Obama's Broken Promise Backlash

[Sinatra]

What you do see: Democratic leaders hellbent on hammering out a final version of this unpopular health care legislation in secret.

And what about Obama's repeated promises of the last two years to televise health care deliberations on C-SPAN "so the American people can see what the choices are"? Sorry, folks. You don't get to watch the next riveting installment of "Where's Mine?" Last month, the CEO of C-SPAN asked Democratic leaders to let the cable outlet televise the deliberations. So far, all he's heard in response is static.

It's a long way to November. Maybe this year won't be a repeat of the Democratic debacle of 1994 or the Republican thumping of 2006. Funny thing about revolutions. They're not usually scripted.


A step ahead of voters - chicagotribune.com

 

[Murf76]

I'm surprised Brian Lamb would make that comment, since all he had to do was recheck his own TV schedule going back to when the health care debate first began. As for the "White House" coverage, a president needs to be extremely careful that he doesn't overstep the constitutional limitations of separation of powers. And Brian Lamb knows that.

The fly in the ointment is that Barack Obama was a sitting U.S. Senator at the time he made the promises. Further, he had taught Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago. Only one of two things could happening here. Either he made a promise he KNEW he was in no position to keep, or he can keep the promise but chooses not to. Frankly, it's hard to believe that Congress could withstand him if he made a public appeal on behalf of CSPAN.

I'm not AGAINST television coverage of the conference debate. I just don't see what all the hoopla is about. The two bills are done; it's a simple matter now of cutting and pasting up a final version for full Senate debate, which WILL be televised probably on all channels, not just C-Span. At this point, what would the Republicans have to offer? They don't like either the House OR the Senate version. We already know that. So to televise a bunch of people sitting around a table with their laptops or legal pads and their staffers frantically making the agreed-upon concessions seems a waste of time to me.

If it was as boring as all that, it doesn't stand to reason that they'd take this much heat over it. Bottom line, skipping the committee process and keeping cameras out of the negotiations mean that ALL of these people don't have to answer for the promises they've made. They can skulk around in secret, giving no battle for the things they've told their constituents they'd fight for. Then later, they can come out to the cameras and claim they did their best.

For example, liberals who might want the "public option" or the additional abortion language stricken... aren't going to see if their representative chucked it on the pile and then later cried crocodile tears about what a tough fight they put up.

Conservatives already know we aren't going to be represented. That's the whole point of skipping the committee process. Which means.... the point of keeping the cameras out... is to fool YOU, the liberal voters who put them in office.

 

[ba1614]

If it's such a good deal for the people, and it's such an "unprecedented" piece of legislation, why wouldn't they want us to see it?

It must be pretty bad for this group of camera hugging individuals to be running from them.

LQQK!!! Here is an analysis of both bills, side by side. These two are what the conference committee will be discussing. Even if the debate WAS covered live, the end result will be presented for a final vote. What do you think you can do about the process at this point? NOTHING!!! The effect of these bills, outlined below, has been debated ad nauseam. It's time to have a final vote.

http://www.kff.org/healthreform/upload/housesenatebill_final.pdf

You're right, there isn't a fuckin' thing I can do about it, but there are some fairly significant differences in the two bills, and whatever the final version looks like will likely have an impact on me as an individual, and an employer.
Everything we hear from these politicians is how great this is going to be for me. If that's the case why wouldn't we want to see this "historic and unprecedented" reform come about?

Then there's all that open, transparency, shown on C-SPAN thing that Obama campaigned on to great applause.

 

[MaggieMae]

I'm disappointed that Obama has moved away from this promise of daylighting his administration. To be honest, imo, all it will take is one administration to change the way Washington works. If one of the parties can get a candidate into the White House that actually brings change to the status quo, the precident would be set for future administrations.

Unfortunately, Obama appears to have been all smoke and mirrors on his promises of hope and change.

He was very naive - and combined with inherent weakness makes for a White House being the cart pulled along by the legislative horse of Pelosi and Reid.

When Pelosi took a swipe at Obama yesterday, that was a moment of a figure reminding the president of who is really running the show.

The entire Democrat Party is in turmoil over this issue, and now with the media piling on this total lack of transparency issue, the heat on individual votes is turning up even more.

She'd better be careful with her comments. Even if she wins reelection, she may not win reelection by her colleagues for the speaker position. Obama is better liked than Pelosi.

 

[MaggieMae]

Sinatra is like a rabid dog with an old chewed up bone.

