E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSThe Washington Post runs this piece from the National Governors Association meeting in Boston, which concluded over the weekend: “The co-chairmen of President Obama's debt and deficit commission offered an ominous assessment of the nation's fiscal future here Sunday, calling current budgetary trends a cancer ‘that will destroy the country from within’ unless checked by tough action in Washington.”
The New York Times, meanwhile, focuses on the criticism from governors on the Obama administration’s lawsuit against Arizona’s immigration law. “In a private meeting with White House officials this weekend, Democratic governors voiced deep anxiety about the Obama administration’s suit against Arizona’s new immigration law, worrying that it could cost a vulnerable Democratic Party in the fall elections.”
“To learn how the immigration debate is playing in the heartland, and turning one-time supporters against President Obama, take a short trip north of Des Moines to some of the small towns of central Iowa,” the New York Post’s Earle reports. “These towns among Iowa's cornfields were the unexpected launching pad for Obama's historic presidential campaign. But now, many former Obama backers say they're bitterly disappointed -- thanks partly to broiling frustration over immigration and the administration's efforts to stymie Arizona's crackdown on illegal immigrants.”
“Attorney General Eric Holder says there's a real question about whether a terrorist suspect such as self-professed Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed can face the death penalty if he were to plead guilty before a military commission,” the AP writes.
“Mixing policy and politics, President Obama called on Congress yesterday to expand a clean-energy tax credit that could pay off in Nevada, where Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is struggling in his re-election campaign,” the AP says of Obama’s event in Nevada Friday.
Leave a Comment:
Is there a real chance these Dinos (Democratics in name only) could possibly multitask i.e. like walk and chew gum? You expect that type of opposition from the Party of "NO"
Immigration reform is radioactive - particularly PRIOR to an election. Most Replublicans are saying what they think voters want to hear.
If I were the President, I would say that I am more than willing to work on Immigration reform once someone brings me a bill. I would pressure the two senators from AZ, asking them "If things are so bad in AZ, why haven't either of you two sponsored an immigration bill" Why haven't the elected officials from ANY of the border states sponsored a bill about immigration reform?
The reason why is because its better to stake out a position and do nothing than to collaberate and come to consensus on immigration.
Wrong, we need to secure the borders, then discuss immigration reform. You probably don't live any where near the border, so easy for you to say.
Pablo:
You don't know what you are talking about. Get off the political bent, open your eyes and understand the issues before you announce your candidacy for President. I can't imagine it, but you'd probably be worse than the present occupant of the White House.
Ok so someone explain to me why we need immigration reform? We have laws on the books now that:
A) Regulate who can cross our borders,
B) regulate who can work in the US.
C) Who can hire them to work.
D) Provide for deportation if they are here illegally.
E) Provide sanctions for those who employ the illegal aliens.
F) Provide for local and state law enforcement to report to the Federal government those who are here illegally.
What we don't have is a path for citizenship for those who violated our laws. Nor should we ever.
If Obama and the Democrats and Republicans had any gumption they would enforce our laws and quit pandering to the Mexicans and the illegals who are already here.
After they get their act together they can legislate for a guest worker program to support agriculture and pool cleaning. I have been blessed to live in multiple countries of the world where the government takes this responsibility seriously, it works if they want it to.
As for those fortunate enough to have been born here, ok so they are legal, that does not give the parents the right to stay. The parents have the primary duty of care for the child, not the rest of us. Go back home and raise you child like a responsible adult.
So, the US Chamber of Commerce is upset with our Presidents attempts to have the capitalist engage with us citizens in a moral way. Too bad. It has always been the capitalists that have caused the financial earthquakes that have decimated what little wealth you working person have been able to attain.
Think about it; did you, the individual, make so many bad loans to people who you knew could never pay off, all the while make money hand over fist on the up-front charges and fees that filled the pockets of those that did? No you didn't. It was the big corporations, represented by the Chamber, that made excessive money while you and I lost almost everything we had gathered.
