Why One Term?

I guess we've all seen it bandied about the net - that Obama has said he's willing to be a one term president if it means getting socialized medicine passed.

But how many of us have really, really though about what that means?

If he's willing to be a one term president that means that he acknowledges that he could be voted out in 2012 for something he does...

that means that he acknowledges that he could do something so unpopular that he'd get voted out...

that means that he acknowledges that forcing socialized medicine upon us is unpopular on a politically suicidal scale...

that means that he is willing to be voted out of office in 2012 if it means that he is able to force socialized medicine on America, despite the fact that it is wildly unpopular, so unpopular that it will devastate his career and likely many Democrats along with him.

That's sick.

And I don't think it'd be covered under ObamaCare.

In Case You Ever Get The Urge To Read Tom Teepen

Should you, for whatever reason, feel the need to read this hate-filled bigot's rants in the Times Union, maybe this will convince you otherwise:

The Bush administration so over-hyped the very real but also very limited threats of terrorism...

The Rest Of The Story

Howie Carr:

I never voted for Ted Kennedy, not once, and neither did maybe a quarter to one-third of the Massachusetts electorate, although you’d never know that from the echo chamber of the mainstream media since his death in Hyannisport late Tuesday night.

While offering condolences to the Kennedy family at this sad moment, it is important to note that his life was not as simple, nor heroic, as is now being portrayed. On the cable channels yesterday, his fellow Senate graybeards, of both parties, were lamenting the passing of what was invariably described as Ted Kennedy’s “collegial” Senate - where voices were seldom raised, and partisan bickering ended when the gavel came down to end the session.

All of which would have come as a surprise to Robert Bork, the Supreme Court nominee of whom the collegial Ted said in 1986:

“Robert Bork’s America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters . . .”...

But more equal and more just for some people than for others. When it came to the white ethnic working class from which his father came, Kennedy just plain didn’t get it. Whether it was court-ordered busing in Boston in the 1970s, or the affirmative action policies that stymied the careers of so many of his family’s traditional voters, Kennedy never grasped the depth of the blue-collar frustration as he veered left. And what infuriated them even more was that so many of them had grown up in homes where on one side of the mantel was a faded photo of the martyred JFK, and on the other the pope, with a dried-up palm frond given out at Mass on Palm Sunday between them.

Chappaquiddick, of course, never went away. But sometimes Kennedy could seem oblivious even to that ultimate blemish on his career. In 1974, when President Ford pardoned Richard Nixon for his Watergate crimes, Kennedy issued this thundering statement:

“Do we operate under a system of equal justice under law? Or is there one system for the average citizen and another for the high and mighty?”

On issue after issue he was wrong - the nuclear freeze, the Reagan tax cuts, the Immigration Reform Act of 1965, which he assured his Senate colleagues would not lead to a “flood” of immigrants into America’s cities. With a Tele-Promp-Ter, he could be articulate, but when he wasn’t using his glasses to read a prepared statement, he was often an oratorical mess. In 2005, at the National Press Club, he referred to the current president as “Osama bin La-uh, Osama Obama, uh Obama.”

And yet he was always protected by most of the media, who shared his views on just about everything. In 1962, at the behest of President Kennedy, the Boston Globe played the story of his expulsion from Harvard below the fold on the front page. To the very end the Globe did its best to shield him - last week the struggling Times-owned broadsheet broke the story of his deathbed attempt to change the Massachusetts law on Senate succession, without mentioning that he himself had lobbied in 2004 to enact the law he was now denouncing as undemocratic. Only then, he was for stripping the governor of his right to fill a Senate vacancy, because, you see, that governor was a Republican.

The Globe reported that Kennedy was extremely concerned that the people of Massachusetts would have no representation in the Senate for five months until the special election. The fact that he had already missed 97 percent of the Senate roll-call votes in 2009 was not noted until the next day - in a different newspaper.

The hagiography will continue throughout the weekend. We all agree that Ted Kennedy should rest in peace. But let’s not forget that there was more, much more, to his “legacy” than is being reported on MSNBC.

Your Random Saturday

IBD has some health care costs the Dems don't want to talk about:

Last decade, the Clinton administration added teeth to a little-known Health and Human Services Department regulation mandating that hospitals provide emergency treatment even to illegals...

Many eat losses and eventually go out of business like they're doing in droves in California, which has seen 85 hospital closures in the last decade. An additional 55 facilities have shut down ERs. The state ranks last in the country in access to emergency care and last in ERs per capita, making it woefully unprepared to respond to a major earthquake or terror attack...

Some 80% of the births at Houston's Ben Taub General Hospital and Lyndon B. Johnson General Hospital are to illegal immigrants. In Fort Worth, it's about 70%.

Thanks to EMTALA, one hospital near Miami was forced to eat $1.5 million in unreimbursed care for an illegal alien from Guatemala...

Michael Fumento points out the lies in the stimulus=recovery argument:

There was never doubt that whenever the economy began turning around the Obama administration, and especially the $787 billion stimulus package, would get the credit.

"Absolutely" the stimulus package was working, Christina Romer, chair of President Obama's Council of Economic Advisers, insisted in an Aug. 6 address to the Economic Club of Washington D.C.

Yet she accompanied that talk with contradictory evidence — which is about par considering that since joining the administration Ms. Romer has herself become a contradiction...

Choose whichever figure tickles your fancy; it remains the case that for all President Obama's personal back-slapping and media crowing of "disproved" stimulus skeptics, the U.S. economy shrank 1% in the second quarter. It was remarkable only in being a major improvement from the previous quarter...

In fact, there were 12 recessions or depressions just from 1850 to 1900, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research, and plenty before that. All before government could even pretend to do much about them. And somehow the economy recovered each time...

The only problem with the U.S. government's Great Depression stimulus, she said at Brookings, is that it was too small and too short. Yet there she was, Aug. 6, insisting that a small, short stimulus had "absolutely" helped turn the economy around.

Newt doing what Newt does:

Reason No. 1: Government Can't Be Trusted With a Credit Card
Every family knows about making a budget and living within its means. Government, to put it bluntly, does not...

But that's exactly what the Obama Administration did with their weekend news dump. They announced late Friday that the amount of money they don't have but are nonetheless planning on spending over the next ten years isn't the astonishing $7 trillion they estimated in May but is instead an astounding $9 trillion...

Reason No. 2: Government Can't Even Give Away Money Effectively
As the inimitable Andy McCarthy of National Review put it, "Compared to the infinite complexity of healthcare and health-insurance, cash-for-clunkers is kindergarten stuff. You trade in your old car for a new one that gets (slightly) better mileage and the government gives you money - between $3,500 and $4,500. How hard is that?"...

Last week, cash-for-clunkers ended in a bureaucratic morass of red tape, failed promises and unanticipated costs...

The government wizards who set up cash-for-clunkers initially budgeted to sell 250,000 cars in three months.

The program sold that many in four days.

And because the central planners who think they can provide government "competition" to the private health insurance market failed to accurately estimate how many government workers it would take to administer cash-for-clunkers, they had to take employees from the FAA - air traffic controllers, no less - to help manage the demand.

And what about the car dealerships the program was supposed to help in the first place? Even though the rebates were supposed to be paid within 10 days, only 7 percent of federal promises under cash-for-clunkers have been paid so far, leaving dealers with millions of dollars in unfunded government promises...

Reason No. 3: Government Would Rather Pay Crooks Than Manage Efficiently
There's been a lot of worrying about the inevitability of government rationing health care under the Democratic reform bills in Congress.

Economists have known about this inevitability for a long time. Well, Americans can stop worrying. Government is rationing care already - and doing it in a particularly stupid way.

Studies have shown that early use of home health care after hospitalization - allowing patients to go home and be visited by a nurse to manage their care - saves Medicare billions of dollars.

So here is a case where an innovative government program actually saves the government money. Home health care is both more compassionate and more efficient. It reduces the likelihood a patient will be readmitted to a hospital by allowing her to heal in a more familiar setting.

So naturally bureaucrats at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services cut $34 billion from this compassionate, efficient program last week.

And if the House health care reform bill becomes law, an additional $56.8 billion will be cut from the program - an amount equal to almost the entire federal budget for home health care services in 2007.

More differences between the sexes from Ashley Herzog:

Don’t be fooled. If you have a child in school, you should read “You’re Teaching My Child What?” by Dr. Miriam Grossman. Rather than learning just the facts, students are schooled in gender politics and feminist ideology—an ideology that is highly dogmatic and scientifically unsupported...

To make a long story short: they’re lying. There’s a mountain of scientific evidence showing that biological sex does indeed influence “the way we think”—evidence that Grossman presents in her book.

For example, when researchers in Japan examined the drawings of 252 kindergarteners, “They found significant differences between the drawings of girls and boys. Among them: boys drew a moving object twenty times more than girls. Girls included a flower or butterfly seven times more than boys…Overall, girls decidedly preferred pink and flesh colors. Boys used two colors more than girls: grey and blue.”

That’s because girls are socialized to like flowers and pink, the feminists will respond.

Not true. As Grossman writes, “To control for [socialization], the researchers analyzed the drawings of a third group—eight girls with congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH), a genetic disorder in which the fetal brain was flooded with high levels of male hormones. CAH girls drew cars and buses, not butterflies. And the cars were blue, not pink.” Girls whose brains had been flooded with male hormones in the womb also showed a preference for male playmates and toys typically associated with boys...

