published Thursday, January 28th, 2010

Change & Hope

about Clay Bennett...

The son of a career army officer, Bennett led a nomadic life, attending ten different schools before graduating in 1980 from the University of North Alabama with degrees in Art and History. After brief stints as a staff artist at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the Fayetteville (NC) Times, he went on to serve as the editorial cartoonist for the St. Petersburg Times (1981-1994) and The Christian Science Monitor (1997-2007), before joining the staff of the ...

67
Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.
Clara said...

Oh Boy! I need some sleep before I actually enter THIS blog.

January 28, 2010 at 12:45 a.m.
hotdiggity said...

Clara

Agreed, this should be interesting, LOL. Clay puts me in stitches and is every bit as prescient as Luckovich, the cartoonist of the Atlanta Journal.

January 28, 2010 at 1:20 a.m.
nucanuck said...

This cartoon would be funny,if only it didn't represent the breakdown in governance that has been worsening with each successive administration over decades. Even God might not be able to get 60 votes for a bill in the US Senate with all the fighting factions and side deals.

Maybe we carry some of the blame as well for having become less governable. The rancor doesn't become us and certainly isn't part of the solution.

January 28, 2010 at 1:55 a.m.
SCOTTYM said...

"Maybe we carry some of the blame as well for having become less governable."

I'm trying to make it so.

Total gridlock is the the ideal situation as I(and many others) have no desire to be "governed" by statist ideologues.

January 28, 2010 at 3:10 a.m.
EaTn said...

This cartoon reminds me of a buddy of mine when I was a kid. With bikes being scarce we often rode double on the back rack. I would be peddling as hard as possible and he would be dragging his feet and complaining that we weren't going fast enough.

January 28, 2010 at 6:02 a.m.
woody said...

I went to a party once and learned, first hand, what it meant to have someone 'suck' all of the good humor out of a room.

And I witnessed it again last night as I watched the "State of the Union." The president could have inserted a door prize drawing for an all expense paid vacation and all those stone-faced 'Right-of-the-aislers' wouldn't have cracked a smile or shown the least bit of respect for the man and his efforts.

Well, I hope they are happy..not that anyone would ever know it.

Batten down the hatches..winter is on the way..again, Woody

January 28, 2010 at 6:22 a.m.
AndrewLohr said...

People usually have usually enough blame to go around. Who promised to put the deal-making on C-Span, and then locked the GOP out? Who wrote a 2000 page bill? Who said it has to done urgently even though it doesn't take effect until A.D. 2014? Who decided to tax high-dollar insurance plans, except for those of some of its buddies? Who promised to end earmarks, and then decided to pay Nebraska's bill forever? Who stinks? Who deserves a cartoon? Bush ran huge deficits (which somehow failed to stimulate the economy), and Obama is running even bigger ones. Bush enlarged the government, and Obama is enlarging it even more. (He [they] hath sent hither swarms of officers to harass us and eat out our substance--Declaration of Independence.) Enough blame to go around. Bush appointed Ben Bernanke, and Obama reappointed him. Who is to define change and hope? You (politicians and leftists) can't fool all the people all the time. In A.D. 2206/2008, the people told the GOP, We aren't fooled. Lately we've been telling this to the Democrats. We hope the GOP gets it. We hope the Democrats get it. REALLY get it. The Libertarians have gotten it from their beginning. The problem is we can't trust politicians and bureaucrats. We can't trust people who are paid taxes whether they deserve pay or not. In the business sector, the economic democracy, we can vote every day: McDonalds today, Burger King tomorrow. We can elect all kinds of candidates at once--burger, pizza, taco, sub, AND sushi--instead of having to pick one winner and make the rest losers. Let our money walk! We can't trust the USS Titanic; we need private lifeboats. So shrink the government--not a partial freeze in a year, an across-the-board freeze or 1% cuts now until the budget balances--and enlarge the business sector, reducing government-made obstacles to competition. Hope? Yes, because the grave of Jesus is empty, so He will prevail. Compare today's governments, PARTly under Christian influence, with governments on Good Friday, and with atheistic North Korea and Muslim Saudi Arabia. Take hope; notice change.

