for some reason i though there were more younger justices lol

More bad news for the Dems. The Obama-Jimmy Carter comparisons might actually become justified if Bayh decides to run in 2012, just as Teddy Kennedy ran against Carter back in '80. If it rattled the party back then, this time it would probably put it out of its misery.

I am so disgusted with the Democratic party right now that I'm actually leaning towards registering as an Independent. Hell, my political views lean both left and right, anyway, depending on the situation, so I may as well register that way .

i was worried about this, but just asking was this the same thing that happended in the early 80's when reagan was president?

Reagan had very low poll numbers in the early eighties and the recession was at its nadir. But by 83 and 84 things had started to pick up somewhat and Reagan beat Mondale pretty handily in just about every state if I recall correctly. I was too young to vote then...

I think the nature of the recession is different now, thanks to outsourcing and offshoring and perhaps 4-5% unemployment will not be the new full unemployment number. Maybe 6-7% will be the new normal.

The President's issue that I see is that he is conflict averse to a fault and spent the first year chasing a bipartisanship that doesn't really exist. I don't get the feeling that he's fully comfortable staking out a position and fighting for it come hell or high water. That said this is still very early in the year and his term so who knows what the political economy will look like in November or beyond. In his defense somewhat, the fact that the Democratic Party does have a large majority means that they have to deal with a lot more conservative Democrats than the Republicans had to deal with "Rockefeller Republicans". Although I would have handled the Blanche Lincolns, Baucuses and Liebermans of the world somewhat differently than PBO, the fact is that these people exist and have to be negotiated with.

In addition to taking a position and ramming it home on some issues, I also hope that the President will learn that simple is better. I don't mean to say he should condescend or talk down to people but that folks respond politically to clear, concise messages. He hasn't done that very well in his first year. But I am guardedly optimistic that that will change.

Yes Lilo, simple is better. This Democrat is quite disappointed in the tatics this President has employed which are more complex than they need to be.

I wish he would explode the myth of bipartisanship. The whole point of two or more political parties is that they adhere to different ideologies that manifest themselves through support or lack thereof for certain legislation. What is best for the country varies with that ideology and is as arguable as anything.

Obama just needs to play rough with the GOP. No more Mr.
nice guy. No more bipartisan nonsense. Ram Health Care through with reconciliation. Issue decrees to the EPA and
other agencies. Usurp as much presidential power as possible. The GOP hates him and calls him a dictator anyway, so he should get the cojones Bush II had and act like one.

Maybe Obama needs to take a level in bada$$

Many people feel this way, it seems. It's no surprise that somebody can lean "left and right depending on the situation", because there is no Left in American politics, nor will there be within the current system. The same goes for the UK.

Political disillusionment is very sad, but it's very real. But the status quo is maintained via various apparatuses in place; the media, whilst quick to report on the economic crisis, does so in such a way that even "The Left" is shown to have no genuine answer to the crisis.

The academic and intellectual betrayals of socialism cannot be emphasised enough here. The Stalinist bureaucracy showed itself to be the logical extension of the Bolshevik revolution, even going so far as to disguise its own betrayals as necessarily revolutionary.

You guys have got to raise your class consciousness.

What I mean by "class consciousness" is not just that there are divisions within class, but that such divisions are a result of capitalism; that things haven't always been this way, and that they won't always be this way.

Without a revolution, the country remains either stagnant for a long time, or it regresses, into barbarism. Don't think that that cannot happen. It happened with the Romans...

(CNN) -- U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, a stalwart foe of government spending, won a blowout victory Saturday in the annual Conservative Political Action Conference presidential straw poll.

With participants naming "reducing the size of federal government" as their top issue, the 74-year old libertarian hero captured 31 percent of the 2,400 votes cast in the annual contest, usually seen as a barometer of how the GOP's conservative wing regards their potential presidential candidates.

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney finished second with 22 percent of the vote, ending a three-year winning streak at CPAC. Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin finished third with 7 percent of the vote, followed by Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty at 6 percent and Indiana Rep. Mike Pence at 5 percent.

I am not surprised. Ron Paul has a large and dedicated following. Probably more than most people think. As it stands right now, as far as Republican possibilities go, from the choices given, If I had to bet, I'd say Romney stands the best shot, BUT a lot can change between now and next election. Who knows, even Palin could pull ahead (Lord help us). I've learned to never say never.

TIS

yes!!! ron paul is the best shot for the republicans...but sadly the media will cover him up, and broadcast either romney or the dumb bitch.

The media will go with Palin and Romney. Paul has a large number of supporters (I think more than some realize), but unless someone else comes out of the woodwork (which is always possible); or if Paul has a streak of luck with the media giving him the same coverage they give to whomever their favorite Republican candidate is, I think it'll be Romney and I do NOT rule out Plain.

