Republican and think, "Is this guy really a Republican, or is he leaning to the left?" I believe that the Moderate Republican candidate is viewed much differently through the eyes of a Republican voter. There are few issues one can budge on and remain a Conservative. Conservatives have a basic set of principles, if you stray too far outside the realm of those beliefs, you probably aren't a Conservative. If this happens to a Republican politician their voters will pick up on it. Republican candidates are often held accountable by their voters.

When people think "Republican" they think of a more conservative candidate (leaning more towards the Right). When people think "Democrat" they think of a more liberal candidate, who "really" leans towards the Center.

To me a moderate in the voting block is just a future Democrat voter. If moderates were at all Conservative leaning, they would be educated on the candidates, at which point they would no longer be "undecided."

Just something to think about...

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

Considering that many people predicted an increase in tropical cyclone activity and pointed to Global Warming; I would say we're doing great!

I'm no professor, but I did a post on Global Warming, El Nino and La Nina in January of 2008.

Here is what I had to say in January 2008:

Remember what happened in 2005? There was a very active record breaking hurricane season. Notice that the mean ocean temperature in the Atlantic was warmer in 2005 than they were the year before. The mean ocean temperature in the Pacific was cooler in 2005 than it was the year before. This year in 2006 there have been absolutely no hurricanes that made it to the east coast of the U.S. or the Gulf of Mexico. If you look at the mean temperatures of the Atlantic and the Pacific you will see that there has been a reversal in the temperatures. The Pacific nations have been hit by many damaging typhoons this year.

The weather patterns that have taken place are part of a global weather pattern that changes about every 5 years known as El Nino and La Nina. 'Both from the NOAA website' As you can see from these two definitions there is nothing man is doing to change this. This pattern has been happening since before man.

Here is what a professor at FSU had to say:

http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/

Ryan N. Maue's Seasonal Tropical Cyclone Activity Update

North Atlantic Hurricane Season slowest since 1997

Global and Northern Hemisphere Tropical Cyclone Activity remains near 30-year historical lows -- three years in a row now of considerably below-average activity globally.

Consequence of the transition from La Nina to El Nino during the past year

This is a natural consequence of the rather unusual flip from strong La Nina to El Nino conditions during the past calendar year, which did not happen at all during the period of 1976-2006 as indicated by the MEI-ENSO INDEX (LINK). It is expected by NOAA and others that the current-El Nino is locked in for the rest of winter 2009-2010 and may indeed strengthen. This would suggest enhanced typhoon activity in the Western Pacific throughout the rest of the fall and winter which will necessarily increase the NH ACE. The Southern Hemisphere TC season may begin at any time now, but most activity is experienced between January and March.

Let's assume that the (GW/CC Crowd) Global Warming / Climate Change Crowd is correct. At first, the GW/CC Crowd claimed that an increase in global temperatures would lead to increased sea surface temperatures, which would lead to an increased number of hurricanes. Yes, it was that simple. Now we are told that an increase in sea surface temperatures will cause an increase in the intensity of hurricanes, not necessarily the number of hurricanes. So, where are the increased number or higher intensity storms?

Let's see if there are any data to support the claims?

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/hurricanes-and-climate-change.html

The Effect of Global Warming

Two factors that contribute to more intense tropical cyclones-ocean heat content and water vapor-have both increased over the past several decades. This is primarily due to human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels and the clearing of forests, which have significantly elevated carbon dioxide (CO2) levels in the atmosphere. CO2 and other heat-trapping gases act like an insulating blanket that warms the land and ocean and increases evaporation. (7)

The world's oceans have absorbed about 20 times as much heat as the atmosphere over the past half-century, leading to higher temperatures not only in surface waters (e.g., depths of less than 100 feet) but also down to substantial depths, with the most severe warming occurring in the first 1,500 feet below the surface. (8,9) As this warming occurs, the oceans expand and raise sea level. This expansion, combined with the inflow of water from melting land ice, has raised global sea level more than one inch over the last decade. (10) In addition, observations of atmospheric humidity over the oceans show that water vapor content has increased four percent since 1970; because warm air holds more water vapor than cold air, these findings correlate with an increase in air temperature. (11,12)

Recent Scientific Developments

Higher ocean surface temperatures. Scientists have looked at potential correlations between ocean temperatures and tropical cyclone trends worldwide over the past several decades. A 2005 study published in the journal Nature examined the duration and maximum wind speeds of each tropical cyclone that formed over the last 30 years and found that their destructive power has increased around 70 percent in both the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. (13,14) Another 2005 study, published in the journal Science, revealed that the percentage of hurricanes classified as Category 4 or 5 (based on satellite data) has increased over the same period. (15) The findings from both studies correlate with the rise in sea surface temperatures in regions where tropical cyclones typically originate.

