Good report Tapper.. Damn someone at ABC that does not Protect Obama. Sadly, not sure if ABC will keep you around for reporting the TRUTH.
Posted by: ajax | January 29, 2009, 8:56 am 8:56 am
Ah I sense a new stratagy. Get um good and drunk (the Rep Senators of course) and then they will vote for the stimulas. (Our city manager is already preparing a list of projects to be completed if it goes thru.)
Posted by: Jenny Rome Ga | January 29, 2009, 8:58 am 8:58 am
No amount of lobbying by Obama will bring aboard more Republicans. If cocktails and cutting out controversial “pork” didn’t work, it’s hopeless for those obstructionists.
Posted by: matt | January 29, 2009, 9:08 am 9:08 am
Just another broken promise by Obama. He promised to look at every bill with a fine tooth comb and missed the boat on this one. Politics as usual.
Posted by: SarahR | January 29, 2009, 9:17 am 9:17 am
Matt – these “obstructionists” are trying to save your butt!! Even 11 Democrats knew this was a bad package! Take a look at what is hidden in this bill and you’ll see why all the Republicans and eleven of the Democrats did not vote for it. Oh, it will pass without a doubt. The only thing the Senate will do is stuff more pork in it!
Posted by: M. Smith | January 29, 2009, 9:22 am 9:22 am
The spokeswoman who was upping the ante to the hysterical, saying Satan himself will be in the details, was I assume, a member of the tax “watchdog” organization. Jake, I congratulate you for the continuity of reporting one pit bull after the other (Palin). Which leads to the proverbial question of : “Who let the dogs out?”
Posted by: kathy | January 29, 2009, 9:29 am 9:29 am
Yea.. while American’s HURT, OBAMA has a Cocktail Party.. WOOOO HOOOOOO
Change we NEED?
Posted by: ajax | January 29, 2009, 9:35 am 9:35 am
Oh the good old days when Obama could just vote “present” and not take the blame for anything.
If this pork bill is so fabulous why is he so desperate to get GOP support.
Probably because BO always needs someone else to blame for his failures.
Hillary, Joe the Plumber, Rev Wright, Rezko, Ayers, Palin, Bush.
Sorry Barry but you and the Democrats own this pork bill.
Posted by: bailey | January 29, 2009, 9:38 am 9:38 am
Good report Tapper.. Damn someone at ABC that does not Protect Obama. Sadly, not sure if ABC will keep you around for reporting the TRUTH.
Posted by: ajax | Jan 29, 2009 8:56:47 AM
==========================
don’t know if you have been on mars ajax
did u see the abc sponsored debates btwn obama and clinton
hahah
abc is fox-lite
Posted by: Omentum | January 29, 2009, 9:42 am 9:42 am
ajax: “Yea.. while American’s HURT, OBAMA has a Cocktail Party”
Heaven forbid President Obama meets with the Republicans in an attempt to improve governance.
Serving drinks in the Whitehouse after hours to get important collaboration work done is probably cheaper than a full meeting in Congress. But go on and ignore all reality – your blind partisan ranting is just making Republicans look stupid.
Posted by: jhw539 | January 29, 2009, 9:44 am 9:44 am
bailey: “If this pork bill is so fabulous why is he so desperate to get GOP support.”
Seriously? You’re attacking Obama because he’s trying to listen to the people who represent a good 40% of the country? Amazing. There is literally nothing he can do that Republicans won’t whine about and use to feed their “rich white men are being oppressed!” complex.
Posted by: jhw539 | January 29, 2009, 9:46 am 9:46 am
bailey – After all this time you still don’t know what voting present in Ill. means? Use that as a club all you wish, only shows you lack of knowledge! So many of you are all happy about the Repubs not voting for this….funny they as usual haven’t come up with any alternatives! The requested ONE meeting with President Obama, he requested TWO more with them, they had input. Or was it just supposed to be “THEIR” bill and to heck with anyone else, which by the way has been whats been going on for the last 8 years and got us into this mess! Notice the Repubs don’t blame our President, they are trying to blame the Democrats in the Senate. Interesting way of attempting to look relevant and having the peoples interest at heart. Praise the popular President and blame the Democrats for not including them when the Pres. himself included them and altered the bill the fit them. Same old same old for Repubs. our way or we will try and obstruct it. Trust me when this package gets the economy running watch them try and take credit! Same old same old
Posted by: try the truth | January 29, 2009, 9:51 am 9:51 am
Celebrating that you cost the taxpayers more money: priceless!
Posted by: Jim | January 29, 2009, 9:54 am 9:54 am
What is wrong with being critical of a bill that is filled with useless items for the economy i.e. condoms. This bill was not written by Hussein Obama…he is simply following orders from Pelosi.
Help the American people, but don’t fill the thing out with worthless junk.
And, it is the right of every American to criticize politicians if they want. We still have free speech. BTW, I am not a Republican….Bush was a disaster for US.
Posted by: sea4317 | January 29, 2009, 10:13 am 10:13 am
sea4317: “And, it is the right of every American to criticize politicians if they want.”
Absolutely, and notice that even the far left is not accusing anyone of being unpatriotic or a traitor for doing so. But it is also the right of every American to point out when someone is being obstructionist, ignorant, or just flat out stupid. Pointing out that birth control policy doesn’t fit into the bill, fine. Hyperventilating about the 0.0001% directed to a bike lane or the renovation of the National Mall (including paths, seawalls, and other infrastructure – not just sod) should get Republicans called out for showboating rather than working to get stuff done.
Posted by: jhw539 | January 29, 2009, 10:19 am 10:19 am
I don’t understand how the repulicans announced that they can create 6.2 million jobs with their stimulus plan. A gop congress man suggested to give $5000 to individual some they go and buy a chryler car,more car sales more jobs creation, this is to save jobs not creating. On gma diane sawyer suggested it is not better to give the money to people than to have such this stimulus,
Is it not better for the people to work for the money and have something to show instead just giving the money away. The people need to work and we are all willing to earn our keep.
Posted by: deus899 | January 29, 2009, 10:20 am 10:20 am
Jim: “Celebrating that you cost the taxpayers more money: priceless!”
Right. Because nothing says celebration like spending your off hours having a big discussion with the opposing party that just totally rejected your every effort to reach out.
I am starting to think the Republicans WANT to be completely shut out, preferring a failure over a collaborative success. Or perhaps, as has been suggested in the past, the Republicans in the House really do care more about having their feelings hurt by loudmouth Pelosi than the good of the country.
