Shut the hell up, DICK!!

Taken from Huffington post. Written by columnist DAVID CORN. (my hero)

Why is Dick Cheney helping Barack Obama? I know they're cousins -- eighth cousins, to be precise -- but for a guy who seems to detest the president and everything he stands for concerning national security, Cheney is inexplicably providing political aid and comfort to Obama.

On Wednesday night, Cheney received the not-so-coveted Keeper of the Flame award from the Center for Security Policy, a rather hawkish group run by Frank Gaffney, who was one of the loudest cheerleaders for the Iraq war. Accepting the honor, Cheney delivered a 25-minute speech and once again accused Obama of committing strategic blunders and undermining the credibility of the United States. Most notably, Cheney slammed the president for "dithering" on Afghanistan, saying that Obama "seems afraid to make a decision, and unable to provide his commander on the ground with the troops he needs to complete his mission."

Coming from Cheney, this was ridiculous. It is no news flash that the Bush-Cheney White House neglected the Afghanistan effort for years. In fact, as I wrote in 2006, the Bush administration didn't even have a senior-level official solely responsible for policies and actions in Afghanistan. The mid-level White House aide handling Afghanistan at the time had another portfolio: the Iraq war.

In his speech, Cheney insisted that his White House had not dropped the ball: "In the fall of 2008, fully aware of the need to meet new challenges being posed by the Taliban, we dug into every aspect of Afghanistan policy, assembling a team that repeatedly went into the country, reviewing options and recommendations." Talk about dithering. That review occurred seven years after the war began. (U.S. involvement in World War II lasted only four years.)

For Democrats, countering Cheney's charges was far easier than figuring out what to do in Afghanistan. Responding to Cheney's remarks, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said:

I think it's a curious comment, given -- I think it's pretty safe to say that the vice president was for seven years not focused on Afghanistan. . . . What Vice President Cheney calls "dithering," President Obama calls his solemn responsibility to the men and women in uniform and to the American public. I think we've all seen what happens when somebody doesn't take that responsibility seriously.

Even Republican Sen. Lamar Alexander rejected Cheney's criticism and commented, "I want [Obama] to take the time to get it right." By the way, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who served in the Bush-Cheney administration, recently said on CNN, "I will tell you, I think that the strategy that the president put forward in late March is the first real strategy we have had for Afghanistan since the early 1980s." In other words, Bush and Cheney had nada. And in 2007, Adm. Michael Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, acknowledged that the Bush-Cheney gang was not treating Afghanistan as a priority: "In Afghanistan, we do what we can. In Iraq, we do what we must."

Cheney lecturing Obama on Afghanistan is laughable, but the joke is on him. The ex-veep may not realize this, but he and his former boss exited office as profoundly unpopular men. Many in this country couldn't wait to see them leave. Obama won the presidency partly because he was the anti-Bush (or anti-Cheney). An impressive person on his own, Obama especially looked good compared to the fellows on the way out.

Now that Obama is a president rather than a candidate, he has lost the advantage of comparison. A commander in chief stands on his own before the public for judgment. His policies are evaluated by voters on absolute terms: Are they working? People no longer ask: Are they better than the other guy's? With the war in Afghanistan a serious problem and unemployment a kiss away from the 10 percent mark, every day Obama has to prove himself to Americans. And even his best efforts and decisions might not lead to good outcomes on these fronts. There actually may not be solutions to implement. Obama could well end up in deep political trouble because of such challenges.

But by interjecting himself into the discourse, Cheney sends up a flare: Hey, don't forget about me and Bush! And that reminder is great for the White House. If the issue is, can Obama succeed in Afghanistan, there's reason for Obama and his aides to worry. If the debate is Obama versus the Old Gang, the president is the big winner. In the 2008 campaign, he ran against Bush more than John McCain, and that worked out nicely for him. Since taking office, Obama has justifiably noted over and over that he's been cleaning up the mess left behind by Bush and Cheney. That argument will lose its oomph, the smaller Bush and Cheney become in the rear-view mirror. But here comes Cheney, jumping on the hood, pressing his face against the windshield, and proclaiming, "I'm here." What could be better for Obama?

Rep. Brad Sherman, a California Democrat, told me this week that he worries that by next year Obama will have a tough time blaming the nation's economic woes on Bush's policies. But if unemployment remains high, Obama and other Democrats will have no choice but to continue to make this case. Yet the more Cheney is in the spotlight, the easier it will be for Democrats and the White House to point an accusing finger at the previous administration. Cheney would help his fellow Republicans the most by sticking to fishing (please, no hunting) and letting Obama and Democrats contend with the vexing problems he and Bush bequeathed them -- and possibly fail.

