Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help Medquist New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Health Issues
ADVERTISEMENT




Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

Pres just had a press conference..

Posted By: just my opinion on 2005-08-11
In Reply to:

listened very discernibly, heard nothing different from his other press conferences...  Feel like I'm watching "Groundhog Day" starring Bill Murray, only Bill Murray is much more funny and quite a bit smarter!  When will get some real leadership?  We desparately need LEADERSHIP!!!


Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu


Other related messages found in our database

Press conference
Gee, none of the stations out here covered it, LOL. 
Another press conference going on now

If I didn't lose count, that's #8 since he was elected. Do I have to listen to 4 years of this?  Or is this just about chosing his cabinet and if so, did he fill all the spots yet?


I can read. I don't need to see him except when he takes questions from reporters.


FYI, I never listened to GW's press conferences either. I can't stand canned speeches.


A press conference is where reporters ask...sm
the candidate questions. The candidate does not know what questions are going to be asked. Hence, a teleprompter would be useless at a press conference. Teleprompters are for SPEECHES. Get it?
I saw the press conference. Sad. Feel bad for the
nm
From the way Fitzgerald spoke in the press conference...sm
S. Libby has A LOT to be worried about. It seems he's a bald face liar, and I think what would be interesting to find out is why would he lie and say he didn't even know who Plame was under oath having been briefed on her at least 4 times before coming to court. I smell smoke...

I just saw Nancy Pelosi in a press conference...
and I was reminded of the interviews I have seen her in...and frankly...Palin does a HECK of a better job than she does....and nobody seems to mind that.  Bear in mind, if, God forbid, something happened to both Pres and VP guess who we get:  NANCY PELOSI.  She is TWO heartbeats away from the Presidency no matter who gets elected.  Good grief, no wonder they send the VP to an undisclosed location and don't let Pres and VP travel together.  lol. 
Obama press conference coming up...sm
Is it just me? Or don't we usually only have one president at a time. I thought for sure he didn't take office until January 20th.


Just an observation...Obama supporters -- no need to flame me for stating the obvious.

press conference aftermath prediction
FOX news offers Ed Henry a multimillion dollar contract.  ;-) 
Summation of today's presidential press conference

Here is NPR's write up of today's press conference by the president for those who would like a quick run down.  I just listened to it.  Made me nauseous.


WASHINGTON December 4, 2007, 1:04 p.m. ET · President Bush said Tuesday that the international community should continue to pressure Iran on its nuclear programs, asserting Tehran remains dangerous despite a new intelligence conclusion that it halted its development of a nuclear bomb four years ago.


"I view this report as a warning signal that they had the program, they halted the program," Bush said. "The reason why it's a warning signal is they could restart it."


Bush spoke one day after a new national intelligence estimate found that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in the fall of 2003, largely because of international scrutiny and pressure. That finding is in stark contrast to the comparable intelligence estimate of just two years ago, when U.S. intelligence agencies believed Tehran was determined to develop a nuclear weapons capability and was continuing its weapons development program.


It is also stood in marked contrast to Bush's rhetoric on Iran. At his last news conference on Oct. 17, for instance, he said that people "interested in avoiding World War III" should be working to prevent Iran from having the knowledge needed to make a nuclear weapon.


Bush said Tuesday that he only learned of the new intelligence assessment last week. But he portrayed it as valuable ammunition against Tehran, not as a reason to lessen diplomatic pressure.


"To me, the NIE (National Intelligence Estimate) provides an opportunity for us to rally the international community — to continue to rally the community — to pressure the Iranian regime to suspend its program," the president said. "What's to say they couldn't start another covert nuclear weapons program."


He also asserted that the report means "nothing's changed," focusing on the previous existence of a weapons program and not addressing the discrepancy between his rhetoric and the disclosure that weapons program has been frozen for four years.


Bush said he is not troubled about his standing, about perhaps facing a credibility gap with the American people. "No, I'm feeling pretty spirited — pretty good about life," Bush said.


"I have said Iran is dangerous, and the NIE doesn't do anything to change my opinion about the danger Iran poses to the world."


Bush said the report's finding would not prompt him to take a U.S. military option against Tehran off the table.


