The Obama Administration thread

[pilferk]

A good point.  Ideological purity is a fool's dream and often a destructive one.  While ideology may direct our actions, we should have a strong vein of pragmatism in assessing the outcomes of any policy, ideological or otherwise.

Bingo!

See, that's the point..but the Repubs/Conservitives have done everything in their power to make any hint of socialism look to be about the worst thing EVER.  They've done a remarkably good McCarthy-esque hatchet job/PR job/spin campaign so that simply labeling something "socialist" in nature (even if, at the roots, it really isn't) immediately turns every ditto head into a rabid critic (and even causes those who are not to call that thing into question).  Most of them can't even explain WHY the thing is "socialist", never mind see the subtle differences that...as you pointed out...speak toward pragmatism, rather than ideology.

That's where Obama is losing his points...not on actions. In fact, we've seen more from him in his first year than most other administrations...all while dealing with a recession that, during any other administration has gotten the Prez a free pass of sorts.  No, he's losing his points in the PR game.  The Repubs, as they've proven in the past, are great at creating, spinning, and delivering their "message".  The Dems?  Not so much. Obama proved he was good at it during the campaign, but since taking office has not been nearly as adept.

I get a kick out of the guy, above, who says Obama hasn't done "anything" since taking office.  As if the 16 Executive Orders he signed within...what..48 hours of taking office weren't enough?  There was a bank and auto bailout to deal with, a stimulus package to push through and enact, 30k more troops to Afghanistan to deploy, a health care package to push through, 10 foreign State visits, a global climate change agreement, appointing a SC Justice,  Signing the Ledbetter Fair pay act, signing a bill to insure 4 million MORE children through the SCHIP program, re-enabling federal funding of stem cell research, enacting new limits on greenhouse gases, and expanding the hate crimes act.

Nothing?  REALLY?  I got tired just typing that UP!!  Maybe nothing that poster supports...but that's an entirely different argument.

[Smoking Guns]

A good point.  Ideological purity is a fool's dream and often a destructive one.  While ideology may direct our actions, we should have a strong vein of pragmatism in assessing the outcomes of any policy, ideological or otherwise.

Bingo!

See, that's the point..but the Repubs/Conservitives have done everything in their power to make any hint of socialism look to be about the worst thing EVER.  They've done a remarkably good McCarthy-esque hatchet job/PR job/spin campaign so that simply labeling something "socialist" in nature (even if, at the roots, it really isn't) immediately turns every ditto head into a rabid critic (and even causes those who are not to call that thing into question).  Most of them can't even explain WHY the thing is "socialist", never mind see the subtle differences that...as you pointed out...speak toward pragmatism, rather than ideology.

That's where Obama is losing his points...not on actions. In fact, we've seen more from him in his first year than most other administrations...all while dealing with a recession that, during any other administration has gotten the Prez a free pass of sorts.  No, he's losing his points in the PR game.  The Repubs, as they've proven in the past, are great at creating, spinning, and delivering their "message".  The Dems?  Not so much. Obama proved he was good at it during the campaign, but since taking office has not been nearly as adept.

I get a kick out of the guy, above, who says Obama hasn't done "anything" since taking office.  As if the 16 Executive Orders he signed within...what..48 hours of taking office weren't enough?  There was a bank and auto bailout to deal with, a stimulus package to push through and enact, 30k more troops to Afghanistan to deploy, a health care package to push through, 10 foreign State visits, a global climate change agreement, appointing a SC Justice,  Signing the Ledbetter Fair pay act, signing a bill to insure 4 million MORE children through the SCHIP program, re-enabling federal funding of stem cell research, enacting new limits on greenhouse gases, and expanding the hate crimes act.

Nothing?  REALLY?  I got tired just typing that UP!!  Maybe nothing that poster supports...but that's an entirely different argument.

The biggest thing he has done is gone from being PRO PUBLIC OPTION  to "PUBLIC OPTION?  WHAT IS THAT?"

[freedom78]

A good point.  Ideological purity is a fool's dream and often a destructive one.  While ideology may direct our actions, we should have a strong vein of pragmatism in assessing the outcomes of any policy, ideological or otherwise.

