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

Summation of today's presidential press conference

Posted By: piglet on 2007-12-04
In Reply to:

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."




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.


Pres just had a press conference..
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!!!
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.  ;-) 
John Murtha to appear on Meet the Press today!

I set my VCR!


Interesting summation of both sides....
...I saw on another website:

Best comment of the morning: “Which would you rather have:

A Lawyer with zip experience and his wife who never heard anything negative in Rev. Wrong’s church for 20 years and another Lawyer who likes to hear himself talk and both rich and both campaigning on undefined promises of change plus higher taxes (remember Obama’s bill for $800 billion for the UN)

VERSUS

A war hero with plenty of experience who married the American male dream (good looking, smart, rich, owns her own beer company and actually works to help the helpless) and an experienced tough State Governor who is a conservative Christian, cleans up corruption, husband card carrying union man, hocky mom, hunts, wins politically as an outsider, real middle class background who did not get rich in office and is about to live another American female dream: first to become Vice President of the USA and both campaigning on issues?

A NO BRAINER FOR ALL AMERICANS!
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
Who looks more presidential?
Calmly and confidently address subjects of vital interest to the nation and runs against his presidential opponent or a robot who stands by silently picking his nails and clinging to the skirt tails of his VP instant reply mouthpiece, taking queues from her as to when to wave to the audience, all the while never uttering one sound on one policy?
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.


Presidential race

Please do not tell any of the following their lives are not DIRECTLY affected by the President:


1.  The teachers and students who spend most of their time preparing for NCLB  standardized testing while falling behind in basic life skills. This affects EVERY student and EVERY teacher in EVERY public school in the United States.


2.  The soldiers who have been to Iraq,as well as their survivors. Their mission was to destroy nonexistent WMDs.


3.  The millions of people who cannot afford health insurance or oil to heat their homes. Of course our president does believe  "profits" are a good thing; unfortunately they are for corporate America.


I am not advising who to vote for; obviously it is a personal choice. But anyone who says no one person can make a difference, good or bad, is naive.


 


 


Presidential candidates

I think MTs should run the country!!!


Well he's already got his own presidential seal.
He's going to have to use it somewhere, lol.
I think that a presidential inauguration should be serious...
not an excuse to drink a lot in bars. I actually find it tacky. Watch the serious event in our nation's capital and celebrate if you want, but go home to party like a rockstar. Personally, I think it shows a huge amount of disrespect.
So...you are FOR anyone asking a Presidential candidate...
a question be subject to a law enforcement background check and the findings made public? Bye bye civil rights. Unreal.
The Presidential Pooch

Ok........ I'll say at least Michelle Obama said we'd like to "rescue" a dog. But now we've got the AKC involved in 2 Poodles, who are in a Poodle Rescue. I guess Id prefer that, but would prefer going to an actual kill-shelter and adopting, which is what I think Michelle meant in the first place.


Though......... What do you guys think of the hype of having a "Dog" in the White House. It's almost like it's the "designer" thing.


I remember Bill Clinton going and getting "Buddy".... It started with just Socks the cat didn't it?


I mean, all the love to them, for liking dogs and stuff, god knows I'm an animal lover.


But..... Seems weird. Now that I'm president and in the White House, you can have a dog. Not before, but Now you can.


I dont know.


=========================


President-elect Barack Obama has promised his two daughters a new puppy, sparking widespread speculation over the breed of the First Dog-to-be. 
Cristina Corbin


FOXNews.com


Thursday, November 06, 2008
 
To the lucky pup poised to become the next First Dog: Mind your manners.


Barney, President Bush's usually docile Scottish Terrier, once nipped at a White House intern -- now a FOXNews.com reporter -- when she accidentally dug a fingernail into the pooch while holding him.


Bill Clinton's cat, Socks, routinely hissed at the First Dog, Buddy. And Teddy Roosevelt's pit bull once famously ripped the pants of the French ambassador.


In his election victory speech Tuesday night, President-elect Barack Obama promised his two daughters that they'd be moving into the White House with a new puppy. Now the dogosphere is engaged in widespread speculation over the breed of the presidential pooch-to-be.


Or pooches-to-be. The American Kennel Club hopes that the pet will turn out to be a pair of 6-week-old toy poodles, rescued by Flora's Pet Project/Poodle Rescue in Connecticut. First lady-to-be Michelle Obama said in an interview last month that the family was interested in adopting a rescue dog after the election.


