Thursday, December 24, 2009

Senate Gives us a Lump of Coal

The Senate has passed what they are calling Health Care Reform. The Democrats in the Senate passed this in spite of breaking Senate rules twice this week, in spite of outcry on both the left and right. Why was it rushed through today? Because Reid was afraid of what would happen if the Democrats went home and heard from their constituents, and Reid was afraid the voters would get a chance to read the bill that was introduced less than a week ago.

Merry Christmas, here's your coal.


pack04 said...

I did not watch the news yesterday because it was Christmas and family time. I was unaware of this news. I don't think they were concerned about what people would say back home. If they were they would not have passed the bill. I think they did it then because they wanted to sort of hide it. Just like most other votes on this bill have taken place late night on a Saturday. Don't want people to go to work the next day and talked around the water cooler.

Also, I find it very interesting that the president will jump on the tv to blame bush or talk about how great he [Obama] is but when the nation is on edge with a terrorist attack he has his people remind us he is on vacation in Hawaii and that he is aware of the situtation. That is weak and shows me reguardless of how good his plans are he is an awful leader.

I wonder how much the press will get mad at mr Obama for allowing this attack to happen or his lack of response. I doubt they will say anything.

Andy D said...

When I told my mother-in-law about the attempted terrorist attack on the flight for Detroit, she commented,"I thought the White House wasn't calling them terrorist anymore."

the anonymous guy said...

What terrorist attack?

Anonymous said...

Well I acquiesce in but I contemplate the brief should acquire more info then it has.

Anonymous said...

Easily I agree but I about the brief should prepare more info then it has.

Andy D said...

Anonymous, I don't follow your comment. Can you please elaborate?

pack04 said...

Thanks anonymous guy you proved my point. Something happens when Mr. Obama is in office and you pull a story on Mr. Bush.

At what point does he become responsible for bad things that happen?

the anonymous guy said...

Pack: It actually does look to me like people in Obama's administration screwed up in not paying more attention to the guy who tried to blow up the plane from Amsterdam. Whether or not it was career people who screwed up, Obama is the chief executive and the buck stops with him. (Just like it emphatically did with George W. who got the explicit warning about bin Laden trying to strike inside the U.S. before 9-11.)

The funky thing is that, when the Obama administration calls it "terrorism," Andy uses that as an opportunity to criticize Obama for the mistaken beliefs of his mother-in-law. That's just weird.

The reason I brought up the Bush story is because Dana Perino was doing exactly what Andy's mother-in-law was complaining about.

Andy D said...

No anonymous, I am not criticizing Obama for my mother-in-laws beliefs. I am giving her credit for pointing out that a number of months back the White House stated it would no longer use "terrorism" as a word. Instead, they were going with "man-made natural disasters" or something equally silly. I was pointing out how that idea was dropped.

the anonymous guy said...

Andy: show me a quote from a WH official that states that the WH will no longer use the word "terrorism."

[How do I know that you won't be able to produce this? Don't you get embarrassed by always getting called out on these fabricated claims?]

C'mon. Show me the quote.

Andy D said...

Ask and you shall receive. This is a quote from an interview Homeland Security Secretary Napolitano gave to der Speigel:

SPIEGEL: Madame Secretary, in your first testimony to the US Congress as Homeland Security Secretary you never mentioned the word "terrorism." Does Islamist terrorism suddenly no longer pose a threat to your country?

NAPOLITANO: Of course it does. I presume there is always a threat from terrorism. In my speech, although I did not use the word "terrorism," I referred to "man-caused" disasters. That is perhaps only a nuance, but it demonstrates that we want to move away from the politics of fear toward a policy of being prepared for all risks that can occur.

There was a lot of coverage of this at the time, and a lot of criticism heaped on both the Administration and Napolitano.

the anonymous guy said...

Uh, that quote doesn't say that the WH isn't going to use the word terrorism anymore.

A *reporter* points out that Napolitano didn't use the word "terrorism" during an address.

There is nothing at all like a "the-White-house-doesn't-use-the-word-terrorism" policy here. In fact Napolitano goes on to say, "I presume there is always a threat from terrorism."

Andy, you've got a *reporter* making an observation about a *single address.* Apparently you can't find anybody at the WH saying that the WH won't use the word terrorism, but that didn't stop you from making that claim repeatedly.

Once again, your big accusation turns out to be nothing at all.

Andy, do you find it disrespectful when people make false statements to you?

Andy D said...

Now, now anon, you may not like the direction Napolitano was taking here, but don't blame that on me. She and the White House took a lot of flack for this when the interview first aired. She decided not to use the word terrorism. She laid out why she didn't want to use that word in the exert I provided. She is also part of the Obama administration (at least for now), so her choices reflect directly on the White House and on the President.

the anonymous guy said...

So basically you don't have any quote that says the WH will no longer use the word terrorism. That's what I thought.

Andy D said...

I am truly sorry you don't understand this one Anon. An official within the Administration said she was intentionally not using the word terrorist, and indicated this was a direction she (and by extension, her department) were going. She is also an official within the White House, and operates with the President's voice in her area. That counts as a direction the White House was pursuing.

The larger issue here is does the Administration taken terrorism seriously? I think that remains to be seen.