Researchers in a 2006 study (also published in Science) found, upon reanalyzing early storm track records with modern techniques, that a few category 4 and 5 tropical cyclones may have previously been underestimated. (16) However, it remains to be seen if enough storms would be reclassified to challenge the overall rise in intensity. A 2006 study published in Geophysical Research Letters, relying not on storm track records but on global surface wind and temperature records between 1958 and 2001, confirmed the trends identified in the two 2005 studies above and found that a 0.45 °F (0.25 °C) increase in mean annual tropical sea surface temperature corresponded to a 60 percent increase in a tropical cyclone's potential destructiveness. (17)

So this report from The Union of Concerned Scientists seems to support the claim that increased sea surface temperatures result in stronger tropical cyclones (hurricanes in our case). So why has this year (2009) been so quite?

Remember El Nino and La Nina refer to sea surface temperatures in the Pacific NOT the Atlantic. When the Pacific is warmer the Atlantic is cooler, when the Pacific is cooler the Atlantic is warmer. El Nino represents a warming trend in the Pacific. La Nina represents a cooling trend in the Pacific.

These images are from NOAA's El Nino and La Nina description pages. Remember these represent Pacific sea surface temperatures.

So, why so few hurricanes? Why have the storms been so weak?

Sea surface temperatures in the tropical Atlantic are decreasing, not increasing. Take a peek:

This is the precise reason that so many of the GW/CC Crowd are trying to get legislation passed right now, as quickly as possible (Cap and Trade). They know that with every year of reduced cyclone activity and intensity their scare tactics are proven fraudulent.

Remember the dire predictions from the 1970s. There was going to be another ice age for crying out loud! Based on what was predicted back then, we should be in an ice age right now.

Based on the science from the 1970s and now, We could conclude that: We stopped the coming of the next ice age with all of our green house gasses! ;) Think of all of the lives that were saved...

The fact is that the weather patterns are what they are. They were happening for thousands of years prior to any industrialized era. When you read into the science the conclusions are riddled with, "No direct cause has been found," or "Research into this area is ongoing."

Given this, why would any government want to pass legislation that would have a massive negative impact on the economy, all based on conjecture? Even more so, why would government want to pass legislation that could hurt the economy during a recession?

Perhaps that is why the administration is coming out saying that the recession is over, when in fact the economic downturn seems to be worsening. No one believes things are getting better, where are the jobs? Beware of the term recession. The term recession is strictly an economic term, it has nothing to do with job creation.

Damn Global Warming! Global Warming has caused a cooling trend in the tropical Atlantic and is causing snow storms in the northern U.S.!

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703363704574503631430926354.html

The new economic statistics put growth at a healthy 3.5% for the third quarter. We should be dancing in the streets. No one is, because no one has any faith in these numbers. Waves of money are sloshing through the system, creating a false rising tide that lifts all boats for the moment. The tide will recede. The boats aren't rising, they're bobbing, and will settle. No one believes the bad time is over. No one thinks we're entering a new age of abundance. No one thinks it will ever be the same as before 2008. Economists, statisticians, forecasters and market specialists will argue about what the new numbers mean, but no one believes them, either. Among the things swept away in 2008 was public confidence in the experts. The experts missed the crash. They'll miss the meaning of this moment, too.

The biggest threat to America right now is not government spending, huge deficits, foreign ownership of our debt, world terrorism, two wars, potential epidemics or nuts with nukes. The biggest long-term threat is that people are becoming and have become disheartened, that this condition is reaching critical mass, and that it afflicts most broadly and deeply those members of the American leadership class who are not in Washington, most especially those in business.

This is a brilliant article which delves into a large problem we face today.

I understand Peggy Noonan's outlook on this, but I have something additional to offer. I don't think people are entirely disheartened because of the current financial situation. It goes deeper than that.

As Noonan mentions, in the 80s “Everyone thought they could figure a way through. We knew we could find a path through the mess. In 1982 there were people saying, "If only we get rid of this guy Reagan, we can make it better!" Others said, "If we follow Reagan, he'll squeeze out inflation and lower taxes and we'll be America again, we'll be acting like Americans again." Everyone had a path through.” I believe that the problem now involves a gross lack of understanding on behalf of the average American citizen.