The puppies were transported to the AKC's New York offices, where they were to be photographed professionally Thursday in the hopes of catching the Obama family's attention.


"The dogs were in an unfortunate situation and were not being cared for properly," said Marianne Smith, a spokeswoman for the rescue agency. Smith said the puppies were "voluntarily surrendered," but declined to give further details.


In an online presidential dog poll conducted by the AKC in August, the poodle breed was the top dog among 42,000 respondents. Other contenders were the soft-coated Wheaten Terrier and Bichon Frise.


In a Communispace.com survey of 308 people taken after the election, 25 percent of those polled predicted the Obamas will get a golden retriever; 15 percent said a "pound dog," and 14 percent said a Jack Russell terrier.


Promoting her poodles, AKC spokeswoman Lisa Peterson said: "We hope the Obamas consider the survey results.... This poodle is a breed that doesn't always get the respect it deserves, but it is truly an ideal family pet."


"The poodle is a highly versatile breed," she said. "It's extremely intelligent and easily trained. This dog is going to visit many places, and so you want it to have good manners."


One of the Obamas' daughters suffers from allergies, so poodles -- which do not shed -- would be an ideal choice, Peterson said. The breed's obedient temperament and intelligence also make it a perfect candidate, she said.


In a letter to Obama in September, the AKC offered its assistance in choosing the White House dog and urged the Illinois senator to consider the toy poodle if he were elected. The AKC said it didn't send a letter to John McCain, because the Arizona senator already has 24 pets, including four dogs.


From 1960-1982, the poodle was the number one breed in America. Winston Churchill, Grover Cleveland and Richard Nixon all reportedly owned one.


Past White House breeds include George H. W. Bush's Springer Spaniel "Millie," Ronald Reagan's King Charles Cavalier Spaniel "Rex" and Caroline Kennedy's Welsh Terrier "Charlie." President Clinton's dog "Buddy" was a chocolate lab.


PICTURE BELOW:


A pair of six-week-old Toy Poodle puppies rescued by Flora's Pet Project/Poodle Rescue Connecticut visited the American Kennel Club offices in New York Thursday to be photographed in hopes of catching the attention of the Obama family.


 


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. 


I have the answer to our presidential woes...
It is time for some real serious thinking now.....Take your time with the following report and see if you don't agree!!!

Here we are already discussing the future President of the United States in the Year 2008.  Well, I have my own candidate; and I'm sure that once you know who I'm voting for, you will also agree.

For those of you who would like another choice for President, I have the best solution:  It is probably time we have a woman as President . My choice, and I hope yours as well, is a very special lady who has all the answers to our problems.

PLEASE give it a thought when you have a moment...   

  
MAXINE FOR PRESIDENT!
               
    
 Very eloquently put...........don't you think?

Maxine on "Driver Safety"  "I can't use the cell phone in the car. I have to keep my hands free for making gestures. ".......

Maxine on "Housework"   "I do my housework in the nude. It gives me an incentive to clean the mirrors as quickly as possible."

Maxine on "Lawn Care"  "The key to a nice-looking lawn is a good mower. I recommend one who is muscular and shirtless."

Maxine on "The Perfect Man"   "All I'm looking for is a guy who'll do what I want, when I want, for as long as I want, and then go away. Or wait nearby, like a Dust Buster, charged up and ready when needed."

Maxine on "Technology Revolution"  "My idea of rebooting is kicking somebody in the butt twice."

Maxine on "Aging"  "Take every birthday with a grain of salt. This works much better if the salt accompanies a Margarita."


It is hard to believe, isn't it....even in a Presidential election...
only about half of the people vote. I, like you, don't know why anyone would not want to exercise their right to vote.
Huckabee? Not presidential material

Here is Novak's recent article on him.  Creepy.  Reminds me a little of a wolf in sheep's clothing.  I think it is important to get the opinions of those people in the districts politicians serve.  Those opinions on Huckabee are not very good.


The False Conservative


by Robert Novak


Posted: 11/26/2007


Who would respond to criticism from the Club for Growth by calling the conservative, free-market campaign organization the "Club for Greed"? That sounds like Howard Dean, Dennis Kucinich or John Edwards, all Democrats preaching the class struggle. In fact, the rejoinder comes from Mike Huckabee, who has broken out of the pack of second-tier Republican presidential candidates to become a serious contender -- definitely in Iowa and perhaps nationally.