I lost over 65% of my retirement savings and the value of my home decreased as well. I was 5 years away from retirement before all this happened due to the greed of big business. The big business mindset of the gentry vs. the serfs is still in play.
And to top it all off we have an activist Supreme Court saying that corporations have the same rights as breathing humans. If that is true, then all corporations should be in jail for the disregard of the laws of the land; that is if the laws were applied across the board and not just against the humans.
Over the years the Supreme Court has said that corporations have the same rights as you and I, and, apparently, none of the responsibilities. Corporations cannot vote, they cannot go to jail, so the question is, why do they believe they should have ANY rights? Corporations are things and things have NO rights given to it by the Creator unless we are the creator.
If, in the USofA, corporations do indeed have all the rights and none of the responsibilities of the citizens, then how can I become a corporation and then not be held responsible when somebody dies because of my negligence?
However, knowing human nature as I do, I see none of this happening. This country is run by and for the Corporations and the Ultra-wealthy. The Great Unwashed is just cannon fodder.
Question: Which entity does the right, i.e. the republican party, the tea party, the conservatives advocate for, corporations or individual humans? Think BP and slushfund.
Corporations have enslaved us economically and culturally for far too long. It is past time for us to remove this burden from our shoulders and demand that the corporations serve us and not the other way around.
Thomas Jefferson wrote:
"I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country."
"Experience demands that man is the only animal which devours his own kind, for I can apply no milder term to the general prey of the rich on the poor."
"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual."
It would do us well to heed his words or we shall see the demise of this once great experiment: The United States of America.
So if a corporation isn't deemed to be the same as an individual then how would you propose to impose liability on the corporate entity? Do you really think corporations have none of the responsibilities? Have you ever been to court, or read a newspaper. If corporations have no responsibility, why do you suppose BP is paying anything? How come GM got hit with a 3.2 billion verdict several years ago when one of its cars (which was over 10 years old at the time) caught fire in LA? Ever heard of a case called Grimshaw v. Ford - the famous Pinto case. You're flat wrong.
Where did all that appreciation in your house and unearned income in your retirement accounts come from? The housing and market bubnbles were bad, but what where you doing when those markets were making their excessive yearly gains? Or did you think that appreciation would just continue? What about all those individuals who took the loans knowing there was no way they could make the payments, instead believing that the market would just continue to appreciate so it would be no problem. None of this is their fault?
Steven, Delaware
"Think about it", why would the capitalist whores "who made so many bad loans to people who you knew could never pay off" make those loans? Did the greedy bastards want to intentionally lose money?
Do you think maybe government mandates on the percentage of this type of loan accompanied by the allowance for creative "insurance" instruments/packaging may have had something to do with it? How bad did Fannie and Freddie get busted, you know the ones whose top the 3 recipients of their cash were Dodd, Obama and Kerry.
Was it to the bankers benefit to be able to campaign - "Under our leadership, more Americans now realize the American dream of owning their own home...."?
Might want to read something other than liberal bloggers.
If the Senate functioned with majority rule as intended by the Constitution, blue dog dems would not be an issue. In the past I have always felt it was important for democrats (actually both parties) to not march in lock step but today it means getting almost nothing done because the republican party has no moderates, their majority leader McConnell demands rigid opposition and the few who might vote with democrats risk Tea Party revenge and the wrath of their fellow legislators. Because of the GOP lockstep opposition to everything, blue dogs make the headlines with only passing mention that republicans blocked the cloture vote making that blue dog relevant.
Legislators seem to believe that voters are angry at taxes, the stimulus, bailouts but in reality that anger is nothing compared to the anger they feel when the see the Senate mired in rigid rules and seeming to accomplish little or nothing to help Americans. Those rigid rules are why the HCR is viewed negatively--we watched a few Senate kings win the sausage making against what the majority of voters and legislators wanted.
I don't why all of a sudden it is a problem. The Senate has always been this way. I guess it is a problem because Republicans are doing it. It has been this way and people like you and I never paid any attention to it because there was no 24/7 news, political hack shows, etc. The public in general does not pay any attention to this stuff.