"The best diplomacy — effective diplomacy — is one in which all options are on the table," he said.


The president also said that the world would agree with his message that Iran shouldn't be let off the hook yet.


In fact, Europeans said the new information strengthens their argument for negotiations with Tehran, but they also said that sanctions are still an option to compel Iran to be fully transparent about its nuclear program. European officials insisted that the international community should not walk away from years of talks with an often defiant Tehran that is openly enriching uranium for uncertain ends. The report said Iran could still build a nuclear bomb by 2010-2015.


In Kabul, Afghanistan, Defense Secretary Robert Gates reinforced the U.S. position that the new U.S. intelligence assessment shows that Tehran remains a possible threat. He said it shows that Iran has had a nuclear weapons program and that as long as the country continues with its uranium enrichment activities, Iran could always renew its weapons program.


The U.S. intelligence assessment "validated the administration's strategy of bringing diplomatic and economic efforts to bear on Iran," Gates said Tuesday, speaking at a news conference with Afghanistan's President Hamid Karzai.


Bush called the news conference, his first in nearly seven weeks, to intensify pressure on lawmakers amid disputes over spending and the Iraq war. Taking advantage of his veto power and the largest bully pulpit in town, Bush regularly scolds Congress as a way to stay relevant and frame the debate as his presidency winds down.


Democrats counter that Bush is more interested in making statements than genuinely trying to negotiate some common ground with them.


Specifically, Bush again on Tuesday challenged Congress to send him overdue spending bills; to approve his latest war funding bill without conditions; to pass a temporary to fix to the alternative minimum tax so millions of taxpayers don't get hit with tax increases; and to extend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.


"Congress still has a lot to do," Bush said. "It doesn't have very much time to do it."


On another matter, Bush was asked about a rape victim in Saudi Arabia who was sentenced to prison and 200 lashes for being alone with a man not related to her — a violation of the kingdom's strict segregation of the sexes. Saudi Arabia has faced enormous international criticism about the sentencing.


"My first thoughts were these," Bush said. "What happens if this happens to my daughter? How would I react? And I would have been — I'd of been very emotional, of course. I'd have been angry at those who committed the crime. And I'd be angry at a state that didn't support the victim."


Bush, however, said he has not made his views known directly to Saudi King Abdullah, an ally. But he added: "He knows our position loud and clear."


The president said the U.S. economy is strong, though he acknowledged that the housing crisis has become a "headwind." He said administration officials are working on the issue, but he is wary of bailing out lenders. "We shouldn't say, 'OK, you made a lousy loan so we're going to go ahead and subsidize you.' "


Asked about the 2008 election, Bush steered himself back out of commenting on politics. "I practiced some punditry in the past — I'm not going to any further."


On other issues, Bush said:


—"The Venezuelan people rejected one-man rule" when they rejected a constitutional provision that would have enabled Hugo Chavez to remain in power for life and drive changes throughout Venezuelan society. "They voted for democracy."


—He talked by telephone Tuesday with Russian President Vladimir Putin and briefed him on the new Iran intelligence estimate. Bush also said he told Putin that "we were sincere in our expressions of concern" about irregularities in the voting that produced a sweeping parliamentary victory for Putin's party.


—He has "cordial relations" with Democratic leaders of Congress despite the sharp words between the White House and Capitol Hill. He blamed Democrats for the lack of compromises, saying, "In order for us to be able to reach accord, they got to come with one voice, one position."


really wanna barf - guess who steps up as pres. if something awful happens to the pres and vp??? nm
....
O is having a news conference right now

First, he's talking about Iran. They say he is going to talk about health insurance, the economy, etc.


 


The O is ready to have his first news conference. Waiting now.
x
Genesis of America, the evangelical theocracy: a conference call

If history is still allowed to be accurate generations from now, this is how the inception of America, the evangelical theocracy, should be documented.


From: http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110007415
JOHN FUND ON THE TRAIL


Judgment Call
Did Christian conservatives receive assurances that Miers would oppose Roe v. Wade?

Monday, October 17, 2005 12:01 a.m.