Huckabee is campaigning as a conservative, but serious Republicans know that he is a high-tax, protectionist, big-government advocate of a strong hand in the Oval Office directing the lives of Americans. Until now, they did not bother to expose the former governor of Arkansas as a false conservative because he seemed an underfunded, unknown nuisance candidate. Now that he has pulled even with Mitt Romney for the Iowa caucuses with the possibility of more progress, the beleaguered Republican Party has a frightening problem on its hands.

The rise of evangelical Christians as the motive force that blasted the GOP out of minority status during the past generation always contained an inherent danger if these new Republican acolytes supported not merely a conventional conservative but one of their own. That has happened now with Huckabee, a former Baptist minister educated at Ouachita Baptist University and Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. The danger is a serious contender for the nomination who passes the litmus test of social conservatives on abortion, gay marriage and gun control but is far removed from the conservative-libertarian model of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan.


There is no doubt about Huckabee's record during a decade in Little Rock as governor. He was regarded by fellow Republican governors as a compulsive tax increaser and spender. He increased the Arkansas tax burden by 47 percent, boosting the levies on gasoline and cigarettes. When he decided to lose 100 pounds and pressed his new lifestyle on the American people, he was far from a Goldwater-Reagan libertarian.

As a presidential candidate, Huckabee has sought to counteract his reputation as a taxer by pressing for replacement of the income tax with a sales tax and has more recently signed the no-tax-increase pledge of Americans for Tax Reform. But Huckabee simply does not fit in normal boundaries of economic conservatism, as when he criticized President Bush's veto of a Democratic expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). Calling global warming a "moral issue" mandating "a biblical duty" to prevent climate change, he has endorsed the cap-and-trade system that is anathema to the free market.

Huckabee clearly departs from the mainstream of the conservative movement in his confusion of "growth" with "greed." Such ad hominem attacks are part of his intuitive response to criticism from the Club for Growth and the libertarian Cato Institute for his record as governor. On Fox News Sunday Nov. 18, he called the "tactics" of the Club for Growth "some of the most despicable in politics today. It's why I love to call them the Club for Greed because they won't tell you who gave their money." In fact, all contributors to the organization's political action committee (which produces campaign ads) are publicly revealed, as are most donors financing issue ads.

Quin Hillyer, a former Arkansas journalist writing in the conservative American Spectator, called Huckabee "a guy with a thin skin, a nasty vindictive streak." Huckabee's retort was to attack Hillyer's journalistic procedures, fitting a mean-spirited image when he responds to conservative criticism.

Nevertheless, he is getting remarkably warm reviews in the news media as the most humorous, entertaining and interesting GOP presidential hopeful. Contrary to descriptions by old associates, he is now called "jovial" or "good-natured." Any Republican who does not sound much like a Republican is bound to benefit from friendly media support, as Sen. John McCain did in 2000 but not today with his return to being more like a conventional Republican.

An uncompromising foe of abortion can never enjoy full media backing. But Mike Huckabee is getting enough favorable buzz that, when combined with his evangelical base, it makes real conservatives shudder.


it is not very presidential appearing and to me is just weird
she allowed herself to be drawn into that, what else would she do - I mean, she is too wishy-washy for my trust, goes in too many different directions, too scattered, haphazard...these are my opinions about her capabilities as a president, not a personal attack.

not to mention, if the black man did this he would have been gone from candidacy a long time ago.
And you actually think continuing the presidential campaign...
is more important than solving this problem? He has said before that he puts country first and if it costs him an election, so be it. That is integrity. Staying on the campaign trail instead of actually working to fix the problem...sounds a whole lot more chickenesque to me.
hero does not equal presidential - nm
x
According to the Presidential Transition Act of 1963 -

there is an office for the President Elect that the government pays for.  You can read the information on the link provided to see what all is paid for - but it seems quite apparent to me that there is an office of the president elect and has been for quite some time - nothing new.  Obama may have given it an official title that nobody has used openly before, but it has been established for at least 45 years.