It may seem like there is a lot of interest but that is only because of the company you surround yourself with.
Don't think for one minute that Senate Democrats will ever make a serious push to end the filibuster.
They'll be even less eager for change after the November bloodbath.
The Senate has not always been this way. In the past, majority ruled for all but the most controversial of legislation. Needing 60 votes for almost everything they do is a recent phenomenon. Some say it is because Obama cannot work with the other party...although the steep climb in filibuster threats started when the Dem's took control of the Senate, not when Obama took office. I think the minority party has always acted as an obstructionist, that is politics, however the Republicans have taken it to a whole new level.
Barack Obama campaigned as a bipartisan centrist who would change the way Washington operated (despite his record as one of the most liberal, partisan senators). The American middle bought it. As President, Obama has pushed a radical, liberal agenda for eighteen months and the American middle has awoken. Obama has now been recognized as the most polarizing and divisive president in Gallup history. Even more remarkable, according to a recent poll by Democrat/Clinton adviser James Carville's organization, 55% of Americans strongly, or very strongly view Obama as a socialist.
The resposibility of our elected representatives is to represent their respective constituency, not their party. Their charge is to listen to the will of people, not the party hammers.
What you and Obama would like to "get done" is not what the majority of Americans want to "get done" and as it should be in such a case, not much of that "get done" is getting done.
The system is working. It's just not the way you would like, or the result you want.
I would say the poll showing that 55% of Americans view Obama as a socialist, sadly, says more about Americans than it does Obama. As for the difference between what Obama campaigned on and what he has actually done as President...I would think the far left would be more upset than the right. He has done pretty much what he said he was going to do. Whether you agree with what he has done or don't agree, that is another question. Check out Politifact.com as they track each one of the promises he made during his campaign and whether he has held to that promise, broken it, or compromised.
Tim in Minnesota,
The poll does indeed say alot Americans - Not as many Americans are clay as the progressives Obama and Wilson thought.
The above also addresses the difference you mentioned between what Obama campaigned on and what he has actually done as President, after he gained "the power".
With regard to the left, I offer that the above would have been a better explanation regarding HCR to the left, than Emanuel's retort of calling them retards for not understanding what was actually accomplished - "the power".
Actually the 24/7 news cycle is the reason it is this partisan. Senate/Congress is forced to play politics on a daily basis. Sign of the times and it will not change. And with this recession that hit us like a hurricane we are forced to make hard decisions to keep capital flowing and hopefully save what is left of peoples 401ks and savings (Bailout?Wallstreet reform). USA economic wheels are oiled via Wallstreet therefore we have to figure out how to produce domestic jobs that will not be outsourced and slowly try to replace the manufacturing jobs that made us who we are. We have an imperfect financial system that does require some regulation which also will not be perfect. We as a society need to realize times have changed and we have to have the ability to adapt and show flexibility. By all means necessary we have to keep corporations out of the political arena, if not we will soon see this will be the straw that broke the camels back. It will no longer be "We the people"...instead it will be "We the CORPORATIONS". This is the ONE thing that changes the fundementals of our democracy. Where is the OUTCRY?
Bob-Obama isn't a socialist/dictator/foreigner, I don't care if some poll says 55% of americans think so. Additionally, Bush wasn't a fascist/dictator/evil mastermind as many americans thought at the end of his term. When times are tough, people look for someone to blame, and Obama, as Bush before him, has the target on his back. You and certain conservative media outlets can call him a socialist as often as you like, and people might even start believing you, but that doesn't make it true. Similarily, the left and certain liberal media outlets called Bush many things, and many people even believed them, but it didn't make it true. In this instance, your poll says 55% of americans believe in half-truths put forth from the right, I don't know if that means they are clay or not.
Tim,
I appreciate your comments. They are very fair and in general, I pretty much agree.