Two days after President Bush announced Harriet Miers's Supreme Court nomination, James Dobson of Focus on the Family raised some eyebrows by declaring on his radio program: When you know some of the things that I know--that I probably shouldn't know--you will understand why I have said, with fear and trepidation, that I believe Harriet Miers will be a good justice.


Mr. Dobson quelled the controversy by saying that Karl Rove, the White House's deputy chief of staff, had not given him assurances about how a Justice Miers would vote. I would have loved to have known how Harriet Miers views Roe v. Wade, Mr. Dobson said last week. But even if Karl had known the answer to that--and I'm certain that he didn't because the president himself said he didn't know--Karl would not have told me that. That's the most incendiary information that's out there, and it was never part of our discussion.


It might, however, have been part of another discussion. On Oct. 3, the day the Miers nomination was announced, Mr. Dobson and other religious conservatives held a conference call to discuss the nomination. One of the people on the call took extensive notes, which I have obtained. According to the notes, two of Ms. Miers's close friends--both sitting judges--said during the call that she would vote to overturn Roe.


src=http://www.forumatrix.com/images/storyend_dingbat.gif


The call was moderated by the Rev. Donald Wildmon of the American Family Association. Participating were 13 members of the executive committee of the Arlington Group, an umbrella alliance of 60 religious conservative groups, including Gary Bauer of American Values, Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, Paul Weyrich of the Free Congress Foundation and the Rev. Bill Owens, a black minister. Also on the call were Justice Nathan Hecht of the Texas Supreme Court and Judge Ed Kinkeade, a Dallas-based federal trial judge.



Mr. Dobson says he spoke with Mr. Rove on Sunday, Oct. 2, the day before President Bush publicly announced the nomination. Mr. Rove assured Mr. Dobson that Ms. Miers was an evangelical Christian and a strict constructionist, and said that Justice Hecht, a longtime friend of Ms. Miers who had helped her join an evangelical church in 1979, could provide background on her. Later that day, a personal friend of Mr. Dobson's in Texas called him and suggested he speak with Judge Kinkeade, who has been a friend of Ms. Miers's for decades.


Mr. Dobson says he was surprised the next day to learn that Justice Hecht and Judge Kinkeade were joining the Arlington Group call. He was asked to introduce the two of them, which he considered awkward given that he had never spoken with Justice Hecht and only once to Judge Kinkeade. According to the notes of the call, Mr. Dobson introduced them by saying, Karl Rove suggested that we talk with these gentlemen because they can confirm specific reasons why Harriet Miers might be a better candidate than some of us think.


What followed, according to the notes, was a free-wheeling discussion about many topics, including same-sex marriage. Justice Hecht said he had never discussed that issue with Ms. Miers. Then an unidentified voice asked the two men, Based on your personal knowledge of her, if she had the opportunity, do you believe she would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade?


Absolutely, said Judge Kinkeade.


I agree with that, said Justice Hecht. I concur.


src=http://www.forumatrix.com/images/storyend_dingbat.gif


Shortly thereafter, according to the notes, Mr. Dobson apologized and said he had to leave the discussion: That's all I need to know and I will get off and make some calls. (When asked about his comments in the notes I have, Mr. Dobson confirmed some of them and said it was very possible he made the others. He said he did not specifically recall the comments of the two judges on Roe v. Wade.)


Judge Kinkeade, through his secretary, declined to discuss the matter. Justice Hecht told me he remembers participating in the call but can't recollect who invited him or many specifics about it. He said he did tell the group that Ms. Miers was pro-life, a characterization he has repeated in public. But he says that when someone asked him about her stand on overturning Roe v. Wade he answered, I don't know. He doesn't recall what Judge Kinkeade said. But several people who participated in the call confirm that both jurists stated Ms. Miers would vote to overturn Roe.


