An Obama rant, (Obama lovers, you don't have to read it.)

[GoPokes83]

I opened the paper this morning and the big headline was something about Obama strongly condemning the violence in Iran. The media is all about how "fearless leader" is standing toe to toe with Ahmadinejad. I heard the news conference yesterday and while they were his strongest words to date, it was still pretty mealy-mouthed. He still said he wants to wait and see how it's going to shake out before he decides what to do. Well O, I'm pretty sure Mahmoud Ahmadinejad showed you last week what was going to happen. He was going to rig the election and mercilessly crush any opposition.

His BS comments yesterday showed me a lot about Obama's character, or lack thereof. Over a week ago, when the protests started and protesters were dying in the streets of Iran, people of both parties here were calling for O to use the type of words he used yesterday. Instead of standing up for freedom in Iran this loser waited until Ahmadinejad had essentially crushed the uprising before pulling his head out of the sand. His "strong condemnation" would have meant something last week, but now it's just political pandering and basically covering his ass. There was a reason those protesters wrote their slogans in english, they were looking to the west for support. Not arms, not money, not troops, they were simply looking to the free world to support them. We've been saying for 30 years that the Iranian people should throw off the oppressive yoke their theocracy has placed on them, and when they try Obama wants to hedge his bets and play only with the winner. All it would have taken for Obama to do would have been to support them with words....That's it. In the end it may not have made a difference to the outcome, but it's a sad day in America when the French president is willing to say more to support democracy across the globe than ours. Can you imagine Reagan, either of the Bush's, Clinton, or hell ANY modern president refusing to offer vocal support to these protesters when it mattered?

Obama also said yesterday that he'd still meet with Ahmadinejad! When asked after what's been happening in Iran if there was any line Ahmadinejad could cross that would cause Obama to not be willing to work with him O said there's still a "pathway for communication" or some other BS. Ol' Mahmoud is a holocaust denier, he's doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons as fast as he can, has said time and again he'll destroy Israel if he ever gets the chance, there's a proven connection between his government and insurgents in Iraq which is leading directly to our troops dying, he rigs elections to stay in power and has shown he has no compunction about killing innocent, unarmed civilians if they protest... And the supposed leader of the free world is still willing to meet with him. What a complete lack of balls!

He's said repeatedly since the Iran protests started that he won't interfere with the democratically elected government of Iran, and he will respect the sovereignty of that country and not get involved, yet he has no problem calling out Israel when they defend themselves from people who want nothing more than to destroy them. So where's the respect of sovereignty and the "Lets wait and see what happens / no interference" attitude when problems arise there?

I tried to understand O's side of this, that we'll still be dealing with Ahmadinejad and the Iranian theocracy if the "revolt" proved unsuccessful. But this guy's been telling us to "F"-off since he came into power. Why not show him that we'll at least speak up for people who want to live in freedom? Isn't that what we're supposed to stand for?

[Roman Craig]

Great post!

If we ever want to take down Iran without firing a shot, now is our chance. He is blowing it.

[legelegel]

Can't you see that little Muslim bird from Obama's past sitting on shoulder whispering good counsel to him?

[osupsycho]

OK I am far from an Obama supporter but in this case I do disagree somewhat. If the US (and Obama is a representative of the US for the world) had come out strongly in support of the protestors it could have easily been mistaken that we stirred up the whole thing in the first place. In fact it would have been likely to be seen this way by many others. By coming out so strong is support it could have endangered the protestors even more. So in this case I don't feel that the first position was so wrong but I am confused on the flip flopping that is now occuring with Obama...

[Roman Craig]

Must be giving bad advise. Freeing Iran would make him a hero.

[CaliforniaCowboy]

between that and his failure to board the Korean ship, lets every despot in the world know that the US under Obama will not do anything.

[GoPokes83]

OK I am far from an Obama supporter but in this case I do disagree somewhat. If the US (and Obama is a representative of the US for the world) had come out strongly in support of the protestors it could have easily been mistaken that we stirred up the whole thing in the first place. In fact it would have been likely to be seen this way by many others. By coming out so strong is support it could have endangered the protestors even more. So in this case I don't feel that the first position was so wrong but I am confused on the flip flopping that is now occuring with Obama...