Bingo!

See, that's the point..but the Repubs/Conservitives have done everything in their power to make any hint of socialism look to be about the worst thing EVER.  They've done a remarkably good McCarthy-esque hatchet job/PR job/spin campaign so that simply labeling something "socialist" in nature (even if, at the roots, it really isn't) immediately turns every ditto head into a rabid critic (and even causes those who are not to call that thing into question).  Most of them can't even explain WHY the thing is "socialist", never mind see the subtle differences that...as you pointed out...speak toward pragmatism, rather than ideology.

That's where Obama is losing his points...not on actions. In fact, we've seen more from him in his first year than most other administrations...all while dealing with a recession that, during any other administration has gotten the Prez a free pass of sorts.  No, he's losing his points in the PR game.  The Repubs, as they've proven in the past, are great at creating, spinning, and delivering their "message".  The Dems?  Not so much. Obama proved he was good at it during the campaign, but since taking office has not been nearly as adept.

I get a kick out of the guy, above, who says Obama hasn't done "anything" since taking office.  As if the 16 Executive Orders he signed within...what..48 hours of taking office weren't enough?  There was a bank and auto bailout to deal with, a stimulus package to push through and enact, 30k more troops to Afghanistan to deploy, a health care package to push through, 10 foreign State visits, a global climate change agreement, appointing a SC Justice,  Signing the Ledbetter Fair pay act, signing a bill to insure 4 million MORE children through the SCHIP program, re-enabling federal funding of stem cell research, enacting new limits on greenhouse gases, and expanding the hate crimes act.

Nothing?  REALLY?  I got tired just typing that UP!!  Maybe nothing that poster supports...but that's an entirely different argument.

The biggest thing he has done is gone from being PRO PUBLIC OPTION  to "PUBLIC OPTION?  WHAT IS THAT?"

That may be a case of Obama being TOO pragmatic.  The public option could, in theory, cover all Americans who don't have other insurance.  The plan that came out of the Senate will cover about 2/3 of those who currently don't have insurance.  It's nothing to balk at and is certainly a step forward, but I don't see how you say it's important to cover ONLY 2/3 of those without insurance, as Lieberman, among others, seems to be pushing.

Preventing a public option (or, better yet, a true single payer system) may play as a win for the GOP, but in the long run it's bad politics.  The Dems can both cover 30 million people AND campaign on healthcare forevermore.  Pass true universal coverage, and say goodbye to one reason people will vote for Democrats.   

[pilferk]

The biggest thing he has done is gone from being PRO PUBLIC OPTION  to "PUBLIC OPTION?  WHAT IS THAT?"

That's a very common possible misconception/misunderstanding (again, going back to the Repub's being good at creating a message).

http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/dec/23/barack-obama/public-option-obama-platform/

You'll notice that the most prominent mention of a "public option" in his campaign literature is here (and you'll find little hide nor hair of it in his speeches...at least used to define a "public option" as a government run payor rather than a public "marketplace", which might be where some of the confusion lies):

"any American will have the opportunity to enroll in the new public plan or an approved private plan, and income-based sliding scale tax credits will be provided for people and families who need it."

Notice the big, bad "OR" in that sentence.  Now you have to argue semantics.  Obama (predictably) says the OR means exactly that...one of those two options would be enacted (but not necessarily both).  The Repubs (predictably) say that he meant both options would be available, so they point and say he's flip flopped and that he's broken a campaign promise.  

I honestly think Obama finds the bill acceptable.  I think he would have been happy to see a public option (as many liberal Dems in the Senate would have), but is perfectly OK with there NOT being one, too.  I don't think, in looking back, it's something he pushed very hard to get into the legislation.  I think it's disingenious to characterize it the way you are...I don't think it's that simple.  

Now, you want to call him to the mat because he was against mandates (when Clinton and Edwards were espousing them during the Dem nominee campaign) and now has adopted them....you'd be right on the money.

[Smoking Guns]

Pilferk, I am just giving ya'll a hard time, but on MSNBC the other night (the Obama Network) he was blasted by every host for not getting what he campaigned on.  MSNBC's viewers are 90% Obama supporters.  Are they all wrong?  These are people on HIS SIDE questioning what is going on.  The lobbyists win again, don't they. 