January 28, 2010 at 6:28 a.m.
EaTn said...

This nation is terribly divided, from local to state to national including the Supreme Court. We elect divided politicians to represent us in a divided manner, which they do very well. The issues are no longer debated in regard to worthy or good, but rather what supports the ideology of the right or left. Nothing is gray, but always black and white. This mindset is in every state from coast to coast, so what immediate results can we possibly hope for?

January 28, 2010 at 6:49 a.m.

Barak Telepromp Obama wasn't able to do squat over the last year except max out the countries credit card. The best argument the looney left has is "it's all cheneys fault". Please continue that line of idiotic reasoning and let me know how that works out for you in next falls elections.

January 28, 2010 at 6:55 a.m.

Nucanuck, you think we should be more governable? I'm trying to wrap my brain around that comment. As in, follow our government more blindly? I'm trying to choose my words carefully because you may be mentally disabled. If you are, God bless you and I commend you for excersizing your right to free speech and your articulate writing style. If however, you are not mentally disabled then you should PACK YOUR SOCIALIST BAGS, AND FLY YOUR SOCIALIST BUTT TO CHINA, where the people are more easily governed. I don't want that. The builders of this nation didn't want that.

January 28, 2010 at 7:12 a.m.
rolando said...

Ah-h-h.....larrythelibertarian; nucanuck has already done that, or the next best -- he is a voluntary expatriate living in Canada. He persists in using the first person plural "we" while talking about the U.S. he abandoned.

January 28, 2010 at 7:43 a.m.
whatsthefuss said...

THANK YOU, Thank You, thank You, ThAnK YoU, THanK YOU, and ThanK yoU. AND THANK YOU!!! After hearing everything that has been done for us courtesy of the current administration, I feel ashamed for ever thinking this wonderful, well thought out strategy would not work. Just because I cannot spend my families personal finances like a drunk sailor dosen't mean it won't work for the government. Did Joe Biden just come in from another BEER SUMMIT before the address last night? Mrs. Pelosi, she looked Marvelous, and when you LOOK MARVELOUS you ARE MARVELOUS. And she is MARVELOUS. I must admit, I did change the channel to Comedy Central @ 15 minutes in and I must say they were equally entertaining. I'm just sayin!!

January 28, 2010 at 7:47 a.m.
rolando said...

Great post, whatsthefuss. Nice touches of sarcasm exquisitely delivered. Lovee the Pelosi remark closely followed by the channel switch. Thanx.

January 28, 2010 at 8:01 a.m.
aces25 said...

I can think of only one reasonable response to this one:

Oh brother.

When people start realizing that expanding government and "ruling class" politicians are the problem, only then will real "hope" and "change" can occur.

January 28, 2010 at 8:09 a.m.
anonymight said...

I am reminded of the old phrase, "hope in one hand and _ _ in the other and see which one fills up faster." (it rhymes with loop).

As one town hall commenter jibed, "He is very good at motivating people and making them feel good. So are televangelists."

To be sure, just saying no repeatedly isn't good governance. Neither is only saying yes. I, and most of the tax paying public are ready for a prolonged period of no.

January 28, 2010 at 8:13 a.m.
jabbo77 said...

Excellent Common Sense cartoon Clay!!

January 28, 2010 at 9:12 a.m.
Musicman375 said...

POTUS had some good things to say last night, but most of it was the same old sugar coated nonsense, aimed at making the average American believe he is the answer to all our problems.

I just love how he always tells us touching stories of middle class people and how he wants to make things better for us all, while conveniently failing to mention that he wants to accomplish it via socialism, not free enterprise.

I wonder if he knows it is because of his attempted socialism of this country that the republicans are blocking the bills that they are, not simply because they can.

Do democrats pretend, or else convince themselves that they aren't being socialistic in their actions, causing them to truly not understand why their opposition attempts to stop them? I am beginning to believe that is the case.

And how about him not mentioning that we are treating known terrorists as U.S. citizens rather than terrorists? Are we HOPING that these terrorists will CHANGE their minds once we read them their rights (not that they ACTUALLY share the same rights as the citizens of this country to begin with, but I digress)?

