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.

Why is it that so many political science majors are left leaning? Could it be that they don't look at politics as a battle of ideas, or is it because they want to shape something?

I have read many articles where Obama is compared to Reagan. Not a single one of them made since until this one.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/10/25/obama.carter.reagan/index.html

John Geer, a Vanderbilt University political scientist, said the comparisons to Carter are weak.

The more analogous comparison so far, Geer said, is to Reagan, who also entered the White House with a full plate of foreign policy problems -- mostly surrounding the Cold War -- and a major economic crisis at hand.

Reagan was a gifted politician, Geer said. He was known as an inspiring communicator, and his appeal crossed party lines. Like Obama, polls showed that Reagan was more popular than his policies. More than 20 years after he left the White House, Republicans still look to him as the last great face of the party.

In his book "The Audacity of Hope," Obama wrote that although he and Reagan had differing political viewpoints, he understands the Republican president's appeal.

"Reagan spoke to America's longing for order, our need to believe that we are not simply subject to blind, impersonal forces but that we can shape our individual and collective destinies, so long as we rediscover the traditional values of hard work, patriotism, personal responsibility, optimism, and faith," he wrote.

Obama completely missed why Reagan had appeal. If you pay attention to the above quote you will notice that something is missing. FREEDOM. Obama mentions nothing of freedom in his recollection of Reagan.
With all of the times Reagan spoke of freedom, it seems hard to me for someone to have missed that. Reagan had appeal because he believed in what he was saying and it was easily noticeable.

Now this makes more sense to me. Obama didn't agree with anything that Reagan stood for; he simply admired his ability to communicate --that's it.

Obama is like a history major who only remembers dates, but can't tell you why anything happened. Without substance, acknowledgment of events is completely useless. So, if Obama resembles Reagan in any way, how come his answers to similar problems are to do the exact opposite of Reagan? When, in fact, Reagan's policies worked.

So, is Obama lying every time he speaks of personal responsibility? Take, for example, Obama's speech to the school children. The speech to school children did not coincide in anyway with Obama's policy. How can one speak of personal responsibility and not mention freedom? If Obama believed in what he was saying, he wouldn't be attempting to take control of so many aspects of individuals' lives.

Obama did exactly what I thought he would. He gave a conservative speech to school children to help mask his intentions. Say one thing, do another. This is where media needs to step up and stop shielding Obama. If he is such a genius, let him stand on his own. Report what is known, and let things play out in the open.

Remember what the Obama administration tried to do to Fox News? If any United States administration tries to silence the media, there is cause for immediate concern. If this administration gets its way, journalism will be completely and finally dead.

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

It would seem that Fox News is the current target of the White House. One might wonder why. Of course the answer is simple. Fox News has shown (through Cable TV and the web) opinions that are contrary to that of the Obama administration.

It is interesting to see how the White House deals with dissent. Instead of having people from the administration go on Fox News and debate the issues, they try and delegitimize Fox News. This is no different than getting into an argument about a matter of historical fact. Sometimes one person says, “You’re too young. You don’t know what happened back then.” Of course attempting to pull age/rank is not a response; it’s an admission to defeat.

The fact that the White House believes that it has to stop a news agency is proof that the news agency is effective. The White House, wanting to stop a news agency by attempting to discredit it is proof that the news agency is reporting facts. If there were factual issues with Fox News' reporting, why has there been no direct debate amongst those on Fox News and those in the Obama administration?

Many people consider Fox News to be a completely right wing news agency. For those people I offer you this:

http://www.cbc.ca/arts/tv/story/2009/05/27/fox-pink-eyes.html

It's hard to believe, but Pink Eyes — a.k.a. Damian Abraham, the notoriously manic lead singer of Toronto hardcore band F---ed Up — has joined the ranks of Fox News commentators.

After two guest appearances on the ultra-conservative cable news network's early-morning show Red Eye, Abraham has been asked to come on the show more regularly.

So, we have "Pink Eyes" on Red Eye. But wait a minute! I was told that Fox News was a right wing echo chamber! If that was the case, why would they have so many liberals on their shows? Ever heard of Hannity and Colmes?

That's the problem with delegitimizing a TV news network. It's hard to do because you just bring it more viewers. Those viewers are going to see the liberals right next to the conservatives.

I'm afraid that the White House has lost this one.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/23/white-house-loses-bid-exclude-fox-news-pay-czar-interview/

The Obama administration on Thursday failed in its attempt to manipulate other news networks into isolating and excluding Fox News, as Republicans on Capitol Hill stepped up their criticism of the hardball tactics employed by the White House.

The Obama administration on Thursday tried to make "pay czar" Kenneth Feinberg available for interviews to every member of the White House pool except Fox News. The pool is the five-network rotation that for decades has shared the costs and duties of daily coverage of the presidency.

But the Washington bureau chiefs of the five TV networks consulted and decided that none of their reporters would interview Feinberg unless Fox News was included.

The administration relented, making Feinberg available for all five pool members and Bloomberg TV.

The pushback came after White House senior adviser David Axelrod told ABC News' "This Week" on Sunday that Fox News is not a real news organization and other news networks "ought not to treat them that way."

Media analysts cheered the decision to boycott the Feinberg interview unless Fox News was included, saying the administration's gambit was taking its feud with Fox News too far. President Obama has already declined to go on "Fox News Sunday," even while appearing on the other Sunday shows.

Perhaps the other major networks caught on to the fact that this was an attempt by the White House to silence the media. If they try to silence Fox News; who's next?

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

http://www.buycostumes.com/Illegal-Alien-Adult-Costume/60504/ProductDetail.aspx

I saw this and couldn't resist myself. I can't think of any reason why this costume would anger anyone.

Now, if the alien was wearing a sombrero and a mustache, I could see where some people might get offended.

People need to lighten up. It's like the boy who cried wolf. If these "immigrant rights groups" cry every time the word alien comes around, nobody will listen. I stopped listening when they had the immigrant parades in 2006. A day without immigrants. You know, the one where the majority of the crowds were waving flags from other countries, while at the same time screaming for rights here in the U.S.

You can see, from the above images, that the people at these rallies really love The United States of America. Notice the sign that says "Full Rights for All Immigrants." If that were the case, why would anyone become a U.S. citizen? Oh that's right --these people don't want to be U.S. citizens.

I think that the alien costume is far less offensive than these images from A Day Without Immigrants 2006.

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

This is not a surprise.

So Obama wants to change the country. We're here to change the country, right? I ask one simple question, "change the country into what?"

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