The benign interpretation of the comments is that the two judges were speaking on behalf of themselves, not Ms. Miers or the White House, and they were therefore offering a prediction, not an assurance, about how she would come down on Roe v. Wade. But the people I interviewed who were on the call took the comments as an assurance, and at least one based his support for Ms. Miers on them.


src=http://www.forumatrix.com/images/storyend_dingbat.gif


The conference call will no doubt prove controversial on Capitol Hill, always a tinderbox for rumors that any judicial nominee has taken a stand on Roe v. Wade. Ms. Miers meets today with Sens. Dianne Feinstein of California and Chuck Schumer of New York, both stalwart Roe supporters, who surely will be interested to learn more about her views. After Mr. Dobson's initial comments about things . . . that I probably shouldn't know, Sen. Arlen Specter, the pro-Roe Judiciary Committee chairman, said, If there are backroom assurances and if there are backroom deals and if there is something that bears on a precondition as to how a nominee is going to vote, I think that's a matter that ought to be known. He and ranking Democrat Pat Leahy of Vermont threatened to subpoena Mr. Dobson as a witness.


Some participants in the Oct. 3 conference call fear that they will be called to testify at Ms. Miers's hearings. If the call is as you describe it, an effort will be made to subpoena everyone on it, a Judiciary Committee staffer told me. It is possible that a tape or notes of the call are already in the hands of committee staffers. Some people were on speaker phones allowing other people to listen in, and others could have been on extensions, one participant told me.


Should hearings begin on Nov. 7 as is now tentatively planned, they would likely turn into a spectacle. Mr. Specter has said he plans to press Ms. Miers very hard on whether Roe v. Wade is settled law. She will have hearings like no nominee has ever had to sit through, Chuck Todd, editor of the political tip sheet Hotline, told radio host John Batchelor. One slipup on camera and she is toast.


Should she survive the hearings, liberal groups may demand that Democrats filibuster her. Republican senators, already hesitant to back Ms. Miers after heavy blowback from their conservative base, would likely lack the will to trigger the so-called nuclear option. The nomination is in real trouble, one GOP senator told me. Not one senator wants to go through the agony of those hearings, even those who want to vote for her. Even if Ms. Miers avoids a filibuster, it's possible Democrats would join with dissident Republicans to defeat her outright.


src=http://www.forumatrix.com/images/storyend_dingbat.gif


There are philosophical reasons for Republican senators to oppose Ms. Miers. In 1987, the liberal onslaught on Robert Bork dramatically changed the confirmation process. The verb to bork, meaning to savage a nominee and distort his record, entered the vocabulary, and many liberals now acknowledge that the anti-Bork campaign had bad consequences. It led to more stealth nominees, with presidents hoping their scant paper trail would shield them from attack.


President Bush has now gone further in internalizing the lessons of the Bork debacle. Harriet Miers is a superstealth nominee--a close friend of the president with no available paper trail who keeps her cards so close to her chest they might as well be plastered on it. If Ms. Miers is confirmed, it will reinforce the popular belief that the Supreme Court is more about political outcomes than the rule of law.


Copyright © 2005 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.


Listening to Harry Reid/Chris Dodd news conference...

I don't know how they can stand up there and lie through their teeth like that...blaming the White House and Republicans for this financial debacle.  They know that is a lie.  They know, especially Chris Dodd, was central to this.  Also mentioned Barney Frank.  Good grief.  The hypocrisy is staggering.  They should be talking about getting us out of this mess....just yesterday they were saying don't play the blame game.  Telling McCain not to politicize it while they are politicizing it.  That man makes my skin crawl. 


And saying there was a "deal" and McCain blew it up.  The only "deal" was among senators...the only house person present could not negotiate.  He just had to listen.  If they had the plan and had gone to the house with it, then the house would have blocked it there and hours if not days would have been wasted.  Amazing the gall of some folks.  Ridiculous!!!


Why can't they all stop the political posturing and just fix this mess.  The House is only reacting to the onslaught of emails from their constituents saying protect us here, we don't like this carte blanche 700 billion.  I for one am GLAD at least the Republicans in the house said whoa wait just a minute here. 


His news conference yesterday...and there are a few real conservative economists left in the world..
that know his plans won't work, economic, healthcare and all the others.

Obama is doomed to fail miserably, and will probably blame someone else for it all (wait for it....It's Bush's fault...well, and maybe it'll be Congress' fault too, when things fail to work out according to his great plans).


Socialism doesn't work. Ask any true economist, and ask any historian how well Russia, Cuba, Venezuela socialism has worked out.
don't want either for pres.