Posted by: jhw539 | January 29, 2009, 10:22 am 10:22 am
“But it is also the right of every American to point out when someone is being obstructionist, ignorant, or just flat out stupid.”
Right, when Democrats obstruct the Republicans, its checks and balances. When Republicans obstruct the Democrats, its ignorant and flat out stupid.
How many were happy with the bailout bill last year? Republicans voted against that bill. Does that mean you agree with them now, after the fact?
Hypocrisy is not a trait of intellectual honesty.
Personally I’m not against the stim bill. I am against it being a 4 year bill. Why can’t they just pass it one year at a time instead of throwing the government a 800 billion dollar check for 4 years? How about 100 billion this year and see where we stand for next year? Government works on fiscal years for money anyway. A year from now if Obama does as many of you claim and hope, and the economy is wonderful, why still be committed to another 600 billion in spending over 3 years? Doesn’t make sense to me.
Posted by: KR | January 29, 2009, 10:26 am 10:26 am
KR: “How many were happy with the bailout bill last year? Republicans voted against that bill. Does that mean you agree with them now, after the fact?”
Cute. You mean the bailout package demanded by A REPUBLICAN ADMINISTRATION and supported that ultimately did get some Republican support? Whose implementation was completely botched by the Republican Administration?
I agree with them when they add constructive improvements to the bills. When they just stamp their feet and refuse to participate they are useless and deserve irrelevancy. Complaining about “pork” is someone throwing out useless soundbites. Complaining about a specific facet of the bill, such as the funding for contraceptives, is fair game.
Do you see the difference? I can tell my neighbor I hate him, but it’s more constructive to tell him I think it’s rude he keeps blocking my driveway with his truck. (A fictitious example, I actually have great neighbors.)
Posted by: jhw539 | January 29, 2009, 10:35 am 10:35 am
“I am starting to think the Republicans WANT to be completely shut out, preferring a failure over a collaborative success.”
They vote on their principles and represent people in the U.S. They can vote how they feel they are representing people. 48 million people did not vote for Obama, shouldn’t they be represented in the voting process?
I guess as long as they don’t disagree with you.
Posted by: KR | January 29, 2009, 10:35 am 10:35 am
All the while President Obama makes attempts to bring the Republican establishment to the table to come to a consensus about a plan that will work for America, they silently carry on the tactics of the Bush administration behind the scenes and take advantage of the taxpayers. This from ProPublica:
House Republican Whip Eric Cantor [1], a rising star in the Republican party, has been a prominent voice demanding accountability in how the government doles out hundreds of billions for bank bailouts.
“I think most American taxpayers now are sort of scratching their head,” Cantor told CNN in December, “wondering when all this bailout stuff is going to end. And probably thinking, ‘You know, when is my bailout coming?’”
This Thursday, Cantor cast a high-profile vote opposing release of another $350 billion in bailout funds. Unpublicized until now was a recent development: The Treasury Department used $267 million of taxpayer funds to buy preferred stock in a private banking company that employs Cantor’s wife.The bailout for New York Private Bank and Trust (NYPBT) [2] came earlier this month as part of a Treasury Department program to boost “healthy banks” with extra capital. NYPBT is the holding company for Emigrant Bank [3], a savings bank with 35 branches in and around New York City. Diana Cantor runs the Virginia branch of Emigrant’s wealth-management division, called Virginia Private Bank & Trust, which targets an ultra-rich clientele.A spokesman for the bank said Diana Cantor “has nothing to do with the operation of the main bank” and was “never aware that the parent bank was seeking or received [bailout] funding.”
Is this not strange, that Republican Eric Cantor’s wife who RUNS the wealth-management division of this bank knew nothing about her bank seeking taxpayer funds. Seems to me that’s kind of like Saturn that’s owned by GM, saying they were never aware their parent GM was seeking public funds.
Posted by: devilkev | January 29, 2009, 10:37 am 10:37 am
KR:” Right, when Democrats obstruct the Republicans, its checks and balances. ”
Oh, and it’s a matter of public record that the Republican Senate has been filibustering at a historic rate these past two years. And also that in 2000, after the most contentious election in memory, the Democrats in Congress worked with Bush and gave him both his signature tax cuts – still referred to as the “Bush Tax Cuts” – and his No Child Left Behind Act (hated by the teachers unions in the Dem’s tent). Both these were prior to the 9/11 bipartisan support groundswell for the Republican administration and while Dems actually still held majority power in the Senate. Democrats have a proven history of swallowing their pride and accepting a much lesser role rather than throwing a petulant tantrum and refusing to participate.
Posted by: jhw539 | January 29, 2009, 10:39 am 10:39 am
“Cute. You mean the bailout package demanded by A REPUBLICAN ADMINISTRATION and supported that ultimately did get some Republican support? Whose implementation was completely botched by the Republican Administration?”
Democrat congress passed the bill. Both sides are at fault. Democrats are the champions of oversight, they could have put whatever they wanted in that bill. You have to take your party affiliation hat off to get the full perspective of that mess. Either way, it was republicans that voted against it.
“I agree with them when they add constructive improvements to the bills. When they just stamp their feet and refuse to participate they are useless and deserve irrelevancy. Complaining about “pork” is someone throwing out useless soundbites. Complaining about a specific facet of the bill, such as the funding for contraceptives, is fair game.”
Useless and deserve irrelevancy. Do you honestly think this is only a republican trait? Please, this is a politician’s trait. This is politics and BOTH sides do exactly the same thing to the other when they are in power. Go ahead and complain about it, but don’t lump as if it only exists per one party. That’s juvenile.
Posted by: KR | January 29, 2009, 10:40 am 10:40 am
Ajax
I do belive the Republicans were at the Cocktail Party as well. funny all you Republicans on board trashing Obamas party but It was ok Bush had The Bin Laden Family at the White House for Tea!
Posted by: Angie | January 29, 2009, 10:42 am 10:42 am
KR: ” They can vote how they feel they are representing people.”
If they refuse to support anything, they will get nothing. As the Democrats showed in 2000, EFFECTIVE representation means accepting 20% of what you want rather than standing on principle and getting zero. Do you think the next time Obama is going to bother to include a bunch of tax cuts, or lean on Pelosi to get out offensive contraceptive funding? Why bother? Is that good representation?
One approach gets the results, the other just gets soundbites for your next election run.