Cheney and Obama are obviously not competing for the same audience. By slamming Obama, Cheney may be hoping to boost his own standing among conservatives, even if these moves also help Obama. But since Cheney is not running for any office in the future, such a tactic would be particularly selfish. After all, the Cheney brand is a damaged one. He's not a product the Republican Party wants on the shelf.

So as White House aides figure out how to manage their feud with Fox News, they should have no mixed feelings about mixing it up with Cheney. Politicians are often defined by their enemies. And there's no better enemy for Obama and his crew than Dick Cheney. They ought to send him a thank-you card.

Rush Limbaugh a racist: DROPPED FROM NFL OWNERSHIP!!!

RUSH LIMBAUGH NEEDS TO BE ELIMINATED FROM SOCIETY. HE IS AN UGLY NEGATIVE PERSON IN EVERY WHICH WAY!


Wednesday October 14, 2009 7:03PM
Sources: Limbaugh dropped from group seeking to purchase Rams Story Highlights
The group trying to buy the Rams says Rush Limbaugh is no longer invovled
Sources said any bid including Limbaugh had 'zero chance' of being approved
Source: 'The NFL isn't interested in having its own Mark Cuban situation'

By Don Banks, SI.com


If conservative radio commentator Rush Limbaugh ever had much of a chance to be a minority owner in a successful bid to buy the NFL's St. Louis Rams, it is now over, two league sources have confirmed to SI.com.

In a statement released Wednesday evening by St. Louis Blues chairman Dave Checketts -- who is heading the group that hopes to buy the Rams -- he announced Limbaugh's official exit from the bid. It is believed that Limbaugh's controversial participation would have doomed the group's effort in the eyes of NFL owners. League sources told SI.com that Limbaugh's candidacy in any Rams bid had "zero chance'' of being approved by the league's owners. In his statement, Checketts said Limbaugh's participation had become "a complication and a distraction'' to the group's efforts.

According to league sources, Limbaugh comes with too much troubling baggage in terms of his outspoken views that often intersect the divisive issues of politics and race in America. In a time when the NFL is hoping to have complete uniformity among its team owners in anticipation of the tough collective bargaining negotiations to come with the players union, there was little interest within the league to associate with an owner who is paid to give his highly charged opinions on the radio for hours each week.

"The league would be on pins and needles for three hours a day, five days a week,'' one league source said. "The NFL isn't interested in having its own Mark Cuban situation, where [the Dallas Mavericks owner] is fined for something he said, but then pays the fine, moves on and doesn't care what he says the next time either. The league wants the focus to always be on the game, not the opinions of any particular owner.''

One league source told SI.com that Checketts group was never completely configured any way, and that Limbaugh's participation was never set in stone. In that sense, when word surfaced that he would potentially hold minority ownership in the Rams, it was viewed as a trial balloon of sorts that never advanced much past the potential stage. Checketts is said to be seeking to replace Limbaugh's financial participation with other interested parties.

There was swift reaction to the idea of Limbaugh being involved in NFL ownership, and much of it was not favorable. NFL Players Association executive director DeMaurice Smith last weekend sent a letter to the group's board urging players to voice their opinion of Limbaugh's participation. And on Tuesday, NFL commissioner Roger Goodell made it clear that Limbaugh would face a high bar regarding approval of his potential stake in the Rams.

"Divisive comments are not what the NFL is all about,'' Goodell said at a two-day NFL owners meeting in Boston. "I've said many times before, we're all held to a high standard here. I would not want to see those comments coming from people who are in a responsible position in the NFL -- absolutely not.''

Goodell's strong comments were not just a message of sensitivity to the players in regards to Limbaugh's controversial reputation. One league source said it was a message to the league's entire customer base that the NFL would not be welcoming to a multi-platformed media figure who has a history of troubling and at times racially inflaming comments.

Indianapolis Colts owner Jim Irsay on Tuesday predicted that Limbaugh's potential ownership would face stiff opposition within the league, and said he could never vote to approve such a group. A league source went even further Wednesday, telling SI.com that even with Limbaugh no longer involved, Checketts' ownership group from here on out would face questions regarding the wisdom of having associated itself with such a divisive presence in the first place. The source said Limbaugh within the league was seen as "a drain on anyone else in the group who might have legitimacy.''

Another league source voiced puzzlement over Checketts not discerning the potential backlash of Limbaugh's participation in his group in advance of the news becoming public. "I would have assumed he would have run it up the flagpole with the league before it became known,'' a league source said. "Then a tepid response would have told him where things stood.''

Others within the league believe that Limbaugh may have viewed his participation in Checketts group as nothing more than a dose of free publicity for the radio host, no matter the outcome or the response to his involvement. "There was no downside in any of this for him,'' a league source said. "He gets a week of free publicity, and in the end, he'll frame his rejection to his benefit.''