[Smoking Guns]

And also, I am not buying the guy on the second flight 253 was just "sick".  Maybe he got sick on the plane when thinking about blowing it up.  But this smells of a cover up.  I think he was planning on doing something and they are just saying he was sick to calm the masses.  But I don't buy it. 

[pilferk]

That may be a case of Obama being TOO pragmatic.  The public option could, in theory, cover all Americans who don't have other insurance.  The plan that came out of the Senate will cover about 2/3 of those who currently don't have insurance.  It's nothing to balk at and is certainly a step forward, but I don't see how you say it's important to cover ONLY 2/3 of those without insurance, as Lieberman, among others, seems to be pushing.

I think I said it before (quoting someone else...Clinton, I think??):  Never let perfection stand as an enemy toward progress.  This is definitely progress.  There's still work to be done, but....you can now tell 30 million (of the 45 million) people without helthcare that they now have coverage.  I'd count that as one in the "win" column.  It's also the most sweeping healthcare legislation (assuming House and Senate compromise) to be enacted, at least since the Nixon years (where the HMO's were created) and arguably it's a whole lot more "friendly" than the last bit that passed.

And I feel I need to, once again, apologize for Lieberman.  The guys an ass.  When he was a Dem, I voted against him (and voted for the Republican EVERY time).  When Lamont garnered the Dem nomination in CT, I thought, finally, we'd be rid of the guy.  So what happens?  The "blue haired" Dems vote for him, and the Indie label (since the Repub candidate was horse manure) garners him like 80% of the Repub vote in CT.     Maybe next time.....

Preventing a public option (or, better yet, a true single payer system) may play as a win for the GOP, but in the long run it's bad politics.  The Dems can both cover 30 million people AND campaign on healthcare forevermore.  Pass true universal coverage, and say goodbye to one reason people will vote for Democrats.   

Honestly, I don't think they were that shady, THIS time.  They needed the two indies to vote with them, and they weren't voting for a public option (ESPECIALLY Lieberman).  No way, no how.  There were other conservative Dems (like Hill...his issue was more the abortion language, though) who didn't like it, either...but ultimately I think the Dem leadership might have been able to bully (or "bribe") them into submission.

In the end, it might turn out the way you paint it, though.  The Dems have a strong argument that the reason the legislation isn't "better" is the Repub's obstructionist tactics.  The question then becomes:  Will that argument play out?  The only way it matter is if the economy is significantly improved by mid 2010.  If not, that will be the driving issue in the mid-terms, anyway.  And the Repubs are suddenly all going to morph from social conservatives into fiscal ones (which, I gotta tell you, is my kinda conservative!!) faster than you can say "Sarah Palin's got a rad bikini bod".  Then...all bets are off.

[freedom78]

That may be a case of Obama being TOO pragmatic.  The public option could, in theory, cover all Americans who don't have other insurance.  The plan that came out of the Senate will cover about 2/3 of those who currently don't have insurance.  It's nothing to balk at and is certainly a step forward, but I don't see how you say it's important to cover ONLY 2/3 of those without insurance, as Lieberman, among others, seems to be pushing.

I think I said it before (quoting someone else...Clinton, I think??):  Never let perfection stand as an enemy toward progress.  This is definitely progress.  There's still work to be done, but....you can now tell 30 million (of the 45 million) people without helthcare that they now have coverage.  I'd count that as one in the "win" column.  It's also the most sweeping healthcare legislation (assuming House and Senate compromise) to be enacted, at least since the Nixon years (where the HMO's were created) and arguably it's a whole lot more "friendly" than the last bit that passed.

Oh, it's clearly progress, and would never have been done under McCain or any Republican President.  That said, I suppose it sucks to be in that 15 million that won't be covered. 

Preventing a public option (or, better yet, a true single payer system) may play as a win for the GOP, but in the long run it's bad politics.  The Dems can both cover 30 million people AND campaign on healthcare forevermore.  Pass true universal coverage, and say goodbye to one reason people will vote for Democrats.   