TIS

I can't imagine they'd be stupid enough to vote nominate Palin, Tis.

If Obama is going to be vulnerable in 2012 (and I think he will be), and the Republicans have a legitimate chance of winning the election, they won't want to nominate a "throwaway" candidate who they know has no chance of winning (like Bob Dole in '96).

She'd scare away the moderates, who were so instrumental in Obama winning the last election. I know that if I were countinue to sour on Obama (and I REALLY hope it doesn't come to that), I'd vote for the right Republican. I've done so in the past. I will NOT blindly vote for a political party, even though I'm a lifelong Democrat.

That said, I'd NEVER vote for a ticket with Palin on it. She's a fucking loon. Her candidacy should be taken no more seriously than that of a high profile shock jock or porn star who decides to throw his/her name into the mix for the free publicity.

PB,

I understand what you're saying and agree, but a part of me still feels that Palin may be able to if not win, get close. There is a very angry and gullible and in some cases not too smart population out there. She does have the media on her side. Keep in mind, I say all this as a devoutly do the sign of the cross, hoping that it does not come to pass.

TIS

It's true that Americans aren't exactly known for being overly intelligent. How else could George W. Bush have been elected (or, in 2000, at least get close enough to get in the White House) in the first place?

Not pointing to any posts (or posters) in particular, but I believe we have a very recent instance in this thread of the pot calling the kettle black.

That said, much as I like Sarah Palin I have mixed feelings about her potential candidacy, which in the end I don't think she will announce. While she has immense support among wide-eyed Conservatives, it really only amounts to a few hundred thousand at the most. I just don't see her as electable, at least not as early as 2012. (Visualizing her in a presidential debate w/ Obama causes me to cringe.)

To keep BHO to one term, which MUST be done...the Republicans have to select a strong candidate who will be taken seriously. Ms. Palin would just not be taken seriously in a national election. Neither though, would Ron Paul.

Plenty of time for that, though...priority right now is to focus on mid-term elections this coming November!!

Apple

Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger defends Obama's stimulus plan

BY Michael Mcauliff
DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU

WASHINGTON - California Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger played Conan the Contrarian Sunday, pummeling his party for hypocrisy on jobs and health care.

With the one-year anniversary of the $787 billion stimulus bill last week, Republicans chorused that it had failed, and created no jobs.

But Schwarzenegger, who finishes his term this year, sang the Democrats' tune, claiming the recovery act was vital, and mocked members of his party who crow about the money they get in their own districts.

"I find it interesting that you have a lot of the Republicans running around, and pushing back on the stimulus money and saying, 'This doesn't create any new jobs,'" the Govinator told ABC News' "This Week."

"Then they go out and do the photo ops, and they are posing with the big check and they say, 'Isn't this great,'" he said.

"It doesn't match up," he added, pointing to 150,000 private and public sector jobs funded in California.

"I think it's kind of politics," he added.

He also agreed that the GOP was the "Party of No," as Democrats have branded it.

"They have to do everything they can in order to win in November. So they're going to say no to everything," he said.

Schwarzenegger suggested that when the GOP leaders sit down with President Obama for a bipartisan health care summit Thursday, it's in their interest and the country's to compromise.

"If there is a will, there's a way," he said. "If you really want to serve the people and not just your party, I think you will find that sweet spot and you can get it done."

mccauliff@nydailynews.com

Yea, don't they call him a "moderate" Republican????? Anyway, every now and then Arnie does make sense.


TIS

Never more so than as the Terminator.

THE PRESIDENT"S HEALTH CARE REFORM PROPOSAL February 22, 2010

• It makes insurance more affordable by providing the largest middle class tax cut for health care in history, reducing premium costs for tens of millions of families and small business owners who are priced out of coverage today. This helps over 31 million Americans afford health care who do not get it today – and makes coverage more affordable for many more.
• It sets up a new competitive health insurance market giving tens of millions of Americans the exact same insurance choices that members of Congress will have.
• It brings greater accountability to health care by laying out commonsense rules of the road to keep premiums down and prevent insurance industry abuses and denial of care.
• It will end discrimination against Americans with pre-existing conditions.
• It puts our budget and economy on a more stable path by reducing the deficit by $100 billion over the next ten years – and about $1 trillion over the second decade – by cutting government overspending and reining in waste, fraud and abuse.

Outlook no brighter for Obama's new health plan

By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR and ERICA WERNER, Associated Press

WASHINGTON – Starting over on health care, President Barack Obama knows his chances aren't looking much more promising. A year after he called for a far-reaching overhaul, Obama unveiled his most detailed plan yet on Monday. Realistically, he's just hoping to win a big enough slice to silence the talk of a failing presidency.