During the 80s most people had as least some idea of what would they thought would make things better. Now you have people who are simply following political leaders blindly --the election of Obama proves this. Change. People are so far disconnected, ignorant and misguided with regards to the functioning of the economy, they actually believe that government is the answer to our problems. Saying that government is the answer to our problems is a very Un-American thing to say. To vote for more government is a gleaming example of ignorance.

I believe that people are disheartened because no one will admit why this happened in the first place. As Noonan points out, "Among the things swept away in 2008 was public confidence in the experts." Everyone knows that there were members of congress who knew what was coming. Not only does no one trust the "experts," no one trusts the government. The problem is that the American people put a Big Government Liberal in office (Obama) right before the S--t hit the fan.

When people will vote for a political leader based on "Change" alone (with no substance) it becomes clear why no one sees a way out of this mess. The Obama vote makes light of the fact that the United States is at an all time high when it comes to the number "followers" in the electorate. There are a shortage of people willing to think for themselves.

It's going to be a long up-hill battle to get out of the mess we are in. I believe we are doing a "complete 180," and are heading straight for the ditch. This country was founded on freedom, not government control.

On a side note: I wonder why are there so many economic "experts" who believe that the answers lie with government, and not freedom? Where did these people come from? I'll give you a hint, they're not experts, they are propagandists. Nothing was "missed" it was spun, to keep people thinking that there was a light at the end of the tunnel. When in reality they are working on rigging the tunnel exit to collapse.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220

To understand the misconceptions perpetuated about climate science and the climate of intimidation, one needs to grasp some of the complex underlying scientific issues. First, let's start where there is agreement. The public, press and policy makers have been repeatedly told that three claims have widespread scientific support: Global temperature has risen about a degree since the late 19th century; levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have increased by about 30% over the same period; and CO2 should contribute to future warming. These claims are true. However, what the public fails to grasp is that the claims neither constitute support for alarm nor establish man's responsibility for the small amount of warming that has occurred. In fact, those who make the most outlandish claims of alarm are actually demonstrating skepticism of the very science they say supports them. It isn't just that the alarmists are trumpeting model results that we know must be wrong. It is that they are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn't happen even if the models were right as justifying costly policies to try to prevent global warming.

This is one of the points that I made a few years ago. Many people don't know about the Time Magazine article from the 70's dealing with "Global Cooling," asking the question, "Is there another ice age coming?"

It is interesting because the data that the scientists were using in the 1970s is the same data that is being used now. In order to find a pattern the scientists must look at past data. These data have already been collected, and CAN NOT CHANGE. This means that we have a completely different group of scientists (using the same data) coming up with a completely different theory. The difference; this time there is a political agenda behind the theory.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html

TIME Magazine

Another Ice Age?

Monday, Jun. 24, 1974

In Africa, drought continues for the sixth consecutive year, adding terribly to the toll of famine victims. During 1972 record rains in parts of the U.S., Pakistan and Japan caused some of the worst flooding in centuries. In Canada's wheat belt, a particularly chilly and rainy spring has delayed planting and may well bring a disappointingly small harvest. Rainy Britain, on the other hand, has suffered from uncharacteristic dry spells the past few springs. A series of unusually cold winters has gripped the American Far West, while New England and northern Europe have recently experienced the mildest winters within anyone's recollection.

As they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather pattern of the past several years, a growing number of scientists are beginning to suspect that many seemingly contradictory meteorological fluctuations are actually part of a global climatic upheaval. However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age.

Telltale signs are everywhere —from the unexpected persistence and thickness of pack ice in the waters around Iceland to the southward migration of a warmth-loving creature like the armadillo from the Midwest. Since the 1940s the mean global temperature has dropped about 2.7° F. Although that figure is at best an estimate, it is supported by other convincing data. When Climatologist George J. Kukla of Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory and his wife Helena analyzed satellite weather data for the Northern Hemisphere, they found that the area of the ice and snow cover had suddenly increased by 12% in 1971 and the increase has persisted ever since. Areas of Baffin Island in the Canadian Arctic, for example, were once totally free of any snow in summer; now they are covered year round.

Scientists have found other indications of global cooling. For one thing there has been a noticeable expansion of the great belt of dry, high-altitude polar winds —the so-called circumpolar vortex—that sweep from west to east around the top and bottom of the world. Indeed it is the widening of this cap of cold air that is the immediate cause of Africa's drought. By blocking moisture-bearing equatorial winds and preventing them from bringing rainfall to the parched sub-Sahara region, as well as other drought-ridden areas stretching all the way from Central America to the Middle East and India, the polar winds have in effect caused the Sahara and other deserts to reach farther to the south. Paradoxically, the same vortex has created quite different weather quirks in the U.S. and other temperate zones. As the winds swirl around the globe, their southerly portions undulate like the bottom of a skirt. Cold air is pulled down across the Western U.S. and warm air is swept up to the Northeast. The collision of air masses of widely differing temperatures and humidity can create violent storms—the Midwest's recent rash of disastrous tornadoes, for example.