Honestly, I don't think they were that shady, THIS time.  They needed the two indies to vote with them, and they weren't voting for a public option (ESPECIALLY Lieberman).  No way, no how.  There were other conservative Dems (like Hill...his issue was more the abortion language, though) who didn't like it, either...but ultimately I think the Dem leadership might have been able to bully (or "bribe") them into submission.

In the end, it might turn out the way you paint it, though.  The Dems have a strong argument that the reason the legislation isn't "better" is the Repub's obstructionist tactics.  The question then becomes:  Will that argument play out?  The only way it matter is if the economy is significantly improved by mid 2010.  If not, that will be the driving issue in the mid-terms, anyway.  And the Repubs are suddenly all going to morph from social conservatives into fiscal ones (which, I gotta tell you, is my kinda conservative!!) faster than you can say "Sarah Palin's got a rad bikini bod".  Then...all bets are off.

Obviously having independents in your caucus, as well as the two party system meaning "big tent" parties means that party agreement will be tough.  My only point was that, since the GOP is demanding a filibuster proof majority on each and every piece of legislation, they've also guaranteed that healthcare will continue to be a key part of Democratic politics for years to come.

[pilferk]

Pilferk, I am just giving ya'll a hard time, but on MSNBC the other night (the Obama Network) he was blasted by every host for not getting what he campaigned on.  MSNBC's viewers are 90% Obama supporters.  Are they all wrong?  These are people on HIS SIDE questioning what is going on.  The lobbyists win again, don't they. 

I know...I heard some of the MSNBC rants.

The facts are the facts.  While I find MSNBC ignores them less frequently than FoxNews does....they do still do it. And I think MSNBC has learned that simply partying and celebrating during the next 4 years is going to lead to a catestrophic drop in ratings.  They set themselves up as the "a bit less biased, but at least more willing to deal with reality" juxtaposition to FoxNews.  

You can check the sites that are non-partisan and they're all saying the same thing:  Claiming that Obama was "for" a public option, especially during his campaign, is a tough thing to prove.  There's the brief mention in his campaign lit that I quoted (and was, verbatim from that literature, on his web site).  It's never mentioned in a campaign speech (again, in the context we're talking about), never talked about during the debates.....nada.

So MSNBC's liberal Dem (remember, the ones who supported that public option in the Senate...well the same types of people OUTSIDE the Senate supported it, too) on air personalities all supported the public option, too.  They convinced themselves that Obama was going to make this happen the exact way the most liberal Dems envisioned it happening.  Which....well, that's naive.  Both in terms of what you can actually pass in the legislature and in terms of what they THOUGHT Obama wanted/promiised them.  Obama has been very loose with this issue.  He outlined, very generally, his requirements and let the legislature go to work.   THAT'S THE WAY THE SYSTEM IS SUPPOSED TO WORK!  I know..the previous 8 years of "Executive administration by bullying" has caused a lot of people to forget that.  

As for the lobbyists...I don't know if you peg this as a win.  A win would have been utter defeat of the legislation (and, I suppose, that could still happen pending House/Senate compromise). Rather, they didn't lose as badly as they could have, that's true.  And the Repubs will do anything they can to paint it EXACTLY the way you framed it (which, FYI, is both funny and ironic, all things considered):  This was a win for the lobbyists.

The truth, as usual, lies between the spin.  The dems didn't get everything they wanted, the Repubs were mostly irrelevant in the shape of the legislation (and for them, that's a good thing...more on that in a sec), and the lobbyists only need to buy new shirts, not start looking for new jobs.  

The Dems get the feather in the cap that they made HUGE healthcare reform possible, sliding much closer to the system THEY'D like to see enacted and much further from the one the Repubs seem happy with.  They can point out that the Repubs offered not ONE single alternative through this whole process and basically played the role of obstructionist.  They refused to engage in debate or attempt to make the bill "better" for their constituency...and instead dug in their heels an threw a temper tantrum.

The Repubs, though, also get to play the same card:  They can put ownership of the legislation entirely on the Dems shoulders.  And coming up in 2010 (when the effects, really, will have yet to be felt...so the "credit" for the Dems will be minimal) they can point to the Dems authorizing a HUGE expenditure to pay for it.  That's going to play nicely to their base.

