US midterm elections: Barack Obama’s legacy could be ruined in one day

up-country_sinclair · November 17, 2014

"Gruber is basically a jerk"

True enough. A jerk who is telling the truth about how Obamacare was sold dishonestly to the electorate. Of course, we already knew that. We just didn't know the extent of it.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/dec/12/lie-year-if-you-like-your-health-care-plan-keep-it/

You've posted links to this outfit called "politicafact" several times, so I decided to take a look around. All anyone needs to do is go to youtube and search politifact. It really shined a light on them, and not in a flattering way.

I didn't do a "deep dive" by any means, but a word to the wise: just because some website adds "fact" to its name, doesn't necessarily mean they trade in facts.

Ulysses G. · November 17, 2014

Maybe you need to check with an open mind. You can find some nut on the Internet to criticize anything. Politifact is highly respected and non-partisan. Their "Pants on Fire" rating is a deal disgrace for the recipient and The Lie of the Year even worse.

PolitiFact.com was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting in 2009 for "its fact-checking initiative during the 2008 presidential campaign that used probing reporters and the power of the World Wide Web to examine more than 750 political claims, separating rhetoric from truth to enlighten voters."[18]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PolitiFact.com

Edited November 17, 2014 by Ulysses G.

up-country_sinclair · November 17, 2014

You can find some nut on the Internet to criticize anything.

Indeed.

And by the way, taken from the link you (sorry, YOU) posted. (I'll refrain from asking you why you've posted a link that contradicts what you've posted and asking you if you even read what was included in the link, OK?)

After PolitiFact called President Obama's often-repeated promise that, under the act, "if you like your health care plan, you can keep it" as its "lie of the year" in 2013, critics noted that PolitiFact had earlier ruled differently on the same claim. PolitiFact had rated the statement as true in 2008, stating that "Obama is accurately describing his health care plan here."^[33]^[34] In 2009 and again in 2012, Politifact rated the statement half true.^[34] This discrepancy drew criticism from political commentators on both sides of the political spectrum

And the link you posted also has at least ten other instances when "fact" has little to do with what is written on "politifact". It's just a shoddily run outfit that really doesn't seem to merit serious attention.

Ulysses G. · November 17, 2014

It does not contradict what I've posted. It mentions the fact that not everyone always agrees with its conclusions, but that they are not known for favoring either side - although, in fact, they have criticized more republicans than democrats.

You can nitpick about sources all you want, but Politifact has a very good reputation and most people know it. Trying to deny it, makes it obvious that you will not accept any source that contradicts your own opinions.

As far as Politifact becoming more and more critical of Obama's lies, it is obviously because more and more information about them became available over time.

"Shoddily run outfits, that really don't seem to merit serious attention" don't win Pulitzer Prizes for National Reporting FYI.

PolitiFact has been both praised and criticized by independent observers, conservatives and liberals alike.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PolitiFact.com

Edited November 17, 2014 by Ulysses G.

chuckd · November 17, 2014

The paymasters in HHS certainly knew who Gruber was.

This from a blog that I can't verify. The article is from the Mail and it is blocked in Thailand.

More to follow but I must take the wife to Erawan Cave for lunch.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber has billed federal and state governments at least $5.9 million

.

Four U.S. states and the federal government have padded Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber's wallet to the tune of $5.9 million since 2000, including millions connected to his work on the Affordable Care Act.

The Massachusetts Institute of Technology economist has been pilloried for collecting $392,600 from the Obama administration's Health and Human Services Department while the law was being written, but that was just the tip of the iceberg.

Gruber's consulting contracts give states and the feds access to a proprietary formula that can determine how changes in a health care system's structure will affect costs.

http://www.discussionist.com/1015273718

Gruber is basically a jerk who likes to make stupid statements about how he is privy to if not the prime mover of secret back room deals and machinations whether in the Massachusetts capital or the nation's capital. The guy is a geek MIT economist with effective cost models but he is also the poster boy of an elite's self-important anal cavity.

Here's another of his precious quotes from his central role in economizing Romneycare while Willard Mitt Romney was governor of Massachusetts...

The dirty secret in Massachusetts is the feds paid for our bill, OK? In Massachusetts, we had a very powerful Senator you may know. His name is Ted Kennedy. Ted Kennedy had basically figured out — Ted Kennedy and smart people in Massachusetts — had figured out a way to rip off the Feds for $400 million a year.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/11/14/despite-what-jonathan-gruber-said-romneycare-didnt-secretly-rip-off-medicaid/

Gruber is blowing smoke about the federal program that helped Massachusetts set up its 2006 coverage expansion signed off on by GW Bush and which later became the basis for the Affordable Care Act. The fact is hardly a secret.