Posted by: jhw539 | January 29, 2009, 10:42 am 10:42 am
“Oh, and it’s a matter of public record that the Republican Senate has been filibustering at a historic rate these past two years. And also that in 2000, after the most contentious election in memory, the Democrats in Congress worked with Bush and gave him both his signature tax cuts”
Do we really have to pluck out anecdotal examples in the history of American politics? Pick and choose what facts you want to present to prove a point? Filibustering is part of American politics, it sucks, but BOTH sides do it, doesn’t matter how much or when. Get used to it, it’s always been there and it will always be here.
Plus, who keeps whats “record breaking filibusters” anyway?
Posted by: KR | January 29, 2009, 10:46 am 10:46 am
KR: “This is politics and BOTH sides do exactly the same thing to the other when they are in power.”
This is just a lie. A DEMOCRATIC SENATE AGREED TO PASS THE BUSH TAX CUTS AND THE BUSH NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT IN 2000. Going back further, look at welfare reform instituted by a Republican House under Newt that some Dems got onboard with. That is bipartisanship, and that is healthy politics. The hyperpartisanship of the House Republicans is unprecedented if you chose to argue with facts, actual house votes, and reality rather than vague “politicians suck” bumperstickers.
Posted by: jhw539 | January 29, 2009, 10:47 am 10:47 am
“If they refuse to support anything, they will get nothing. As the Democrats showed in 2000, EFFECTIVE representation means accepting 20% of what you want rather than standing on principle and getting zero. Do you think the next time Obama is going to bother to include a bunch of tax cuts, or lean on Pelosi to get out offensive contraceptive funding? Why bother? Is that good representation? ”
Ah so they must compromise their principles in order to be “part” of progress. But if they totally disagree with that being progress, work and vote for it anyway? Silly. I’d rather the guy stick with his principles. If he is against it, and votes against it, that is his record. A few Dems voted against use of force in Iraq and they are heralded as heroes today on the left. Should they have compromised?
Posted by: KR | January 29, 2009, 10:49 am 10:49 am
KR: “Filibustering is part of American politics, it sucks, but BOTH sides do it, doesn’t matter how much or when”
Don’t be foolish, it does matter how much; there’s a difference between doing 50mph on the interstate and 20mph. After the Republicans became a minority in 2006, the number of cloture votes DOUBLED. This is documented fact – filibusters compared to the Democratic minority, even under the reviled Bush administration, doubled when the Republicans wielded it. By their DOCUMENTED ACTIONS, the Republicans are far more obstructionist than Democrats.
Why don’t you ever offer any facts? Don’t your opinions have any reality supporting them to share? I can be swayed, but not by “I think” rantings (for example, on the issue of gun control I have had to change my opinion in light of facts).
Posted by: jhw539 | January 29, 2009, 10:55 am 10:55 am
“A DEMOCRATIC SENATE AGREED TO PASS THE BUSH TAX CUTS AND THE BUSH NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT IN 2000. Going back further, look at welfare reform instituted by a Republican House under Newt that some Dems got onboard with. ”
For every example of a few Dems getting on board, there is a filibuster. Whats the point? This is a republic. If voting against this bill represents the people, then he’s representing them. If the people are unhappy that he did, they’ll vote against him the next election. Its how politics work.
Bipartisanship is great when its just that, bipartisan. But if your principles are against massive government spending, then vote against the bill. If some of the spending was brought down, they would probably get more support. Should only one side have to sacrifice in this? Is compromise only looked at for the republicans to pursue? Come on man. If history repeats itself, in 2 years the Dems will lose the house or senate, then it will be all about the Republicans compromising the Democrats.
Posted by: KR | January 29, 2009, 10:56 am 10:56 am
KR: “But if they totally disagree with that being progress, work and vote for it anyway? Silly. I’d rather the guy stick with his principles.”
Your choice. Good luck with that “I get everything I want or NOTHING!” attitude. I’ll stick with the reality of compromise that has guided our nation’s politics from the writing of the Constitution itself.
Posted by: jhw539 | January 29, 2009, 10:57 am 10:57 am
My advice to the dems, cut the pork but don’t budge on tax cuts. Leave it as-is.
Jake, I eagerly await the republican plan for JOBS. So far, I’ve only heard tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts.
That’s the thing I don’t get about fiscal conservatives, they seem to argue “Do the math. If it doesn’t add up, it’s not good.” At home Americans have been doing “the math” on the success of tax cuts, and it DOES NOT ADD UP. Yet, we’re supposed to suspend disbelief and adopt the republican strategy?
Debate doesn’t create JOBS.
Posted by: Mavsreader | January 29, 2009, 10:57 am 10:57 am
KR: “For every example of a few Dems getting on board, there is a filibuster.”
See, this is where you are making up facts to support your view. There is NOT a filibuster for every case of Dems getting onboard. Look at the numbers, the facts, the reality. In the past decade Republicans are the more obstructionist party. That’s fact.
Posted by: jhw539 | January 29, 2009, 11:01 am 11:01 am
“I’ll stick with the reality of compromise that has guided our nation’s politics from the writing of the Constitution itself. ”
Repeat that when there is a Republican Senate or House. I bet you won’t.
Posted by: KR | January 29, 2009, 11:02 am 11:02 am
“There is NOT a filibuster for every case of Dems getting onboard. Look at the numbers, the facts, the reality”
Ok fine lets lay out the numbers more accurately, the Democrats have been in power for most of the 20th century. Of course the numbers are going to point to Republican filibusters, they were the minority party for most of the last 100 years. Please, don’t play numbers games.
It is SILLY to play the numbers games. You cannot possibly sit on a high horse and talk about how morally superior the Democrats are because they have less filibusters? Is that what your saying?
Posted by: KR | January 29, 2009, 11:05 am 11:05 am
KR: “Repeat that when there is a Republican Senate or House. I bet you won’t.”
Even under the first Bush, who I happily voted for twice, I held the same opinion. But that is irrelevant on the larger scale – do you have ANY FACTS to support your opinion that Democrats are as obstructionist as Republicans? Even though Democrats are PROVEN BY REALITY to filibuster LESS and ultimately allow passage of legislation they disagree with to allow an incoming administration to implement their mandate(see 2000 Bush Tax Cuts)?
Posted by: jhw539 | January 29, 2009, 11:06 am 11:06 am
And first, don’t assume my politics. I am for the stim bill. I’m against a 4 year stim bill. Knock it down to the 80 billion they want to spend this year and pass that. If more is needed next year, then do it again.