And the lobbyists?  They get to come to work next year and try to further stop the "slide" which the HMO's see happening.  Small victories for them, I guess.

[pilferk]

And also, I am not buying the guy on the second flight 253 was just "sick".  Maybe he got sick on the plane when thinking about blowing it up.  But this smells of a cover up.  I think he was planning on doing something and they are just saying he was sick to calm the masses.  But I don't buy it. 

Apparently, he was violently vomiting and had debilitating diahrea.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34602186/ns/us_news-security/

I think, largely, the reaction was borne from what had happened the day, prior.  I actually buy the story rounding the media....I think there would

a) be too much liability if it came out the story was a cover
and
b) I think the attempt to try to keep the "cover" quiet would be too difficult/big.  No way you keep every passenger on that flight from "telling" someone, on a story of that size. 

[pilferk]

Oh, it's clearly progress, and would never have been done under McCain or any Republican President.  That said, I suppose it sucks to be in that 15 million that won't be covered. 

Hopefully, we can someday add a big ole' "Yet" to the end of that sentence. 

And....I want to see the makeup of those 15 million not covered, demographically.  Looking at the program, I can't figure out WHO, exactly, they would be.  The wealthy (who don't always carry insurance, but stick to "pay to play" in healthcare) are required to purchase.  Those living below the poverty line will basically get a check back from the government to pay for their insurance.  Those with NO income will get covered by an expansion of Medicaid (at the state level).  I'm not sure who's left and the breakdowns don't make it clear WHO is left out....

Obviously having independents in your caucus, as well as the two party system meaning "big tent" parties means that party agreement will be tough.  My only point was that, since the GOP is demanding a filibuster proof majority on each and every piece of legislation, they've also guaranteed that healthcare will continue to be a key part of Democratic politics for years to come.

Yup, true enough.  That's the risk of playing the obstructionist role.  The Repubs biggest talking point will be "The Dems didn't get everything they wanted".  Again, a small victory IMHO, which they will turn into a BIG talking point. 

[freedom78]

Oh, it's clearly progress, and would never have been done under McCain or any Republican President.  That said, I suppose it sucks to be in that 15 million that won't be covered. 

Hopefully, we can someday add a big ole' "Yet" to the end of that sentence. 

And....I want to see the makeup of those 15 million not covered, demographically.  Looking at the program, I can't figure out WHO, exactly, they would be.  The wealthy (who don't always carry insurance, but stick to "pay to play" in healthcare) are required to purchase.  Those living below the poverty line will basically get a check back from the government to pay for their insurance.  Those with NO income will get covered by an expansion of Medicaid (at the state level).  I'm not sure who's left and the breakdowns don't make it clear WHO is left out....

The current system leaves a gap between "poor enough for Medicaid" and "well off enough to buy your own/employer based".  Meaning those just above poverty, probably with jobs that have crappy benefits.  I would imagine the hole will remain in the same place, but just be smaller.  Other current holes are found around pre-existing conditions, etc., and this should diminish those as well. 

I'm unsure what sort of provisions exist for catastrophic coverage, but a compromise between the House's public option and the Senate's lack thereof could be to at least offer public catastrophic insurance to that other 15 million, which would at least deal with the primary cause of poverty.

[polluxlm]

Yay America, you've finally become a true socialist country! Your fellow slaves in Europe and the third world wishes you a warm welcome! We've been waiting for this for a long time. Now let's get those last independent thoughts out of the back of our minds and let the banks put on the careless circus they've always promised us!

Merry Christmas fellow human beings and former individuals, we may have lost our freedom, but atleast we got more ipods and cellphones under our Christmas trees than ever before!

And a happy new year, our governments be willing!

[Perfect Criminal]

This health care bill is a disaster.  Cutting medicaid?  Do you think our goverment is capable of stopping medicaid fraud?  If so, why have they waited until now?  I can't believe people don't see this thing as pure evil.  Sure it covers more people, but in increases the premium of even more people than are being additionally insured.  This is how it works.  If you have what they call a "premium" health care policy, your health care costs are going up to help pay for the uninsured.  Again, wealth redistribution at its finest.  Obama hates people who make money.  Making money is evil!