The long and the short of it is that basically Massachusetts was receiving special Medicaid funds through a waiver to fund care for populations the program didn't include. In 2005, Prez Bush wanted to end that funding which had been worth about $350 million. But Ted Kennedy, working with then Gov Romney packaged a deal to keep the funds and then some by expanding Medicaid and providing subsidies to help low-income people buy private insurance. The Bush administration signed off on that deal, giving us Romneycare which then gave us Obamacare

The renewed and dredged up attacks exploiting Gruber's naivete and political clowning around are coming from the far out right wing marginals who gave us the infamous and false "death panels" and the "government takeover" bogeyman as well as "illegal aliens" getting health insurance, all of which were always 100% bullchit. These hard core recividist rightists also gave us the completely bogus $714 million cuts in Medicare that also proved to be 100% false.

The fact is we are hearing again from these very same people that are the repeat offender creators of fiction and outright boldfaced lies. The right wingnuts are not bastions of truth or of fairness whether it be the new healthcare law or comprehensive immigration reform or in respect of anything else. I don't trust them to be honest or truthful or in any way credible in any or all of their political statements, not at any time or ever.

From your post:

"Gruber is basically a jerk who likes to make stupid statements about how he is privy to if not the prime mover of secret back room deals and machinations whether in the Massachusetts capital or the nation's capital..."

Secretary of State and former US Senator from Massachusetts had this to say about Gruber in a 1 October 2009 hearing of the Senate Finance Committee

"according to Gruber, who has been our guide on a lot of this..."

I watched the video and it certainly looks and sounds like Kerry, but, then, you know how sneaky those Republicans can be.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

John Kerry Called Gruber ‘Our Guide On A Lot Of This’ [VIDEO]

10:06 PM 11/16/2014

CHUCK ROSS

As Democrats seek to distance themselves from MIT economist Jonathan Gruber by demoting him from an Obamacare “architect” to a mere adviser, The Daily Caller dug and found video from 2009 showing one prominent Democrat ascribing a different job title to the embattled professor.

“According to Gruber, who has been our guide on a lot of this, it’s somewhere in the vicinity of an $8 billion cost,” said then-Massachusetts U.S. Sen. John Kerry during an Oct. 1, 2009 Senate Finance Committee hearing to markup the health care bill.

Gruber was paid $392,600 by the Obama administration to serve as an Obamacare “guide.”

Video can be seen here: http://dailycaller.com/2014/11/16/john-kerry-called-gruber-our-guide-on-a-lot-of-this-video/

chuckd · November 17, 2014

The Affordable Care Act is the single piece of legislation that will factor into Obama's legacy. Right now, it isn't looking so good.

Obama finally came out on the Gruber comments. Seems he just found out about it on Sunday morning in a pre-press conference briefing in Australia.

I know Australia is a little slow on current events but I always thought the President had people to tell him when there is a problem, anywhere in the world. Guess Valerie Jarrett was busy at a wine tasting or something.

I wonder if he also disagrees with what his SecState said in 2009 as well.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Obama Speaks Out About Gruber For First Time

11:14 AM 11/16/2014

Chuck Ross is a reporter at The Daily Caller

.

President Barack Obama addressed MIT economist Jonathan Gruber’s comments for the first time on Sunday.

“I just heard about this,” Obama told Fox News’ Ed Henry during a press conference at the G20 Summit in Australia. “I get well briefed before I come out here.”

“The fact that some adviser who never worked on our staff expressed an opinion that I completely disagree with in terms of the voters is no reflection on the actual process that was run,” Obama said.

Article here: http://dailycaller.com/2014/11/16/obama-addresses-grubers-comments/

Edited November 17, 2014 by chuckd

VegasVic · November 21, 2014

I don't trust them to be honest or truthful or in any way credible in any or all of their political statements, not at any time or ever.

The pot calling the kettle black.

You beat me to the punch there U.G.

VegasVic · November 21, 2014

The Affordable Care Act is the single piece of legislation that will factor into Obama's legacy. Right now, it isn't looking so good.

Obama finally came out on the Gruber comments. Seems he just found out about it on Sunday morning in a pre-press conference briefing in Australia.