I think giving the government an 800 billion dollar check for the next 4 years is a mistake. If some in congress think so too, then they are representing me.
Posted by: KR | January 29, 2009, 11:07 am 11:07 am
“do you have ANY FACTS to support your opinion that Democrats are as obstructionist as Republicans? ”
Honestly does the percentage of filibusters of Dems, vs. the percentage of Filibusters of Republicans, but in quota by the amount of years each were in power, really make a freaking difference? FACT, Democrats have been in control of Congress for most of the last 100 years, the minority parties are the ones that execute filibusters, logically the minority party will have more filibusters. Whats the freaking point?
When dems were filibustering Bush Supreme court nominees, I accepted it as part of politics. I don’t keep a damn tally and say, “Well thats another half a percentage” Thats silly.
Posted by: KR | January 29, 2009, 11:11 am 11:11 am
KR: “Ok fine lets lay out the numbers more accurately, the Democrats have been in power for most of the 20th century. Of course the numbers are going to point to Republican filibusters, they were the minority party for most of the last 100 years. Please, don’t play numbers games.”
I do notice you did not lay out ANY NUMBERS.
I compared two successive Congresses – one Republican, one Democrat. That is an entirely fair comparision, the most recent two years of each party, one after the other (no cold war vs tech boom cherry picking) Actually, it’s biased towards *minimizing* Republican filibusters since the Republicans held the Whitehouse veto too.
The facts are clear and supported as you go back further. And do feel free to go back further if it will support your argument. Go back to the great Republican filibusters against civil rights for all I care. Does your opinion have any facts or reality supporting it?
Posted by: jhw539 | January 29, 2009, 11:13 am 11:13 am
KR: “FACT, Democrats have been in control of Congress for most of the last 100 years,”
And in the last 100 years the US has become the sole uncontested superpower, eliminated hunger within its borders, built the uncontested best graduate system in the world, invented the internet, put a man on the moon, defeated communism, eliminated smallpox – I’m more than happy accepting your assertion that Dems have controlled Congress the majority of the time since 1908. I suspect it’s not supported by fact, but since it’s irrelevant I don’t really care.
Meanwhile, the past 20 years is actually relevant for people who care about what’s happened since women got the vote and the Model T went out of style.
Posted by: jhw539 | January 29, 2009, 11:17 am 11:17 am
The Democratic Party maintained control of the House from 1954 until 1995. They often went back and forth in the other decades. I believe that still stands as the longest consecutive control of the house in its history.
There, you happy? I threw out numbers that still part of your meaningless argument.
Posted by: KR | January 29, 2009, 11:55 am 11:55 am
“The filibuster remained a solely theoretical option until 1841, when the Democratic minority tried to block a bank bill favored by the Whig majority by using this political tactic.”
Democrats did it first!!!! Obstructionist creators!
Can we get away from the silly school yard argument now?
“And in the last 100 years the US has become the sole uncontested superpower, eliminated hunger within its borders, built the uncontested best graduate system in the world, invented the internet, put a man on the moon, defeated communism, eliminated smallpox”
Democrats did all that? I thought Americans did.
Jan. 27, 2006 – The Senate’s top Republican decided Thursday to force a showdown on Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito early next week, with the two Democratic senators from Massachusetts pushing to block a vote.
“But it is also the right of every American to point out when someone is being obstructionist, ignorant, or just flat out stupid.”
Does Obama’s staff ever think before they say something?
Telling America that Obama cranks up the heat in the White House Because he hates cold is just so hypocritical.
BO lectures us to sacrifice and cut down our thermostats but he doesn’t.
It’s not his money paying the bills.
Then telling people in DC they are wimpy because they can’t handle the cold weather.
This is just too much fun–I didn’t think BO would be exposed as a fraud this soon.
“On gma diane sawyer suggested it is not better to give the money to people than to have such this stimulus,
Is it not better for the people to work for the money and have something to show instead just giving the money away.”
I think both have merit. People work to produce goods and services that are bought by consumers. If consumers have more money (less is given to the government, it’s their money to begin with), they tend to spend it on more goods and services, or invest it. Draw back is that consumers are fickle and often paranoid. I had heard of a business that, under the fear of all the economic shortcomings, drew down his business and fired 6 of 10 employees when the work load was still the same. He is trying to get ahead of the hard times. Totally susceptible to psychological pressures.
Government funds also help with jobs, mostly helping the environment that the jobs are in, like infrastructure development. Contractors build them and will have to hire more people to build it, but it’s less sustainable. Something in the future will have to step in and replace it. Eventually, other infrastructures not built by the government must take over to sustain those jobs.
Good news is the bill contains both, though in much larger proportion to the spending side.
Still surprising that congress just cannot pass a clean bill. I guess its the attitude you get when spending other peoples money.
Posted by: KR | January 29, 2009, 1:28 pm 1:28 pm
When can we start the impeachment process for Obama?
there has got to be a way me and countless millions of other to retract our votes for Obama. This loser is a fraud and a hypocrite. He sets his thermostat high, yet demands that I don’t; he nominated a tax dodger for Treasury Secretary, then demands that I pay my taxes; he preaches sacrifice, and then has the most expensive inauguration in history and dines on $100 steaks! Any corporate CEO is better than Obama. Change my ^*#$!!!
Obama said people in DC needed “Chicago toughness” to handle the snow and ice.
But he has to turn up the heat in the White House to be comfortable.
Pay your taxes on time and lower your thermostats–but my staff and I don’t have to.
What a wimp and a hypocrite.
In the famous words of the best President we ever had in this modern age Ronald Reagan, “There they go again”. Tax and spent and tax again, where will it end? God help us, when our economy completely collapses. The 11 Trillion dollar debt will open us up for foreign takeover, can you say “One World Order”. Our Government is out of control. Speak up America before it is to late.
Posted by: Terry | January 30, 2009, 3:12 am 3:12 am
Email
Rick Santorum Sweeps 3 States 
Pentagon to Open Additional Jobs to Women
Good report Tapper.. Damn someone at ABC that does not Protect Obama. Sadly, not sure if ABC will keep you around for reporting the TRUTH.
Posted by: ajax | January 29, 2009, 8:56 am 8:56 am
Ah I sense a new stratagy. Get um good and drunk (the Rep Senators of course) and then they will vote for the stimulas. (Our city manager is already preparing a list of projects to be completed if it goes thru.)
