WH Status Report This Morning: “We’ve Got Many More Twists and Turns to Go”

Was he refering to the brass knuckle tactics used by Obama on the CBO on the day they were to release the cost figures?
As Michelle Malkins fantastic book “culture of corruption” points out about the corrupt Obama administration…. a GREAT read

Posted by: KMDay | Jul 29, 2009 11:26:06 AM
It apparently is too much trouble for Democrats to actually represent their constituents.
Oh, bother.

DON’T LET CONGRESS PASS ANYTHING THEY WILL BE NOT SUBJECT TO!!!

Obama and his sockpuppet Gibbs sure can twist the truth, I’ll give them that. As for “turns,” they’re turning the U.S. into U.S.S.R.

Anybody got any ideas on when this “Era of Responsibility” is s’posed to begin?

KMDay:”He admitted to no reading this in front of many people stating that he though it was insane [my words] to read a 1,000 + bill. That not even he could read it with TWO attorneys.
Yet, he votes for it? ”
One, you are exaggerating his comments.
And two, you don’t understand the first thing about semi-conductor fabrication or circuit layout yet you use a computer?

Gibbs,
Nice to know that finally you yahoos in the Administration understand that this thing was NEVER going to get done by your INSANE timeline!

“the Chicago-style White House.”
__________________________________
“Chicago-style White House”! Is that ever clever! Did you think that up yourself! What a clever boy!
I’m so impressed!
What a well reasoned argument and so clever!
Posted by: danita | Jul 29, 2009 1:25:57 PM
========================================Danita, it is not a matter of being clever because he assigned a label to the style of politics that Obama and his administration exuberates on a daily basis.
His politics are in fact “chicago style politics”. I am not sure why it is you deem it necessary to take this so lightly.
Health care reform needs to take place, I do not disagree with this-but to blindly and ignorantly cram it through before thoroughly understanding what is in the bill is “Chicago Style Politics”.
Just ask good ol John Conyer’s (D-Michigan) if he read the bill. On video, he claimed it was ridiculous to be expected to read a 1,000+ pg bill. He could not even do it with two attorney’s helping him figure out what the bill means.
really? Isnt that what he is paid to do-read the friggin bills???

“I’m so impressed!
What a well reasoned argument and so clever!”
Danita, once again you’ve missed the obvious. The clever line was:
“Gibbs… agreed ‘we’ve got many more (arms to) twist and (ankles to) turn…’”
Thank you. Thank you. I’ll be here all week. Tip your servers.

Google this and see if it take you to the website with the video that show Conyers saying he thinks it is ridiculous to be expected to read the 1,000+ pg bill: John Conyers Does NOT See the Point in Reading the Health Care Bill

Danita, you are “obviously” (that’s speakin’ Gibbs-ish) NOT from Chicago. “Dear Leader” and I happen to presently be from Chicago.
Machine politics are real. Nepotism is real. Corruption is real. Thuggery is real. Pay offs and bribes are real and it’s not funny at all.
Why do you suppose we haven’t seen hide nor hair of Tony Rezko lately?

“Machine politics are real. Nepotism is real. Corruption is real. Thuggery is real. Pay offs and bribes are real and it’s not funny at all.”
______________________________________
You need more experience in politics dear . . . this is the norm around the United States, not the exception.
Again, ‘Chicago politics’ is a catch phrase the right uses in an attempt to smear Obama without any substantial facts or proof of any illegal activities. It’s a smear tactic.
A transparent device . . .

—You need more experience in politics dear . . . this is the norm around the United States, not the exception.
Again, ‘Chicago politics’ is a catch phrase the right uses in an attempt to smear Obama without any substantial facts or proof of any illegal activities. It’s a smear tactic.
A transparent device . . .—
Kind of like Rezko. Or appointing a tax cheat to Treasury. Hey, where’s Chris Dodd?