WE KNOW ALL ABOUT THIS!!!! Give it a fucking rest and move on to another one of your bitchfests.

 

[MaggieMae]

If it's such a good deal for the people, and it's such an "unprecedented" piece of legislation, why wouldn't they want us to see it?

It must be pretty bad for this group of camera hugging individuals to be running from them.

LQQK!!! Here is an analysis of both bills, side by side. These two are what the conference committee will be discussing. Even if the debate WAS covered live, the end result will be presented for a final vote. What do you think you can do about the process at this point? NOTHING!!! The effect of these bills, outlined below, has been debated ad nauseam. It's time to have a final vote.

http://www.kff.org/healthreform/upload/housesenatebill_final.pdf

You're right, there isn't a fuckin' thing I can do about it, but there are some fairly significant differences in the two bills, and whatever the final version looks like will likely have an impact on me as an individual, and an employer.
Everything we hear from these politicians is how great this is going to be for me. If that's the case why wouldn't we want to see this "historic and unprecedented" reform come about?

Then there's all that open, transparency, shown on C-SPAN thing that Obama campaigned on to great applause.

Because you've been brainwashed into believing health care delivery in this country is not a problem. Well, it isn't...for some people. And getting harder and harder to come by as more and more companies can't afford to pay for yours.

 

[California Girl]

He is a lying dumb ass. He is a Chicago Politician, what did you expect?

And what is sad is his supporters either won't care or will defend him. All the while mumbling something about Bush was worse.

Non-sequitur. And Bush was a Texas millionaire oilman. Your point? They all have to come from somewhere, and each state has its own history of corruption.

But Chicago excels at corruptions.

 

[Oldandtired]

He is a lying dumb ass. He is a Chicago Politician, what did you expect?

And what is sad is his supporters either won't care or will defend him. All the while mumbling something about Bush was worse.

Non-sequitur. And Bush was a Texas millionaire oilman. Your point? They all have to come from somewhere, and each state has its own history of corruption.

But Chicago excels at corruptions.

This is true....and then the following question comes into play...

'if many that are found guilty of corruption in CHicago claim that corruption is the norm and all must deal with it...and if we see that many DO fall into it....then exactly how did a virtual unknown with no political experience become a US senator in that state?

That was why I was interested in the truth of his dealings with Rezko...and Ayers...and others. We were called racists for asking....but I really wanted to know exactly how a virtual unknown with ties to convicted criminlas such as resko was able to climb the political ladder in the most politically corrupt city in the nation....without being corrupt.

But, alas...I was a racist for asking....and I was shamed into accepting "it is irrelevant" as my answer.

 

[Sinatra]

Even some of the columnists in Chicago are calling out Obama on his CSPAN backtrack...

What you do see: Democratic leaders hellbent on hammering out a final version of this unpopular health care legislation in secret.

And what about Obama's repeated promises of the last two years to televise health care deliberations on C-SPAN "so the American people can see what the choices are"? Sorry, folks. You don't get to watch the next riveting installment of "Where's Mine?" Last month, the CEO of C-SPAN asked Democratic leaders to let the cable outlet televise the deliberations. So far, all he's heard in response is static.

It's a long way to November. Maybe this year won't be a repeat of the Democratic debacle of 1994 or the Republican thumping of 2006. Funny thing about revolutions. They're not usually scripted.


A step ahead of voters - chicagotribune.com

 

[MaggieMae]

I'm surprised Brian Lamb would make that comment, since all he had to do was recheck his own TV schedule going back to when the health care debate first began. As for the "White House" coverage, a president needs to be extremely careful that he doesn't overstep the constitutional limitations of separation of powers. And Brian Lamb knows that.

The fly in the ointment is that Barack Obama was a sitting U.S. Senator at the time he made the promises. Further, he had taught Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago. Only one of two things could happening here. Either he made a promise he KNEW he was in no position to keep, or he can keep the promise but chooses not to. Frankly, it's hard to believe that Congress could withstand him if he made a public appeal on behalf of CSPAN.

I'm not AGAINST television coverage of the conference debate. I just don't see what all the hoopla is about. The two bills are done; it's a simple matter now of cutting and pasting up a final version for full Senate debate, which WILL be televised probably on all channels, not just C-Span. At this point, what would the Republicans have to offer? They don't like either the House OR the Senate version. We already know that. So to televise a bunch of people sitting around a table with their laptops or legal pads and their staffers frantically making the agreed-upon concessions seems a waste of time to me.