Posted by: Jenny Rome Ga | January 29, 2009, 8:58 am 8:58 am
No amount of lobbying by Obama will bring aboard more Republicans. If cocktails and cutting out controversial “pork” didn’t work, it’s hopeless for those obstructionists.
Posted by: matt | January 29, 2009, 9:08 am 9:08 am
Just another broken promise by Obama. He promised to look at every bill with a fine tooth comb and missed the boat on this one. Politics as usual.
Posted by: SarahR | January 29, 2009, 9:17 am 9:17 am
Matt – these “obstructionists” are trying to save your butt!! Even 11 Democrats knew this was a bad package! Take a look at what is hidden in this bill and you’ll see why all the Republicans and eleven of the Democrats did not vote for it. Oh, it will pass without a doubt. The only thing the Senate will do is stuff more pork in it!
Posted by: M. Smith | January 29, 2009, 9:22 am 9:22 am
The spokeswoman who was upping the ante to the hysterical, saying Satan himself will be in the details, was I assume, a member of the tax “watchdog” organization. Jake, I congratulate you for the continuity of reporting one pit bull after the other (Palin). Which leads to the proverbial question of : “Who let the dogs out?”
Posted by: kathy | January 29, 2009, 9:29 am 9:29 am
Yea.. while American’s HURT, OBAMA has a Cocktail Party.. WOOOO HOOOOOO
Change we NEED?
Posted by: ajax | January 29, 2009, 9:35 am 9:35 am
Oh the good old days when Obama could just vote “present” and not take the blame for anything.
If this pork bill is so fabulous why is he so desperate to get GOP support.
Probably because BO always needs someone else to blame for his failures.
Hillary, Joe the Plumber, Rev Wright, Rezko, Ayers, Palin, Bush.
Sorry Barry but you and the Democrats own this pork bill.
Posted by: bailey | January 29, 2009, 9:38 am 9:38 am
Good report Tapper.. Damn someone at ABC that does not Protect Obama. Sadly, not sure if ABC will keep you around for reporting the TRUTH.
Posted by: ajax | Jan 29, 2009 8:56:47 AM
==========================
don’t know if you have been on mars ajax
did u see the abc sponsored debates btwn obama and clinton
hahah
abc is fox-lite
Posted by: Omentum | January 29, 2009, 9:42 am 9:42 am
ajax: “Yea.. while American’s HURT, OBAMA has a Cocktail Party”
Heaven forbid President Obama meets with the Republicans in an attempt to improve governance.
Serving drinks in the Whitehouse after hours to get important collaboration work done is probably cheaper than a full meeting in Congress. But go on and ignore all reality – your blind partisan ranting is just making Republicans look stupid.
Posted by: jhw539 | January 29, 2009, 9:44 am 9:44 am
bailey: “If this pork bill is so fabulous why is he so desperate to get GOP support.”
Seriously? You’re attacking Obama because he’s trying to listen to the people who represent a good 40% of the country? Amazing. There is literally nothing he can do that Republicans won’t whine about and use to feed their “rich white men are being oppressed!” complex.
Posted by: jhw539 | January 29, 2009, 9:46 am 9:46 am
bailey – After all this time you still don’t know what voting present in Ill. means? Use that as a club all you wish, only shows you lack of knowledge! So many of you are all happy about the Repubs not voting for this….funny they as usual haven’t come up with any alternatives! The requested ONE meeting with President Obama, he requested TWO more with them, they had input. Or was it just supposed to be “THEIR” bill and to heck with anyone else, which by the way has been whats been going on for the last 8 years and got us into this mess! Notice the Repubs don’t blame our President, they are trying to blame the Democrats in the Senate. Interesting way of attempting to look relevant and having the peoples interest at heart. Praise the popular President and blame the Democrats for not including them when the Pres. himself included them and altered the bill the fit them. Same old same old for Repubs. our way or we will try and obstruct it. Trust me when this package gets the economy running watch them try and take credit! Same old same old
Posted by: try the truth | January 29, 2009, 9:51 am 9:51 am
Celebrating that you cost the taxpayers more money: priceless!
Posted by: Jim | January 29, 2009, 9:54 am 9:54 am
What is wrong with being critical of a bill that is filled with useless items for the economy i.e. condoms. This bill was not written by Hussein Obama…he is simply following orders from Pelosi.
Help the American people, but don’t fill the thing out with worthless junk.
And, it is the right of every American to criticize politicians if they want. We still have free speech. BTW, I am not a Republican….Bush was a disaster for US.
Posted by: sea4317 | January 29, 2009, 10:13 am 10:13 am
sea4317: “And, it is the right of every American to criticize politicians if they want.”
Absolutely, and notice that even the far left is not accusing anyone of being unpatriotic or a traitor for doing so. But it is also the right of every American to point out when someone is being obstructionist, ignorant, or just flat out stupid. Pointing out that birth control policy doesn’t fit into the bill, fine. Hyperventilating about the 0.0001% directed to a bike lane or the renovation of the National Mall (including paths, seawalls, and other infrastructure – not just sod) should get Republicans called out for showboating rather than working to get stuff done.
Posted by: jhw539 | January 29, 2009, 10:19 am 10:19 am
I don’t understand how the repulicans announced that they can create 6.2 million jobs with their stimulus plan. A gop congress man suggested to give $5000 to individual some they go and buy a chryler car,more car sales more jobs creation, this is to save jobs not creating. On gma diane sawyer suggested it is not better to give the money to people than to have such this stimulus,
Is it not better for the people to work for the money and have something to show instead just giving the money away. The people need to work and we are all willing to earn our keep.
Posted by: deus899 | January 29, 2009, 10:20 am 10:20 am
Jim: “Celebrating that you cost the taxpayers more money: priceless!”
Right. Because nothing says celebration like spending your off hours having a big discussion with the opposing party that just totally rejected your every effort to reach out.
I am starting to think the Republicans WANT to be completely shut out, preferring a failure over a collaborative success. Or perhaps, as has been suggested in the past, the Republicans in the House really do care more about having their feelings hurt by loudmouth Pelosi than the good of the country.
Posted by: jhw539 | January 29, 2009, 10:22 am 10:22 am
“But it is also the right of every American to point out when someone is being obstructionist, ignorant, or just flat out stupid.”
Right, when Democrats obstruct the Republicans, its checks and balances. When Republicans obstruct the Democrats, its ignorant and flat out stupid.
How many were happy with the bailout bill last year? Republicans voted against that bill. Does that mean you agree with them now, after the fact?
Hypocrisy is not a trait of intellectual honesty.