Can we have her for pres instead of VP? LOL
.
Schwarzenneger for pres
x
First Pres younger than me
and though I love him (am definitely a kool aid drinker, I admit) he looks like he's in junior high and it will be sad to see him age. Maybe it won't be too bad. He seems to like stress.
Who was Pres on 09/11/2001?
Why would anyone give him credit for PROTECTING us?
Have they done that with previous pres?
If they have done this with previous presidents, I really couldn't care less.  Anyone know the answer to this?
A little insight on Pres. Bush
I work in a very high profile media department, and part of my job is transcription of raw interviews. I have transcribed several transcripts of raw interview footage with Pres. Bush, and he is the most respectful, gracious, down-to-earth person behind the scenes you can imagine. It's not that fakey type of schmooze either. You can tell he's genuine. When there is a break in the interview process he's asking the crew about their families etc. He has a very kind heart.

Now, with that said I don't agree one hundred percent with all his policies. Some of the the things he has been for I have been totally against...amnesty for illegals is one of them.

I do not have one problem with people disagreeing with his policies but to personally say he's a bad person, compare him with Hitler and other evil people is not only beyond the pale it's just plain not true. I have also transcribed interviews of several members of the Bush family, and they are all warm loving people.

I could mention some people who are not gracious, but I'm not here to smear anyone's character on the basis of my professional knowledge, but I do feel I need to defend a person who is so unjustly character assassinated on a daily basis.

President Bush has very unfairly been painted to be evil by the media and the extreme left in this country. Again, nobody is forced to like him, but to say he's a bad evil person is just not right or factual, and I, for one will defend him on his character.
Discussion from Gab Board re Pres.

"First... I don't claim him. I think he's a tyrant to put it nicely and I think he is a warmonging hillbilly (and that's sad for the hillbillies because they are decent folk he gives a bad name). I told everyone not to vote for him last time... I tried to warn them. I didn't want him and he hasn't done anything to help me our my friends and family in the slightest, except make us look ridiculous on the international stage (which I can say because I live in Europe at the moment and I know how foolish they think us right now). Second, good for you. Maybe you should vote for McCain so that the pain (errr I mean pleasure) never ends. I bet the people that he's been against and not fought for (i.e., Katrina victims, Iowa flood victims, homosexuals, people with diseases that stem cell reasearch could help, innocent people in far off lands that lost family members and friends who were innocent victims) I bet they all share your same sentiments.. right? You can have him.. I bet right about now he's half price on the discount rack anyways! Third... you should be grateful she put "creatrue." Its probably how Bush spells and says it, so its a true representation. Fourth... I think the last time I checked it was a free country with free speech and allowed for people to have their own opinions. I have better names to call him than childish ones... but I won't use them since your so easily offended... are you his personal emotional filter? I doubt he cares what the American people call him... he's certainly proven he doesn't care what they think or how they feel... so why should we care about him? Thanks back atcha. I can have whatever opinion I want of the president and I can tell you, I am more the majority than you are."


Moving over here per Mod request.......


Of course you can have your opinion about President Bush.  I was just saying that the names are uncalled for.  Are you staying in Europe forever or are you planning on coming back to the U.S.?  Just curious. 


President Bush isn't perfect and there have been many mistakes, I do agree.  I did vote for him and agree with the vast majority of his conservative views.  I do plan on voting for John McCain in November.  But, if Obama is our next president, as much as I disagree with his views, I wouldn't call him names; but that's just me I guess. 


I do not envy anyone who is willing to take on the gigantic role of running the country.  I would not want the job in a million years.  I have respect for ANYONE, republican or democrat, who is ready and willing to take on this great responsibility. 


I still would like to know what a creatrue is and President Bush is NOT retarded.