Consider the case of Bruce Reimer, who was castrated in a medical accident when he was eight months old. Psychologists—steeped in radical 1960s ideology—assured Reimer’s parents that gender was socially constructed, and he could be raised successfully as a girl.

Reimer, who eventually committed suicide, recounted his life of misery in the book “As Nature Made Him.”

“Far from accepting the gender reassignment, he fought against it tooth and nail from the very beginning,” Grossman writes, “refusing to play with dolls, preferring wrestling over cooking, and even urinating standing up whenever possible.”

When finally told he had been born a boy, Reimer said he was relieved: “Suddenly it all made sense why I felt the way I did.” Coming from someone who knows, gender isn’t as fluid and changeable as feminists want it to be...

For males, “the boy-brain trajectory is set at eight weeks. Not eight weeks after birth, eight weeks after conception—seven months before the pink or blue blanket,” she writes. “A fetus has a boy brain or a girl brain when it is the size of a kidney bean.”

Ann Coulter exposes a bit more:

Thus, here is Part 2 in our series of liberal lies about national health care.

(6) There will be no rationing under national health care.

...Apparently, promising to cut costs by having a panel of Washington bureaucrats (for short, "The Death Panel") deny medical treatment wasn't a popular idea with most Americans. So liberals started claiming that they are going to cover an additional 47 million uninsured Americans and cut costs ... without ever denying a single medical treatment!

Also on the agenda is a delicious all-you-can-eat chocolate cake that will actually help you lose weight! But first, let's go over the specs for my perpetual motion machine -- and it uses no energy, so it's totally green!...

(8) National health care won't cover abortions.

There are three certainties in life: (a) death, (b) taxes, and (C) no health care bill supported by Nita Lowey and Rosa DeLauro and signed by Barack Obama could possibly fail to cover abortions.

I don't think that requires elaboration, but here it is:

Despite being a thousand pages long, the health care bills passing through Congress are strikingly nonspecific. (Also, in a thousand pages, Democrats weren't able to squeeze in one paragraph on tort reform. Perhaps they were trying to save paper.)

These are Trojan Horse bills. Of course, they don't include the words "abortion," "death panels" or "three-year waits for hip-replacement surgery."...

After the bill is passed, the Federal Health Commission will find that abortion is covered, pro-lifers will sue, and a court will say it's within the regulatory authority of the health commission to require coverage for abortions.

Then we'll watch a parade of senators and congressmen indignantly announcing, "Well, I'm pro-life, and if I had had any idea this bill would cover abortions, I never would have voted for it!"

Michael Gerson...well, just read it:

In fact, Obama has a reality problem on health care, and it has begun to threaten his standing as a leader. He staked the success of his early presidency -- perhaps of his entire presidency -- on a health reform both vague and divisive, which manages to anger deficit hawks as well as liberals who believe that compromise has already gone too far. Obamacare has been the political version of the neutron bomb, vaporizing supporters while leaving every structural obstacle in place.

Larry Elder with an interesting fact:

Numerous studies conclude that children of "broken homes" with absentee or nonexistent fathers are more likely to commit crimes, drop out of school, do drugs and produce out-of-wedlock children. In 1985, the Los Angeles Times asked both the poor and non-poor the following question: Do you think those on welfare have children to get on welfare? More poor people (64 percent) said "yes" to that proposition than did non-poor (44 percent).

IBD on how great France's health care isn't:

Sorman notes that a Frenchman making a monthly salary of 3,000 euros has 350 of them deducted for health insurance. Then the employer throws in an additional 1,200 euros. This raises the cost of labor to prohibitive levels and puts a brake on economic growth. This helps explain why French unemployment hovers around 10%...

Drugs developed in America at enormous expense do cost less in France, which decides what drugs are to be used and at what prices. American patients in effect subsidize the French, who take the same pills at half the price because American pharmaceutical companies don't want to lose the French market.

French taxpayers fund a state health insurer, Assurance Maladie. Assurance Maladie has run in the red since 1989, and this year's shortfall is expected to be 9.4 billion euros ($13.5 billion) and 15 billion euros in 2010, about 10% of its budget.

Regardless of the cost, does the French system produce better outcomes? Not always. Infant mortality rates are often cited as a reason socialized medicine and single-payer systems are better than what we have here. But according to Dr. Linda Halderman, a policy adviser in the California State Senate, these comparisons are bogus.

Official World Health Organization statistics show the U.S. lagging behind France in infant mortality rates — 6.7 per 1,000 live births vs. 3.8 for France. Halderman notes that in the U.S., any infant born that shows any sign of life for any length of time is considered a live birth. In France — in fact, in most of the European Union — any baby born before 26 weeks' gestation is not considered alive and therefore doesn't "count" in reported infant mortality rates.

Michael at Wizbang with some interesting info that smashes yet another claim about the awful clunkers boondoggle, specifically, that it would help energize American automakers:

By now you might be wondering which car companies have sold the most new cars as a result of Cash for Clunkers. Here are the top ten new vehicles purchased through the program:

Toyota Corolla
Honda Civic
Toyota Camry
Ford Focus FWD
Hyundai Elantra
Nissan Versa
Toyota Prius
Honda Accord
Honda Fit
Ford Escape FWD
Notice who's missing? Yep -- Chrysler and GM.

What America's Thinking

A nice crop of polls from Rasmussen today.

Media Bias

60% Say Media Covers Obama’s Personal Life Too Much

Sixty percent (60%) of Americans say there is too much media coverage of President Obama’s personal life and family, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.

Just six percent (6%) of adults say there is not enough coverage of the president’s private life and family, and 28% think the coverage is about right.

NJ Governor's Race a Bit Tighter

Surprise, it's summer and people aren't thinking about politics that much (specifics).

A new Rasmussen Reports survey of voters in the Garden State finds Christie, a former federal prosecutor, on top 47% to 36%. Those figures reflect a decline of three points for Christie and a single point for Corzine over the past three weeks. Seven percent (7%) now prefer some other candidate, and eleven percent (11%) are not sure.

Corzine, who left the U.S. Senate to run for governor, draws even closer when leaners are included. With the leaners, 50% will vote for Christie and 42% for Corzine. That eight-point edge for Christie is down from 13 points in early August and 12 points in early July.

What percentage of America are hardcore liberals?

If Democrats agree on a health care reform bill that is opposed by all Republicans in Congress, 24% of voters nationwide say the Democrats should pass that bill.

Like the 30% that continually voted thumbs up on Bush, it looks like The Won can count on 24% no matter what.

Wireless Network - Time To Worry?

WPA encryption cracked in one minute

The second generation of Wi-Fi security systems has now been broken as badly as its notoriously insecure predecessor: Japanese researchers say they can crack WPA (Wi-Fi Protected Access), the successor to the old-school WEP, inside of a minute's time spent eavesdropping on a wireless network...

The previous method of attacking WPA devices took up to 15 minutes to be successful, and didn't always work. The new method is said to work on far more devices and, obviously, much more quickly. However, as with the old attack, the new one only works on WPA devices that use the TKIP (Temporal Key Integrity Protocol) algorithm, which is a setting in your router and device setup...

To protect yourself, upgrade the security settings on your devices to WPA2 if they all support the standard. Alternately, you can upgrade any WPA device from TKIP security to AES. Check in your router administration console and on your computer for and where how to do this.

Did They Lay Off The Editors?

Page A8 headline of today's TU:

At trial, man accused of murder says he say someone else do it

Why do I feel like I'm in a reggae song written by someone that barely speaks english?

Oh Puh-leez

Can we drop the "most important Kennedy" and "the Kennedy that mattered most" crap, already? Teddy was nothing more than, to borrow a phrase from Ms. Rowling, 'the Kennedy who lived'. Congratulations. That and $4 will get you a nice latte. He was my senator for more than 2 decades and I don't recall anything he ever did to make me think he was worth a millionth of the praise currently being heaped on his well-preseved flesh. I recall nothing more than incoherent stuttering, mumbling ravings on the floor of the Senate, putting Rudolph to shame. Well, that and him stabbing Bush in the back after Bush let him write No Child Left Behind. Don't count on the press playing back any of "teddy's greatest hits" during their tributes to the boy who lived (while Mary Jo didn't), who wants to see him shouting "mumhumbaa balla jumgala drummahummow!" to the wild applause of Democrat senators, anymore?

Tonko Town Hall

I didn't make it to the Tonko Town Hall, but saw some coverage on Cap News 9. Sure looked like the majority there were very much anti-socialized medicine. The only professionally-printed signs I saw were for liberal groups. Again - this is just a small sample in a brief news report.

Was anyone there? Have any stories, photos, or video to share?

Naturally Delicious

Have you browsed the freezer aisle lately at the supermarket? I noticed a carton of Breyers that looks like ice cream and is portrayed as ice cream. But it doesn't actually say ice cream anywhere.

In fact, when you read the description, apart from the mix-ins the base is described as "flavored frozen dairy dessert". Yikes.

It probably tastes great, though.

Their Arms Must Be Tiring

They cannot possibly keep lugging all this Obama water, can they?

Majority of Americans Believe Health Care Reform 'Myths'

More than 50 percent of Americans believe a public insurance option will increase health care costs, according to a new survey on assertions the White House has called myths.

Maybe because they, unlike the White House, listened to the CBO which concluded that a public insurance option will increase health care costs.