” Rezko. Or appointing a tax cheat to Treasury. Hey, where’s Chris Dodd?”
__________________________________
More buzzwords . . . yawn, don’t you guys have any actual thoughts or substance?
It’s all buzzwords and smear.

Again, I’m surprised how simplistic your understanding is . .. .
Staff analyze all of the legislation and important sections are highlighted and brought forward to the representative, so they can read them for feedback and input. It’s far more thorough than each member trying to wade through the legislation on their own. Far more thorough.Posted by: danita | Jul 29, 2009 3:22:43 PM======================================Please tell me you did not just say this. Please tell me I am reading “Staff analyze all of the legislation and important sections are highlighted and brought forward to the representative,”……… THE ENTIRE BILL IS IMPORTANT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
How are certain section NOT important and certain sections ARE important? If the sections are NOT important, then WHY PUT THEM IN THE BILL?????????????
Geeesshhhhh Danita, that was just a dumb comment to make and shame on you for saying some parts are important and some are not!

–More buzzwords . . . yawn, don’t you guys have any actual thoughts or substance?
It’s all buzzwords and smear.–
So Tim Geithner doesn’t work for Treasury and he never had a tax payment issue? Chris Dodd didn’t get a VIP loan from his pals at AIG?

I’m not sure what Tony Rezko has to do with reforming health care, but if you want to see him, he’s at the Metropolitan Correctional Center on Van Buren, visiting hours are Monday through Friday 12:00 p.m. – 3:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m. – 8:00 p.m., and Saturday, Sunday and holidays 8:00 a.m. – 11:00 a.m. and 12:00 p.m. – 3:00 p.m.

Again, ‘Chicago politics’ is a catch phrase the right uses in an attempt to smear Obama without any substantial facts or proof of any illegal activities. It’s a smear tactic.
A transparent device . . .
————————————-
danita,
The “Chicago way” or “Chicago Politics” goes back well beyong the birth of Obama…
It has been for a very very long time…a Dem strong hold…

show me the birth certificate at the next tea party, I hear Joe the plumber will be speaking

“You need more experience in politics dear…”
Condescension from an Obama supporter. I’m shocked, shocked, I say.
From Slate article “Why is Chicago So Corrupt?”
“(New York had a notorious political machine too but it faded away due to pressure from FDR. But in) Chicago, corruption persisted, to some degree because the city never had the benefit of a reformist mayor like New York City’s Fiorello LaGuardia, who had political ties to FDR.
Instead, Chicago moved towards a one-party system that made it even more vulnerable to corruption: The city’s last Republican mayor left office in 1931.
Today, not even the Democratic primaries are competitive—for the most part, once you’re in office, you stay there.
The weak campaign finance laws in Illinois probably helped to stave off competition in recent years.
The star power of Chicago politicians may also contribute to the city’s continuing problems with corruption.
Incumbents tend to be big personalities who get celebrity coverage in the local papers—which sometimes translates into ethical leeway from voters.
(In cities like Los Angeles and New York, local politicians take a back seat to the media celebs.)
Bonus Explainer: How do we know that Chicago’s so corrupt?
The most straightforward way to measure corruption is to check the number of convicted local officials.
Between 1995 and 2004, 469 politicians from the federal district of Northern Illinois were found guilty of corruption.
The only districts with higher tallies were central California (which includes L.A.), and southern Florida (which includes Miami). Eastern Louisiana (and New Orleans) rank somewhat further down the list…”