I believe Obama is a true Progressive in the vein of Wilson and FDR. I also feel my understanding of what a true progressive is, and who Wilson in particular was, differs from the common perception of progressives and the understanding of Wilson.
You may not know if the previous means Americans are clay, or not. I don't know either. But, I know Wilson believed it and I cannot think of anything Obama has said, or done, that would lead me to believe that he does not believe the same as Wilson.
Thanks again for your comments, Tim.
PS
Someone wrote/said - Progressivism and socialism are not the same. They are sisters.
It's irrelevant, I guess, but I don't watch Fox. O'Reilley is turbid and arrogant. Hannity is inane and talks over his guest that aren't. Never seen Beck. Lim.. Anyway.....
If you have never seen Beck, you would probably like it. He thinks anything progressive is evil as well. In my opinion that is total nonsense. Anyway, you said that Obama is showing that he is a radical leftist. Well, that is total nonsense as well. In the 80's and 90's, the Obama administration would have seen as centrist, however, in the hyper-partisan environment the GOP (with the help of fox news) has created, Obama I guess does seem radical to some.
Democratic governors need to show some backbone and stop wringing their hands everytime that President Obama correctly challenges the repugnant ones, especially on arizona's racist profiling law. Manchin needs to stop worrying about his future political employment prospects and appoint a caretaker to fill Byrd's empty seat to help pass the unemployment benefits extension that will save 2 million people and families from going under and becoming homeless which will harm our recovery. Time for Democrats to show the moral courage to stand up against the tyrannical immoral racist law supported by the facist racist party of moral debauchery.
Time for Democratic governors to ignore their constituents the same way President Obama has ignored public opinion.
Time for Democrats to oppose the Arizona immigration law favored by a large majority of the electorate.
Time for Democrats to push the pedal to the metal and go flying over the cliff in November.
Speaking of immigration reform...why has the "Maverick" gone silent on this issue? I'd be interested in hearing what "McAge" has to say.
Perhaps, he's forgotten (LITERALLY) that this battle is being waged!
SECURE THE BORDER. These unprincipled twits in Washington can't see their way through determining root cause. Their political lives are at stake so no action is better than doing what is constitutionally correct. Uphold the law or change it!! There are enough bright equal justice individuals out there to solve what can compassionately be done with the 11 million that are presently here. SECURE THE BORDER!!
Past Presidents have exaserbated the immigration reform, a topic that is far from new, by giving amnesty to illegals. Ronald Reagan, the demigod of the far right, gave amnesty to millions of illegals signaling them that it is okay to cross our border with impunity. Now people, most are right wingers, are all stirred up because of illegal immigration. Believe me if we didn't have the high unemployment we have, many of these same people wouldn't be saying a word. They would continue to hire their illegal maids, gardeners and aupairs. They would continue to appreciate cheap fruit and vegetables and that big discount on the building project that adds a wing to the estate.
Obama is as much an idiot as that Dylan Ratigan on MSNBC. I listened to his show for awhile this afternoon and he's even more liberally biased and ignorant the crazy keith olberman and ed "kill all republicans" Schultz. How can a station allow such crazies on the air? No wonder nobody watches MSNBC.
Fox "news" has more "crazies" per capita than any other channel in the history of television and they have good ratings. What does that mean? The right actually believes its crazies. Which I find pretty crazy.
Complain all you want about the past actions on immigration.
Until the borders are controlled and the illegals are sent back, then the immigration laws must be made stronger and inforced. If the border patrol can't do it then put federal troops on the border.
This will take congress working together regardless of what Oboma wants.
The facts are the government is auditing business for illegal employees. Not raising a lot of hype but quietly getting rid of illegal hires. This is much more effective and combats identity theft and fraud. The illegal having no employment would have no income no incentive to stay and leaves on their own dime not the taxpayers. Best they can go back and try to fix what is wrong in their own country.
I am also some what annoyed at the allowing of refugees. Many of these countries are in turmoil true but if all seek only to escape then it will be a flood. (actually it is) there are legal means and the laws of all countries are about the same.