The clerics have already said it was a CIA directed operation. So what would we have to lose by setting the record straight? The people in charge of Iran hate us, and nothing will change that. The youth of Iran want to have more freedom, they want to live in a more westernized country. Sure there would still be those who would hate us, but this is / was a huge opportunity for decent relations to be established between our country and a new, moderate Iran. Now that chance looks slim. In reality what do we really care what Ahmadinejad and his cronies think about us? I thought of the fallout if they say we were involved. Other Muslim theocracies may hate us, but most of them already do. Does it really matter if our enemies hate us?

I can't see how it would have made it worse for the protesters. IMO the number of dead is probably many times higher than we're hearing, and there was militia at the hospitals taking names of those who were injured and those who brought them in. The Mullahs have promised publicly to make extreme examples of the protesters. The nightmare for these people is just beginning.

[snuffy]

I assume by the title (Obama lovers, you don't have to read it) and tone taken that you don't want answers, just a chance to belly ache and wag a self righteous finger of scorn because you don't like O. So I won't bother to answer your questions even though I have an opinion on what and why things are being done it relation to Iran and other parts of the world.

[CaliforniaCowboy]

I assume by the title (Obama lovers, you don't have to read it) and tone taken that you don't want answers, just a chance to belly ache and wag a self righteous finger of scorn because you don't like O. So I won't bother to answer your questions even though I have an opinion on what and why things are being done it relation to Iran and other parts of the world.

I think we already know .... cause we're apologists now.

[GoPokes83]

I assume by the title (Obama lovers, you don't have to read it) and tone taken that you don't want answers, just a chance to belly ache and wag a self righteous finger of scorn because you don't like O. So I won't bother to answer your questions even though I have an opinion on what and why things are being done it relation to Iran and other parts of the world.

Snuffy, you know what they say about assuming.

I meant that if you're offended by a rant against Obama you could spare yourself the time. It said Obama Rant right in the title, so save your indignation about what the post contains for another time. There should have been no surprises for you when you were so effectively warned. And I DON'T like Obama. He's a weak, appologist of a president who's laying economic and foreign policy land mines that future generations will have to deal with. That's not true, the damage he's doing will without a doubt effect this generation too.

I gave my opinion, if you want to give yours feel free. But taking the time to write that you're not going to take the time to write kinda seems like a waste of effort.

[GoPokes83]

One more thing... Obama's mentioned more than once in his remarks about Iran about the world wide right of free assembly and speech. I wish someone would remind him that's a right that people here have fought and died for for over 200 years. It's one of the things that separates us from a large portion of the world.

[snuffy]

Analysis: Obama balances realism, idealism as Iran simmers
From Elise Labott
CNN State Department Producer
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/06/24/obama.iran.analysis/index.html

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- This week, President Obama spoke in the harshest tones yet about the Iranian regime's violent crackdown against election protesters. But his administration is still walking a diplomatic tightrope in finding the right response to the crisis.

The president's position has evolved since his first ambiguous comments after the Iranian election, in which he said he was "troubled" by the post-election violence and had "deep concerns about the elections." He went to great pains to say he didn't want the U.S. to be seen as "meddling."

He ruffled more than a few feathers in Iran and around the world last week when he said that when it came to U.S. national interests, there was little difference between Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his challenger, Mir Hossein Moussavi.

By appearing at first to be neutral, Obama faced criticism from Republicans, such as his challenger in the presidential campaign Sen. John McCain of Arizona, and also Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who last weekend accused the president of being "timid and passive" in speaking out against the growing wave of arrests, violence and deaths of pro-democracy activists.

On Wednesday, Obama said "it was that bloodshed" that led him to speak in more forceful terms, saying he was "appalled and outraged" by the violence.

Yet "No-Drama Obama" made a studied response even as he described the "heartbreaking" video of Neda, a young Iranian woman who was fatally shot on the streets of Tehran.

Since the crisis began White House and State Department officials have said that the president was being careful to ensure his comments weren't used as a pretext by the regime for further violence. Obama himself said in an interview with CBS that he didn't want to be a "foil" for the Iranian regime to blame the United States.

But President Obama is nothing but a realist. In taking a cautious approach to the crisis, he is also maintaining flexibility to preserve his stated policy of engaging with Iran, in particular the prospect of direct negotiations with Tehran over its nuclear program.

Officials acknowledge, at least during this current crackdown, rapprochement with Iran is unattractive, even unthinkable. Engagement, they say, is currently "on ice."