Personally I’m not against the stim bill. I am against it being a 4 year bill. Why can’t they just pass it one year at a time instead of throwing the government a 800 billion dollar check for 4 years? How about 100 billion this year and see where we stand for next year? Government works on fiscal years for money anyway. A year from now if Obama does as many of you claim and hope, and the economy is wonderful, why still be committed to another 600 billion in spending over 3 years? Doesn’t make sense to me.
Posted by: KR | January 29, 2009, 10:26 am 10:26 am
KR: “How many were happy with the bailout bill last year? Republicans voted against that bill. Does that mean you agree with them now, after the fact?”
Cute. You mean the bailout package demanded by A REPUBLICAN ADMINISTRATION and supported that ultimately did get some Republican support? Whose implementation was completely botched by the Republican Administration?
I agree with them when they add constructive improvements to the bills. When they just stamp their feet and refuse to participate they are useless and deserve irrelevancy. Complaining about “pork” is someone throwing out useless soundbites. Complaining about a specific facet of the bill, such as the funding for contraceptives, is fair game.
Do you see the difference? I can tell my neighbor I hate him, but it’s more constructive to tell him I think it’s rude he keeps blocking my driveway with his truck. (A fictitious example, I actually have great neighbors.)
Posted by: jhw539 | January 29, 2009, 10:35 am 10:35 am
“I am starting to think the Republicans WANT to be completely shut out, preferring a failure over a collaborative success.”
They vote on their principles and represent people in the U.S. They can vote how they feel they are representing people. 48 million people did not vote for Obama, shouldn’t they be represented in the voting process?
I guess as long as they don’t disagree with you.
Posted by: KR | January 29, 2009, 10:35 am 10:35 am
All the while President Obama makes attempts to bring the Republican establishment to the table to come to a consensus about a plan that will work for America, they silently carry on the tactics of the Bush administration behind the scenes and take advantage of the taxpayers. This from ProPublica:
House Republican Whip Eric Cantor [1], a rising star in the Republican party, has been a prominent voice demanding accountability in how the government doles out hundreds of billions for bank bailouts.
“I think most American taxpayers now are sort of scratching their head,” Cantor told CNN in December, “wondering when all this bailout stuff is going to end. And probably thinking, ‘You know, when is my bailout coming?’”
This Thursday, Cantor cast a high-profile vote opposing release of another $350 billion in bailout funds. Unpublicized until now was a recent development: The Treasury Department used $267 million of taxpayer funds to buy preferred stock in a private banking company that employs Cantor’s wife.The bailout for New York Private Bank and Trust (NYPBT) [2] came earlier this month as part of a Treasury Department program to boost “healthy banks” with extra capital. NYPBT is the holding company for Emigrant Bank [3], a savings bank with 35 branches in and around New York City. Diana Cantor runs the Virginia branch of Emigrant’s wealth-management division, called Virginia Private Bank & Trust, which targets an ultra-rich clientele.A spokesman for the bank said Diana Cantor “has nothing to do with the operation of the main bank” and was “never aware that the parent bank was seeking or received [bailout] funding.”
Is this not strange, that Republican Eric Cantor’s wife who RUNS the wealth-management division of this bank knew nothing about her bank seeking taxpayer funds. Seems to me that’s kind of like Saturn that’s owned by GM, saying they were never aware their parent GM was seeking public funds.
Posted by: devilkev | January 29, 2009, 10:37 am 10:37 am
KR:” Right, when Democrats obstruct the Republicans, its checks and balances. ”
Oh, and it’s a matter of public record that the Republican Senate has been filibustering at a historic rate these past two years. And also that in 2000, after the most contentious election in memory, the Democrats in Congress worked with Bush and gave him both his signature tax cuts – still referred to as the “Bush Tax Cuts” – and his No Child Left Behind Act (hated by the teachers unions in the Dem’s tent). Both these were prior to the 9/11 bipartisan support groundswell for the Republican administration and while Dems actually still held majority power in the Senate. Democrats have a proven history of swallowing their pride and accepting a much lesser role rather than throwing a petulant tantrum and refusing to participate.
Posted by: jhw539 | January 29, 2009, 10:39 am 10:39 am
“Cute. You mean the bailout package demanded by A REPUBLICAN ADMINISTRATION and supported that ultimately did get some Republican support? Whose implementation was completely botched by the Republican Administration?”
Democrat congress passed the bill. Both sides are at fault. Democrats are the champions of oversight, they could have put whatever they wanted in that bill. You have to take your party affiliation hat off to get the full perspective of that mess. Either way, it was republicans that voted against it.
“I agree with them when they add constructive improvements to the bills. When they just stamp their feet and refuse to participate they are useless and deserve irrelevancy. Complaining about “pork” is someone throwing out useless soundbites. Complaining about a specific facet of the bill, such as the funding for contraceptives, is fair game.”
Useless and deserve irrelevancy. Do you honestly think this is only a republican trait? Please, this is a politician’s trait. This is politics and BOTH sides do exactly the same thing to the other when they are in power. Go ahead and complain about it, but don’t lump as if it only exists per one party. That’s juvenile.
Posted by: KR | January 29, 2009, 10:40 am 10:40 am
Ajax
I do belive the Republicans were at the Cocktail Party as well. funny all you Republicans on board trashing Obamas party but It was ok Bush had The Bin Laden Family at the White House for Tea!
Posted by: Angie | January 29, 2009, 10:42 am 10:42 am
KR: ” They can vote how they feel they are representing people.”
If they refuse to support anything, they will get nothing. As the Democrats showed in 2000, EFFECTIVE representation means accepting 20% of what you want rather than standing on principle and getting zero. Do you think the next time Obama is going to bother to include a bunch of tax cuts, or lean on Pelosi to get out offensive contraceptive funding? Why bother? Is that good representation?
One approach gets the results, the other just gets soundbites for your next election run.
Posted by: jhw539 | January 29, 2009, 10:42 am 10:42 am
“Oh, and it’s a matter of public record that the Republican Senate has been filibustering at a historic rate these past two years. And also that in 2000, after the most contentious election in memory, the Democrats in Congress worked with Bush and gave him both his signature tax cuts”
Do we really have to pluck out anecdotal examples in the history of American politics? Pick and choose what facts you want to present to prove a point? Filibustering is part of American politics, it sucks, but BOTH sides do it, doesn’t matter how much or when. Get used to it, it’s always been there and it will always be here.
Plus, who keeps whats “record breaking filibusters” anyway?