You mean "proud of your pres-elect" (nm)

Just watched him with Pres Bush and
Obama in the White House, definitely no droop, no change at all in his appearance.
has anyone changed Pres choice in
x
for new pres foremost, to keep us safe.
x
Name a pres that kept all his campaign promises?
I don't expect him to keep all his promises. In actuality, he really can't. None of the other presidents in my memory have been able to either. That is an unrealistic expectation. They say what they need to say to get elected.
too bad i'm not the pres - i'm control freakish enough 4 it
:)
Oh, pul-EEEZE. Any pres., Pub or Dem, deserves a
night out on the town once in a while. And of COURSE it cost $20,000! It's not like they can just hop on public transit with no Secret Service, and cruise on down to the local burger shop.
And Associated Press
They have both been caught doctoring pictures. Another example of how you can't trust the MSM.

I haven't seen the photos, but I'm going to look them up tonight when I get home.
How about the Associated Press?
then select news.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jkwn9iRCwdE76BB6ClH6Qmw8NcFQD938KQSO0

Will you believe Associated Press then?
Had to look hard for it, no surprise there.


New House rules reflect Democrats' election win

By LARRY MARGASAK – 2 days ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — House Democrats unveiled internal rules Monday that would end Republican-imposed, six-year term limits on committee chairmen and make it harder for GOP lawmakers to offer alternative legislation.

In changing how the House operates, Democrats sent a message that they will use the huge majority they won in November to overpower Republicans any time they wish. GOP leaders complained to Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., that they were being marginalized, but there is little they can do.

The changes are set for approval Tuesday after the 111th Congress takes office.

Not all of the new rules were partisan, but they reflected only the Democratic view of how the House should be run.

The Democratic majority will be 256 to 178 with one vacancy when the new House is sworn in, compared to 235-198 with two vacancies at the end of the previous Congress.

One rule would have a longer disclosure requirement for House members negotiating a post-government job. Under the change, negotiations must be reported until the lawmaker leaves office. Previously, the disclosure directive ended when a successor was elected.

It also would be easier to object to so-called "air drop" earmarks: special projects added to legislation by House-Senate conferees after both houses already approved legislation.

For Republicans, however, the changes were a reminder that the majority rules in the House, unlike the Senate, where it takes 60 of the 100 senators to pass controversial legislation because of filibuster rules.

"President Obama has pledged to lead a government that is open and transparent. This (rules package) does not represent change; it is reverting back to the undemocratic one-party rule and backroom deals that the American people rejected more than a decade ago," Republican leaders wrote Pelosi.

When Republicans won control of the House in 1994, they adopted rules to limit the terms of committee chairmen to three terms, or six years.

That change followed four decades of Democratic rule, when committee chairmen ruled by seniority and built up unchallenged power to pass or block legislation. The powerful chairmen also built up a system of perks for themselves, including a special bank that allowed lawmakers to overdraw their accounts without penalty. That helped lead to the Democrats' downfall in 1994.

Republicans said the term limits they established were designed to reward new ideas, innovation and merit rather than longevity.

However, the limits also generated huge fundraising efforts by chairmen-to-be, moving them closer to special interests in the legislative areas they controlled.

Republicans also objected to a proposal that governs how alternative legislation can be offered. Republicans said this would prevent the minority from trying to eliminate hidden tax increases added to larger pieces of legislation.




http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gnHMsHdiW-mG_jKo8vvmIqcdmKMQD95HAAJG1
Not according to the Associated Press. nm

His memory is no more 'selective' than the current Pres..
and his cronies...
I like your line of thinking. LOL. You should run for pres. You'd have my vote. nm
nm
When GW Bush became pres, I did give him a chance even though
amazin
hammered press sec
I thought it was great how the journalists finally yesterday started hammering the press secretary about Rove.  Yesterday I read where Hiliary Clinton equated Bush with Alfred E. Neuman, LOL.  Today I was thinking, what cartoon would be Rove.  Elmer Fudd.  So, we have Elmer Fudd, Alfred E. Neuman and **death warmed over Cheney** running the country.  Oh my, we sure are in good shape..NOT..and they we have the dinosaur backward thinking conservatives backing up whatever this administration wants to do/say..
WH press secretary would
I do almost feel sorry for Scott. Rove made his 4th trip to testify today as well. Scott better get ready for some major 'splainin' or catapultin'
There is a rumor going through the press that........ sm
Rahm Emanuel turned him in. I'm not reporting this as fact because I haven't checked it out yet, but I have seen that mentioned.
and let's press charges
someone who kills someone who is pregnant for a double homocide but WAIT A MINUTE...... that is not an actual life...
Looks like BO's press honeymoon

The press might finally be wising up to a fact that's even more important (to their bosses) than playing suck-face with BO - namely, that even Americans who voted for this President are starting to really, really dislike his policies.  The last issue of Newsweek to feature an Obama (was it number 19?) barely sold enough copies to pay for the printing, and it's more or less a rule in the news business (and it IS a business) that "if they don't sell, they smell".  Obama is starting to sell less, and smell worse.  Lots worse. 