The 10-year, $1 trillion plan, like the current Democratic version in the Senate, would bring health insurance to more than 31 million Americans who now lack it. Government insurance wouldn't be included, a problem for Democratic progressives. Republicans are skeptical about where the money would come from — and about Obama's claim that the plan wouldn't raise the federal deficit.

Striking out in one fresh direction that should have wide appeal, Obama would give federal regulators new powers over the insurance industry, a reaction to a rash of double-digit premium hikes that have infuriated policy holders in California and other states.

The plan is supposed to be the starting point for Obama's televised, bipartisan health care summit Thursday — a new beginning after a year of wrangling and letting Congress take the lead. Yet Republicans were quick to dismiss it as a meld of two Democratic bills the public doesn't want. Democrats, while reaffirming their commitment to major changes, reacted cautiously, mindful that Obama is asking them to stake their political fortunes in the fall elections.

In the end, Americans who have listened to a year of talk about big changes in their health care, may see much smaller changes, if any. The president is likely to have to settle for much less than he wants — small-bore legislation that would smooth the rough edges of today's system but stop well short of coverage for nearly everyone.

Still, any kind of win on health care would be good for Obama right now. For a president, victory often begets victory, defeat spawns defeat. A modest achievement would allow Obama to move on to other pressing issues, claiming credit for getting something done despite the harshest partisan environment in years.

White House spokesman Dan Pfeiffer called the proposal "an opening bid" for Thursday's summit. "One thing I want to be very clear about is that the president expects and believes the American people deserve an up-or-down vote on health reform," he said.

But privately, a senior White House official sought to lower expectations, saying a solid single is better than striking out swinging for the fences. He spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue.

Liberal Rep. Anthony Weiner, D-N.Y., one of the rank-and-file lawmakers who would have to close ranks to pass Obama's proposal, questioned what's left in it for him after the president decided to dump a government insurance option sought by progressives.

"For many of us, the House bill represented a series of difficult compromises, and if the president is going to ask us to compromise further to go toward the Senate, I have to ask who's vote we're getting," Weiner said.

That means the plan is unlikely to pass without an all-out effort by Obama to muster votes from anxious Democrats. "I think all of us are going to have to sell this," said Rep. James Clyburn, D-S.C., the third-ranking Democrat in the House. "The devil is in the details."

If Obama ultimately settles for a pared-down plan, the final bill could look a lot like what Republicans have been calling for over many years. It would include federal funding for high-risk pools that would extend coverage to people denied because of medical problems, a new insurance marketplace for small employers and individuals buying their own policies, as well as tax credits for small businesses.

White House senior adviser David Axelrod said the president had no intention of scaling back his vision — unless forced. "His goal is to make as much of a good-faith effort as we can possibly muster" for a broad remake, Axelrod said.

When Obama began his health care overhaul effort a year ago, he sought to avoid the problems former President Bill Clinton encountered when he issued Congress a detailed prescription in the 1990s, a plan that failed and contributed to the Democrats' loss of Congress in 1994. Now Obama is being criticized for having been too deferential to lawmakers.

Weeks ago, the president and congressional Democrats seemed on the verge of a historic step — a long-sought remake of the nation's health care system after a half-century of unsuccessful attempts by scores of politicians. Then Republican Scott Brown stunned Washington with an upset win in the Massachusetts Senate race, denying Democrats their 60-seat majority and reversing any political momentum.

In the new political order, Obama's plan builds on the legislation passed by Senate Democrats on Christmas Eve, while making several changes designed to make it more acceptable to House Democrats.

It would dramatically roll back a Senate tax on high-cost health insurance plans objected to by the House — and by labor unions. Instead of raising $150 billion over 10 years, the tax would bring in just $30 billion, the administration said. To plug the revenue gap, Obama would raise Medicare payroll taxes on upper-income earners. For the first time, Medicare taxes would be assessed on investment income, not just wages.

In other concessions to the House, the president's proposal would gradually close the coverage gap in Medicare prescription benefits, eliminate a universally scorned Medicaid deal for Nebraska and improve federal subsidies to help many middle-class households afford their insurance premiums under a revamped system.

But many basic questions remained unanswered. For all its fresh detail, the proposal is only 11 pages long. No neutral third party has vouched for the total cost of the bill, or the administration's claim that it would reduce the federal deficit. Also unclear is the extent and impact of new coverage requirements for individuals and businesses.

Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Elmendorf said Obama's plan was not detailed enough to provide a cost estimate, and even with additional information it could not be ready by Thursday.

The plan would be paid for with a mix of Medicare cuts, tax increases and fees on drug companies and other health industry firms.

With hardly a Democratic vote to spare in Congress, abortion coverage remains a potentially insurmountable political problem. Obama would retain Senate-passed restrictions on federal funding that have been simultaneously decried as a sham by abortion opponents and denounced as draconian by abortion rights supporters.