Among the results on items the White House considers myths:

67 percent of respondents believe that wait times for health care services, such as surgery, will increase (91 percent of Republicans, 37 percent of Democrats, 72 percent of Independents).

Perhaps that's because wait times under socialized medicine have increased in Massachusetts and other states with similar programs and nations that have socialized medicine. It's almost as if they're believing the "myth" that comes true every time it is implemented or something.

About five out of 10 believe the federal government will become directly involved in making personal health care decisions (80 percent of Republicans, 25 percent of Democrats, 56 percent of Independents).

Maybe that's because Obama and the Democrats have explicitly said that government "boards" will determine what treatments are "cost-effective" (blue pill, anyone?) and will be covered - to the point that any doctors that want government reimbursement has to abide by these rules with all their patients. And maybe it's because in places like Oregon (no, you can't have treatment, you can have assisted suicide), Canada (no, you can't have that medicine), the UK (no, you're too old for that treatment), and Europe in general (no, you can't have that medicine) that is exactly what has happened with socialized medicine.

Roughly six out of 10 Americans believe taxpayers will be required to pay for abortions (78 percent of Republicans, 30 percent of Democrats, 58 percent of Independents)

Maybe that's because Democrats writing and defending the bills have conceded that abortions would be covered by taxpayer funded coverage and voted down every attempt to insert language stating clearly that taxpayer funds would not be used for abortions - something that would seem a no-braine if they agreed that taxpayer funds shouldn't and won't be used for abortions (language proposed DID provide for mother's health, rape, incest, etc).

46 percent believe reforms will result in health care coverage for all illegal immigrants (66 percent of Republicans, 29 percent of Democrats, 43 percent of Independents).

Maybe that's because the most widely publicized bill, the House bill, notes that those providing services are not allowed to inquire as to a person's citizenship before providing services (illegal aliens are not supposed to get health insurance, but they are guaranteed health care at taxpayer expense). And also perhaps because Obama keeps talking about coverage for 50 million people, which includes illegals.

54 percent believe the public option will increase premiums for Americans with private health insurance (78 percent of Republicans, 28 percent of Democrats, 58 percent of Independents).

Maybe that's because the House bill mandates that, within 5 years, all private plans cover all the same stuff that the government plan covers, including marriage counseling, 'free' preventive tests, etc...all of which will force premiums up - particularly in plans that are currently 'cheap' because they are limited - such as catastrophic plans.

Five out of 10 think cuts will be made to Medicare in order to cover more Americans (66 percent of Republicans, 37 percent of Democrats, 44 percent of Independents).

Perhaps that's because Democrats have intimated that Medicare will be cut under their plans (and, really, this is no big deal - it should cut Medicare because they're talking about moving people from Medicare to other plans, hardly scandalous in and of itself, nor a "myth" in any way, shape, or form). Or maybe it's because people are finding out what such right-wing mouthpieces like the New York Times is just discovering - that you can't add 50 million people to a system and still provide the same level of care at the same price with the same number of providers ("In effect, Mr. Obama says he can cut bloated Medicare payments to inefficient health care providers without adversely affecting any beneficiaries. Many doctors are dubious. Medicare officials recently proposed changes that could increase payments for some primary care services but reduce payments to many specialists. Cardiologists would be especially hard hit, with cuts of more than 20 percent in payments for electrocardiograms and 12 percent for heart stent procedures." Why that sounds like a cut, don't it?)

In addition, only three out of 10 respondents believe the government will require the elderly to make decisions about how and when they will die.

But the press has been telling us that everyone is all up in arms about this very thing, haven't they? More than 50% oppose the reforms as proposed - clearly the press is wrong. But, then again, maybe they're starting to understand what the right, led by Sarah Palin, has been saying when they say "death panels" after all - not that they're actual "death panels" written into the legislation, but instead the ultimate outcome of rationing and following the advice of Obama's chief health care advisor (who has said the sick and elderly should just shut up and die so as not to use up resources): "The zeal for cutting health costs, combined with proposals to compare the effectiveness of various treatments and to counsel seniors on end-of-life care, may explain why some people think the legislation is about rationing, which could affect access to the most expensive services in the final months of life." This, again from the lunatic fringe conservative New York Times, essentially says that Sarah Palin is correct when she frets alout about "death panels" who ration expensive care from the vulnerable.

Bunch of malarkey, the lot of it.

--

UPDATE: John Hawkins provides more response (see original for full linkyness):

Liberal claim: The public option won't kill private health insurance.

When that sleazy old terrorist Yasser Arafat was alive, he was famous for telling Westerners he wanted peace in English, while telling his own people in Arabic to kill the Jews. Liberals are using the same tactic with the public option.

When they're talking to the general public, they assure them that the public option won't kill private insurance and if people like the plans they have, they'll be able to keep them.

But when liberals talk to each other, they explicitly admit that the public option is designed to kill private insurance so the government can take complete control.

There are many examples of this, but this quote from Barney Frank is so crystal clear about what they're doing that no more examples are really needed,

I think if we get a good public option, it could lead to single payer and that's the best way to reach single payer. Saying you'll do nothing until you reach single payer is a sure way never to get it.

Liberal Claim: Illegal aliens won't be covered

...There is indeed a clause in the House bill that says illegal aliens aren't covered. The mainstream media looks at that clause and then dutifully reports, as if it were a fact, that illegal aliens won't be getting taxpayer funded health care.

However, here's the catch: there's no enforcement provision...

The legislation contains no verification mechanism to ensure that illegal immigrants do not apply for benefits. Republicans offered an amendment to close this loophole — it would have required verification using the existing methods that are already in place to verify eligibility for other federal benefits programs. But when they were asked to put the language of the bill where their words were, in a party-line vote, House Democrats rejected the amendment to require verification and close this loophole...

Liberal claim: Abortion won't be covered by the bill.

...In fact, there was an amendment that was brought through the Energy and Commerce Committee that passed by one vote, that would have prohibited abortions. They then turned around and wrote another amendment that struck it out again. So, the committee has voted to fund abortions with public taxpayer dollars.

So, is there a provision in the bill that says that abortion will be funded? No, but all that means is that abortion will be funded by default. This shouldn't surprise anyone given that Barack Obama explicitly said abortion would be covered in his health care plan during the campaign:

The Obama campaign responded to a question about health care from the pro-abortion RH Reality Check web site.
"Senator Obama believes that reproductive health care is basic health care," the campaign said, using the phrase that abortion advocates employ to refer to abortion.

"His health care plan will create a new public plan, which will provide coverage of all essential medical services. Reproductive health care is an essential service," the Obama campaign added.

The Obama camp also made it clear that any private insurance companies wanting to participate would also be required to provide abortion coverage.

"And private insurers that want to participate will have to treat reproductive care in the same way," the Obama campaign responded.

...
Liberal Claim: There will be no rationing of health care.

If you're wondering if a "death panel" will convene and "pull the plug on Grandma," essentially, the answer is "yes." Of course, it won't be called a "death panel" and Nancy Pelosi is not going to show up personally and yank Grandma's life support out of the wall. They don't have to be that dramatic.

Consider what happened to Barbara Wagner, who's on Oregon’s state-run health care program. Her doctor prescribed a cancer drug that slows the spread of disease and the Oregon Health Plan refused to cover the cost of the treatment. However, they did note some other things they would cover including ”doctor-assisted suicide.” That's what a "death panel pulling the plug on grandma" looks like in the real world and we'll be seeing it nationwide if the Democrats get their way...

How bad can it get? In Britain, 100 people a week lose their eyesight because the government run health care system is so overstretched that they can't get them an appointment with an optometrist.

Ask Yourself Why

If the Daily Gazette is not liberal biased - they why do they have two far left columnists on staff (Strock and DiNicola) that regularly write virulently bigoted, untrue smears (and occasional libel) against any and all things conservative or Republican. And no one that writes anything even moderately from a conservative perspective, let alone anything that would match them as far on the right as they are from the left - I'm thinking Michael Savage would be about as far into the fringe right foolishness as they are to the left. And why have I yet to encounter a lie in one of their editorials that misstates a fact from the right of center, instead of the left? Why is it their official policy, as told to me by a staffer, to print whatever libelous nonsense (against conservatives or Republicans, naturally) they wished 'that might be true', even if they have no evidence that it is other than a rumor. Why do they print "cartoons" that first invent things about conservatives like Sarah Palin and then mock them for the things they've made up about them - including putting words in their mouths - but never do the same to liberals?

Same questions for the Times Union. They have at least two far left columnists on staff (Rosenfeld and LeDuckhunter) an inept far, far left editorial "cartoonist", along with other writers guaranteed to write from a left-wing perspective, interjecting bias and spewing often-untrue venom learned in the fever swamps of the leftweb, including McGuire and Seiler. And not a single writer that writes anything even moderately from a conservative perspective. Not one.

Simple questions. Why do both papers employ columnists and writers that write solely from the left, often libeling the right, and not a single columnist that could even pass a laugh test as a conservative? Why do their employees often interject smears and leftwing bias into completely unrelated pieces?

What other conclusion can we draw than the obvious one?

Welcome, Visitors

I'd just like to a take quick moment to again thank everyone for stopping by. I must admit that I never really started this blog to write for anyone except some locals disturbed by the putrid local press. Then I found myself using it as a tool for research and exploring ideas. I like to think I generally write for myself ("write like no one's reading" you might say) and am pleased that some others are interested in what I have to say.