If it was as boring as all that, it doesn't stand to reason that they'd take this much heat over it. Bottom line, skipping the committee process and keeping cameras out of the negotiations mean that ALL of these people don't have to answer for the promises they've made. They can skulk around in secret, giving no battle for the things they've told their constituents they'd fight for. Then later, they can come out to the cameras and claim they did their best.

For example, liberals who might want the "public option" or the additional abortion language stricken... aren't going to see if their representative chucked it on the pile and then later cried crocodile tears about what a tough fight they put up.

Conservatives already know we aren't going to be represented. That's the whole point of skipping the committee process. Which means.... the point of keeping the cameras out... is to fool YOU, the liberal voters who put them in office.

My personal opinion is that this whole thing has gone on long enough. The Republicans have already had their say, and their WAY in many cases. Prolonging it any further by open conference committee debate will simply dredge up the same Republican oppositions that they have been espousing for a year. Democrats would have to deal with motions to recommit on issues already debated (Medicare cuts, "death panels," abortion, and other wedge issues.

The Democrats at this point aren't trying to pull a fast one. They are abiding by the updated rules established in 2003.

http://lugar.senate.gov/services/pdf_crs/Going_to_Conference_in_the_Senate.pdf

I forgot to add that the caucus conference members from the House and Senate will be comprised of only a few members from each. So it's hardly as though every legislator will need to shrug and say "sorry..."

 

[Sinatra]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1PIWWgDG1k[/ame]

 

[MaggieMae]

He is a lying dumb ass. He is a Chicago Politician, what did you expect?

And what is sad is his supporters either won't care or will defend him. All the while mumbling something about Bush was worse.

Non-sequitur. And Bush was a Texas millionaire oilman. Your point? They all have to come from somewhere, and each state has its own history of corruption.

But Chicago excels at corruptions.

So that means everyone in Chicago is corrupt? Blaggo sure didn't come out smelling like a rose did he?

 

[WillowTree]

so here's what I've decided to do.. Everytime he opens his mouth I assume he is lying through his teeth til he proves otherwise.. It's just that easy.

 

[MaggieMae]

Non-sequitur. And Bush was a Texas millionaire oilman. Your point? They all have to come from somewhere, and each state has its own history of corruption.

But Chicago excels at corruptions.

This is true....and then the following question comes into play...

'if many that are found guilty of corruption in CHicago claim that corruption is the norm and all must deal with it...and if we see that many DO fall into it....then exactly how did a virtual unknown with no political experience become a US senator in that state?

That was why I was interested in the truth of his dealings with Rezko...and Ayers...and others. We were called racists for asking....but I really wanted to know exactly how a virtual unknown with ties to convicted criminlas such as resko was able to climb the political ladder in the most politically corrupt city in the nation....without being corrupt.

But, alas...I was a racist for asking....and I was shamed into accepting "it is irrelevant" as my answer.

If and when you can prove criminal intent by Barack Obama in either the Rezko land deal or his affiliation with Bill Ayers, then I would send you kudos for being right. But you can't. The anti-Obama blogosphere went on a witchhunt and they came up empty-handed.

 

[California Girl]

Non-sequitur. And Bush was a Texas millionaire oilman. Your point? They all have to come from somewhere, and each state has its own history of corruption.

But Chicago excels at corruptions.

This is true....and then the following question comes into play...

'if many that are found guilty of corruption in CHicago claim that corruption is the norm and all must deal with it...and if we see that many DO fall into it....then exactly how did a virtual unknown with no political experience become a US senator in that state?

That was why I was interested in the truth of his dealings with Rezko...and Ayers...and others. We were called racists for asking....but I really wanted to know exactly how a virtual unknown with ties to convicted criminlas such as resko was able to climb the political ladder in the most politically corrupt city in the nation....without being corrupt.

But, alas...I was a racist for asking....and I was shamed into accepting "it is irrelevant" as my answer.

Yep, same here. I am not satisfied that I know who this man is, therefore I will not support him. I didn't vote for him, I don't like his agenda and I don't trust him any more than any other assclown.

 

[Murf76]

I'm surprised Brian Lamb would make that comment, since all he had to do was recheck his own TV schedule going back to when the health care debate first began. As for the "White House" coverage, a president needs to be extremely careful that he doesn't overstep the constitutional limitations of separation of powers. And Brian Lamb knows that.