I know Australia is a little slow on current events but I always thought the President had people to tell him when there is a problem, anywhere in the world. Guess Valerie Jarrett was busy at a wine tasting or something.

I wonder if he also disagrees with what his SecState said in 2009 as well.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Obama Speaks Out About Gruber For First Time

11:14 AM 11/16/2014

Chuck Ross is a reporter at The Daily Caller

.

President Barack Obama addressed MIT economist Jonathan Gruber’s comments for the first time on Sunday.

“I just heard about this,” Obama told Fox News’ Ed Henry during a press conference at the G20 Summit in Australia. “I get well briefed before I come out here.”

“The fact that some adviser who never worked on our staff expressed an opinion that I completely disagree with in terms of the voters is no reflection on the actual process that was run,” Obama said.

Article here: http://dailycaller.com/2014/11/16/obama-addresses-grubers-comments/

Apparently Obama forgot about the crisis meeting in the Oval office in which Gruber was not only present, but very much involved in ways to "tweak" Obamacare so that they could pull the wool over the eyes of the CBO and get Obamacare scored as revenue neutral Is the POTUS really that braindead or is this just another one of those Clintonesque things like "it depends on what the meaning of the word is ,is" This administration is backpedaling faster than an ISIS fighter moves when he sees an armed drone

Jingthing · November 21, 2014

Everything is sold dishonestly. Don't act like you didn't already know that.

The question really is is expanded access to health care good or not?

Good, obviously.

Is the Obamacare solution the best possible one?

Oh God no!

The USA has just begun this process towards becoming a civilized nation in the realm of universal health care access.

up-country_sinclair · November 21, 2014

This administration is backpedaling faster than an ISIS fighter moves when he sees an armed drone

I thought the problem the right-wing extremists had with the administration was that he was moving forward too fast:

Immigration Reform

The Carbon Emissions/Climate Deal with China

Nuclear Agreement with Iran

Etc...

If Republicans want to put a stop to these executive actions, all they have to do is win the presidency in 2016. Once their man/woman is in office he/she can issue executive actions which put a stop to what President Obama did.

Ulysses G. · November 21, 2014

Everything is sold dishonestly. Don't act like you didn't already know that.

Even from the most transparent administration in history?

bkkcanuck8 · November 21, 2014

This administration is backpedaling faster than an ISIS fighter moves when he sees an armed drone

I thought the problem the right-wing extremists had with the administration was that he was moving forward too fast:

Immigration Reform

The Carbon Emissions/Climate Deal with China

Nuclear Agreement with Iran

Etc...

If Republicans want to put a stop to these executive actions, all they have to do is win the presidency in 2016. Once their man/woman is in office he/she can issue executive actions which put a stop to what President Obama did.

Immigration reform can be ripped up, and thrown in the waste bin. I would be interesting if the Congress passed their version of immigration reform - whether the President would veto it and let his executive order stand .... that would be an interesting situation.

The carbon emissions deal is non-enforceable on either country since there is no treaty (and even if it were a treaty I don't think it has enforcement clauses).

Nuclear agreement with Iran.... ha ha ha.... they will walk all over him because they don't take him seriously anyway.

up-country_sinclair · November 21, 2014

Everything is sold dishonestly. Don't act like you didn't already know that.

Even from the most transparent administration in history?

By nearly any metric, the Obama administration has been the most transparent.

Every visitor that enters the White House is part of the public record. Every law passed and rule implemented (including those dastardly executive actions ) has been posted online for the entire world to read. No other administration has been as transparent.

Now if you want to argue that the Obama administration should be more transparent on other issues, that's another matter entirely.

chuckd · November 21, 2014

Everything is sold dishonestly. Don't act like you didn't already know that.

Even from the most transparent administration in history?

By nearly any metric, the Obama administration has been the most transparent.

Every visitor that enters the White House is part of the public record. Every law passed and rule implemented (including those dastardly executive actions ) has been posted online for the entire world to read. No other administration has been as transparent.

Now if you want to argue that the Obama administration should be more transparent on other issues, that's another matter entirely.

Your post deserves an answer. It may take a minute. I have to stop laughing first.

1. "Every visitor that enters the White House is part of the public record."

From a Congressional report detailing the lack of transparency in White House Log Keeping records:

Leading Watchdogs Concerned with White House Transparency & Record Keeping

May 6, 2011

The House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations this week held a hearing to examine "White House Transparency, Visitor Logs, and Lobbyists." The hearing demonstrated that the Obama administration's promises of transparency do not square with their actual policies.