Posted by: KR | January 29, 2009, 10:46 am 10:46 am
KR: “This is politics and BOTH sides do exactly the same thing to the other when they are in power.”
This is just a lie. A DEMOCRATIC SENATE AGREED TO PASS THE BUSH TAX CUTS AND THE BUSH NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT IN 2000. Going back further, look at welfare reform instituted by a Republican House under Newt that some Dems got onboard with. That is bipartisanship, and that is healthy politics. The hyperpartisanship of the House Republicans is unprecedented if you chose to argue with facts, actual house votes, and reality rather than vague “politicians suck” bumperstickers.
Posted by: jhw539 | January 29, 2009, 10:47 am 10:47 am
“If they refuse to support anything, they will get nothing. As the Democrats showed in 2000, EFFECTIVE representation means accepting 20% of what you want rather than standing on principle and getting zero. Do you think the next time Obama is going to bother to include a bunch of tax cuts, or lean on Pelosi to get out offensive contraceptive funding? Why bother? Is that good representation? ”
Ah so they must compromise their principles in order to be “part” of progress. But if they totally disagree with that being progress, work and vote for it anyway? Silly. I’d rather the guy stick with his principles. If he is against it, and votes against it, that is his record. A few Dems voted against use of force in Iraq and they are heralded as heroes today on the left. Should they have compromised?
Posted by: KR | January 29, 2009, 10:49 am 10:49 am
KR: “Filibustering is part of American politics, it sucks, but BOTH sides do it, doesn’t matter how much or when”
Don’t be foolish, it does matter how much; there’s a difference between doing 50mph on the interstate and 20mph. After the Republicans became a minority in 2006, the number of cloture votes DOUBLED. This is documented fact – filibusters compared to the Democratic minority, even under the reviled Bush administration, doubled when the Republicans wielded it. By their DOCUMENTED ACTIONS, the Republicans are far more obstructionist than Democrats.
Why don’t you ever offer any facts? Don’t your opinions have any reality supporting them to share? I can be swayed, but not by “I think” rantings (for example, on the issue of gun control I have had to change my opinion in light of facts).
Posted by: jhw539 | January 29, 2009, 10:55 am 10:55 am
“A DEMOCRATIC SENATE AGREED TO PASS THE BUSH TAX CUTS AND THE BUSH NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT IN 2000. Going back further, look at welfare reform instituted by a Republican House under Newt that some Dems got onboard with. ”
For every example of a few Dems getting on board, there is a filibuster. Whats the point? This is a republic. If voting against this bill represents the people, then he’s representing them. If the people are unhappy that he did, they’ll vote against him the next election. Its how politics work.
Bipartisanship is great when its just that, bipartisan. But if your principles are against massive government spending, then vote against the bill. If some of the spending was brought down, they would probably get more support. Should only one side have to sacrifice in this? Is compromise only looked at for the republicans to pursue? Come on man. If history repeats itself, in 2 years the Dems will lose the house or senate, then it will be all about the Republicans compromising the Democrats.
Posted by: KR | January 29, 2009, 10:56 am 10:56 am
KR: “But if they totally disagree with that being progress, work and vote for it anyway? Silly. I’d rather the guy stick with his principles.”
Your choice. Good luck with that “I get everything I want or NOTHING!” attitude. I’ll stick with the reality of compromise that has guided our nation’s politics from the writing of the Constitution itself.
Posted by: jhw539 | January 29, 2009, 10:57 am 10:57 am
My advice to the dems, cut the pork but don’t budge on tax cuts. Leave it as-is.
Jake, I eagerly await the republican plan for JOBS. So far, I’ve only heard tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts.
That’s the thing I don’t get about fiscal conservatives, they seem to argue “Do the math. If it doesn’t add up, it’s not good.” At home Americans have been doing “the math” on the success of tax cuts, and it DOES NOT ADD UP. Yet, we’re supposed to suspend disbelief and adopt the republican strategy?
Debate doesn’t create JOBS.
Posted by: Mavsreader | January 29, 2009, 10:57 am 10:57 am
KR: “For every example of a few Dems getting on board, there is a filibuster.”
See, this is where you are making up facts to support your view. There is NOT a filibuster for every case of Dems getting onboard. Look at the numbers, the facts, the reality. In the past decade Republicans are the more obstructionist party. That’s fact.
Posted by: jhw539 | January 29, 2009, 11:01 am 11:01 am
“I’ll stick with the reality of compromise that has guided our nation’s politics from the writing of the Constitution itself. ”
Repeat that when there is a Republican Senate or House. I bet you won’t.
Posted by: KR | January 29, 2009, 11:02 am 11:02 am
“There is NOT a filibuster for every case of Dems getting onboard. Look at the numbers, the facts, the reality”
Ok fine lets lay out the numbers more accurately, the Democrats have been in power for most of the 20th century. Of course the numbers are going to point to Republican filibusters, they were the minority party for most of the last 100 years. Please, don’t play numbers games.
It is SILLY to play the numbers games. You cannot possibly sit on a high horse and talk about how morally superior the Democrats are because they have less filibusters? Is that what your saying?
Posted by: KR | January 29, 2009, 11:05 am 11:05 am
KR: “Repeat that when there is a Republican Senate or House. I bet you won’t.”
Even under the first Bush, who I happily voted for twice, I held the same opinion. But that is irrelevant on the larger scale – do you have ANY FACTS to support your opinion that Democrats are as obstructionist as Republicans? Even though Democrats are PROVEN BY REALITY to filibuster LESS and ultimately allow passage of legislation they disagree with to allow an incoming administration to implement their mandate(see 2000 Bush Tax Cuts)?
Posted by: jhw539 | January 29, 2009, 11:06 am 11:06 am
And first, don’t assume my politics. I am for the stim bill. I’m against a 4 year stim bill. Knock it down to the 80 billion they want to spend this year and pass that. If more is needed next year, then do it again.
I think giving the government an 800 billion dollar check for the next 4 years is a mistake. If some in congress think so too, then they are representing me.
Posted by: KR | January 29, 2009, 11:07 am 11:07 am
“do you have ANY FACTS to support your opinion that Democrats are as obstructionist as Republicans? ”
Honestly does the percentage of filibusters of Dems, vs. the percentage of Filibusters of Republicans, but in quota by the amount of years each were in power, really make a freaking difference? FACT, Democrats have been in control of Congress for most of the last 100 years, the minority parties are the ones that execute filibusters, logically the minority party will have more filibusters. Whats the freaking point?
