ummmm, what happened to the transparency?

IMO, anyone who is involved in helping make policy, ESPECIALLY IF THEY BENEFIT FROM IT, should be open to public scrutiny and their names should ALL be disclosed.

Oh no! You find this to be a "great view"?

But its based on polls:

Obama is falling out not with them but with the party's moderates. ...Obama remains well-liked overall, but his support among independents is slipping, and his policies are less popular than he is...

And we know that polls are worthless and have no validity, because you said so repeatedly!

Or perhaps, that only applies when you dont like the polls.

The poll emphasis is minor in this Op-Ed bit. I enjoyed his insight and opinion into what the Demoncrats are doing in Congress.


See it is not about the polls themselves but how they are twisted and inaccurate from the outset. :D

Merc..you continually crack me up with your dodging and weaving.

You don't believe me? Polls are worthless.

Perhaps you should tell that to Clive Crook, whose insight and opinion you like, but who was compelled to link and cite David Brooks op ed, that was all about polls, in order to make his point.

Waiting for the "whatever" defense.

Maybe you missed it.

The poll emphasis is minor in this Op-Ed bit. I enjoyed his insight and opinion into what the Demoncrats are doing in Congress.

See it is not about the polls themselves but how they are twisted and inaccurate from the outset.

I love it. "Hello Kettle, meet Pot."

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gla...ut-allowing-ti

:lol:

Obama has had numerous WH meetings (and a few on the Hill) where Republican leaders were invited to participate. It might even be fair to say that Republicans have been invited to WH meetings more in the first six months of the Obama administration than Democrats in eight years of the Bush administration (no, I dont have a link..just a gut assement).

It seems to me the health reform proposals have been subject to a quite of bit of debate in the various committees to-date...and numerous opportunities for the Republicans to offer amendments...and is likely to continue into the fall.

The Senate Health and Labor Committee took up every amendment offered by the Republicans...same is happening in the Finance Committee, along with a likely bi-partisan proposal to emerge from that committee....and on the House side, the rules will allow more amendments than the Republican-controlled House, under the Hastert rule, ever allowed the Democrats to offer. The best (or worst) example, if you really want to look back, was the Republican medicare prescription drugs legislation...where Tom Delay actually bribed a Republican House member right on the floor during the vote...after extending the voting time beyond the allowable time in order to ensure passage.

Just the facts :)

I doubt that seriously. So it is most likely bs...

Opinion, not based in fact. The Demoncrats control all the committees.

Not important, the Dems are in charge.

When I have time, I will search out the number of Bush WH meetings with Dems in eight years. They were scarce and I can count at least 5-6 meetings that Obama had with Republicans in six months.


Its not an opinion that the Republicans have had numerous opportunities to have their amendments presented in committee...its a fact and its a fact that the Republicans will have the opportunity present amendments on the floor.

Of course the Democrats control all committees and ultimately, the final outcome...it's called majority rule.

And the first thing Pelosi did was end the Hastert rule...a fact.

I get it....the majority party has more influence on shaping legislation and you find something wrong with that because you dont like the party in power.

I get if further...the only opinions that are valid to you are the ones from partisan right wing editorial writers and bloggers...a double standard?

They control all the committees that the Republicans are also members of. There are Republican ammendments on the bills. So, even knowing that it is unlikely that any Republicans will vote for the bill, they are letting the Republicans help shape it.

I have no problem with the Majority rule. And for you to defend the practices of that scumbag Pelosi states much about how you see the world in your rose colored glasses. She has Rahmrodded the legislation through with very little input from Republickins. She promised change and nothing has changed. The Demoncrats are no better then when the other party was in charge.

People talk about using scare tactics to get things done?!?! In an effort to ram her bill through Congress she said this:
It was total BS. And on top of that no one could read the damm thing it was so long and filled with pork.

After the vote on the bill:
http://www.dailyinterlake.com/articl...5325205_01.txt

Great so where are all the jobs?

You must still work for the Demoncratic Party right?

Token shaping. Very little input on the more important bills to come out since Jan.

I dont defend all of Pelosi's actions but it is a fact that the minority party in the House has more rights now than under the Hastert rule...compare the House rules.

In case you dont understand what the Hastert rule was, it required support of the "majority of the majority" (ie a majority of Republicans at the time) in order for an amendment to even be considered.

Pelosi's first action as Speaker was to end that rule. The Republicans have had opportunities to offer amendments on every piece of legislation to reach the floor of the House....a fact.

The practical result of the end of the Hastert rule? Here is one example from last year. The FISA reform enacted would NEVER have passed if Pelosi had kept the Hastert rule in place because it NEVER had a "majority of the majority" (Democrats) support . As a result of the no-Hastert rule, a bi-partisan bill passed.

Most objective observers recognize that the recovery bill projections are for an 18 month - 2 year time span.

Don't you think the "Demon"izing is little childish?