Sunspot Cycle. The changing weather is apparently connected with differences in the amount of energy that the earth's surface receives from the sun. Changes in the earth's tilt and distance from the sun could, for instance, significantly increase or decrease the amount of solar radiation falling on either hemisphere—thereby altering the earth's climate. Some observers have tried to connect the eleven-year sunspot cycle with climate patterns, but have so far been unable to provide a satisfactory explanation of how the cycle might be involved.

Man, too, may be somewhat responsible for the cooling trend. The University of Wisconsin's Reid A. Bryson and other climatologists suggest that dust and other particles released into the atmosphere as a result of farming and fuel burning may be blocking more and more sunlight from reaching and heating the surface of the earth.

Climatic Balance. Some scientists like Donald Oilman, chief of the National Weather Service's long-range-prediction group, think that the cooling trend may be only temporary. But all agree that vastly more information is needed about the major influences on the earth's climate. Indeed, it is to gain such knowledge that 38 ships and 13 aircraft, carrying scientists from almost 70 nations, are now assembling in the Atlantic and elsewhere for a massive 100-day study of the effects of the tropical seas and atmosphere on worldwide weather. The study itself is only part of an international scientific effort known acronymically as GARP (for Global Atmospheric Research Program).

Whatever the cause of the cooling trend, its effects could be extremely serious, if not catastrophic. Scientists figure that only a 1% decrease in the amount of sunlight hitting the earth's surface could tip the climatic balance, and cool the planet enough to send it sliding down the road to another ice age within only a few hundred years.

The earth's current climate is something of an anomaly; in the past 700,000 years, there have been at least seven major episodes of glaciers spreading over much of the planet. Temperatures have been as high as they are now only about 5% of the time. But there is a peril more immediate than the prospect of another ice age. Even if temperature and rainfall patterns change only slightly in the near future in one or more of the three major grain-exporting countries—the U.S., Canada and Australia —global food stores would be sharply reduced. University of Toronto Climatologist Kenneth Hare, a former president of the Royal Meteorological Society, believes that the continuing drought and the recent failure of the Russian harvest gave the world a grim premonition of what might happen. Warns Hare: "I don't believe that the world's present population is sustainable if there are more than three years like 1972 in a row."

The question you have to ask yourself is "How is it that scientists take the same data, and come up with two completely different theories?" In the TIME article they mention that man might be responsible to some degree by "dust and other particles released into the atmosphere as a result of farming and fuel burning may be blocking more and more sunlight from reaching and heating the surface of the earth." Now it is said that the exact opposite is happening; somehow even with an increased amount of particulate matter in the atmosphere, we are keeping heat in?

Notice towards the end of the article they predict dire consequences.

The only difference is that there is no call for humans to reverse the effect. How arrogant are those who suggest that we can actually change the climate?

We don't even know where hurricanes are going after they form, we just watch them. Now we have these clowns telling us that we are all going to die, if we don't do something about our emission of carbon dioxide, just like they predicted dire consequences in the 70s. Consequences that never came to be.

I thought that carbon monoxide was the real culprit anyway. Remember the thinning of the Ozone Layer? What ever happened to that? Most people are unaware of this fact, but if you do a little reading on automobiles you will find that their catalytic converters convert carbon monoxide to water, carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide. If carbon dioxide is so dangerous, why use automobile catalytic converters if they release, as a byproduct, carbon dioxide?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalytic_converter

Although catalytic converters are effective at removing hydrocarbons and other harmful emissions, most of exhaust gas leaving the engine through a catalytic converter is carbon dioxide (CO2),[11] one of the greenhouse gases indicated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to be a "most likely" cause of global warming.[12] Additionally, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has stated catalytic converters are a significant and growing cause of global warming, due to their release of nitrous oxide (N2O), a greenhouse gas over 300 times more potent than carbon dioxide.[13]

Foiled again! What are we going to do? So, we trade carbon monoxide for two harmful chemicals? Carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide (which is 300 times more potent than carbon dioxide). I thought that the catalytic converters were going to clean the air? That's what we were told!