No worries about an exploding ego - while I've seen my hits more or less expand by a factor of 25 since I started, we're still talking about quite small numbers, which I don't find surprising, discouraging, or disappointing in my niche - a niche I knew was local from the get-go.

I haven't checked my stats since back around election time last year, so I was quite surprised to see nearly a doubling of hits since then thanks, particularly, to a few posts that have drawn repeated hits from search engines. Thanks for reading and letting me write for you. Come back anytime...and bring a friend if you'd like ;)

And please keep the comments coming if you have something to add. Oh, and I'm always open to the idea of adding more help, particularly if you want to cover one of the other local papers or even a TV channel, etc. Or even if you just want to contribute an "editorial" or "opinion column" that would never make it into the paper.

Thanks.

Sotomayor Watch - Final Tally And Comparisons

Ok, so here we are. We've looked at Times Union coverage of 3 justices nominated by a Republican president. We found, as you can see below, that the stories overwhelming slung the qualifier "conservative" all over the place. It was interesting to compare coverage from Roberts to Miers to Alito, but what we really needed was a way to make a broader comparison - apples to oranges in a way. What we needed to see if what appeared to be blatant labeling bias was justifiable since "conservative" justices had been appointed by a "conservative" president. Miers was, naturally, a bit of a curveball because she was rejected by conservatives, but still, a difference without a distinction.

No, what we needed was a liberal nominated by a liberal. Wow, that didn't sound right. What we needed in order to validate our claim of labeling bias was a liberal nominated by a liberal. The country certainly doesn't need that. This was satisfied adequately by an activist liberal judge nominated by a socialist president.

If our claim was to be disproven the labeling should have trended heavily to "liberal" labels from "conservative". A moderation of labeling, in other words, no more liberals but less conservatives, would give us a hint that we were correct. Happily it was not necessary to split hairs. Instead both the Gazette and Times Union pummelled their readers with more and more "conservatives", fully proving our hypothesis beyond any reasonable doubt.

Let me also point out that I did miss two Gazette stories due to a computer failure. When I can get at the stories I missed in the future I will slightly update this post to reflect the labels in those two stories. They will not fundamentally change anything, just remember that the final percentages will vary a bit, probably.

Also, remember that these are just news items. They are NOT editorials, opinion columns, letters, etc. These are just supposed to be neutral, unbiased reporting. Our hypothesis is proven that they are not.

TIMES UNION (40 pieces)
Conservative is used: 34 times
A person or group was called Conservative: 18 times (53%)
A Conservative label was avoided: 0 times (0% vs. labeled)

Liberal is used: 10 times
A person or group was called Liberal: 7 times (70%)
A Liberal label was avoided: 15 times (150% vs. labeled)

++

DAILY GAZETTE (26 pieces)
Conservative is used: 28 times
A person or group was called Conservative: 13 times (46%)
A Conservative label was avoided: 0 times (0% vs. labeled)

Liberal is used: 15 times
A person or group was called Liberal: 7 times (47%)
A Liberal label was avoided: 9 times (60% vs. labeled)

+

So it sort of looks like the Gazette did a hair better. The Times Union tagged a person or group as conservative 53% of the time. That means nearly half the time they just threw out the term 'conservative' without tying it to anyone in particular. The Gazette tagged specific conservatives even less - 46% of the time. But the other side is where it gets interesting. Only 30% of the time did the TU use "liberal" without tying it to someone. But the Gazette tagged specific people nearly half the time. And, of course, the avoidances are atrocious. NEITHER paper called anyone a liberal without equating it to a conservative - not a single time did either paper fail to call someone a conservative. Contrastingly, the TU skipped calling a liberal a liberal 15 times - they only actually used the term "liberal" 10 times! The Gazette skipped the liberal tag 9 times while using it 15 times. Slightly better, but still disgraceful vs. conservative labeling.

The Times Union only found liberals in a mere 1/4 of their stories on average, despite the 2 main characters being liberals. On average they found a conservative is just about every single story. The Gazette, on average, found more than one conservative in every story. They managed to root out a liberal in about half of their stories.

This is where our hypothesis is proven. A liberal was nominated by an ultra-liberal to replace a liberal - yet the term "conservative" was used 3.4 times more often by the TU than "liberal" and 1.9 times as often, nearly twice as often, by the Gazette. For every 2 liberals they saw, the TU saw 7 conservatives, and for every liberal the Gazette saw they saw 2 conservatives.

Let's look at our other cases.

+

Final Tally: Roberts Watch (TU only)

Conservative is used: 48 times
A person or group was called Conservative: 25 times (52%)

Liberal is used: 16 times
A person or group was called Liberal: 7 times (44%)

3 times as many conservatives.

*

Final Tally: Miers Watch (TU only)

Conservative is used: 56 times
A person or group was called Conservative: 15 times (27%)
A Conservative label was avoided: 2 times (3.5% vs. labeled)

Liberal is used: 2 times
A person or group was called Liberal: 0 times (0%)
A Liberal label was avoided: 5 times (250% vs. labeled)

28 times as many conservatives!

*

Final Tally: Staunch Conservative Alito Watch (TU only)

Conservative is used: 60 times
A person or group was called Conservative: 43 times (72%)
A Conservative label was avoided: 1 times (1.7% vs. labeled)

Liberal is used: 24 times
A person or group was called Liberal: 10 times (42%)
A Liberal label was avoided: 11 times (46% vs. labeled)

2.5 times as many conservatives

**

TU used "conservative" vs "liberal" X times as often
3 times as often for Roberts
28 times as often for Miers
2.5 times as often for Alito
3.4 times as often for Sotomayor

If you throw out whatever they were doing when they absolutely went bonkers on Miers, you have an insignificant difference between Roberts, Alito, and Sotomayor. In fact, they found conservatives a little more often when a liberal was nominated.

The coverage of Miers is probably a doctoral thesis in and of itself. Every time I review the numbers I'm shocked - 56 times they find conservatives in the relatively short period she was under consideration versus only 2 liberal tags. And, more amazingly, only 27% of the time did they call anyone in particular a conservative instead of just using the term vaguely like a boogeyman. And it looks like there were only 15 stories re: Miers. That means that the TU had a whopping 3.7 conservative labels per story on average - and some of them were blurbs with no labels at all - one of the first stories at 12 conservative labels and another had 9! The TU came in at about 1:1 for Sotomayor and the Gazette a little over 1:1 - so 3.7:1 is just shocking.

(note that many, many of these stories are wire stories, not staff stories. Nevertheless, the clear differences between wire stories makes it abundantly clear that the papers retain editorial control over what appears in their paper and they could easily reject a story or edit it to remove slant...just to be clear when I say "the TU did this or that", that includes what they chose to publish from outside suppliers)

Republicans Have Proposed 3 Health Care Reform Bills This Year

Contrary to liberal lies:

President Barack Obama and Democrats in Congress -- while pushing their own health care overhauls -- have criticized Republicans as offering only opposition and no ideas for reform, but the GOP, despite the lack of media attention, has introduced three health care bills.

The three Republican bills total almost 400 pages and have been on the table since May and June.

In May, Republicans in the House and the Senate formed a bicameral coalition to produce the130-page “Patients Choice Act of 2009.”

In June, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) introduced the “Health Care Freedom Plan,” a 41-page proposal.

And in July, the Republican Study Committee, under the leadership of Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.), unveiled the “Empowering Patients First Act,” a 130-page plan.

Some of the provisions included in one or more of the bills include: investing in preventive medicine, an overhaul of Medicaid, reduction of abuse and fraud in the Medicare program, supplemental health insurance for low-income families, tax credits for health insurance, and a ban on federal funds being used for abortions.

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.)However, supporters of the Democratic plans have accused Republicans of trying to derail attempts at reforming health care without having a plan of their own.

“There is no Republican health care plan out there,” Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) told Talk Radio News Service on July 31 about what he called the Republican-backed “misinformation campaign” that is slowing health care reform.

He said Republicans are satisfied with the status quo and “don’t want to show the American people where they stand on these issues.”

At a White House briefing on Aug. 18, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs criticized Republicans for not wanting to make the health care system better.

“Only a handful seem interested in the type of comprehensive reform that so many people believe is necessary to ensure the principles and the goals that the president has laid out,” Gibbs said.

In May, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) said his bill, co-sponsored by Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.), and Reps. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), puts a priority on patients and their ability to oversee their own health care choices.

Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.)“As a practicing physician, I have seen first-hand how giving government more control over health care has failed to make health care more affordable or accessible,” Coburn said. “The ‘Patients Choice Act’ will provide every American with access to affordable health care without a tax increase, more debt or waiting lines.”

“The American health care system needs a complete transformation,” Burr said. “The ‘Patients’ Choice Act’ will finally enable Americans to own their health care instead of being trapped in the current system, which leaves people either uninsured, dependent on their employer, or forced into a government program.”

The “Patients Choice Act” has been referred to the Senate Finance Committee, which is set to release a Democratic-crafted bill from that committee when Congress returns after Labor Day.

In June, DeMint, chairman of the Senate Steering Committee, introduced the “Health Care Freedom Plan,” which was analyzed by the Heritage Foundation. The conservative policy think tank said DeMint’s bill could reduce the number of uninsured by 22.4 million people in five years.

It also provides grants to help people with pre-existing conditions gain access to affordable insurance, and allows Americans to purchase health savings accounts to pay for insurance.