Unfortunately, the White House refused to send a witness to testify about their own transparency policies.

- See more at: http://energycommerce.house.gov/press-release/leading-watchdogs-concerned-white-house-transparency-record-keeping#sthash.l249bbHy.dpuf

2. "Every law passed and rule implemented (including those dastardly executive actions

) has been posted online for the entire world to read."

The Promise That Keeps on Breaking

By Jim Harper

April 13, 2009

President Obama promised on the campaign trail that he would have the most transparent administration in history. As part of this commitment, he said that the public would have five days to look online and find out what was in the bills that came to his desk before he signed them. It was his first broken promise, and it’s the promise that keeps on breaking.

More details here: http://www.cato.org/publications/techknowledge/promise-keeps-breaking

3. This Administration's Attorney General is the only AG that has ever been held in contempt of Congress for failure to provide transparency to a Congressional committee.

The President has exercised Executive Privilege to thwart transparency to the extreme by providing cover for the Attorney General's e-mails to his mother.

You really need to rethink your position on the transparency matter.

bkkcanuck8 · November 21, 2014

By nearly any metric, the Obama administration has been the most transparent.

Don't know what your metrics are..... but even the "liberal" press would disagree with you...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2014/10/27/usa-todays-susan-page-obama-administration-most-dangerous-to-media-in-history/

At some point, a compendium of condemnations against the Obama administration’s record of media transparency (actually, opacity) must be assembled. Notable quotations in this vein come from former New York Times executive editor Jill Abramson, who said, “It is the most secretive White House that I have ever been involved in covering”; New York Times reporter James Risen, who said, “I think Obama hates the press”; and CBS News’s Bob Schieffer, who said, “This administration exercises more control than George W. Bush’s did, and his before that.”

USA Today Washington Bureau Chief Susan Page has added a sharper edge to this set of knives. Speaking Saturday at a White House Correspondents’ Association (WHCA) seminar, Page called the current White House not only “more restrictive” but also “more dangerous” to the press than any other in history, a clear reference to the Obama administration’s leak investigations and its naming of Fox News’s James Rosen as a possible “co-conspirator” in a violation of the Espionage Act.

He even tried to extend executive privilege to people that don't even work for government or have any official government function....

boomerangutang · November 21, 2014

It's politics. They're all in the arena playing the game. Obama's 2-term legacy is a lot bigger than any political damage from a mid-term election. Mid-term elections always have a disproportionately large # of conservatives voting. Liberals are usually laying back and justifying being too lazy to vote ("doesn't matter, blah blah."). Republicans will get in their $55,000 luxury vehicles and power over the neighborhood polling station. Liberals will be smoking pot and playing with their hand-held gizmos.

However, it's the presidential contest which brings out many of the liberals, particularly if they're charged up by a candidate, like they were by Obama. Expect the balance to swing to the Dems in 2 years.

up-country_sinclair · November 21, 2014

Everything is sold dishonestly. Don't act like you didn't already know that.

Even from the most transparent administration in history?

By nearly any metric, the Obama administration has been the most transparent.

Every visitor that enters the White House is part of the public record. Every law passed and rule implemented (including those dastardly executive actions ) has been posted online for the entire world to read. No other administration has been as transparent.

Now if you want to argue that the Obama administration should be more transparent on other issues, that's another matter entirely.

Your post deserves an answer. It may take a minute. I have to stop laughing first.

1. "Every visitor that enters the White House is part of the public record."

From a Congressional report detailing the lack of transparency in White House Log Keeping records:

Leading Watchdogs Concerned with White House Transparency & Record Keeping

May 6, 2011

The House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations this week held a hearing to examine "White House Transparency, Visitor Logs, and Lobbyists." The hearing demonstrated that the Obama administration's promises of transparency do not square with their actual policies.

Unfortunately, the White House refused to send a witness to testify about their own transparency policies.

- See more at: http://energycommerce.house.gov/press-release/leading-watchdogs-concerned-white-house-transparency-record-keeping#sthash.l249bbHy.dpuf

2. "Every law passed and rule implemented (including those dastardly executive actions ) has been posted online for the entire world to read."

The Promise That Keeps on Breaking

By Jim Harper

April 13, 2009

President Obama promised on the campaign trail that he would have the most transparent administration in history. As part of this commitment, he said that the public would have five days to look online and find out what was in the bills that came to his desk before he signed them. It was his first broken promise, and it’s the promise that keeps on breaking.