Now we are told that we have to reduce our emission of carbon dioxide. Why not nitrous oxide? The EPA says it's more dangerous. Oh, that's right, not everything releases nitrous oxide. Cars wouldn't produce nitrous oxide without their catalytic converter. Shh don't tell anyone...

So, what is the proposed solution to the supposed carbon dioxide problem? Taxes. There are no real measures to curb the production of carbon emissions. The majority of energy produced in the U.S. results in CO2 being released as a byproduct. Economies grow, as a result their energy usage also grows. How then are you going to reduce the amount of energy used, while still growing the economy?

There is no viable alternative to fossil fuels yet, at least not any that those who wish to tax energy will allow us to use (nuclear). So, what is the plan? The plan is: Tax people, and hope that someone comes up with an alternative, other than the one we have now (nuclear). Doesn't this sound like an effective strategy?!

The government sometimes uses taxes to punish particular groups of people, or their preferred activity. They call these "morality taxes." Take smokers for example; there is an ever increasing tax on cigarettes. Politicians claim that these taxes are going to be allocated to help people quit smoking. This might work to curb the number of smokers to some extent. So, for the sake of argument, lets say that someone produces an alternative to cigarettes. Is the cigarette alternative going to be taxed? After all, the tax was for cigarettes right? To punish those who smoke, because it's morally wrong. If there is an alternative to cigarettes, is that not just another form of smoking? In fact the alternative to cigarettes could lead to one smoking traditional cigarettes, let's tax it!

The idea that there is an energy tax to decrease energy use, while at the same time, drive innovation for alternative sources of energy is a JOKE. The "Cap and Trade" initiative is a TAX --that's all it is. It is not a tax that will go away, it will follow whatever alternatives are found in the future. That is the plan. Once you set precedent to tax energy it will be taxed in all forms. Don't fall victim to the hype and the "save the planet" "reduce emissions" garbage that you hear.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/us_public_option_rebranding/2009/10/26/277135.html

SUNRISE, Fla. -- House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says a government-sponsored public option for health care lives. But it may be going by a different name.

In an appearance at a Florida senior center Monday, the Democratic leader referred to the so-called public option as "the consumer option." Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a Florida Democrat, appeared by Pelosi's side and used the term "competitive option."

Both suggested a new moniker might get them past any lingering doubts among the public, consumers and competitors.

Pelosi says the term has been misrepresented and creates the impression that taxpayers will foot the bill for health care. Wasserman Schultz says she expects the speaker to give the new wording a test drive when she returns to Washington.

Hold on just a minute here. I thought that the public option was gaining support from the majority of Americans. At least that's what has been widely reported. There are polls that back up the claim, right?

This is completely insane. If the public option insurance plan was doing well there would be no need to rename it. Saying that taxpayers are not going to pay for government run health insurance is an oxymoron. Is the government not funded by the taxpayers?

Just take a look what Harry Reid is proposing:

http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/reid_public_option_obama/2009/10/26/277274.html

WASHINGTON – Health care legislation heading for the Senate floor will give millions of Americans the option of purchasing government-run insurance coverage, Majority Leader Harry Reid announced Monday, although he stopped short of claiming the 60 votes needed to pass a plan steeped in controversy. Reid, D-Nev., said individual states would have the choice of opting out of the program.

Critics say that by any name, the approach amounts to a government takeover of the insurance industry.

In deference to moderates, Reid also said he was including a provision for nonprofit co-ops to sell insurance in competition with private companies.

Senate Democratic officials say the bill Reid envisions would require most individuals to purchase insurance, with exemptions for those unable to find affordable coverage. Large businesses would not be required to provide insurance to their workers, but would face penalties of as much as $750 per employee if any qualified for federal subsidies to afford coverage on their own.

The bill will also include a tax on high-cost insurance policies, despite opposition from organized labor, officials said. In a gesture to critics of the plan, Reid decided to apply the new tax to family plans with total premiums of $23,000 a year. The Senate Finance Committee approved a tax beginning at $21,000 in total premiums.

The critics are right. If the government is going to control every aspect of the health care insurance industry, how is that NOT a takeover? Pelosi said that taxpayers weren't going to foot the bill. But Reid is saying that the option will be government run, and will include a mandate to purchase insurance. These people are not very well grounded in reality.

Didn't Obama just give a speech on health care reform, in which he claimed that critics of the bill were wrong? Now we have the House Speaker admitting that we need to re-brand "public option health insurance" with a new name, because it has been misrepresented? Misrepresented by whom? The Senate Majority Leader? The Senate Majority Leader is now validating the critics!

But Obama said... But Obama said...

This legislation is everything everyone warned it would be. How am I wrong on this?

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.