“The time has come for Americans to regain control of their health care choices, and the ‘Health Care Freedom Act’ empowers every American with the freedom to choose and own a plan that is best for them,” DeMint said.

DeMint’s bill also has been referred to the Senate Finance Committee.

In July, Price, who is also a practicing physician, introduced the “Empowering Patients First Act.”

“Today, we present a solution for health care reform that offers more patient-centered choices and care of the highest quality,” Price said. “The ‘Empowering Patients First Act’ is a budget neutral proposal based on the fundamental principle that personal medical decisions should be made by patients in consultation with the doctors rather than unaccountable bureaucrats in Washington.”

Price’s bill also emphasizes preventive health care, tax credits, reduction of fraud and abuse in existing federal health care programs, and health care programs tailored to meet the needs of Native Americans and U.S. military veterans.

The bill has been referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, as well as to the committees on Ways and Means, Education and Labor, Oversight and Government Reform, and the Judiciary, Rules, Budget, and Appropriations committees.

Interesting to note, is it not, that physician Republicans are involved in the GOP plans while the Democratic plans are written by lawyers and lobbysists?

Presidential Approval Collapsing

How often were we told that Bush's negative ratings meant not that he was personally unpopular, but really meant that people were not on board with his policies?

I'll tell you how often. A LOT.

Meanwhile we're expected to believe that Obama's cratering approvals are just ginned up phony opposition and don't reflect any such disapproval with his policies.

Done laughing, yet?

Republicans are pulling ahead on generic ballots (meaningless by themselves, but a leading indicator unless winds shift - see 2006), now more trusted than the donks on health care, and we're seeing that even Senator Majority Leader Reid is behind in the polls.

Yesterday's approval index from Rasmussen had Obama at -14 amongst likely voters, his worst ever. Now that he's safely hiding at Martha's Vineyard with the othe liberal elite, having dumped his 'budget predictions' that show larger-than-ever debts on Saturday before fleeing, they've crawled back to -12. And just imagine, this is all after an all out push by the press to get socialized medicine implemented lately.

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows that 28% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty percent (40%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -12.

Today’s Approval Index rating reflects a slight improvement from yesterday’s record low of -14.

Like Old Times

Couldn't help but have a chuckle at the front page of the Saturday Gazette. One of the headlines read: "Home sales up, but prices down".

Yeah?

Reminds me of the clueless press that wrote the brilliant headline years ago: "Crime down, but prison populations up".

Do The Math

1. Union ads on the radio complaining that the State wants to shut down some prisons. They wax poetic about how corrections officers do such a great job protecting the public and rehabilitating criminals. They think the prisons should stay open so they can keep doing this great job. No doubt that given the opportunity, they do indeed generally do a decent job.

2. What they don't tell you is that they're talking about closing prisons that are, for all practical purposes, empty. No one to protect us from - no one to rehabilitate.

3. Obama needs somewhere to put murderous terrorists within our borders since he doesn't like having them across a sea in a military facility in Cuba where they can't get at anyone except trained members of our military.

Seems like a simple solution, doesn't it? Anybody want to start running ads campaigning to bring terrorists to upstate NY to fill up the empty prisons we've got so everyone can keep working? Unions? How about it?

Just wondering.

Your Random Saturday

Thomas Sowell, a death panel by any other name would kill as cheaply:

The mainstream media are again circling the wagons to protect Barack Obama, but this time it may not work. One of those front-page editorials disguised as a news article in the New York Times begins: "The stubborn yet false rumor that President Obama's health care proposals would create government-sponsored 'death panels' to decide which patients were worthy of living seemed to arise from nowhere in recent weeks."

Nowhere? Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel is "Special Advisor for Health Policy" for the Obama administration. That's nowhere? He is also co-author of an article on Americans' "over-utilization" of medical care in the June 18, 2008 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association. Is that nowhere?...

In other words, it is not quantity but quality that is different-- and more expensive-- about American medical care. This is what Dr. Emanuel's "over-utilization" consists of...

As for a "death panel," no politician would ever use that phrase when trying to get a piece of legislation passed. "End of life" care under the "guidance" of "some independent group" sounds so much nicer-- and these are the terms President Obama used in an interview with the New York Times back on April 14th.

He said, "the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health care bill out there." He added: "It is very difficult to imagine the country making those decisions just through the normal political channels. That is why you have to have some independent group that can give you guidance."

But when you select people like Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel to give "independent" guidance, you have already chosen a policy through your choice of advisors, who simply provide political cover. The net result can be exactly the same as if those providing that guidance were openly called "death panels."

Wynton Hall turns some tables:

What Democrats seem unwilling to grasp is that there is an inverse relationship between how harshly Democrats demonize their opponents and how devastatingly silly they subsequently appear when those same conservative “simpletons” triumph over them in the policy arena.

Take, for example, the unrelenting personal attacks from Democrats on Gov. Palin’s intellectual and political heft. In an interview with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, former Clinton strategist Paul Begala called Sarah Palin a “half a whack job” who is “flaky” and an “intellectual lightweight.” Joining Mr. Begala in the verbal tirade is the always interminable Maureen Dowd of the New York Times who, continuing with her increasingly eerie fixation with all-things Sarah Palin, dubbed the Governor “dizzy” and, previously, “batty” and “one nutty puppy.”

And yet. Saturday, lamenting the unraveling of Mr. Obama’s healthcare message, Maureen Dowd made a startling if unintended concession about the influence and power of a conservative “dim-wit” like Sarah Palin. “She [Palin] took a forum, Facebook, more commonly used by kids hooking up and cyberstalking, and with one catchy phrase, several footnotes and a zesty disregard for facts, managed to hijack the health care debate from Mr. Obama.”

Now ask yourself this question: If conservatives like Gov. Sarah Palin are such vaporous fools, then how can they “hijack” a national debate from the most powerful man on the planet…and all with a simple Facebook posting no less?

Indeed, if Sarah Palin is the “whack job” and “intellectual lightweight” Mr. Begala claims her to be, then what does that make Mr. Obama who, according to Ms. Dowd, just got his clock cleaned by a Facebook message written by the unserious likes of a “nutty puppy” like Ms. Palin?

Ann Coulter begins bashing liberal lies about health care:

(5) Government intervention is the only way to provide coverage for pre-existing conditions.

The only reason most "pre-existing" conditions aren't already covered is because of government regulations that shrink the insurance market to a microscopic size, which leads to fewer options in health insurance and a lot more uninsured people than would exist in a free market.

The free market has produced a dizzying array of insurance products in areas other than health. (Ironically, array-associated dizziness is not covered by most health plans.) Even insurance companies have "reinsurance" policies to cover catastrophic events occurring on the properties they insure, such as nuclear accidents, earthquakes and Michael Moore dropping in for a visit and breaking the couch.

If we had a free market in health insurance, it would be inexpensive and easy to buy insurance for "pre-existing" conditions before they exist, for example, insurance on unborn -- unconceived -- children and health insurance even when you don't have a job. The vast majority of "pre-existing" conditions that currently exist in a cramped, limited, heavily regulated insurance market would be "covered" conditions under a free market in health insurance.

Let's Talk About Health Care More

Should we talk a little more about the wonders of socialized medicine in places like Europe and Canada as Obama and the Democrats hurl us headlong into their world?

Woe, Canada!

Defenders of ObamaCare continually point out that their plan is not like Canada's, that holding that country's system up as an example of impending medical doom is invalid. Canada's system is different. Instead of having a single national plan, Canada's national health insurance, a kind of public option, is composed of 13 interlocking provincial and territorial plans, all framed under the Canada Health Act.

But based on a report leaked to the Vancouver Sun, this is a distinction without a difference. Even if you break it up into smaller pieces, it's still state-run medical insurance with decisions on who gets care, based on cost and funding, not need. That is called rationing.

According to the leaked document, the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority is looking to close nearly a quarter of its operating rooms starting next month and to cut 6,250 surgeries. They include 24% of cases scheduled from September to March and 10% of all medically necessary elective procedures this fiscal year.

The plan proposes cutbacks to neurosurgery, ophthalmology, vascular surgery and 11 other specialized areas. Brian Brodie, a Canadian doctor and president of the British Columbia Medical Association, has called the proposed surgical cuts a "nightmare."

"Why would you begin your cost-cutting measures on medically necessary surgery?" he asks. "I can't think of a worse place."

Great role model. How about Europe? Ah yes, the year was 2003 and it was pretty hot in Europe. How hot was it? Hot enough to kill more than 20,000 people, most of them elderly. What's that angry AARP member "mobs"? I should speak up? I SAID THAT WHEN IT GOT HOT IN EUROPE BETWEEN 20,000 AND 35,000 PEOPLE, MOSTLY ELDERLY, DIED BECAUSE OF INADEQUATE MEDICAL SERVICES! So many people died because they did not have access to medical care that 6 years later they still don't even know how many died.

Not to worry. They won't let it happen again. They planted trees.

The worst hit was France which lost more than 14,000 of it mostly elderly population in the unrelenting heat recorded as high as 104 degrees - temperatures that didn't cool down even at night...

French authorities also lay part of the blame on inadequate care for the elderly in hospitals and rest homes, and a lack of adequate medical personnel to handle a crisis of that magnitude. Reports contend that many people died of heat stroke, dehydration, and other heat-related problem due to a delay in receiving medical care...

Governments throughout Western Europe have made plans to avert a repeat of last year -- like creating temporary beaches, erecting showers, and planting additional trees.