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton even asked U.S. embassies Wednesday to rescind invitations recently sent to Iranian diplomats to attend July Fourth celebrations.

Yet officials maintain long-tern U.S. national security interests are best served by having a dialogue with the Iranian government, even one led by Ahmadinejad.

Regardless of the outcome in Tehran, the U.S. and its Western allies believe the Iranian regime will be left in a weakened state. This, coupled with a changed Mideast political landscape, could provide a strategic advantage to the United States.

Obama's well-received speech to the Arab and Muslim world earlier this month, in which he promised to seek a Palestinian state and a comprehensive peace between Israel and its Arab neighbors, was followed by the election victory of the pro-Western government in Lebanon.

Together, those shifting sands could roll back Iran's rising influence in the region, which has concerned not only the U.S. and Israel, but the Arab world.

As if to further manipulate the chess board, the State Department announced Wednesday the U.S. would send an ambassador back to Syria, after a four-year hiatus. The Obama administration has maintained engaging the Syrian regime could weaken Syria's strategic alliance with Iran.

In the meantime, Obama must walk a fine line between preserving America's national security interests and sitting on the right side of history. Video Watch report on letter Obama sent to Iran before election »

For now, the leaders of the opposition do not seem to want the U.S. to do more than express support for universal principles and condemn the violence.

Yet the situation on the ground is dynamic and fluid. If the arrests, disappearances and deaths of democracy activists continue or increase, President Obama must be nimble enough to adjust his message.
advertisement

He can also rally a coalition of non-Western democratic nations such as Turkey, India and South Africa to speak more forcefully in support of the democratic movement in Iran.

Obama's election and his Cairo speech were viewed as presenting a voice of hope and change, particularly in the Middle East. The Iran crisis presents this young president with an early test of his ability to deliver on those promises.

[GoPokes83]

Even with the CNN spin that still sounds like fence-straddling to me.

[snuffy]

And if they tactic that Obama is currently taking is the best way to keep America safe, they what? I would like to see new leadership in Iran and democracy established, but should this be done at the safety of the US?

[jaredddick]

yahoo.com


Ahmadinejad compares Obama to Bush
Reuters


By Parisa Hafezi and Fredrik Dahl Parisa Hafezi And Fredrik Dahl – 2 hrs 25 mins ago

TEHRAN (Reuters) – President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad accused Barack Obama on Thursday of behaving like his predecessor toward Iran and said there was not much point in talking to Washington unless the U.S. president apologized.

EDITORS' NOTE: Reuters and other foreign media are subject to Iranian restrictions on their ability to report, film or take pictures in Tehran.

Obama said on Tuesday he was "appalled and outraged" by a post-election crackdown and Washington withdrew invitations to Iranian diplomats to attend U.S. Independence Day celebrations on July 4 -- stalling efforts to improve ties with Tehran.

"Mr Obama made a mistake to say those things ... our question is why he fell into this trap and said things that previously (former U.S. President George W.) Bush used to say," the semi-official Fars News Agency quoted Ahmadinejad as saying.

"Do you want to speak with this tone? If that is your stance then what is left to talk about ... I hope you avoid interfering in Iran's affairs and express your regret in a way that the Iranian nation is informed of it," he said.

About 20 people have died in demonstrations following the disputed June 12 election. Police and militia have flooded Tehran's streets since Saturday, quelling the most widespread anti-government protests since the 1979 Islamic revolution.

Analysts say the battle has now moved off the street into a protracted behind-the-scenes struggle within Iran's clerical establishment, facing an unprecedented public rift.

Opposition leader Mirhossein Mousavi, who says he won the poll, has the backing of such powerful figures as former presidents Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani and Mohammad Khatami, and senior cleric Grand Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri.

Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who normally stays above the political fray, has sided strongly with Ahmadinejad.

"My personal judgment is that this is a country deeply split and emotionalized," a Western diplomat in the region said.

Khamenei has upheld the result and Iran's top legislative body, the Guardian Council, has refused to annul the elections. State Press TV quoted a spokesman for the council as saying they were "among the healthiest elections ever held in the country".

MOUSAVI SAYS TO KEEP FIGHTING

Mousavi said on Thursday he was determined to keep challenging the election results despite pressure to stop.

"A major rigging has happened," his website reported him as saying. "I am prepared to prove that those behind the rigging are responsible for the bloodshed."