If the most recent news conference with BO is any indication, the honeymoon might just be over...and BO didn't like it one bit.  In fact, he got downright surly - and he is really one UGLY man when he gets surly.  Tsk - such a thin veneer.


http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/columnists/goodwin/index.html


Transcript: Democratic response to Pres. Bush's

Good morning. This is Congressman Steny Hoyer of Maryland, the House Majority Leader.


Over the past several months, Democrats and Republicans in Congress have negotiated a bipartisan extension of the highly successful childrens health insurance program known as CHIP - a program enacted by a Republican-controlled Congress in 1997, with strong Democratic support, and signed into law by President Bill Clinton.


CHIP provides health insurance coverage for over six and one-half million American children in families that earn too much to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to afford private insurance.


However, millions of other children who are currently eligible for this health insurance are not enrolled due to the programs limited resources.


To address this, our bipartisan legislation provides funding for approximately four million more children - ensuring that at least 10 million low-income children in our nation receive the health care coverage they need and deserve. Thats good for them and for our country.


This legislation does not change current eligibility guidelines. It simply strengthens CHIPs financing, covers more low-income children, and improves the quality of care they receive.


Sadly, on Wednesday, President Bush - in the face of bipartisan majorities in Congress, and contrary to the will of the American people - vetoed our bipartisan bill.

The President claims - wrongly - that this bill is fiscally irresponsible.


The truth is, this legislation is fully paid for. It does not add one nickel to the deficit or to the debt.


Furthermore, under the Presidents proposal more than 800,000 children who now receive coverage under CHIP would lose that coverage.


The President claims that this legislation would lead to a government takeover of health insurance. He is wrong.


The truth is, Americas largest private insurance lobbying group supports this bill - as do Americas doctors, nurses, childrens advocates, 43 governors, and, most importantly, 72 percent of Americans.


The claims made against this bill are simply wrong.


As Senator Pat Roberts, a senior Republican from Kansas, recently said: I am not for excessive spending and strongly oppose the federalization of health care. And if the Administrations concerns with this bill were accurate, I would support a veto. But, Senator Roberts added: Bluntly put, they are not.


Most puzzling of all, perhaps, is the fact that the Presidents veto violates his own campaign promise.


In 2004, at the Republican National Convention, the President promised (and I quote): In a new term, we will lead an aggressive effort to enroll millions of children who are eligible but not signed up for government health insurance programs. We will not allow, he said, a lack of attention, or information, to stand between these children and the health care they need.


But he has done just that.


But the Congress has done exactly what the President said he was going to do, if re-elected.


Yet today, the only thing standing between millions of American children and the health insurance they need and deserve is one person. The President is saying no to these children he promised to help.


This is a defining moment for this Congress.


In the words of Senator Charles Grassley, a Republican of Iowa, weve got to do what we can to try to override the Presidents veto.


In the days ahead, we will work to persuade many of our Republican colleagues, who insist on standing with the President, to instead join the bipartisan majorities in Congress - and Americas children - in overriding this veto.


I urge all of you: Contact your Member of Congress.


Ask them to support our children.


Ask them to do what the President promised to do when he sought re-election.


Ask them to vote to override the Presidents veto and ensure health care for our kids and for their future.


Thank you for listening. This is House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer.


Lets put this nonsense to bed. Pres candidates born outside US
Here's the link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born_citizen

Here's the text. See. Isn't this EASY?