I HOPE that our leaders will pick up the Good Book and seek some new inspiration in their work toward CHANGE, rather than continuing on the current path.

January 28, 2010 at 9:23 a.m.
Oz said...

Should have had the American people carrying off all of the letters except N O P E.

January 28, 2010 at 9:42 a.m.

Good points MusicMan and Oz. Count me in as another old, grumpy Conservative who says YES, we should grouch at this debacle of an Administration/House. Funny, when the Left did this non-stop for 8 years, it was perfectly acceptable. Party of No? Come on, get a new Mantra elitists, this is so old.

An excerpt from my post on yesterday's "Separation of Powers":

While I agree with some of what you say, alot of you guys (and gals) seem to forget details like Andy Stern (of SEIU), the latest, Big Evil Corporation-Union Mogul and the Billionaire George Soros with his Marxist background and Machiavellian meddling. Both want to completely change our economic system to suit their agenda (in their own words). Both own Obama's ear. They both top the WH list of most frequent visitors that 'advise' the Pres. So we have unions that helped to bring America to its knees and individuals like Soros, who not long ago almost tanked the British economy single-handedly by devaluing the pound. With 'friends' like this within our borders, we don't need enemies.

Just wait. That campaign-rehash State of the Union Address last night, that ripped-off talking points from just about every Republican speech in the last 4 years, including some of Bush's, is nothing more than subterfuge and dishonesty. Another little trick to appease the more conservative voters (and Reps), to lull us to sleep, a hiatus if you will. The real Agenda on his plate and that of his Cronies will be instilled, in due time. They know it and are laughing at how dumb the populace is. Too bad many Americans don't seem to get it, even now, after so many obvious clues and the evidence of his failures.

The Founding fathers would roll over and commit suicide if they knew we've allowed/ignored the steady bleeding of our country's freedoms, for far too long.

PS: I retain and maintain my 'right' to be grouchy, herewith.

January 28, 2010 at 10:09 a.m.
Oz said...

Until last week, how many Republican votes were needed to pass legislation? ZERO. So how do you blame the GOP?

January 28, 2010 at 10:24 a.m.
rolando said...

The same way they always blame the GOP, Oz -- sans thought, sans originality, sans anything but chanting their mantra by rote.


It is good to see that Clay recognizes that the GOP is slowly but surely dismantling "Change" and "Hope" for the betterment of our country. [Even though he did not mean to draw it that way...] lol

January 28, 2010 at 10:48 a.m.
dss said...

In response to EaTn's 6:02: "This cartoon reminds me of a buddy of mine when I was a kid. With bikes being scarce we often rode double on the back rack. I would be peddling as hard as possible and he would be dragging his feet and complaining that we weren't going fast enough."

Good analogy. Let me give the rider’s perspective on the bike. I am the rider—not a politician steering the bike and at the mercy of the opposing party driving the bike--but I am forced to ride. My feet are dragging, yes. But I am not complaining that we are not going fast enough. My feet are dragging because I think we are going too fast…and in the wrong direction.

In response to Woody's 6:22 post: "And I witnessed it again last night as I watched the "State of the Union." The president could have inserted a door prize drawing for an all expense paid vacation and all those stone-faced 'Right-of-the-aislers' wouldn't have cracked a smile or shown the least bit of respect for the man and his efforts."

Woody, true. And you would find the same looks on the Democrats’ faces in all but one of President Bush’s State of the Union addresses. Not saying it’s right in either case, just saying that it is in nearly all cases.

January 28, 2010 at 11:28 a.m.
hotdiggity said...

Wow, the conservatives are out in full force today, (and one libertarian urging a person to "FLY YOUR SOCIALIST BUTT TO CHINA, where the people are more easily governed"). Nice touch Larry.

All the vitriolic criticism of Obama, Dems, and "socialists", and hardly a peep about how to fix this mess we are in except the occasional "shrink the government".

So, pray tell, how do we prevent the banks and other financial institutions from continuing their self-serving behavior which has destroyed this economy, caused 10% unemployment, and wiped out our 401K's?

