The groundbreaking ridicule coming from SNL should set the couched comments coming from castrated journalists scared of losing their job into a frenzy, following suit with insult after insult until Obama cries: “Uncle George, Get Me Outta Here. I can’t take it anymore!!”

By David Gardner
22nd November 2009

President Obama is facing a bruising battle with moderates in his own party after the Democrats narrowly avoided a humiliating setback in their bid to overhaul America’s healthcare system.

Two women senators took party leaders right down to the wire before finally agreeing to back the bill.

The strictly partisan 60-39 vote allowed the Democrats to squeak through a key procedural hurdle to clear the way for a full debate on the £513 billion health reforms in the US Senate. The Democrats needed at least 60 votes to overcome a Republican-led ‘filibuster’ – a delaying tactic designed to block consideration of the landmark bill indefinitely.

The White House said last night that President Obama was ‘gratified’ by the vote. The healthcare plan has been the centrepiece of his domestic agenda since coming to power in January and its success or failure in Congress is likely to define his first term as President.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said: ‘It brings us one step closer to ending the insurance company abuses, reining in spiralling health care costs, providing stability and security to those with health insurance, and extending quality health coverage to those who lack it.’
The bill will extend health insurance to 31 million Americans who are uninsured. But it still faces a rocky road through Congress.

Fears over claims that the new law would effectively nationalise the US health system and subsidise abortions have raised the hackles of centrist Democrats as well as Republicans eager to inflict a body blow on the president.

Democrat congressional leaders, who got a healthcare bill through the House of Representatives a fortnight ago, are struggling to move legislation through the Senate by Christmas. Both houses must agree on a bill before it can be delivered to Mr Obama to sign into law.

The Senate Democrats only prevailed on Saturday night after tense day of brinkmanship by senators Blanche Lincoln and Mary Landrieu. Both finally agreed to vote with their Democrat colleagues and two independents only after winning key concessions in the bill.

Senator Landrieu won millions more government money for her home state of Louisiana and Senator Lincoln demanded the removal of the ‘nationalisation’ clause.

Both represent traditionally right-wing Republican states where Mr Obama’s health reforms are unpopular. They maintained yesterday that their vote at the weekend did not necessarily mean they would be backing the bill after the full Senate debate, which is likely to take up much of next month. Senator Lincoln said Saturday’s vote would ‘mark the beginning of consideration of this bill by the US Senate, not the end.’

One of the most controversial issues will be a provision for a government-run insurance plan that would compete with traditional private insurance companies. The House plan included the so-called public option, but it was cut from the Senate bill at Senator Lincoln’s insistence.

Democrats are also nervous over Republican claims that government funding for health insurance will mean state subsidisation for abortions, a hot button issue in the US.

The White House is increasingly wary of any further delays to the passage of the reforms, worrying that they would push it into an election year with Democrats afraid of a voter backlash for a plan that draws decidedly mixed reviews in the polls.

The Senate drama came as it was revealed that Mr Obama is considering setting a provisional target for cutting America’s greenhouse gas emissions. US officials are said to be seeking agreement from Congress on a figure before next month’s UN global warming summit in Copenhagen.

With China, the US is responsible for 40 per cent of the world’s greenhouse gasses and is the only major developed nation yet to table an emission target. By agreeing to a provisional target of reducing greenhouse gases by 14-20 per cent over the next decade, Mr Obama would resurrect hopes for a global climate change agreement in Copenhagen.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1230027/Obama-faces-bruising-battle-party-Democrats-narrowly-avoid-setback-bid-overhaul-U-S-healthcare-system.html#

Andrew Gilligan
22 Nov 2009

In the papers, the British chief of staff in Iraq, Colonel J.K.Tanner, described his US military counterparts as “a group of Martians” for whom “dialogue is alien,” saying: “Despite our so-called ‘special relationship,’ I reckon we were treated no differently to the Portuguese.”