I am calling you! Great Song!!!

Change is coming.

Jevetta Steele deserves all the credit in the world. And why she does not have a single out, for this song, is beyond me. You can only hear her beautiful voice on youtube. I dont understand it.

Please enjoy this beautiful song.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nk7mCmgzpPE&NR=1

Taken from the movie "Bagdad Cafe". Great movie. A lil quirky but great movie.

Conservative movement behave like Bratty 13 year olds

The Politics of Spite

Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times
Paul Krugman

Published: October 4, 2009
There was what President Obama likes to call a teachable moment last week, when the International Olympic Committee rejected Chicago’s bid to be host of the 2016 Summer Games.

Cheers erupted” at the headquarters of the conservative Weekly Standard, according to a blog post by a member of the magazine’s staff, with the headline “Obama loses! Obama loses!” Rush Limbaugh declared himself “gleeful.” “World Rejects Obama,” gloated the Drudge Report. And so on.

So what did we learn from this moment? For one thing, we learned that the modern conservative movement, which dominates the modern Republican Party, has the emotional maturity of a bratty 13-year-old.

But more important, the episode illustrated an essential truth about the state of American politics: at this point, the guiding principle of one of our nation’s two great political parties is spite pure and simple. If Republicans think something might be good for the president, they’re against it — whether or not it’s good for America.

To be sure, while celebrating America’s rebuff by the Olympic Committee was puerile, it didn’t do any real harm. But the same principle of spite has determined Republican positions on more serious matters, with potentially serious consequences — in particular, in the debate over health care reform.

Now, it’s understandable that many Republicans oppose Democratic plans to extend insurance coverage — just as most Democrats opposed President Bush’s attempt to convert Social Security into a sort of giant 401(k). The two parties do, after all, have different philosophies about the appropriate role of government.

But the tactics of the two parties have been different. In 2005, when Democrats campaigned against Social Security privatization, their arguments were consistent with their underlying ideology: they argued that replacing guaranteed benefits with private accounts would expose retirees to too much risk.

The Republican campaign against health care reform, by contrast, has shown no such consistency. For the main G.O.P. line of attack is the claim — based mainly on lies about death panels and so on — that reform will undermine Medicare. And this line of attack is utterly at odds both with the party’s traditions and with what conservatives claim to believe.

Think about just how bizarre it is for Republicans to position themselves as the defenders of unrestricted Medicare spending. First of all, the modern G.O.P. considers itself the party of Ronald Reagan — and Reagan was a fierce opponent of Medicare’s creation, warning that it would destroy American freedom. (Honest.) In the 1990s, Newt Gingrich tried to force drastic cuts in Medicare financing. And in recent years, Republicans have repeatedly decried the growth in entitlement spending — growth that is largely driven by rising health care costs.

But the Obama administration’s plan to expand coverage relies in part on savings from Medicare. And since the G.O.P. opposes anything that might be good for Mr. Obama, it has become the passionate defender of ineffective medical procedures and overpayments to insurance companies.

How did one of our great political parties become so ruthless, so willing to embrace scorched-earth tactics even if so doing undermines the ability of any future administration to govern?

The key point is that ever since the Reagan years, the Republican Party has been dominated by radicals — ideologues and/or apparatchiks who, at a fundamental level, do not accept anyone else’s right to govern.

Anyone surprised by the venomous, over-the-top opposition to Mr. Obama must have forgotten the Clinton years. Remember when Rush Limbaugh suggested that Hillary Clinton was a party to murder? When Newt Gingrich shut down the federal government in an attempt to bully Bill Clinton into accepting those Medicare cuts? And let’s not even talk about the impeachment saga.

The only difference now is that the G.O.P. is in a weaker position, having lost control not just of Congress but, to a large extent, of the terms of debate. The public no longer buys conservative ideology the way it used to; the old attacks on Big Government and paeans to the magic of the marketplace have lost their resonance. Yet conservatives retain their belief that they, and only they, should govern.

The result has been a cynical, ends-justify-the-means approach. Hastening the day when the rightful governing party returns to power is all that matters, so the G.O.P. will seize any club at hand with which to beat the current administration.

It’s an ugly picture. But it’s the truth. And it’s a truth anyone trying to find solutions to America’s real problems has to understand.

It is unfortunate.

Yeah! America lost to South America! GOP = Bunch of Idiots!!

LOL! This is YOUR GOP! (DUMB ASSES)

Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT) Thomas Carper (D-DE), Kent Conrad (D-ND) and Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) opposed the amendment with R

BLUE DOG DEMOCRATS ARE KILLING THE HEALTH CARE BILL...Grrrrrrrrrrrrrr!!