More details here: http://www.cato.org/publications/techknowledge/promise-keeps-breaking

3. This Administration's Attorney General is the only AG that has ever been held in contempt of Congress for failure to provide transparency to a Congressional committee.

The President has exercised Executive Privilege to thwart transparency to the extreme by providing cover for the Attorney General's e-mails to his mother.

You really need to rethink your position on the transparency matter.

You haven't made one point which refutes what I posted.

1. "Every visitor that enters the White House is part of the public record."

Perhaps it didn't happen in a timely enough manner for the Republican controlled congressional committee, but it was included in the public record. If it hadn't been, wouldn't the Republicans still be be beating the drum about this? Of course they would. And by the way, uou did notice that your link is from nearly four years ago, didn't you?

2. "Every law passed and rule implemented (including those dastardly executive actions ) has been posted online for the entire world to read."

"Passed" and "Implemented" are in the past tense. Your gripe is about another issue entirely. And I believe your gripe is somewhat legitimate. Candidate Obama made this promise on the campaign trail, and learned how impractical it was once he got behind the desk. I don't know if he ever offered an explanation or apology for that.

3. This Administration's Attorney General is the only AG that has ever been held in contempt of Congress for failure to provide transparency to a Congressional committee.

I don't know how I could have written this anymore clearly: "if you want to argue that the Obama administration should be more transparent on other issues, that's another matter entirely".

up-country_sinclair · November 21, 2014

For those hoping that congress can defund the president's Executive Order on immigration, you'll need to find a different line of attack:

"The primary agency for implementing the President's new immigration executive order is the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). This agency is entirely self-funded through the fees it collects on various immigration applications. Congress does not appropriate funds for any of its operations, including the issuance of immigration status or work permits, with the exception of the "E-Verify" program. Therefore, the Appropriations process cannot be used to "de-fund" the agency. The agency has the ability to continue to collect and use fees to continue current operations, and to expand operations as under a new Executive Order, without needing legislative approval by the Appropriations Committee or the Congress, even under a continuing resolution or a government shutdown.”

House Appropriations Committee chairman, Hal Rogers ®

In my opinion, Republicans just need to "eat" this one. Of course it's most definitely a maneuver to get more future Democrats on polling lists and the president is sticking it in their faces, but there's really nothing Republicans can do about at this time. It's also good public policy to get these people "out of the shadows" and onto the tax rolls. If Republicans do make a huge deal over this and shut down the government again, they'll never win the Hispanic vote and that likely means they'll never win the White House. Republicans need to think long term on this, but I don't know if their base will allow them to.

chuckd · November 21, 2014

Self edited out.

Edited November 21, 2014 by chuckd

up-country_sinclair · November 21, 2014

1. The White House releases the name of anyone who passes through security. Members of congress, for example, aren't required to go through security, and therefore are not on the list.

https://open.whitehouse.gov/dataset/White-House-Visitor-Records-Requests/p86s-ychb

2. Which part of

"if you want to argue that the Obama administration should be more transparent on other issues, that's another matter entirely".

don't you understand?

3. I get it. You have a deep hatred for this president just like so many extremists on the other side of the ideological divide had a deep hatred for previous presidents. I've never really understood the motivation, but this isn't the issue to try and "score points" on. Of course there is room for improvement, but I can't think of another administration which has been as transparent as this one. And if you could, I'm sure you would have mentioned it by now. Which essentially ends the discussion, because this entire back and forth was all set off by another poster sophomorically mocking that the president had said it was the most transparent administration.

chuckd · November 21, 2014

1. The White House releases the name of anyone who passes through security. Members of congress, for example, aren't required to go through security, and therefore are not on the list.

https://open.whitehouse.gov/dataset/White-House-Visitor-Records-Requests/p86s-ychb

2. Which part of

"if you want to argue that the Obama administration should be more transparent on other issues, that's another matter entirely".

don't you understand?

3. I get it. You have a deep hatred for this president just like so many extremists on the other side of the ideological divide had a deep hatred for previous presidents. I've never really understood the motivation, but this isn't the issue to try and "score points" on. Of course there is room for improvement, but I can't think of another administration which has been as transparent as this one. And if you could, I'm sure you would have mentioned it by now. Which essentially ends the discussion, because this entire back and forth was all set off by another poster sophomorically mocking that the president had said it was the most transparent administration.

I'll address this tomorrow. "if you want to argue that the Obama administration should be more transparent on other issues, that's another matter entirely".