Col Tanner’s boss, the top British commander in the country, Major General Andrew Stewart, told how he spent “a significant amount of my time” “evading” and “refusing” orders from his US superiors. At least once, say the documents, General Stewart’s refusal to obey an order resulted in Britain’s ambassador to Washington, Sir David Manning, being summoned to the State Department for a diplomatic reprimand – of the kind more often delivered to “rogue states” such as Zimbabwe or the Sudan.

The frank statements were made in official interviews conducted by the Ministry of Defence with Army commanders who had just returned from Operations Telic 2 and 3 – the first, crucial year of “peacekeeping” operations in Iraq, from May 2003 to May 2004.
A set of classified transcripts of the interviews, along with “post-operational reports” by British commanders, has been leaked to the Daily Telegraph.

The disclosures come the day before the Chilcot inquiry is due to begin public hearings into Britain’s involvement in Iraq. Among the issues it will investigate is the UK-US relationship. The leaked documents paint a vivid picture of the clash between what General Stewart described as “war-war” American commanders and their British counterparts, who he said preferred a “jaw-jaw” approach.

General Stewart bluntly admitted that “our ability to influence US policy in Iraq seemed to be minimal.” He said that “incredibly,” there was not even a secure communication link between his headquarters in Basra and the US commander, General Rick Sanchez, in Baghdad.

Col Tanner said that General Sanchez “only visited us once in seven months.” Col Tanner also added that he only spoke to his own US counterpart, the chief of staff at the US corps headquarters in the Green Zone, once over the same period.

Top British commanders angrily described in the documents how they were not even told, let alone consulted, about major changes to US policy which had significant implications for them and their men.

When the Americans decided, in March 2004, to arrest a key lieutenant of the Shia leader Muqtada al-Sadr – an event that triggered an uprising throughout the British sector – “it was not co-ordinated with us and no-one [was] told that it was going to happen,” said the senior British field commander at the time, Brigadier Nick Carter. “Had we known, we would at least have been able to prepare the ground.” Instead, “the consequence [was] that my whole area of operations went up in smoke… as a result of coalition operations that were outwith my control or knowledge and proved to be the single most awkward event of my tour.”

Among the most outspoken officers was Col Tanner, who served as chief of staff to General Stewart and of the entire British division during Operation Telic 3, from November 2003 to May 2004. He said: “The whole system was appalling. We experienced real difficulty in dealing with American military and civilian organisations who, partly through arrogance and partly through bureaucracy, dictate that there is only one way: the American way. “I now realise that I am a European, not an American. We managed to get on better…with our European partners and at times with the Arabs than with the Americans. Europeans chat to each other, whereas dialogue is alien to the US military… dealing with them corporately is akin to dealing with a group of Martians.
“If it isn’t on the PowerPoint slide, then it doesn’t happen.”

Gen Stewart was more diplomatic, but said: “As the world’s only superpower, they [the US] will not allow their position to be challenged. Negotiation is often a dirty word.” Gen Stewart added: “I spent a significant amount of my time ‘consenting and evading’ US orders… Things got sticky…when I refused to conduct offensive operations against [al-Sadr’s] Mahdi Army as directed [by the US]. This resulted in the UK being demarched by the US, by [Paul] Bremer [the US proconsul in Iraq] through State [the US State Department] to the UK Ambassador in Washington.”

A “demarche” in this context was a formal diplomatic reprimand of a kind not normally handed out to friendly allies such as Britain. Gen Stewart said that the US military “were mortified” that it had got so far and said he “was always fully supported in the UK by the Chief of Defence Staff and Chief of Joint Operations.”

Yesterday the Sunday Telegraph told how leaked “post-operational reports” detailed major shortcomings in the planning and execution of the war and peacekeeping phases. Most of the documents – apart from some which might compromise sources – referred to yesterday and today are published online at Telegraph.co.uk

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/6631239/Hostility-between-British-and-American-military-leaders-revealed.html

For the first time, Democrats are talking seriously about going back and rechanneling portions of their $787 billion stimulus bill to help jump-start job-creation initiatives — such as a long-delayed highway bill.