Like the House and Senate bills, the plan would require most Americans to carry health insurance coverage, with federal subsidies to help many afford the premiums. Insurance companies would be barred from denying coverage to people with medical problems or charging them more.

The biggest potential beneficiaries of the plan would be small businesses and people buying their own coverage, who now face the highest, most unpredictable rates. Obama would create competitive insurance markets, closely regulated by federal and state officials. The markets would be state-based, as the Senate called for, not national as the House had wanted.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said she looked forward to reviewing the plan and discussing it at the summit. "We must pass comprehensive, affordable health insurance reform, and I am hopeful that Thursday's meeting will help us achieve this goal," she said.

But House Republican Leader John Boehner of Ohio dismissed the proposal, saying, "the president has crippled the credibility of this week's summit by proposing the same massive government takeover of health care based on a partisan bill the American people have already rejected."

Both will be at Thursday's summit, to be held at Blair House, the historic presidential guest quarters across from the White House.

____

Associated Press Writer Jennifer Loven contributed to this report.

____

On the Net:

http://www.whitehouse.gov

Anyone watch Rachel Maddow the last week or so? She was speaking of how there have been filibuster threats with the health bill (and every other bill)and held a contest to replace the word,filibuster. Anyway, the winner to replace "filibuster" is "The Tarentino" (as in kill bill")

TIS

-What are the factors in determing the amount of socialized health care each citizen receives in Obama's plan? Is there a potential slippery slope when trying to determine who qualifies and for how much? Will every citizen have unlimited coverage?

-Does this nation have hundred of thousands of dollars to spend each time one person gets cancer? (consider that currently most basic insurance plans will only begin to cover the costs of some diseases.) If such infinite health care costs can be covered, again, who decides what amount of gov't dollars are a 'reasonable' amount to allocate per patient? Could an inordinate allocation of healthcare funds to any one person be considered non-utilitarian given the current global condition?

-Should, we as a nation, seriously make an effort to devote more resources to educating people on how to avoid illness, instead of how to finance it after the fact?

I don't know. Maybe they can ask the HMOs how they do it, and still manage to post profits.

People with life threatning illnesses are still being turned away from hospitals for lack of funds everyday, so by no means am I supporting the current system. But, again, in a nationalized healthcare system, who would decide whether its utilitarian to spend 1 million dollars on one person to keep them alive for only one day? Would it be non-utilitarian to not spend that money even if it only kept them alive for one day?

B/c even those who do have adequate funds and access to such care must sometimes come to the stark reality that no matter how much they spend they're only buying themselves a short amount of time, and it's not worth spending infinite sums just to buy days or months--much the same way you'd forgo that million dollar surgery for your dog or cat b/c it seems superfluous to spend such monies that only result in a minimal amount of sustained life for an animal.

But who makes such a decision in a nationalized health care system, and how? (We can't look to any of the models used by the Nordic countries for the answer b/c they're living in an insular society unlike ours with a population constituting a mere fraction of our own.) Do the monies to finance such an endeavor in a nation as economically diverse as ours even exist? Or are notions of national healthcare simply a myth and inherently non-utilitarian given the inordinate number of people around the world who still go without basic anemities of life?

Well first off the proposal on the table isn't for a nationalized health care system.

As as the question about who makes decisions, those decisions are made now by doctors, hospital admins, patients and family members, and insurance or pharmaceutical admins. That wouldn't change under the democratic proposal.

As I correctly noted above, people with life threatning illnesses are being turned away from hospitals for lack of funds everyday. Wait until someone's child gets cancer and needs 300 grand for a bone marrow but their plan only covers about a fraction of that, just see if the hospital won't leave them on the doorstep.

And if none of that would change under whatever proposal the Democrats come up with, then this whole myth of nationalized health care was most probably yet another subversive ploy by the borgeosis elite, has been since Day 1.

What persons and what hospitals? Have you read Federal law regarding this subject (42 USC 1395dd et seq)?

African Americans in hospitals all over the South, but its mostly financial discrimination now-days. It can happen to anyone, anywhere, if you've not experienced it consider yourself very fortunate relative to others.

I have read the law, and you know that a hospital's legal requirement to treat the sick can in no way guarantee that they will do so in a timely and appropriate fashion. One might get into see a sub-satisfactory physician after they've been 'cleared' but only after valuable time in the healing process has passed without treatment.

You've obviously never had to transport a relative from one hospital to another and play the waiting game with there life for days, weeks (sometimes months) so again consider yourself fortunate. I shudder just talking about this.

Sopranos fans remember when Tony Soprano got shot in season 6 and didn't have insurance. Might have broke him completely if it hadn't been for those around him begrudgingly helping out. That's because insurance or no insurance, healthcare costs are higher than that of NASA, for crying out loud. If you think we can just cut a check for it all you're sadly mistaken.