When dems were filibustering Bush Supreme court nominees, I accepted it as part of politics. I don’t keep a damn tally and say, “Well thats another half a percentage” Thats silly.
Posted by: KR | January 29, 2009, 11:11 am 11:11 am
KR: “Ok fine lets lay out the numbers more accurately, the Democrats have been in power for most of the 20th century. Of course the numbers are going to point to Republican filibusters, they were the minority party for most of the last 100 years. Please, don’t play numbers games.”
I do notice you did not lay out ANY NUMBERS.
I compared two successive Congresses – one Republican, one Democrat. That is an entirely fair comparision, the most recent two years of each party, one after the other (no cold war vs tech boom cherry picking) Actually, it’s biased towards *minimizing* Republican filibusters since the Republicans held the Whitehouse veto too.
The facts are clear and supported as you go back further. And do feel free to go back further if it will support your argument. Go back to the great Republican filibusters against civil rights for all I care. Does your opinion have any facts or reality supporting it?
Posted by: jhw539 | January 29, 2009, 11:13 am 11:13 am
KR: “FACT, Democrats have been in control of Congress for most of the last 100 years,”
And in the last 100 years the US has become the sole uncontested superpower, eliminated hunger within its borders, built the uncontested best graduate system in the world, invented the internet, put a man on the moon, defeated communism, eliminated smallpox – I’m more than happy accepting your assertion that Dems have controlled Congress the majority of the time since 1908. I suspect it’s not supported by fact, but since it’s irrelevant I don’t really care.
Meanwhile, the past 20 years is actually relevant for people who care about what’s happened since women got the vote and the Model T went out of style.
Posted by: jhw539 | January 29, 2009, 11:17 am 11:17 am
The Democratic Party maintained control of the House from 1954 until 1995. They often went back and forth in the other decades. I believe that still stands as the longest consecutive control of the house in its history.
There, you happy? I threw out numbers that still part of your meaningless argument.
Posted by: KR | January 29, 2009, 11:55 am 11:55 am
“The filibuster remained a solely theoretical option until 1841, when the Democratic minority tried to block a bank bill favored by the Whig majority by using this political tactic.”
Democrats did it first!!!! Obstructionist creators!
Can we get away from the silly school yard argument now?
Posted by: KR | January 29, 2009, 12:01 pm 12:01 pm
“And in the last 100 years the US has become the sole uncontested superpower, eliminated hunger within its borders, built the uncontested best graduate system in the world, invented the internet, put a man on the moon, defeated communism, eliminated smallpox”
Democrats did all that? I thought Americans did.
Posted by: KR | January 29, 2009, 12:07 pm 12:07 pm
Jan. 27, 2006 – The Senate’s top Republican decided Thursday to force a showdown on Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito early next week, with the two Democratic senators from Massachusetts pushing to block a vote.
“But it is also the right of every American to point out when someone is being obstructionist, ignorant, or just flat out stupid.”
Posted by: KR | January 29, 2009, 12:42 pm 12:42 pm
Does Obama’s staff ever think before they say something?
Telling America that Obama cranks up the heat in the White House Because he hates cold is just so hypocritical.
BO lectures us to sacrifice and cut down our thermostats but he doesn’t.
It’s not his money paying the bills.
Then telling people in DC they are wimpy because they can’t handle the cold weather.
This is just too much fun–I didn’t think BO would be exposed as a fraud this soon.
Posted by: sammy | January 29, 2009, 12:48 pm 12:48 pm
“On gma diane sawyer suggested it is not better to give the money to people than to have such this stimulus,
Is it not better for the people to work for the money and have something to show instead just giving the money away.”
I think both have merit. People work to produce goods and services that are bought by consumers. If consumers have more money (less is given to the government, it’s their money to begin with), they tend to spend it on more goods and services, or invest it. Draw back is that consumers are fickle and often paranoid. I had heard of a business that, under the fear of all the economic shortcomings, drew down his business and fired 6 of 10 employees when the work load was still the same. He is trying to get ahead of the hard times. Totally susceptible to psychological pressures.
Government funds also help with jobs, mostly helping the environment that the jobs are in, like infrastructure development. Contractors build them and will have to hire more people to build it, but it’s less sustainable. Something in the future will have to step in and replace it. Eventually, other infrastructures not built by the government must take over to sustain those jobs.
Good news is the bill contains both, though in much larger proportion to the spending side.
Still surprising that congress just cannot pass a clean bill. I guess its the attitude you get when spending other peoples money.
Posted by: KR | January 29, 2009, 1:28 pm 1:28 pm
When can we start the impeachment process for Obama?
Posted by: Stimulas? | January 29, 2009, 2:39 pm 2:39 pm
there has got to be a way me and countless millions of other to retract our votes for Obama. This loser is a fraud and a hypocrite. He sets his thermostat high, yet demands that I don’t; he nominated a tax dodger for Treasury Secretary, then demands that I pay my taxes; he preaches sacrifice, and then has the most expensive inauguration in history and dines on $100 steaks! Any corporate CEO is better than Obama. Change my ^*#$!!!
Posted by: Impeach Obama | January 29, 2009, 2:59 pm 2:59 pm
“This loser is a fraud and a hypocrite.”
______________________________________
Name calling as talking points.
Posted by: pefros | January 29, 2009, 3:33 pm 3:33 pm
“Satan himself is going to be in the details” . .. hahaha
Posted by: pefros | January 29, 2009, 3:38 pm 3:38 pm
Obama said people in DC needed “Chicago toughness” to handle the snow and ice.
But he has to turn up the heat in the White House to be comfortable.
Pay your taxes on time and lower your thermostats–but my staff and I don’t have to.
What a wimp and a hypocrite.
Posted by: sammy | January 29, 2009, 3:45 pm 3:45 pm
President Obama I think Americans are starting to wake up.
Posted by: meggie | January 29, 2009, 3:49 pm 3:49 pm
“What a wimp and a hypocrite”
___________________________________
Name calling as talking point.
Posted by: pefros | January 29, 2009, 4:06 pm 4:06 pm
In the famous words of the best President we ever had in this modern age Ronald Reagan, “There they go again”. Tax and spent and tax again, where will it end? God help us, when our economy completely collapses. The 11 Trillion dollar debt will open us up for foreign takeover, can you say “One World Order”. Our Government is out of control. Speak up America before it is to late.
Posted by: Terry | January 30, 2009, 3:12 am 3:12 am