What the smart companies are going to do (as I have read), is simply downgrade the health coverage they provide to their employees to something less than "premium" coverage and take the savings realized from that move and give their employees raises to counter balance their increased health care costs on the other end.  When that happens, and there is less money flowing into the system to pay for this disaster, where will the money come from to make up the balance?

Does the system we have now work well?  No, obviously not.  Do the republicans have a better plan?  Not that I have found.  Does that make this idea good?  God no.  Obama's approval ratings have dropped faster than any president since those stats have been kept.  This guy is clearly a one-term president.

Pilferk, on a side note, I like to read your stuff, it is well thought out for the most part and I get a kick out of your Bill O'Reilly impression when you say you are not liberal because you are registered independent (same thing he says except he says he is not a republican).  But you lose a tad bit of credibility when you make statements like "msnbc is less biased than foxnews" and then you use links to msnbc to make your points.  Have you ever watched Keith Olbermann?  He is far worse than anyone Foxnews has on in terms of distance from center (yes including even that nitwit at 9 PM on Foxnews).  For every msnbc link you post, someone could post a foxnews link to counter it.  Neither are worth a warm piss IMO.

And to make a slight correction, Obama did campaign on a public option.  Here is a link.  You can claim all the semantics you want, but clearly he wanted a single payer system, told the masses he was for it, then backed off.  Is there a problem with that?  Not in my book.  Any politician who wants to get anything done needs to compromise, even with a huge majority in congress.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/22/did-obama-campaign-on-the_n_401204.html

[pilferk]

This health care bill is a disaster.  Cutting medicaid?  Do you think our goverment is capable of stopping medicaid fraud?  If so, why have they waited until now?  I can't believe people don't see this thing as pure evil.  Sure it covers more people, but in increases the premium of even more people than are being additionally insured.  This is how it works.  If you have what they call a "premium" health care policy, your health care costs are going up to help pay for the uninsured.  Again, wealth redistribution at its finest.  Obama hates people who make money.  Making money is evil!

Not exactly.  If you have a "premium" healthcare policy (and you should look at the definition of premium, FYI....it's soup to nuts coverage with very few provisions/restrictions.  It's not your typical HMO policy ) you will pay taxes on a certain % of the employer contribution to your plan, and only on the amount that is above and beyond the defined "limit".

What the smart companies are going to do (as I have read), is simply downgrade the health coverage they provide to their employees to something less than "premium" coverage and take the savings realized from that move and give their employees raises to counter balance their increased health care costs on the other end.  When that happens, and there is less money flowing into the system to pay for this disaster, where will the money come from to make up the balance?

Somewhere around 3%-5% of American workers would qualify as having a "premium" policy.  Your average employee health plan is NOT premium. The employers providing them (FYI: mostly federal, state, and local government agencies...a noteably large % of them teachers) have mostly said they will look at the least expensive option FOR THEIR EMPLOYEES.  If it makes sense to keep the premium plans, and have their employees cover the difference in taxes..they'll do that.  If the tax burden appears to outweigh the cost of the additional benefits provided in a "premium" plan, they'll downgrade the plan...and potentially give their employees a commesurate increase in salary.  

There was a very good article on the specifics on MSNBC.com recently.  I can't locate it now, though...

Does the system we have now work well?  No, obviously not.  Do the republicans have a better plan?  Not that I have found.  Does that make this idea good?  God no.  Obama's approval ratings have dropped faster than any president since those stats have been kept.  This guy is clearly a one-term president.

Keep in mind...they've dropped faster...but they were also higher.  Governance is not nearly as popular as "campaigning".  And they are still WELL north of the previous president's number for most of his presidency and are actually in line with Clinton's numbers during his early first term.  Are they GREAT?  No, and like I said...that goes a long way toward the fact that his administration has been horrible at creating, sending, and "selling" their message.  That might bite them in the ass, as the Repubs are complete masters at that game.