Doctors all on their mandatory massive vacations? No problem, we'll just roll the old people out under our nice new elm tree. Same thing.

The new [death toll] estimate comes a day after the French Parliament released a harshly worded report blaming the deaths on a complex health system, widespread failure among agencies and health services to coordinate efforts, and chronically insufficient care for the elderly...

But most of the top health officials were on vacation, and the government report says that also partly explains why the alarm wasn't raised sooner...

Health Minister Jean-Francois Mattei has ordered a separate special study this month to look into a possible link with vacation schedules after doctors strongly denied allegations their absence put the elderly in danger. The heat wave hit during the August vacation period, when doctors, hospital staff and many others take leave. The results of that study are expected in November.

The role of vacations is a touchy subject. The National General Practitioners Union says that only about 20 percent of general practitioners were away during the heat wave.

Oui, oui! We were on vacation, but it's not our fault! We have to take zee vacation!

(AP - Sept 12, 2003):

Health Minister Girolamo Sirchia said the typical victim was old and already ill, lived alone in a small home with no air conditioning, and had a low income.

He placed part of the blame on lack of assistance for the aged during Italy's vacation period, when residents flood out of cities by the millions and doctors can be hard to find.

But aren't these the people we're supposed to be going after with ObamaCare which is modeled after this? Sure, on occasion it might be hard to find the right doctor for a procedure at a certain time in the US, but to not be able to find any doctors because they've all gone on vacation? Unheard of.

(AP - Sept 9, 2003):

The French report, ordered by the Health Ministry, pointed to disarray and lack of communication between weather officials, emergency services and hospitals, and said a "massive" exodus of doctors on August vacation left many elderly to fend for themselves.

"Hospitals found themselves in growing difficulties to provide personnel in a sufficient number," said the 47-page report, with about 100 more pages of charts. The study also said France 's 35-hour workweek had cut into hospital staffing.

Michel Combier, president of the National General Practitioners Union, said it was unfair to blame doctors and other health-care workers for going on vacation at the same time as everyone else.

Whoops! So sorry, I've put in my 35 hours and cannot work more, time for another vacation!

But we certainly shouldn't investigate or talk about any of this! Why it's "un-American" and "terrorist" and "mob" behavior to want to actually get your government to talk about any of this before they just blindly start us down that road with a thousand page, trillion dollar plan to upend 16% of our economy!

Commence Laughing NOW

From the LA Times:TV listings:

The Prime-Time TV grid in Thursday's Calendar section mistakenly listed MTV's "Jackass" show on the MSNBC cable schedule at 7 and 10 p.m. where instead MSNBC's "Countdown With Keith Olbermann" should have been listed.

Now that's how you start your weekend off right! Thanks to Villainous Company for the tip.

Pittsburgh Steelers Kicked In The Cup By Karma

Steelers faked out by movie day ruse

Coach Mike Tomlin and kicker Jeff Reed showed the Pittsburgh Steelers that it’s not only quarterbacks who can run a fake.

As the Steelers trudged toward their practice fields for the last in a long series of a two-a-day practices Thursday, a fleet of buses pulled up at Saint Vincent College. To the veteran players, this signaled a welcome training camp tradition that began under former coach Bill Cowher: A morning at the movies, with no practice.

Wrong. Buckle up that chin strap, Big Ben.

It was all a ruse—there were no movies, no bowling alley excursion, no break on the last day at camp. Practice went on, and Tomlin only grinned at the prank orchestrated by Reed, the team’s best-known jokester...

“There were guys dancing out there,” Reed said. “At first everybody was happy, but then it was, `Aw, man.’ I was hoping he (Tomlin) would trick me by putting us on the buses and going to the movies. Coach, he was laughing about it. He thought it was great.”

How great was it, coach?

Steelers quarterback Roethlisberger hurts foot

Pittsburgh Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger has hurt his foot, on the National Football League team's final day of training camp.

Offensive tackle Max Starks stepped on the signal-caller's foot while blocking toward the end of practice.

Roethlisberger was initially able to walk around after the injury but was later taken from the field on a golf cart.

Say it with me...

D'OH!!!!

It's Not Easy Being The First Half-Black President

(apologies to the mighty green one)

It's not that easy bein' the first half-black president;
Having to spend each day moving money from the rich to the poor.
When I think the US could be nicer being red, (let the Consitution mold)-
or something much more "neighborly" like that.

It's not easy bein' the first half-black president.
It seems you blend in with the hardcore leftist wing.
And people tend to pass you over 'cause you're not doing anything like passing bills that help them- or busting on the USPO.

But the first half-black president's still tingling the press' legs.
And the first half-black president is still portrayed as cool but smokes a pack a day.
And the first half-black president can call on his union buddies, or be impotent like a Carter, or lie like a rug.

When the first half-black president is all there is to be
It could make you wonder what the hell happened, but why wonder what the hell happened? Wonder,
I am the first half-black president and I'll do what I want, it's beautiful!
And I think I'll be replaced in a bit over three.


-

for the curious - the sole motivation behind this bit of fun is my utter contempt for the pot-stirring press' seemingly uncontrollable urge to pepper every single mention of Obama with "the first black president"

Sapphire, Not So Good

What the heck's up with this clueless coverage of Chase's new "Sapphire" card?

There are two kinds of people in this world: those who think credit cards are status symbols, and those who don't. For those who wouldn't be caught dead with anything less than platinum, have we got news for you! Chase has launched a new credit card for their "most affluent customers." The snazzy sounding "Chase Sapphire" is racking up huge numbers in Search.

As with most exclusive credit cards, you'll need a nice salary to qualify. According to Bloomberg.com, folks who earn $120,000 or more per year will be "targeted" by Chase. Those who deserve the honor of carrying the card will enjoy "no pre-set spending limit" and "a point for every dollar spent" — plus, we assume, impressed looks from waiters and retail clerks...

Can you say, "NOT!". On what do I base my NOT-age? Simple, they've been trying to get me to change my card to a Sapphire card for months. And why has the search for "Chase Sapphire" suddenly spiked? Because letters just started arriving this week saying your card is being converted whether you asked them to or not. Think that sort of thing could prompt a surge in searches? Duh. And when I called to tell them I didn't want to change my card I was told they're converting ALL the cards eventually, but in the meantime I'll be allowed to keep my higher reward card.

Oh, and, no - we don't make that much per year, either.

Get a clue, Yahoo, and don't just write speculative stories based on easily-explained spikes in a search term.

Another Phony Grassroots MoveOn Event - Schenectady County

Yup, they just keep on coming, these phony "grassroots" events. This time they get the town wrong where they're going to be, but at least they've got the right Congressman! Way to go, chaps!

Why phony?

"Your local MoveOn Council is organizing...

Signs will be provided. All you have to do is show up.

All you have to do is show up. Signs will be provided."

Yup, that's the definition of astroturf.

They also get the place wrong - they talk about an 'event' in Schenectady, but they're actually going to Mohawk Commons in Niskayuna. At least they got the Rep right - Tonko is the Rep for both Schenectady and Niskayuna. Unfortunately Tonko is already whole hog sold out to the left for socialized health care. Wild dogs couldn't get him to vote against The Party at this point. How sad it's been to watch the decline from respected thinker to hardcore Party line voter of a guy. Shame.

Another Leftwing Activist Caught Posing As A Doctor At Town Hall

Remember way back a couple of weeks ago when the health care protests made sense? Basically you just had a bunch of angry conservatives and moderates meeting up at the offices and town halls of congressman and such and complaining that no one was listening to them, complaining loudly to be sure, and they wanted to be heard.

Then the Lyndon Larouche supporters started showing up with their Obama-as-Hitler posters.

Then the slow-as-honey leftwing machine started spinning up and Obama called out his loyal thugs in the SEIU to show up and start showing some muscle at the protests (since his own "organizing for America" group is spinning its wheels with little support from 'members').

Then leftwing activist nuts started showing up and saying they're doctors and support the government takeover of their industry (because government payments that are so low that almost no one will take Medicare patients is a real motivator!).

Remember how much sense the protests made when it was just the conservatives involved? How non-violent the events were (if loud and raucus)?

You gotta read about this nut at Barney Frank's 'event'. Do NOT miss the photo of her car.

Media Bias Clouding Protest Coverage

It was perhaps a slow seepage, but the media's bias against conservatives, the GOP...well, let's be honest - anyone right of Hillary Clinton has now fully set in and the questionable reporting on the health care protests have now reached the full-blown phony-baloney "reporting" seen over the TEA party protests where the press mocked grassroots protesters with derogatory homosexual innuendo.

The MRC has compiled a handy little 1 page release on how bad things are getting, which you can download the .pdf of here: Double-Standard on Anti-ObamaCare “Mobs”. They provide evidence of the blatant double-standard that anyone with a brain in their head and access to reporting from a few years ago can do nothing but agree demonstrates blatant, hardcore leftwing media bias.

In January 2003, all of the broadcast networks touted an antiwar
march organized by the radical International ANSWER, an outgrowth of the communist Workers World Party. Signs at the rally read: “USA Is #1 Terrorist,” “Bush Is a Terrorist,” and “The NYPD Are Terrorists Too.” National Review Online quoted several protesters who claimed 9/11 was a Bush plot, “like when Hitler burned down the Reichstag,” and argued Bush would “build a worldwide planetary death machine.”