I realize that under ordinary circumstances, members of congress do not personally read every word of every bill and resolution. That is not a shock to me. I understand that they rely on staff to read through all the details and to summarize and alert them to what needs to be read carefully, what can be skimmed, what can be skipped over when they prepare to vote. While that makes perfect sense for things like House Resolution 496, commemorating the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, or HR 509, reauthorizing the Marine Turtle Conservation Act of 2004, to mention just two of the pieces of business that came before the House yesterday, I would think that something that is this expensive, this controversial, this significant should be read even more carefully.
So while I expect my representatives in Congress to be able to depend on their staff to provide analysis and summary of the bill and to highlight material they know, given their close relationship with their boss, will be of particular interest to their boss, I also expect my representatives to really make sure they have had a thorough look at the bill before voting.
So if there is a section of a health care reform bill coming up for a vote that Senator A has not read, for example, I expect her to not only nod when she sees a sticky note attached to it summarizing the provisions therein, but to have a conversation with staff in which she discusses that sticky note and makes sure she knows what is in that section and maybe reads over it herself.
I want her to have a thorough knowledge of the whole contents of the bill, whether through reading it herself or through going over it with her staff, before she casts a vote on such crucial legislation. And yes, I’m comfortable with her letting a staff member who specializes in health care issues or in finance brief her IN DETAIL on the contents of the bill that relate to that staffer’s area of expertise. After all, I don’t expect all members of Congress to be experts themselves on all subjects. I want them to seek out the input of experts, those on their staffs, on the staff of the Congress itself (like Library of Congress researchers or the CBO), and those from outside the government.
But a bill must not be rushed through that gives not only members, but their staffs, insufficient time to read AND ANALYZE the bill. I want no “stimulus bill” surprises this time around. I do not think that is too much to ask of the people we elect to represent us.

“You bring up Bush like no ones business”
________________________________________
People bring up Bush to point out the hypocrisy of the Republicans criticizing Obama . … it’s like someone who just finished crapping on your carpet, berating you for spitting on the lawn. Hypocrisy.

“Sounds more like any corruption is being cleaned up by law in North Illinois.”
Nah, they just keep electing Democrats. It’s like a revolving door.
Chicago is a giant petrie dish for Obama’s Culture of Corruption.
Thanks for playin’!

No, Danita, people bring up Bush because they have no explanation of Obama.

danita, no matter how you try to spin it incompetence is living in the white house right now and you and 2 others seem to be the only ones who don’t know that.

While you are piling on Danita, I would chime in to say that I have repeatedly asked Danita one simple question that has NEVER, as far as I have seen, been answered by her. The question is: Can you name ONE thing that Obama has done with which you disagree? I have often prefaced the question by naming several things that Obama has done with which I have agreed– such as his choice of Sect. of State, head of NIH, Surgeon General, etc., his fighting the release of the prisoner photos, his establishment of the recovery website (well, that turned out to be less than it seemed, but I gave him credit at the time), etc. Just this week, I praised him and his cabinet for the spending cuts promised 100 days ago and delivered on time. My point has been– I will say I agree with the president when I do, and I will say I disagree when I do, and I am honest in saying that I disagree far more than I agree. I also was vocal when I disagreed with President Bush, and every other president in my lifetime. Some I agreed with more than others, but none of them did I worship uncritically or say nothing negative about.

moderate . . .
I have answered you before, you may not have seen the reply.
I found President Obama’s stance on Afghanistan during the election hawkish – I’m not sure that Afhanistan isn’t another quagmire for the U.S. like it was for Russia – Russia basically went bankrupt fighting there.
Many peoples have tried to change things in that country over many centuries – with little to show for it. The people are determined, and it is their land, not ours. On the other hand, if there is success, it may be worth while.

Thanks for the response, Danita. This time I saw it.

“Russia basically went bankrupt fighting there.”
Thats not really true. Russia’s military expenditures during those years was nearly 60% of their total government expenditures, same as it was in the 70′s. The Afghanistan war didn’t significantly increase their military spending enough to cause them to go bankrupt. The consistant decline and unproductive characteristic of their system caused inevitable bankruptcy. Russia knew that they were going to be unable to pay their security forces. When that happens, police states colapse, as is what happened. Even as late as 1998, the security forces of Russia were poorly paid, some barely making enough to buy food. That wasn’t because of Afghanistan.