He called on his supporters to continue "legal" protests and said restrictions on the opposition could lead to more violence.

Mousavi supporters said they would release thousands of balloons on Friday imprinted with the message "Neda you will always remain in our hearts" -- a reference to the young woman killed last week who has become an icon of the protests.

Obama had previously been muted in his criticism.

But on Tuesday he said that, "the United States and the international community have been appalled and outraged by the threats, the beatings, and imprisonments of the last few days."

Before the election, Obama had tried to improve ties with Iran -- branded by Bush as part of an "axis of evil".

Washington had been hoping to convince Tehran to drop what it suspects are plans to develop nuclear bombs, while also seeking its help in stabilising Afghanistan.

It had invited Iranian diplomats to attend Independence Day celebrations for the first time since Washington cut diplomatic ties with Tehran in 1980. The move to withdraw the invites was largely symbolic as no Iranians had even responded.

Mohammad Marandi, who is the head of North American Studies at Tehran University, said mistrust of the United States and Britain was rife.

"In the short term relations will definitely get worse, but in the long term the U.S. really has to re-think its policy and to recognize that regime change is not possible in Iran."

British Foreign Secretary David Miliband said the problems came from within Iran rather than from the outside.

"I think the truth is that there is a crisis of credibility between the Iranian government and their own people. It's not a crisis between Iran and America or Iran and Britain, however much the Iranian government wants to suggest that," he said.

(Additional reporting by Zahra Hosseinian and Hossein Jaseb; Writing by Myra MacDonald; Editing by Jon Hemming)

[jaredddick]

Furthermore: yahoo.com headline "Iran's president sharply attacks his U.S. counterpart as election turmoil roils his country."

Define "counterpart".

Turns out the U.S. President used to stand for something...

[Roman Craig]

yahoo.com


Ahmadinejad compares Obama to Bush
Reuters


By Parisa Hafezi and Fredrik Dahl Parisa Hafezi And Fredrik Dahl – 2 hrs 25 mins ago

TEHRAN (Reuters) – President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad accused Barack Obama on Thursday of behaving like his predecessor toward Iran and said there was not much point in talking to Washington unless the U.S. president apologized.


If he does, it will be soooooo embarrassing.

[GoPokes83]

Iran has already told us to take a flyin' leap when it comes to their nuclear designs, they're already supporting the killing of our troops... So how does this ensure our safety in any way? Obama's plan according to the article is to have Turkey, India, South Africa, etc. act as our pawns by speaking out for more democracy in Iran, yet he says he doesn't want to speak too harshly about Iran because he doesn't want to have the protesters seen as American pawns. The great leaders of our country have had no problem speaking directly for what's right. "Mr. Gorbachev, I'm asking The Democratic Republic of Congo to tell you to tear down this wall!" Just doesn't have the same power behind it.

[jaredddick]

Also, on an unrelated note:

"North Korea vows to enlarge its atomic arsenal and warns of 'nuclear retaliation' in the event of a U.S. attack as the regime marks the 1950 outbreak of the Korean War."

P.S. "Mark my words, it will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We're about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. Watch. We're going to have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy. And he's going to need help . . . to stand with him. Because it's not going to be apparent initially; it's not going to be apparent that we're right."

I can only hope that he is right and not failing miserably...

[CaliforniaCowboy]

Snuffy... King Barack is a chicken.

A fence sitter. He sways to the breeze of public opinion. He is spineless; not a leader.

That CNN spin was worse than a texas twister.

He does not have to sit and wait, he can lead. He could have said; America beleives in freedom and liberty and we wholeheartedly support those in Iran seeking freedom from the oppressive regeim in Iran. They are going to toss us like a political football regardless, and frankly, who cares.

"regardless of the outcome"... B. S. -- we could and should INFLUENCE the outcome, we should encorage the peoples of Iran to continue fighting for their freedom. Liberty is not cheap and it is not free. We should have done what ever was necessary to ensure that there was only one outcome.... full revolution and overthrowing of the regeim.

If we do not take that approach (which apperently is too late now), then we will be faced with only one alternative --- bomb Iran facilities.

Take your pick; support a revolution, or bomb another country.

I do not see any other alternative. (and no more CNN spin that "they'll come around")

[snuffy]

Snuffy... King Barack is a chicken.

A fence sitter. He sways to the breeze of public opinion. He is spineless; not a leader.