The fly in the ointment is that Barack Obama was a sitting U.S. Senator at the time he made the promises. Further, he had taught Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago. Only one of two things could happening here. Either he made a promise he KNEW he was in no position to keep, or he can keep the promise but chooses not to. Frankly, it's hard to believe that Congress could withstand him if he made a public appeal on behalf of CSPAN.

I'm not AGAINST television coverage of the conference debate. I just don't see what all the hoopla is about. The two bills are done; it's a simple matter now of cutting and pasting up a final version for full Senate debate, which WILL be televised probably on all channels, not just C-Span. At this point, what would the Republicans have to offer? They don't like either the House OR the Senate version. We already know that. So to televise a bunch of people sitting around a table with their laptops or legal pads and their staffers frantically making the agreed-upon concessions seems a waste of time to me.

If it was as boring as all that, it doesn't stand to reason that they'd take this much heat over it. Bottom line, skipping the committee process and keeping cameras out of the negotiations mean that ALL of these people don't have to answer for the promises they've made. They can skulk around in secret, giving no battle for the things they've told their constituents they'd fight for. Then later, they can come out to the cameras and claim they did their best.

For example, liberals who might want the "public option" or the additional abortion language stricken... aren't going to see if their representative chucked it on the pile and then later cried crocodile tears about what a tough fight they put up.

Conservatives already know we aren't going to be represented. That's the whole point of skipping the committee process. Which means.... the point of keeping the cameras out... is to fool YOU, the liberal voters who put them in office.

My personal opinion is that this whole thing has gone on long enough. The Republicans have already had their say, and their WAY in many cases. Prolonging it any further by open conference committee debate will simply dredge up the same Republican oppositions that they have been espousing for a year. Democrats would have to deal with motions to recommit on issues already debated (Medicare cuts, "death panels," abortion, and other wedge issues.

The Democrats at this point aren't trying to pull a fast one. They are abiding by the updated rules established in 2003.

http://lugar.senate.gov/services/pdf_crs/Going_to_Conference_in_the_Senate.pdf

Yeah... but that doesn't explain why they won't let the cameras in.

The way I see it, denying the committee process is about me, the conservative. But keeping the cameras out altogether is about you, the liberal. These are two separate issues entirely. Two separate questions.

We conservatives can't possibly get any more pissed off than we already are. There's nothing to lose there. What they lose, by letting America see them put the final touches on the sausage... is you. So, you're the one they're hiding from, not me. It would seem the appropriate question to ask yourself might be "Why?".

This isn't anything different than what we were talking about the other day on another thread. "Who has something to gain?" The negative publicity of broken promises is a pretty heavy burden to bear if there's no profit in it.

The reason for the rush is obvious. Obama wants it done before his State of the Union. The reason for skipping committee is obvious. They don't want anymore Republican challenges. But the reason why the cameras aren't allowed inside is a good bit more murky, wouldn't you say? They don't seem to have a coherent answer for that.

 

[MaggieMae]

But Chicago excels at corruptions.

This is true....and then the following question comes into play...

'if many that are found guilty of corruption in CHicago claim that corruption is the norm and all must deal with it...and if we see that many DO fall into it....then exactly how did a virtual unknown with no political experience become a US senator in that state?

That was why I was interested in the truth of his dealings with Rezko...and Ayers...and others. We were called racists for asking....but I really wanted to know exactly how a virtual unknown with ties to convicted criminlas such as resko was able to climb the political ladder in the most politically corrupt city in the nation....without being corrupt.

But, alas...I was a racist for asking....and I was shamed into accepting "it is irrelevant" as my answer.

Yep, same here. I am not satisfied that I know who this man is, therefore I will not support him. I didn't vote for him, I don't like his agenda and I don't trust him any more than any other assclown.

Well, we don't really "know" any president, do we? Who knew that Reagan consulted the stars before any major decision? That Bush wasn't a "compassionate conservative"; that Clinton had a sex addiction? But I think with the advent of the Internet and all the billions of people digging into every crevasse of a politican's personal life, we have a pretty good idea these days of what's true and what's not about Obama. You can dislike him for your own reasons, but I seriously doubt there's much about him that has yet to be discovered.

 

[MaggieMae]

The fly in the ointment is that Barack Obama was a sitting U.S. Senator at the time he made the promises. Further, he had taught Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago. Only one of two things could happening here. Either he made a promise he KNEW he was in no position to keep, or he can keep the promise but chooses not to. Frankly, it's hard to believe that Congress could withstand him if he made a public appeal on behalf of CSPAN.