 


http://www.gsa.gov/Portal/gsa/ep/contentView.do?contentType=GSA_BASIC&contentId=24780


The Presidential Transition Act of 1963 -
this authorizes the General Services Administration to certify even before the December electoral college volte who the apparent winner of the president elect is.
I agree especially since Ensign had presidential

Analysis: Ensign affair a shock GOP didn't need





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.
Media's Presidential Bias and Decline....sm

Michael Malone is a fourth generation journalist who works for abc.

This column is five pages long, but well worth the time spent reading it.

He talks about the present media bias and how he believes it came to be. Very, very enlightening.






Media's Presidential Bias and Decline
Columnist Michael Malone Looks at Slanted Election Coverage and the Reasons Why






http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=6099188&page=1
The Official Web Site of the The U.S. Presidential Transition
FYI.

http://change.gov/

Knowledge is power.

Executive power survey by presidential candidates.

In case you haven't seen this article, I am posting the link:


http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/12/22/candidates_on_executive_power_a_full_spectrum/?page=2


This is very enlightening for those who want to know their candidates thoughts about executive power.


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

Palin is the most unqualified and inexperienced vice-presidential candidate in history sm
http://newsblaze.com/story/20081027173636reye.nb/topstory.html


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


meaning=history repeats...the PRESIDENTIAL OFFICE will be tested...no matter which one wins...nm
=)
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.
Kiss freedom of the press goodbye
BY LEONARD PITTS JR.

lpitts@herald.com


Thomas Jefferson understood.

He said that if asked to choose between government without newspapers
or newspapers without government, ''I should not hesitate for a moment
to prefer the latter.'' Jefferson knew that a free and adversarial press
was the people's best defense against the excesses of their government
and a fundamental building block of healthy democracy.

Unfortunately, that was 40 presidents ago.

The present president has a decidedly different view of the news
media's role. His administration sees the press as a thing to be bought. In
fact, while political manipulation of the news is hardly new, Team Bush
has a long and singularly sordid record of trying to turn the media
into a wholly owned public relations subsidiary.

Now they're taking their act on the road. And get this: They're doing
it under the guise of building democracy. Which is rather like stealing
from the collection plate under the guise of giving to the needy.

I refer you to last week's Los Angeles Times report that the Pentagon
has been secretly paying Iraqi newspapers to publish stories, written by
American troops, that reflect favorably upon the U.S. mission in that
country. The stories, while basically factual, are reportedly written so
as to flatter U.S. forces and the Iraqi government and to omit
information or perspectives either might find embarrassing. These press
releases are presented to the Iraqi people as independent reports by
independent reporters.

One is appalled, but hardly surprised. After nearly five years of
watching these folks' truth-optional approach to dealing with the public,
one is seldom surprised anymore.

BUYING PRAISE

This is, after all, the same Bush administration that was caught buying
praise from an ethically challenged columnist -- in violation of
federal laws against propagandizing the public, according to a September
report by the Government Accountability Office. It's the same
administration that allowed into the White House press room as a reporter an
Internet porn entrepreneur who wrote for a GOP website. The same one that
issues video reports favorable to its policies to be broadcast without
attribution as TV news. The same one that censors and quashes its own
scientific studies when they conflict with its preferred worldview.

So this is just more of the same in a new ZIP Code.

It will be argued by the usual sycophantic Bush enablers that what's
being done is justifiable. We are at war, they will say, and in war it is
perfectly acceptable to propagandize the enemy.

So it is. But the flaw in that logic is this: We are not at war with
Iraq. We are at war in Iraq against insurgents seeking to topple the
government. At least, that's the line put forth by Team Bush. Iraq, they
say, is a sovereign nation to which we are simply helping bring the joys
of democracy -- one of which would be a free press.

That being the case, you cannot justify telling covert lies to its
people any more than you can justify telling them to ours. You want to
communicate something to them? Buy an ad. Drop leaflets. Put up posters.
But don't produce a commercial and tell people it's news.

CREDIBILITY AT STAKE

Doing so undermines both the message and the medium. It could also
conceivably encourage Iraqis to question how seriously they should take --
how seriously we ourselves take -- this whole notion of a free and
independent press.

Indeed, one can only guess how this is playing with Iraqi journalists.
After all, the messages could hardly be more mixed. On the one hand,
U.S. officials are offering them workshops in media ethics. On the other
hand, U.S. officials are violating the most basic media ethics with
blithe indifference.

But then, it's a sour joke in the first place that the Bush
administration purports to teach Iraqis how democracy works.

You can't teach what you don't understand.