US presidential candidates born outside the US
"The constitutional wording has left doubts about whether those born on foreign soil are on an equal footing with those whose birth occurred inside the country's borders, and whether they have the same rights."[2] Though every president and vice president to date (as of 2008) has either been a citizen at the adoption of the Constitution, or else born in a U.S. state or Washington D.C.,[3] a number of presidential candidates have been born elsewhere.[4]

Barry Goldwater, who ran as the Republican party nominee in 1964, was born in Arizona while it was still a U.S. territory. Although Arizona was not a state, it was a fully organized and incorporated territory of the United States.[5]

George Romney, who ran for the Republican party nomination in 1968, was born in Mexico to U.S. parents. Romney’s grandfather emigrated to Mexico in 1886 with his three wives and children after Utah outlawed polygamy. Romney's parents retained their U.S. citizenship and returned to the United States in 1912. Romney was 32 years old when he arrived in Michigan.

Lowell Weicker, the former Connecticut Senator, Representative, and Governor, entered the race for the Republican party nomination of 1980 but dropped out before voting in the primaries began. He was born in Paris, France and acquired his citizenship at birth through his parents. His father was an executive for E. R. Squibb & Sons and his mother was the Indian-born daughter of a British general.[6]

John McCain, who ran for the Republican party nomination in 2000 and is the Republican nominee in 2008, was born at the Coco Solo U.S. military base in the Panama Canal Zone to U.S. parents. Although the Panama Canal Zone was not considered to be part of the United States,[7] federal law states: "Any person born in the Canal Zone on or after February 26, 1904, and whether before or after the effective date of this chapter, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such person was or is a citizen of the United States, is declared to be a citizen of the United States."[8] The law that conferred this status took effect on August 4, 1937, one year after John McCain was born — albeit with retroactive effect, resulting in McCain being declared a U.S. citizen.[9]

The mere fact of Constitutional ineligibility has not deterred some minor parties from nominating candidates for President who could not possibly serve in the office. For example, although some states have blocked ballot access for such candidates, the Socialist Workers Party nonetheless successfully placed its candidate, Róger Calero, on the ballot in Mississippi in 2004. [10]

My husband and I were discussing is that the upside of Obama as pres it that we will probably
x
Isn't it wonderful to have a pres WHO DIDN'T STEAL THE ELECTION? AND WHO sm
won by such a large margin???? Poor Gore had to sit through Bush's inauguration knowing he had 500,000 more votes. This is WONDERFUL!

Palin not ready for the press

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/259517

Todd Harris, a GOP strategist, and McCain aide Nicole Wallace both said Sarah Palin won’t be available to the press. They said might make a mistake and American people don’t care about Palin talking to the press.
Todd Harris, GOP Strategist who is also close to the McCain campaign, told Chris Matthews, MSNBC that Palin won’t be available to the press for about two weeks. He said she might make a mistake in the show.

If she goes out and makes a mistake, that is something that voters will] care about, and that's something that will haunt McCain for awhile, so I think this is a smart move.

And the GOP is proud in making such a decision, despite telling everyone she has more experience than Obama and Biden.

In the second video, McCain aide Nicole Wallace told Time’s Jay Carney and Joe Scarborough, MSNBC that the press will not be given a chance to take shots at Palin. She said American people don’t care whether Sarah Palin can answer specific questions about foreign and domestic policy. She said the public will know about her from Palin’s scripted speeches and appearances on the campaign trail and in political ads.

Jay Carney responded with the following statement:

Wallace's bash-the-media exercise has its merits as a campaign tactic. It certainly rallies the base. But the base won't lift McCain to 50% in November. More importantly, in her smug dismissal of the media's role in asking questions of the candidates, Wallace was really showing contempt not for reporters, but for voters.

If she is not ready now, how can we expect that she will be ready in the next few months? Is there a two-month crash course for Presidency?
Meet the Press at 6 pm EDT. Watch

for the answers to these allegations.


Watching press release
Could our president be double-standard? Reporters are asking really good tough questions. No confidence in this new administration whatsoever.
Interesting how it was leaked to the press
These types of studies are typically not for public consumption, but the timing of this one was just perfect for some manufactured outrage based on intentional misconstruing of the contents of the study.
First thing is a Biography of Pres. Bush, then Welcome to Michael Moore...nm
x