(All Headline News article, Kris Alingod - AHN Contributor)

Washington, D.C. (AHN) - The Senate Finance Committee late Wednesday voted down amendments from Sens. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) and Chuck Schumer (D-NY) that would've included a public option in the health reform bill under debate for the second week. Some lawmakers and pundits have said the Finance panel's measure is the only one among five proposals in Congress with any hope of passage this year, since Republicans refuse to support a government health insurance plan.

By an 8-15 vote, committee members rejected a measure from Rockefeller that would have created a voluntary, public insurance program run by the Health Department and that has payment rates based on Medicare provider payments for the first two years of coverage.

Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT) and three other Democrats -- Thomas Carper (D-DE), Kent Conrad (D-ND) and Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) -- opposed the amendment along with all Republican members of the committee.

Rockefeller, chairman of the Health Subcommittee in the Finance panel, said in a statement, "I have traveled across West Virginia talking with people about their health care, and what I hear is that they need another option to buy affordable insurance - one that actually covers their medical care and helps drive down costs. Our job is to protect the American people, not protect insurance company profits. The American people have asked for real solutions that protect their families and their economic security - a public option does just that."

Carper said he did not vote for the amendment because "it would give the government an unfair advantage in the marketplace by allowing it to negotiate prices initially based on Medicare. That would stifle competition, not increase it, and the end result, I believe, would not be good for the consumer."

The measure from Schumer failed by a vote of 10-13.

Baucus was joined by only two Democrats -- Conrad and Lincoln -- in voting against it. The amendment would've included the public option plan passed the Senate Health Committee into the Finance panel's bill. Unlike the Rockefeller proposal, it does not tie its payments to Medicare and immediately negotiates its payment rates.

Two Democrats who expressed concern about tying Medicare payments to the public option, Sens. Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) and Ron Wyden (D-OR), voted to support both amendments.

"We should create a non-profit entity to compete with insurance companies to offer the best care at the lowest cost," Bingaman, a member of the "Gang of Six" centrist committee members who negotiated the bill for debate, said in a statement. "While neither public option amendment considered today was approved, we still have an opportunity to write a bill that encourages healthy competition."

"Without the ability to hold insurers accountable for their costs and quality of service, without the ability to get a better deal and stop the ongoing erosion of wages, most working families will be no better off after this bill passes than they are today," Wyden added.

A public option is a government-run, voluntary healthcare program that would compete with private insurance by offering cheaper coverage.

Democrats support it because according to them it would help make the costs overhauling the nation's healthcare system and expanding coverage to the 47 million uninsured more affordable. The GOP says a public plan would cause more job losses, impose new taxes and would not reduce costs nor provide fair competition.

Unlike other current Democratic bills, Baucus' bill features non-profit insurance cooperatives instead of a public option.

Committee debate on the $856 billion measure began last Tuesday amid criticisms from liberals who want a robust public option and more subsidies for the poor, and from Republicans who say the bill adds taxes to small business, and fails to ensure that funding excludes abortion and illegal immigrants.

The Congressional Budget Office, a nonpartisan agency, said in its assessment the bill is budget-neutral, actually costs $774 billion and would reduce the deficit by $49 billion in 10 years.

Rockefeller has warned that a coop model is "untested and unsubstantiated," citing statements from the USDA and the GAO. Conrad, the progenitor of the proposal to use cooperatives, has responded by citing successful cooperatives such as Ace Hardware and Group Health, a health care co-op in Washington state with 600,000 members.

"The co-op structure was offered because it fulfills at least some of the goals of both sides of the debate," Conrad also said. "It is a competitive delivery model that could compete with private, for-profit insurance companies, but at the same time it is membership-owned and controlled, not government-run."

Baucus' bill, which also requires all Americans except the very poor to have coverage or pay a fine, is also the only proposal in Congress that has yet to be reported out of committee.

The Senate Health Committee in July approved a $600 billion measure crafted by the late Ted Kennedy that has a "strong" public option.

In the House, the Energy panel has a government insurance plan that allows doctors to negotiate payment rates and costs $900 billion.

The measure has the support of the American Medical Association, which last month partnered with the Federation of American Hospitals, Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) and Service Employees International Union to launch a pro-administration TV ad on healthcare.

The House Ways and Means and Education Committees have approved a measure costing $1 trillion over 10 years.

The two bills have a tax on the 1.2 percent wealthiest Americans, or those earning more than $350,000.

They also require employers to either offer coverage to employees while contributing toward the premiums, or contribute to covering the costs of coverage by paying the government an equivalent of 8 percent of their workers' payroll. Small businesses with less than $250,000 in annual payroll are exempt from either requirements.