Reporters bypassed all that hate and showcased the protesters as everyday Americans. On ABC, Bill Blakemore stressed how the protest attracted “Democrats and Republicans, many middle-aged, from all walks of life,” while CBS’s Joie Chen saw “young, old, veterans and veteran activists — all united in the effort to stop the war before it starts.”...

On March 22, 2003, CNN offered 38 separate reports on a demonstration that day, but managed to never show any of the radical rhetoric from the podium. Over on ABC, Chris Cuomo saluted the leftists converging in New York City: “While protesters like today are a statistical minority, in American history protests like this have been prescient indicators of the national mood. So the government may do well to listen to what’s said today.”

In October 2003, the far left rallied again in Washington, this time with a rapper leading a chant of “F**k George Bush!” and speakers praising Cuban dictator Fidel Castro. The next day’s Washington Post ignored all of that in favor of a soft feature: “In D.C., a Diverse Mix Rouses War Protest.”

More troubling, though, is what this has led to - factual misrepresentation of protesters and, like the juvenile editing of Sarah Palin interviews where her answers are curtailed and modified to make her sound stupid, actual editing of footage to obscure the reality of the protests. Very dangerous stuff for a free country.

On Tuesday, MSNBC’s Contessa Brewer fretted over health care reform protesters legally carrying guns: "A man at a pro-health care reform rally...wore a semiautomatic assault rifle on his shoulder and a pistol on his hip....there are questions about whether this has racial overtones....white people showing up with guns." Brewer failed to mention the man she described was black...

Not only did Brewer, Ratigan, and Toure fail to point out the fact that the gun-toting protester that sparked the discussion was black, but the video footage shown of that protester was so edited, that it was impossible to see that he was black. The man appeared at a health care rally outside of President Obama’s speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars in Phoenix, Arizona.

The Arizona Republic reported: "A man, who decided not to give his name, was walking around the pro-health care reform rally at Third and Washington streets, with a pistol on his hip and an AR-15 (a semi-automatic assault weapon) on a strap over his shoulder. ‘Because I can do it,’ he said when asked why he was armed. ‘In Arizona, I still have some freedoms.’" A picture accompanying the article showed the man was African-American.

MoveOn Holding Another Out-Of-District Event Today

I guess the MorOn.org'ers weren't happy that rallying to sway Scott Murphy at Colonie Center Mall yesterday wasn't a great idea - especially since Colonie Center is not in Scott Murphy's district and, as an added bonus, he was in Queensbury.

Well, they're trying again with another phony "grassroots" event this morning.

Why phony? Your local MoveOn Council is organizing an important event..."

And they're teaming up with another bunch of activists: "We will be rallying with Citizens Action for New York..."

And, again, the stupidity is absolutely priceless: "Rep. Murphy needs to hear from his local constituents."

The event is in Albany. Again, Albany is not in Scott Murphy's district.

--

Update - seems the rightweb is hard at work proving, yes, proving that it is the loony left that is lying when they claim that the right is organizing in protesters. Now that everyone has a cell phone camera or such it's getting awfully easy to catch the left busing in protesters - check this out:

Chris Gautz of the Jackson (MI) Citizen Patriot reports that the SEIU and Organizing For America chartered buses from nearly 200 miles away to plant Obamacare supporters at a town hall meeting held by Democrat Rep. Mark Schauer...

Several readers have criticized the Citizen Patriot’s coverage of last week’s health-care rally outside U.S. Rep. Mark Schauer’s office, where hundreds came out — both to support and oppose — President Barack Obama’s reform plan.

The chief criticism was that we failed to mention that some supporters were bused in from around the state.

It is true, and it wasn’t included in the original story, but not because we were trying to slant coverage. The simple truth is it was a difficult fact to nail down.

You’re reading this story today because Tuesday I was able to confirm with the Service Employees International Union that it rented vans and encouraged people to carpool to the event. About 100 SEIU members attended, from as far away as Muskegon and Detroit, said Zac Altefogt, a spokesman for SEIU Healthcare Michigan...

On Friday, we followed up with Organizing for America, which put out the call for supporters to attend the event. OFA state director Aletheia Henry assured us that her group had not bused people to the rally.

We wrote a short follow-up Saturday and thought it was resolved.

Then this week, some readers e-mailed us photos of supporters standing in front of a bus from Trinity Transportation parked several blocks away near Family Video, 1111 W. Ganson St.

My colleague followed up with Henry. We told her we understood OFA hadn’t chartered the buses, but we wondered if she knew who had. She refused to answer the question and then hung up the phone.

Seems like an overreaction to a news organization simply looking for a straight answer.

BUS-ted.

On The Doorstep, Wednesday

So what did the papers bring us today? I ventured a guess that the press would not fairly report on the Wilson case in Novak's obit. I was 100% correct.

The Times Union ran the WaPo obit. It clearly played up the Wilson angle, citing his ridiculous claims, but not noting that he was eventually proven a liar. It cites that Novak 'blew Plame's cover', when in fact she was no longer 'under cover'. It played up the Libby angle and mentioned Bush's partial commuting of his sentence. It never mentioned that Richard Armitage, a Bush opponent at State, was the one that actually gave Plame's name to Novak, instead implying, very carefully, that it was the White House that did it, which dances very close to a lie.

The Daily Gazette ran the AP obit. See above. It made the same implications, hyped the same partial truths, and never once mentioned Armitage.

Then, later in the papers, both discuss the illegal alien that kidnapped a woman in Saratoga with the intention of raping her. The Times Union's writer absolutely wore out the word 'alleged', which seemed to be every third word in the article. It continues the desperate fiction that the man (of foreign "nationality") 'is believed to in the US illegally'. More ludicrously, after this mild assertion it quotes the prosecutor or police (sorry, can't recall who exactly) that makes absolutely no bones about the fact that they are convinced he's an illegal.

The Daily Gazette, on the other hand, actually chooses accuracy over political correctness and notes that the kidnapping attempted rapist is an illegal alien, in those words, right in the headline of the story. Naturally, I was shocked.

Civil Rights Commission Hounding DOJ Over Black Panther Voter Intimidation

Sorry for the long title. Happily someone has the balls and clout to stand up to Holder for his dismissal of a slam dunk case of voter intimidation by blacks calling whites trying vote things like "cracker".

EDITORIAL: Black Panther case expands

Even if the liberal media continue to ignore it, the Justice Department's dismissal of a voter-intimidation case against members of the New Black Panther Party is a full-blown scandal. Fortunately, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights is pursuing justice even though the Department of Justice is not.

As reported in our news pages last Friday, the commission has sent a strongly worded letter to Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., effectively threatening to subpoena witnesses and documents if Justice does not provide better, more complete answers about its decision to dismiss the cases. "We believe the Department's defense of its actions thus far undermines respect for rule of law," wrote the commission, "and raises other serious questions about the department's law enforcement decisions."

The case involves a nationally broadcast incident in which two Black Panthers in paramilitary garb, one of them wielding a nightstick, stood outside a Philadelphia polling place on Election Day in November. They were uttering racial epithets and otherwise discouraging voting. Career attorneys at the Justice Department won a default judgment against both Black Panthers, plus a national Panther leader and the party as a whole -- but at the last minute, Obama appointees at Justice dismissed all the charges except one, and responded to that one with an extraordinarily mild injunction.

One explanation from Justice was that First Amendment (free speech) rights somehow mitigated against greater punishment of the Black Panthers. The commission responded, sensibly: "It is unclear what First Amendment issue would arise by enjoining the [New Black Panther Party] or other racial hate-groups from organizing its members again to carry any weapons (especially when dressed in paramilitary uniforms) at polling places and subject particular voters to racially-bigoted diatribes as they attempt to enter the polls."...

The commission also ought to continue asking if outside groups played an improper role in the case's dismissal, or if there was untoward political interference from the White House or other Democratic Party sources.

But the commission may not stop even there. Letters can be ignored. Yearlong investigations can't be. At last Friday's meeting, Commissioner Todd Gaziano noted that the commission statutorily is required to issue an annual report on some aspect of federal civil rights enforcement. He proposed that the report for 2010 focus on the Justice Department's handling of the Black Panther case. While the commission did not make a final decision on the matter, Mr. Gaziano's proposal seemed to enjoy tentative majority support...

MoveOn Holding Phony Grassroots Event Wednesday At Colonie Center

Hello out there, Albany region. Just wanted to point out that MoveOn.org will be holding a phony "grassroots" event outside Colonie Center tomorrow around the afternoon rush hour. Thought you might want to know that their "grassroots" event is anything but if you happen to drive by.

Remember what they told members on August 7th:

We've got a plan to fight back against these radical right-wingers. We've hired skilled grassroots organizers...

Hiring "skilled grassroots organizers" is pretty much the textbook definition of astroturfing. Well, following up on that they're announcing plans for tomorrow's 'event' in Colonie that screams "astroturf" (note the repetition). Just show up and hold the sign we give you, boy if that doesn't scream "grassroots" I don't know what does!

Your local MoveOn Council is organizing an important event tomorrow...

Signs will be provided. All you have to do is show up.

Signs will be provided. Look for us on Wolf Road at Central Avenue.

No, wait, this gets better:

Rep. Murphy needs to hear from his local constituents. Right-wingers are doing everything they can to hijack the debate—they're even using fraudulent tactics, like bringing people who don't live in the district to town halls...

We have numbers on our side, but Rep. Murphy won't know it unless we all show up.