If it was as boring as all that, it doesn't stand to reason that they'd take this much heat over it. Bottom line, skipping the committee process and keeping cameras out of the negotiations mean that ALL of these people don't have to answer for the promises they've made. They can skulk around in secret, giving no battle for the things they've told their constituents they'd fight for. Then later, they can come out to the cameras and claim they did their best.

For example, liberals who might want the "public option" or the additional abortion language stricken... aren't going to see if their representative chucked it on the pile and then later cried crocodile tears about what a tough fight they put up.

Conservatives already know we aren't going to be represented. That's the whole point of skipping the committee process. Which means.... the point of keeping the cameras out... is to fool YOU, the liberal voters who put them in office.

My personal opinion is that this whole thing has gone on long enough. The Republicans have already had their say, and their WAY in many cases. Prolonging it any further by open conference committee debate will simply dredge up the same Republican oppositions that they have been espousing for a year. Democrats would have to deal with motions to recommit on issues already debated (Medicare cuts, "death panels," abortion, and other wedge issues.

The Democrats at this point aren't trying to pull a fast one. They are abiding by the updated rules established in 2003.

http://lugar.senate.gov/services/pdf_crs/Going_to_Conference_in_the_Senate.pdf

Yeah... but that doesn't explain why they won't let the cameras in.

The way I see it, denying the committee process is about me, the conservative. But keeping the cameras out altogether is about you, the liberal. These are two separate issues entirely. Two separate questions.

We conservatives can't possibly get any more pissed off than we already are. There's nothing to lose there. What they lose, by letting America see them put the final touches on the sausage... is you. So, you're the one they're hiding from, not me. It would seem the appropriate question to ask yourself might be "Why?".

This isn't anything different than what we were talking about the other day on another thread. "Who has something to gain?" The negative publicity of broken promises is a pretty heavy burden to bear if there's no profit in it.

The reason for the rush is obvious. Obama wants it done before his State of the Union. The reason for skipping committee is obvious. They don't want anymore Republican challenges. But the reason why the cameras aren't allowed inside is a good bit more murky, wouldn't you say? They don't seem to have a coherent answer for that.

I would say that Obama wants it done so that he can move on to the more pressing issue of the economy, especially unemployment. His Ace in the Hole, after all, is, as you say, to come before the American people and say "I tried..." Which will win him kudos from unexpected places.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Yeah, like the average house frau in America is going to turn off her stories and watch C-span all afternoon.

More ado-doo about nothing.

 

[Oldandtired]

But Chicago excels at corruptions.

This is true....and then the following question comes into play...

'if many that are found guilty of corruption in CHicago claim that corruption is the norm and all must deal with it...and if we see that many DO fall into it....then exactly how did a virtual unknown with no political experience become a US senator in that state?

That was why I was interested in the truth of his dealings with Rezko...and Ayers...and others. We were called racists for asking....but I really wanted to know exactly how a virtual unknown with ties to convicted criminlas such as resko was able to climb the political ladder in the most politically corrupt city in the nation....without being corrupt.

But, alas...I was a racist for asking....and I was shamed into accepting "it is irrelevant" as my answer.

If and when you can prove criminal intent by Barack Obama in either the Rezko land deal or his affiliation with Bill Ayers, then I would send you kudos for being right. But you can't. The anti-Obama blogosphere went on a witchhunt and they came up empty-handed.

In no way did I say he did anything illegal.
But when you are running for POTUS, and questions of your realtionships arise, intelligent people would question why such questions are not answered.
Unfortunately, the more he did not answer, the more he was aksed and the more the questioners were called racists for asking.

And all along he gave 3 different answers regarding ayers...and the few times he was asked why 3 different CONFLICTING answers, he would have his people respond with "it is a lame and desperate attempt by the McCain campaign to divert fornm the real issues like the economy"....and it becmae old to even ask anymore.

So I am curious....my guess is you voted for him.....so let me ask you something....which one is correct:

Week one: Ayers? I do not know him personally, but he is a man who lives in my neighborhood.

Week 2 after it weas disclosed that he knew him personally: Yes, I knew him but I had no idea of his background

Week 3 after it was disclosed that he DID know of his past: Yes, I knew of his past, but I assumed he had been rehabilitaed.

So tell me....what was the reason he gave for these three conflciting answers?

WHy did it not bother you that he obviously was hiding something?

DO you think it appropriate to vote for a candidate that is hiding something about a his relationship with a man who, as recently as 10 years ago, expressed hatred for America?