But I think it's too early to tell if he's a one term guy, quite yet.  Our country is battling some tough times and the effects of his actions have really not yet been felt by the American people. At this point, it's 99% perception.  He's only 25% through his term (not even, actually).  Things need to shake out a bit before we can really have a good handle on this.  If he pulls us out of the recession by mid-2010, the health plan works like the Dems think it will, our fortunes in Afghanistan turn....things can turn on a dime.

I think the public's biggest gripe (and, honestly, they're not out in left field on this) is that health care was maybe handled a little too "early".  I think they would rather have seen some more direct action to abate the effects of this recession.  And then have health care adresses a little later.  But also see the Dems point on this:  They have the opportunity NOW...who knows what will happen in the 2010 mid terms.

[pilferk]

Pilferk, on a side note, I like to read your stuff, it is well thought out for the most part and I get a kick out of your Bill O'Reilly impression when you say you are not liberal because you are registered independent (same thing he says except he says he is not a republican).  But you lose a tad bit of credibility when you make statements like "msnbc is less biased than foxnews" and then you use links to msnbc to make your points.  Have you ever watched Keith Olbermann?  He is far worse than anyone Foxnews has on in terms of distance from center (yes including even that nitwit at 9 PM on Foxnews).  For every msnbc link you post, someone could post a foxnews link to counter it.  Neither are worth a warm piss IMO.

As I've stated about a million times:  I'm socially liberally and fiscally conservative.  For example, I was not a fan of the bank bailout or the stimulus package...but accepted the fact (as did most Repubs) that the alternative was worse.  I'm for the healthcare plan, provided it's not too expensive (and independant sources say it's really not...it's not budget neutral...though the Congressional Budget office says it is...but it's not particularly costly, either).   We just don't tend to talk about fiscal issues, here.  I vote Republican 9 times out of 10 in our local elections, about 60% to 70% of the time in our State elections (I've never voted for a Democratic Governor), and about 50/50 in national elections.  Since I first began voting for president  I've voted for 1 Republican (Bush I), 1 Independant (Ralph Nader), and 3 Democrats (Clinton, Kerry, Obama). The thing is, though: MY version of conservative is directly at odds with the Neo-Con version....so that tends to make me look like a liberal in these forums where we typically are talking presidential politics.

Here's what I said:

"While I find MSNBC ignores them less frequently than FoxNews does....they do still do it. And I think MSNBC has learned that simply partying and celebrating during the next 4 years is going to lead to a catestrophic drop in ratings.  They set themselves up as the "a bit less biased, but at least more willing to deal with reality" juxtaposition to FoxNews.  "

Notice I said "they set themselves up as" (not "I think they are") and "A BIT less".  Not a lot less.  A tad, tiny, little bit.  In their news coverage.  Rachel Maddow, Keith Olberman...they are commentators, being paid to give an opinion.  Like Bill.  Like Sean.   Not news coverage. I 100% expect the bias, there.
And Keith, especially, is a "personality" much like Bill is on Fox.  But in either case (news OR opinion), I tend to find MSNBC's use of FACTS a LOT better than the content over on FoxNews. That's bourne out by fact checking (when I question something that's said) on NONPARTISAN sites (factcheck.org, for example).  I'm not saying MSNBC are angels...they clearly get it wrong sometimes (see the whole POINT of the above post).  Just that I've found they're wrong "less often" (A LOT less).

One thing: For point of reference, I can not watch Bill O'Reilly's show.  He just annoys me.  I don't mean his opinions (I can actually read his stuff with no problems), but him, personally.   I DO watch Sean, Gretchen, and a bunch of the rest of their content, though.

Oh, and the msnbc.com articles I tend to post are NEWS articles.  Not opinion pieces.  And when I link them, I'm not usually linking them for any editorial commentary in them, but for the facts contained therein.  In additon, msnbc.com's news content is NOT the equivalent of Foxnews.com's editorial commentary.  Not nearly....Most of the news articles on MSNBC are pretty standard faire stuff..akin to what you see on CNN.com, BBC.com, on the AP wire, or in any of a dozen national newspapers (the NY Times, Washington Post, etc).  In fact, in most cases, they're transplanted AP pieces that are verbatim on most of the other sites (like the one I posted on the previous page about the Sunday "scare").