Right now my bones are aching and racked with pain...so I'm going to call it a night.

Cheers.

Publicus · November 21, 2014

For those hoping that congress can defund the president's Executive Order on immigration, you'll need to find a different line of attack:

"The primary agency for implementing the President's new immigration executive order is the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). This agency is entirely self-funded through the fees it collects on various immigration applications. Congress does not appropriate funds for any of its operations, including the issuance of immigration status or work permits, with the exception of the "E-Verify" program. Therefore, the Appropriations process cannot be used to "de-fund" the agency. The agency has the ability to continue to collect and use fees to continue current operations, and to expand operations as under a new Executive Order, without needing legislative approval by the Appropriations Committee or the Congress, even under a continuing resolution or a government shutdown.”

House Appropriations Committee chairman, Hal Rogers ®

In my opinion, Republicans just need to "eat" this one. Of course it's most definitely a maneuver to get more future Democrats on polling lists and the president is sticking it in their faces, but there's really nothing Republicans can do about at this time. It's also good public policy to get these people "out of the shadows" and onto the tax rolls. If Republicans do make a huge deal over this and shut down the government again, they'll never win the Hispanic vote and that likely means they'll never win the White House. Republicans need to think long term on this, but I don't know if their base will allow them to.

If Republicans do make a huge deal over this and shut down the government again, they'll never win the Hispanic vote and that likely means they'll never win the White House. Republicans need to think long term on this, but I don't know if their base will allow them to.

Indeed, the Republican party base will plunge down the crapper singing Dixie.

RIP GOP

Their next two years will be an Irish wake.

HeijoshinCool · November 21, 2014

For those hoping that congress can defund the president's Executive Order on immigration, you'll need to find a different line of attack:

"The primary agency for implementing the President's new immigration executive order is the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). This agency is entirely self-funded through the fees it collects on various immigration applications. Congress does not appropriate funds for any of its operations, including the issuance of immigration status or work permits, with the exception of the "E-Verify" program. Therefore, the Appropriations process cannot be used to "de-fund" the agency. The agency has the ability to continue to collect and use fees to continue current operations, and to expand operations as under a new Executive Order, without needing legislative approval by the Appropriations Committee or the Congress, even under a continuing resolution or a government shutdown.”

House Appropriations Committee chairman, Hal Rogers ®

In my opinion, Republicans just need to "eat" this one. Of course it's most definitely a maneuver to get more future Democrats on polling lists and the president is sticking it in their faces, but there's really nothing Republicans can do about at this time. It's also good public policy to get these people "out of the shadows" and onto the tax rolls. If Republicans do make a huge deal over this and shut down the government again, they'll never win the Hispanic vote and that likely means they'll never win the White House. Republicans need to think long term on this, but I don't know if their base will allow them to.

If Republicans do make a huge deal over this and shut down the government again, they'll never win the Hispanic vote and that likely means they'll never win the White House. Republicans need to think long term on this, but I don't know if their base will allow them to.

Indeed, the Republican party base will plunge down the crapper singing Dixie.

RIP GOP

Their next two years will be an Irish wake.

.

What a shame for America that some, many even, are not sufficiently intelligent to see past the sham of "Republican and Democrat," "Left and Right," for the good of the country they profess to love.

They are like the rabid fans of one soccer team or another, that riot at a game, and tear down their own neighborhood.

Publicus · November 21, 2014

For those hoping that congress can defund the president's Executive Order on immigration, you'll need to find a different line of attack:

"The primary agency for implementing the President's new immigration executive order is the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). This agency is entirely self-funded through the fees it collects on various immigration applications. Congress does not appropriate funds for any of its operations, including the issuance of immigration status or work permits, with the exception of the "E-Verify" program. Therefore, the Appropriations process cannot be used to "de-fund" the agency. The agency has the ability to continue to collect and use fees to continue current operations, and to expand operations as under a new Executive Order, without needing legislative approval by the Appropriations Committee or the Congress, even under a continuing resolution or a government shutdown.”

House Appropriations Committee chairman, Hal Rogers ®

In my opinion, Republicans just need to "eat" this one. Of course it's most definitely a maneuver to get more future Democrats on polling lists and the president is sticking it in their faces, but there's really nothing Republicans can do about at this time. It's also good public policy to get these people "out of the shadows" and onto the tax rolls. If Republicans do make a huge deal over this and shut down the government again, they'll never win the Hispanic vote and that likely means they'll never win the White House. Republicans need to think long term on this, but I don't know if their base will allow them to.