That CNN spin was worse than a texas twister.

He does not have to sit and wait, he can lead. He could have said; America beleives in freedom and liberty and we wholeheartedly support those in Iran seeking freedom from the oppressive regeim in Iran. They are going to toss us like a political football regardless, and frankly, who cares.

"regardless of the outcome"... B. S. -- we could and should INFLUENCE the outcome, we should encorage the peoples of Iran to continue fighting for their freedom. Liberty is not cheap and it is not free. We should have done what ever was necessary to ensure that there was only one outcome.... full revolution and overthrowing of the regeim.

If we do not take that approach (which apperently is too late now), then we will be faced with only one alternative --- bomb Iran facilities.

Take your pick; support a revolution, or bomb another country.

I do not see any other alternative. (and no more CNN spin that "they'll come around")

Just so I know what you are talking about,you want another war. Even though we are still fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, are in a nuclear staring contest with North Korea, Israel and Palestine are have kittens over disputed land and the US is in the middle of the dispute, nationally when are facing a health care crisis, the economy as a whole is in in the crapper, and Californian's economy appears to be in worse shape than the nation as a whole, but you want to start a war. I vote to not start anything else unless we have no other options or as a nation we solve some of the current issues that is holding us back as a country.
Besides, didn't this mess get started way back when when the US supported a revolution? Insanity is defined as trying the same thing over and over again expecting different results.

[GoPokes83]

There is no health care crisis. It's a made up buzz-word scare tactic by politicians who want us to cede every last drop of independence to the government.

[snuffy]

There is no health care crisis. It's a made up buzz-word scare tactic by politicians who want us to cede every last drop of independence to the government.

That is a matter of perception, where you live, how much you make and who you work for IMO. I have insurance but had to live without to finish college with manageable debt so we probably see it differently.

[Roman Craig]

Just so I know what you are talking about,you want another war. Even though we are still fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, are in a nuclear staring contest with North Korea, Israel and Palestine are have kittens over disputed land and the US is in the middle of the dispute, nationally when are facing a health care crisis, the economy as a whole is in in the crapper, and Californian's economy appears to be in worse shape than the nation as a whole, but you want to start a war. I vote to not start anything else unless we have no other options or as a nation we solve some of the current issues that is holding us back as a country.
Besides, didn't this mess get started way back when when the US supported a revolution? Insanity is defined as trying the same thing over and over again expecting different results.

I think what Cali is saying is: If you act now, you avoid war. If not war will happen, if you want it or not.

[GoPokes83]

I was just baiting you with that Snuffy my pal!

BUT!!! What did you really "live without" to afford medical insurance? And is prioritizing your life in order to finish school and still have insurance really a crisis? I'd say it's more like being responsible, and you should be commended.

I have a neighbor who has free government sponsored health care, and this is a great example of what we could expect if Obama has his way. My neighbor is a disabled vet. with serious leg problems. In order to see the leg specialist / pain management Dr. he first has to make an appointment and go to a clinic in Victoria, which is about 30 miles from his house. It's usually a week or 10 days before they can fit him in. Then after he goes there they'll, and only they can do it... set an appointment for him to drive to San Antonio to the VA hospital, about 2.5 hours away and see the specialist. There's usually a 5 to 8 WEEK waiting period before he can get in to the specialist. Being a disabled Vet and utilizing the FREE health care provided by the Gov't he has no say in what Dr's he sees, or when he can see them. Is this really what we want?

[CaliforniaCowboy]

That is a matter of perception, where you live, how much you make and who you work for IMO. I have insurance but had to live without to finish college with manageable debt so we probably see it differently.

It's NOT a matter of perception. THERE IS NO HEALTH CARE CRISIS. PERIOD.


The is an "affordability issue"; but there is no healthcare crisis and never has been.

Living without to attend school is a CHOICE, not a crisis.

the only healthcare CRISIS will be if this nonsense is enacted.

You (nor anybody else) will have private health care. The only way to "maintain costs" in a government program is through rationing. Young people will be asked to pay for stuff that they don't want, and wont' need until they age.

the whole dang thing is nonsense.

and it's NOT "perception", it's spin doctoring.

[snuffy]

It's NOT a matter of perception. THERE IS NO HEALTH CARE CRISIS. PERIOD.


The is an "affordability issue"; but there is no healthcare crisis and never has been.