Care to guess who the Rep for Albany and Colonie is? Here's a hint - it ain't Scott Murphy!

Can you believe people from other districts are going to events out of their district!? C'mon, all of us from Tonko's district are going to show Scott Murphy what we think!

Fricking hilarious.

"Rep. Murphy needs to hear from his local constituents." Yeah? Here's a clue - his "local constituents" don't live in Albany or Colonie.

-

Ah, not that I've had a chance to read the papers I know why they're going after Murphy...Tonko has already completely sold out to the farthest left of the Party. The Gazette notes the following:

"A robust public plan is the best way to go forward," Tonko said...

(neither Tonko nor the Gazette acknowledge the implicit lie by Great Leader when he says:) He added, however, that (CBO) estimates that 2 out of every three people in the country would still be covered by (private insurance).

(and Tonko lies his ass off when he tells someone that she has "very good, inexpensive health insurance") "You are able to keep that plan." (this is utter bullspit - current inexpesive plans are inexpensive because they do not, generally, offer a vast array of services like MARRIAGE COUNSELING, which the House bill MANDATES be added within 5 years - thereby FORCING up the cost, thereby FORCING her plan to change)

NOTE: Tonko will be holding an in-person event at 5:30 on August 25 at the "large pavilion in the Elm Avenue Park, 261 Elm Ave., Delmar". Grassroots conservatives: make yourself a sign and get out there and be heard. Phony liberal organized lemmings: get your mass-produced MoveOn sign and stand where you're told.

And Now You Know The Rest Of The Story

Analysis: Liberals tired of health care compromise

Analysis: Conservatives tired of 3/4 of the population giving up their rights to please liberals

Truth - Gateway Pundit sez:

Liberals "Tired of Compromise" ...Ready to Ram Obamacare Down America's Throat

Unreal.
-- They created the Stimulus Bill behind closed doors and passed the bill without any Republican votes in the House.
-- They created the Cap & Tax Bill behind closed doors and passed the bill with 8 Republican votes in the House.
-- They created Obamacare behind closed doors, bussed in their Far Left supporters to town hall meetings and now they are ready to ram it down America's throat, too!

Another Lesson Democrats Will Refuse To Learn

This report on the state of solar energy and market-churning government interference concludes with a lesson that the Democrats with their thousand page bills they've not read nor understand being passed with lightning rapidity should, but won't, heed:

For a brief, shining moment, Spain was the best solar market in the world.

Unlike in cloudy Germany, the sun bakes Spain's southwestern provinces -- the brown, hard-packed Extremadura and Andalusía -- on the Mediterranean coast. And the Spanish government, eager to fulfill its commitments to renewable energy, guaranteed generous subsidies for any company that met its aggressive deadlines.

While the ministry expected a steady stream of investment, it got a flood, accounting for more than 40 percent of the world's total solar installations last year. Forced to revise the subsidies -- known as feed-in tariffs -- that it used to spur photovoltaic power last fall, Spain became one of the principal causes of the downturn in the solar industry. And its faulty regulations have become a watchword for how government renewable-energy programs, poorly conceived, can go awry.

"[The crash] was an inevitable consequence of a policy that was not ... a long-term sustainable market design," said Julie Blunden, vice president of public policy at U.S.-based SunPower Corp. "Whenever you've got something that's unsustainable, eventually it gives. And lo and behold, that happened."

Many in Europe and some in the United States view feed-in tariffs, which guarantee elevated electrical rates to qualified projects, as the best way to spur immediate development of renewable markets. The long-term stability provided by the subsidies lures capital, and the sliding scale of the tariff's prices, which typically drop each year toward average rates, encourages early adopters.

There are many success stories: Germany's program has become the model, with fellow E.U. countries France, Italy and the Czech Republic adopting similar schemes. In the United States, California began a small-scale feed-in system last year to great success, and states like Vermont and Washington have added similar programs this year.

Such programs would do well to learn from Spain's mistakes, solar executives and analysts say. In just one year of boom, the country committed itself to solar payments estimated at $26.4 billion, which in turn led to taxpayer backlash and bust...

"The most important lesson, which everyone has learned, is that if you're going to establish a feed-in tariff, you need to figure out how to make it market-responsive," Blunden said.

While the government had expected it would not see 400 megawatts of solar capacity in the country until 2010, by the fall of 2007, some 350 megawatts had already been installed. Chinese solar firms were sending container after container, flush with solar panels, to the country.

Scrambling, the government upped its target to 1,200 megawatts. But as it became clear the market would overshoot that limit, too, the boom became a frenzy as developers rushed to connect their projects to the grid before last September, when the government altered the tariff, dropping rates by 30 percent...
The repercussions of the tariff revision can still be seen today. The photovoltaic market was overwhelmed with excess panels, reducing prices. Demand from feed-in systems begun by Italy and France helped, but did not soak up all the excess supply. Spain's solar industry lost more than 20,000 jobs.

The downturn hit many manufacturers hard, like Germany's Q-Cells, which announced the layoff of 500 employees yesterday (Greenwire, Aug. 17). Prices for solar panels are at about half what they were last year, selling for about $2.40 a watt...

Americans and others would be wrong to avoid the feed-in tariff based solely on Spain's experience, Abengoa's Seage said.

"The feed-in tariff is a mechanism that, typically, Americans don't like," Seage said. "They believe it doesn't optimize costs for the taxpayers. ... Nevertheless, I feel it has a huge advantage. It's a simple mechanism to get the market started."

After the market is started, then you can fine-tune your numbers, Seage added...

In the end, Blunden said, it is a simple truth: "If you're not careful in your market design, you basically run out of money."

So let's review - a nation with an economy 1/10th the size of the USA's did severe damage to the world solar panel market with rushed, ill-thought-out market meddling meant to hit arbitrary "goals".

"If you're not careful in your market design, you basically run out of money."

Think they're paying attention? Yeah, me neither.

IBD Applauds Paterson

They can't spell his name right, but IBD has just run an editorial applauding Gov. Paterson's efforts to tap homegrown, accessible fuel reserves.

The Saudi Arabia Of Shale

New York's governor wants to tap into a shale formation that can supply the entire U.S. with natural gas for 65 years. Will NIMBY environmentalists let him stimulate New York's and America's energy economy?...

Geologist Gary Lash of State University New York at Fredonia and colleague Terry Engelder of Penn State estimate that Marcellus holds 1,300 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. About 20 trillion cubic feet are produced in the U.S. annually.

Lash notes that successful wells have already been drilled in Pennsylvania — one near Pittsburgh and the other in Susquehanna County. A Penn State report that was requested by state legislators predicted that Marcellus could add $14 billion to the state's economy in 2010, create more than 98,000 jobs and generate $800 million in state and local tax revenues. Now that's what you call a stimulus package.

Drilling of the Marcellus in New York state has not yet begun. Gov. Patterson, to his credit, wants to change all that, but he's meeting stiff opposition.

Robert Kennedy Jr.'s Riverkeeper and other greenie groups object to the means of extracting gas and oil from shale — a technique known as fracking.

Fracking involves injecting water, with sand and other additives, into the rock to push the gas into accessible pockets. Improvements in technology allow drilling horizontally from a single, above-ground well, reducing the above-ground hit on the environment...

Extracting oil and gas from shale requires less water than is used in the production of ethanol, where increased agricultural runoff has resulted in dead zones in rivers, lakes and offshore waters. Solar panel arrays of the size that might be competitive require huge amounts of water to clean. Water is a rare commodity in areas where the sun shines most — the arid land of the West and Southwest.

"Hydraulic fracturing is a key production method which has aided in U.S. production of oil and gas from more than 1 million wells and continues to aid in the production from over 35,000 wells per year," says Oklahoma's James Inhofe, ranking Republican on the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.

"This 60-year-old technique has been responsible for 7 billion barrels of oil and 600 trillion cubic feet of natural gas," according to Inhofe. "In hydraulic fracturing's 60-year-history, there has not been a single documented case of contamination."...

Drill, Patterson, drill.

Public Agrees With GOP: Stimulus = Epic Fail

In all the fury over Obama's attempt to socialize the health care industry at a cost of trillions, let's not forget the trillion he already spent earlier this year (or at least is trying to spend) on the "stimulus" that has done, apparently, nothing to stimulute anyone except state lawmakers and bureaucracy.

‘The Stimulus Isn’t Working,’ Republican Says -- Six Months Out

Six months have passed since President Barack Obama signed the $787-billion stimulus bill into law, promising that it would “create or save three and a half million jobs over the next two years.”

On Monday, Rep. Mike Pence, chairman of the House Republican Conference, said the results are in – and “the stimulus isn’t working.”

Pence noted that the multi-billion-dollar infusion of taxpayer money has not prevented unemployment from rising above 8 percent. The latest numbers put the nation’s jobless rate at 9.4 percent. More than two million jobs have been lost since the stimulus was signed, Pence said in a news release...

A USA Today/Gallup poll released on Monday shows that 57 percent of adults say the stimulus package is having no impact on the economy -- or is making it worse.

Sixty percent doubt that the stimulus plan will help the economy in the years ahead, and only 18 percent say it has done anything to help improve their personal situation, USA Today reported.

Almost half of the adults polled are "very worried" that stimulus money is being wasted...

Pence said in the next six months, Democrats should start working with House Republicans “on real solutions” such as fiscal discipline and fast-acting tax relief for working families and small businesses.