If Republicans do make a huge deal over this and shut down the government again, they'll never win the Hispanic vote and that likely means they'll never win the White House. Republicans need to think long term on this, but I don't know if their base will allow them to.

Indeed, the Republican party base will plunge down the crapper singing Dixie.

RIP GOP

Their next two years will be an Irish wake.

.

What a shame for America that some, many even, are not sufficiently intelligent to see past the sham of "Republican and Democrat," "Left and Right," for the good of the country they profess to love.

They are like the rabid fans of one soccer team or another, that riot at a game, and tear down their own neighborhood.

The thread is about the mid term elections.

It is not about anyone's patriotism or professing to love one's country while supposedly doing something else or of being "not sufficiently intelligent."

The thread is a right wing riot which makes it about politics and of not much beyond that..

Chicog · November 22, 2014

Amazing how the teabaggers continue to "investigate" the Benghazi "scandal" when their own committee finds it all to be a fabrication. How many votes did they win by repeating the lies?

WASHINGTON (AP) — A two-year investigation by the Republican-controlled House Intelligence Committee has found that the CIA and the military acted properly in responding to the 2012 attack on a U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, and asserted no wrongdoing by Obama administration appointees.

Debunking a series of persistent allegations hinting at dark conspiracies, the investigation of the politically charged incident determined that there was no intelligence failure, no delay in sending a CIA rescue team, no missed opportunity for a military rescue, and no evidence the CIA was covertly shipping arms from Libya to Syria.

In the immediate aftermath of the attack, intelligence about who carried it out and why was contradictory, the report found.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/ecc3a300383445d5a90dd6ca764c9e15/house-intel-panel-debunks-many-benghazi-theories

Edited November 22, 2014 by metisdead
Edited as per fair use policy

metisdead · November 22, 2014

A post in violation of fair use policy has been removed and another post has been edited to comply with fair use policy:

14) You will not post any copyrighted material except as fair use laws apply (as in the case of news articles). Please only post a link, the headline and the first three sentences.

chuckd · November 22, 2014

1. The White House releases the name of anyone who passes through security. Members of congress, for example, aren't required to go through security, and therefore are not on the list.

https://open.whitehouse.gov/dataset/White-House-Visitor-Records-Requests/p86s-ychb

2. Which part of

"if you want to argue that the Obama administration should be more transparent on other issues, that's another matter entirely".

don't you understand?

3. I get it. You have a deep hatred for this president just like so many extremists on the other side of the ideological divide had a deep hatred for previous presidents. I've never really understood the motivation, but this isn't the issue to try and "score points" on. Of course there is room for improvement, but I can't think of another administration which has been as transparent as this one. And if you could, I'm sure you would have mentioned it by now. Which essentially ends the discussion, because this entire back and forth was all set off by another poster sophomorically mocking that the president had said it was the most transparent administration.

I'll address this tomorrow. "if you want to argue that the Obama administration should be more transparent on other issues, that's another matter entirely".

Right now my bones are aching and racked with pain...so I'm going to call it a night.

Cheers.

I'm back, rested and invigorated. Slept like a baby with nary a care in the world, just in case that one in a million really cares.

Now on to the "other issues" you invited me to discuss.

How about these?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

'Most transparent' White House ever rewrote the FOIA to suppress politically sensitive docs

BY MARK TAPSCOTT | MARCH 18, 2014 | 12:00 AM

It's Sunshine Week, so perhaps some enterprising White House reporter will ask press secretary Jay Carney why President Obama rewrote the Freedom of Information Act without telling the rest of America.

The rewrite came in an April 15, 2009, memo from then-White House Counsel Greg Craig instructing the executive branch to let White House officials review any documents sought by FOIA requestors that involved "White House equities."

That phrase is nowhere to be found in the FOIA, yet the Obama White House effectively amended the law to create a new exception to justify keeping public documents locked away from the public.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/most-transparent-white-house-ever-rewrote-the-foia-to-suppress-politically-sensitive-docs/article/2545824

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Journalists: White House Defense of Transparency Record ‘Typical Spin’

Obama admin claims it has ‘made important progress’ in transparency

BY: CJ Ciaramella

August 11, 2014 5:52 pm

The White House responded Monday to criticism from dozens of leading press organizations and transparency groups, saying it has improved access to public officials, whistleblower protections, and declassified documents.

White House press Secretary Josh Earnest said in a letter to the Society of Professional Journalists that the administration has “dedicated significant time and resources to upholding the President’s commitment to lead an open and responsive government.”