Living without to attend school is a CHOICE, not a crisis.

the only healthcare CRISIS will be if this nonsense is enacted.

You (nor anybody else) will have private health care. The only way to "maintain costs" in a government program is through rationing. Young people will be asked to pay for stuff that they don't want, and wont' need until they age.

the whole dang thing is nonsense.

and it's NOT "perception", it's spin doctoring.

I call it a crisis because if it is not fixed quickly I believe it may not be possible to fix it, but back to my point
If there is no crises why aren’t the senators in Congress telling us that.
If there is nothiong going on but nonsenese then why are all the senators, Republican and Democrat are working on the health care problem.

Here is where FOX NEWS is showing the Senate working on health care. Surly FOX NEWS would not report on a non-story like this; if they did wouldn't that be spinning?
http://congress.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/06/23/senate-makes-progress-on-health-care/

Just because you keep your head in the sand and say nothing is wrong does not make it so.

[Roman Craig]

I am seriously afraid of this. My coverage is outstanding and I am going to need it. Waiting in line will not be an option.

[snuffy]

It's NOT a matter of perception. THERE IS NO HEALTH CARE CRISIS. PERIOD.


The is an "affordability issue"; but there is no healthcare crisis and never has been.

Living without to attend school is a CHOICE, not a crisis.

the only healthcare CRISIS will be if this nonsense is enacted.

You (nor anybody else) will have private health care. The only way to "maintain costs" in a government program is through rationing. Young people will be asked to pay for stuff that they don't want, and wont' need until they age.

the whole dang thing is nonsense.

and it's NOT "perception", it's spin doctoring.

And Cali, when your done spinning yourself, what about North Korea, Isreal, Iraq and Afghanistan?
America's other current forgien issues?

[CaliforniaCowboy]

I call it a crisis because if it is not fixed quickly I believe it may not be possible to fix it, but back to my point
If there is no crises why aren’t the senators in Congress telling us that.
If there is nothiong going on but nonsenese then why are all the senators, Republican and Democrat are working on the health care problem.

Here is where FOX NEWS is showing the Senate working on health care. Surly FOX NEWS would not report on a non-story like this; if they did wouldn't that be spinning?
http://congress.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/06/23/senate-makes-progress-on-health-care/

Just because you keep your head in the sand and say nothing is wrong does not make it so.

I would really prefer that you not put your words in my mouth.

1) I never ever said that "nothing was wrong", I said there is no crisis.

2) The Senators ARE telling us that... they're flat out screaming it to anybody that will listen (sigh, if only they could get air time or commercial time on the All Barack Channel)

3) They're "working on it" becasue the facists are trying to ram some stupid socialist package down our throat as if the world would end tomorrow if they did nothing. And I challenge your primise that "it may not be possible to fix it" --- BECAUSE THERE IS NO CRISIS. IF we go through with this nonsense, THEN we may never recover as a country ever again. You've got it completely backwards.


"Republicans believe health care reform requires input from our entire Conference and cooperation across the aisle because access to affordable quality health care is an issue that touches all Americans," McConnell said (Stanton, Roll Call, 1/12). Grassley said changes to the health care system must be "fiscally responsible and changes with broad-based political support will be more durable and effective." Hatch said GOP proposals will manage costs "through more efficient and quality-focused health care delivery, and by building on private sector choices"

WE DON'T WANT OR NEED GOVERNEMENT RUN HEALTHCARE.


WASHINGTON (CNN) – For the second time in as many weeks, leading senators on both sides of the aisle are raising doubts about the viability of President Obama’s ambitious plans to reform the nation’s health care system.

Last week on State of the Union, a bipartisan group of moderate senators also expressed reservations about the health care reform proposals favored by the White House and more liberal Democrats on Capitol Hill.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/06/21/will-health-care-reform-happen/

[Vulgar Display of Orange]

What is next weeks rant going to be about?

[GoPokes83]

What is next weeks rant going to be about?

Still Obama.

*Edit* Maybe Michael Jackson if I don't have photographic proof he's burning in hell.

[wood911]

What is next weeks rant going to be about?
Cap and tax. Better forget about healthcare and start now because this is going to be voted on tomorrow. If you think you can't afford health insurance now, wait til this gets enacted.
I thought going to college without health insurance was SOP.

[GoPokes83]

Biggest tax increase in our history, and totally useless.