…The debate over highway funding illustrates this problem. Washington has its own set of fiscal problems given the drop in gas tax revenues for federal trust funds. But states are in such bad shape that many governors can’t make their 20 percent match to get the construction funds — and generate the jobs that Democrats need.

**************************

looks like the gig is up…the plot to withhold all the money and spring it at 2010 election time seems to be backfiring…

**********************************
Admin continues:

It’s “voodoo economics” from Obama – the Third George W. Bush Term.

Voodoo kills. Obama’s health insurance scam is authored by witch doctors. Voodoo kills.

*****************************************

…and let us not forget that the Bush admin had a DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS signing off on all that spending they are now blaming the repubs for…the DEMS were in control of the congress…they bare just as much responsibility for the economica mess we are in for submitting the legislation and bills to the Bush WH…

************************************

note the natives are getting restless…the gig is up…the convoluded sham slush fund is being exposed:

DeFazio: It is pretty embarrassing that dems are now identified with Wall Street

huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/20/peter-defazio-dem-rep-its_n_365463.html

One of the loudest populist voices in the Democratic Caucus predicted on Thursday that the party may have to forcefully challenge the White House on economic matters if it wants to hold on to power after the 2010 elections.

One day after calling on Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner to resign, Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) told the Huffington Post that there were a lot of Democrats who were “upset and nervous with” the handling of the economy by the administration.

“It is pretty embarrassing for a Democratic administration and a Democratic Congress to be identified with total attention to Wall Street and nothing for Main Street and jobs,” he said. “There are a lot of Democrats who… want to see something more effective done to create employment.”

DeFazio insisted that President Obama and, by extension, the Democratic Party were hampered by Geithner’s policies for economic recovery. He pointed to the inability of the administration to spur small business lending and the lack of effective TARP oversight as particularly egregious examples of mismanagement. More than anything else, the Oregon Democrat deemed it untenable for the president to continue employing his current economic team given the taint of Wall Street that clings to many of those advisers.

“I have had a number of people say to me, ‘I feel the same way you do but I’m not going to say it.’ People are worried it will rub off on the president who still enjoys popularity,” he said. “I tell them I still support the president. I just think he is being poorly served by his economic team.”

“The truth of the matter,” DeFazio added, “is that we have not changed the way the money is being used. It is not being used for the purpose it was supposed to be used for. We are not creating jobs and we have not aggressively taken on the culture of Wall Street.”

At this juncture, the notion of Obama dumping Geithner remains far-fetched. Officials at the White House say that the Treasury Secretary still has the trust of the president and argue that he has played an instrumental role in righting the nation’s economy. At Treasury, meanwhile, aides are acutely aware of the frustration over small business lending. They note that they have increased caps on small business loans, cut taxes for small business and changed the structure of the TARP to make it more open for community banks. If not for the poor reputation of the program, they argue, these banks would be more willing to take the government’s money.

For DeFazio, however, the issue is as much one of perception as it is about policy. One of his chief concerns was that the president appeared enamored with the lords of finance. “The administration has, thus far, not threaded the needle here,” he said. “They have taken care of Wall Street but not the rest of the country.”

There is, the congressman concluded, “an anger” among the working class that could be a major factor in 2010. And without a new focus on jobs and small business from the White House, DeFazio warned, “a faux populist” Republicanism will fill the void.

**************************************************

…and DeFazio says that with complete Democratic control of the Congress and the WH…nice!

******************************************

admin…as for Levi Johnson…it is all downhill for him from now on…the exploiters have had their fun with him…they used the poor, stupid kid for every rating and buck they could suck out of him…he will be a hasbin (sp) (and forever a joke) before he is 20…of course, he was awarded a ‘porn’ award for straddling the gulf between entertainment and porn…and his mother just got a three years prison term…if Levi were not so mean spirited I might feel sorry for him…but he deserves what he will get in the big picture scheme of things…he certainly showed no genuine concern or care for his son…his son is a tool for Levi’s self exploitation…

Oh my I wonder what they’re thinking at the white house…..a must see from saturday night live.