“And we’ve made important progress expanding access to the President and his aides, protecting whistleblowers, simplifying government websites, streamlining FOIA requests, and disclosing previously classified information,” Earnest wrote.

SPJ president David Cuillier called the White House letter “typical spin and response through non-response.”

http://freebeacon.com/issues/journalists-white-house-defense-of-transparency-record-typical-spin/

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

USA Today’s Susan Page: Obama administration most ‘dangerous’ to media in history

By Erik Wemple October 27

At some point, a compendium of condemnations against the Obama administration’s record of media transparency (actually, opacity) must be assembled. Notable quotations in this vein come from former New York Times executive editor Jill Abramson, who said, “It is the most secretive White House that I have ever been involved in covering”; New York Times reporter James Risen, who said, “I think Obama hates the press”; and CBS News’s Bob Schieffer, who said, “This administration exercises more control than George W. Bush’s did, and his before that.”

Entire article here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2014/10/27/usa-todays-susan-page-obama-administration-most-dangerous-to-media-in-history/

up-country_sinclair · November 22, 2014

As I posted yesterday,

Of course there is room for improvement, but I can't think of another administration which has been as transparent as this one. And if you could, I'm sure you would have mentioned it by now. Which essentially ends the discussion, because this entire back and forth was all set off by another poster sophomorically mocking that the president had said it was the most transparent administration.

So again (in desperate hope that I'll be understood), it is my considered opinion that while the Obama administration has been the most transparent, it could and should be more so.

thaibeachlovers · November 22, 2014

Amazing how the teabaggers continue to "investigate" the Benghazi "scandal" when their own committee finds it all to be a fabrication. How many votes did they win by repeating the lies?

WASHINGTON (AP) — A two-year investigation by the Republican-controlled House Intelligence Committee has found that the CIA and the military acted properly in responding to the 2012 attack on a U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, and asserted no wrongdoing by Obama administration appointees.

Debunking a series of persistent allegations hinting at dark conspiracies, the investigation of the politically charged incident determined that there was no intelligence failure, no delay in sending a CIA rescue team, no missed opportunity for a military rescue, and no evidence the CIA was covertly shipping arms from Libya to Syria.

In the immediate aftermath of the attack, intelligence about who carried it out and why was contradictory, the report found.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/ecc3a300383445d5a90dd6ca764c9e15/house-intel-panel-debunks-many-benghazi-theories

no delay in sending a CIA rescue team,

That's rubbish. The guys that went were contractors, not CIA, and they were told NOT to go, but went anyway. Had they gone when they wanted to, likely they could have saved the ambassador.

No other aid was sent to help the ambassador.

Edited November 22, 2014 by thaibeachlovers

Chicog · November 22, 2014

Amazing how the teabaggers continue to "investigate" the Benghazi "scandal" when their own committee finds it all to be a fabrication. How many votes did they win by repeating the lies?

WASHINGTON (AP) — A two-year investigation by the Republican-controlled House Intelligence Committee has found that the CIA and the military acted properly in responding to the 2012 attack on a U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, and asserted no wrongdoing by Obama administration appointees.

Debunking a series of persistent allegations hinting at dark conspiracies, the investigation of the politically charged incident determined that there was no intelligence failure, no delay in sending a CIA rescue team, no missed opportunity for a military rescue, and no evidence the CIA was covertly shipping arms from Libya to Syria.

In the immediate aftermath of the attack, intelligence about who carried it out and why was contradictory, the report found.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/ecc3a300383445d5a90dd6ca764c9e15/house-intel-panel-debunks-many-benghazi-theories

no delay in sending a CIA rescue team,

That's rubbish. The guys that went were contractors, not CIA, and they were told NOT to go, but went anyway. Had they gone when they wanted to, likely they could have saved the ambassador.

No other aid was sent to help the ambassador.

I do believe a Republican-controlled committee might have mentioned that if it were true.

So I think you are fantasising again.

But just in case I'm wrong, here's the full report:

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2014/images/11/21/benghazi.report.pdf

Edited November 22, 2014 by Chicog

Sign In

US midterm elections: Barack Obama’s legacy could be ruined in one day

Recommended Posts

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Ulysses G.

chuckd

Just1Voice

Posted Images

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in

Recently Browsing 0 members

Announcements

Topics

Latest posts...

Popular in The Pub

ASEANNOW

MORE INFO

POPULAR AREAS

CONTACT US