BUT, if you find a contrary Foxnews article disputing those facts..by all means, post it!

And to make a slight correction, Obama did campaign on a public option.  Here is a link.  You can claim all the semantics you want, but clearly he wanted a single payer system, told the masses he was for it, then backed off.  Is there a problem with that?  Not in my book.  Any politician who wants to get anything done needs to compromise, even with a huge majority in congress.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/22/did-obama-campaign-on-the_n_401204.html

Again, it all comes down to semantics.  The Repubs/conservs are going to argue one side because they're looking for ammunition.  The dems are going to counterpoint for obvious reasons.  But there really is no "smoking gun"...which means it's a hard claim to make stick.

In the speeches I've read and heard, his definition of "public option" was layed out as the marketplace provision, which is included in the bill.  In other words:  An option where the public can buy it's own health insurance.  NOT a "publicly owned and operated, single payor".  That's what I took from them BEFORE this whole "he said/she said" debate began  You can see it in his own words:  "create a new public health plan for those currently without coverage" is pretty much exactly what we got.  I can see why others would (or would want to) interpret it differently.

Did he WANT it?  Sure, as most liberal dems would.  I'm sure there's documents that he supported such an option (like signing another entities provisio's saying that's what they wanted to see pass).  Did he PROMISE it?  Or make it a part of his campaign?  Not really....or at least not categorically enough to make the Repubs charges really have any teeth.  Did he state a NEED for it?  Not anywhere I can find.

From your own posted article:

An examination of approximately 200 newspaper articles from the campaign, as well as debate transcripts and public speeches shows that Obama spoke remarkably infrequently about creating a government-run insurance program. Indeed, when he initially outlined his health care proposals during a speech before the University of Iowa on March 29, 2007, he described setting up a system that resembles the current Senate compromise - in which private insurers would operate in a non-profit entity that was regulated heavily by a government entity.

In the following months, reporters would remark, as did Robert Pear of the New York Times, that Obama "says he would 'establish a new public insurance program' for people who do not have access to group coverage." But it's not clear that their reference was a non-profit entity modeled after congressional coverage or the "government-run plan" that progressives pine for today.

Even they say it's NOT clear...

[pilferk]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34629214/ns/business-economy_at_a_crossroads/

Ummm...I think we've given them enough.  Most of the lenders have stabilized (and some have even paid back boatloads of the bailout money), the credit markets are still jumpy, but relatively stable (all things considered).

At some point we have to cut bait and start letting the market be the market, again.  And if that means letting GMAC's mortgage unit collapse, so be it.

[freedom78]

MY version of conservative is directly at odds with the Neo-Con version....so that tends to make me look like a liberal in these forums where we typically are talking presidential politics.

Neo conservatism isn't conservative.  It's liberal internationalism that has been twisted and warped.

[pilferk]

Neo conservatism isn't conservative.  It's liberal internationalism that has been twisted and warped.

In terms of foreign policy...you hit it on the head 100%.

With their domestic policy....it seems to be righteous morality tempered (largely) by greed (and there's a nice contradiction for you) combined with stubborn social immobilization (or, sometimes, retrogression).

To put it bluntly:  Reagan and Bush I (to a slightly lesser extent) were my kind of Republicans.  Nixon and Bush II (to a larger extent) were not.

Clinton (and it looks like maybe Obama..but we'll have to wait to be sure) was my kind of Democrat.  Gore and Carter were not. 

As an aside...I remember when the fundamental rallying cry of the Republican party was to balance the budget.  They pledged, promised, and swore they were the best party to do that.  And I have to admit...back in the days of Reagan and Bush I, I was right there with them on that principal.  In fact, I voted for Bush I in my very first presidential election for just that reason.  Then a weird thing happened....Clinton went out and actually DID it!

Since then....it's been pretty quiet (especially in light of Bush II's fiscal irresponsibility) on that front from the Repubs.

[pilferk]

This is interesting:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/29/bush-waited-nine-days-to_n_406307.html

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/31049.html