How do we reign in a pharmaceutical industry who continues to raise drug prices faster than the rate of inflation? An industry who gouges Americans while selling the drugs cheaper to "foreigners" like Canada? Hint: Canada and other "socialized" countries practice negotiate and regulate with the drug companies which keeps prices lower. Seems our drug companies have no problem continuing to sell drugs to these "socialist" nations at a cheaper rate than Americans.

So, what did the Bush administration do to help with drug costs? He passed the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act in 2003 for Medicare which expressly prohibited Medicare from negotiating drug prices with pharmaceutical companies.

Gotta love that. Millions of Medicare recipients and the free market conservatives will not let millions of customers negotiate for a lower price for buying a companies products. Thankfully, I buy two of my prescription drugs from Canada through the internet. Of course that probably makes me unamerican, LOL.

Dang, it just hit me how to fix these and other abuses of the American people. Lets allow these corporations who are screwing us to be able to donate unlimited amounts to our crooked politicians. Wow, Supreme Court deregulation. Everyone knows how well deregulation has worked in the past.

January 28, 2010 at 12:01 p.m.
woody said...

Thanks, dss, and you are right..it would have looked just as bad had it been the "Left-of-the-aislers."

But sooner or later someone is going to have to grow up and act like an adult, or as my grandmother would have put it, "Act like SOMEBODY." Personally, I hope it's sooner, but I'm not holding my breath.

Have a nice rest of the day, Woody

January 28, 2010 at 12:15 p.m.
Sailorman said...

hotdiggity

"How do we reign in a pharmaceutical industry who continues to raise drug prices faster than the rate of inflation? An industry who gouges Americans while selling the drugs cheaper to "foreigners" like Canada? Hint: Canada and other "socialized" countries practice negotiate and regulate with the drug companies which keeps prices lower. Seems our drug companies have no problem continuing to sell drugs to these "socialist" nations at a cheaper rate than Americans."

I can answer part of that. We pay more because the drug companies accept those "socialist" nations at a cheaper rate than Americans." They know they can make up the difference by stiffing the American consumer whose drugs are usually paid for by insurance. Not defending drug companies but they do incur massive costs in bringing drugs to market (not to mention defending the lawsuits that inevitably follow any new drug introduction by about five days). Somebody has to pay for it and, as a result of all those deals overseas, we do. As long as they have that out, the situation will continue. If for some reason, they suddenly grew a backbone, prices would come closer to parity.

Another worm in the tangled pile that is the American healthcare system.

January 28, 2010 at 12:36 p.m.
eeeeeek said...

Some of the things that has been noted from the State of the Union last night while using the "republicans stay seated when they are against something detection monitor":

1: Assistance and tax credits for small businesses to create new jobs 2: Ending tax breaks for companies that send American jobs overseas 3: Student loans and helping Americans get higher education 4: Prohibiting foreign money from influencing our elections

etc

January 28, 2010 at 12:38 p.m.
nurseforjustice said...

Woody and dss, I also believe that respect should be shown to whomever happens to be in office. While I do not agree with hardly anything that comes out of his mouth, I at least show him respect the office deserves. Last night my 8 yr old daughter started saying bad things about Obama when she saw that he was coming on TV. I made her watch the first of the show as a lesson for her to see the protocol and to show her that we respected him even tho we do not agree with him. Since it was past her bedtime, I put her in bed and missed quite a bit of the speech. But what I did hear sounded like he was running for office again. More of the same ole, same ole.

January 28, 2010 at 1:03 p.m.
Musicman375 said...

Well, let's see here Hotdiggity. Below is the definition of socialism as outlined by www.merriam-webster.com: "Main Entry: so·cial·ism Pronunciation: ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm Function: noun Date: 1837 1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods 2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state 3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done"

Thankfully, the number 2 point doesn't apply to us as of yet. Point's 1 and 3 however seem to characterize many of our president's goals. Maybe I (and millions of others) are seeing things unclearly, but I am inclined to believe that is not the case.

I really do want to be able to back our leaders, but I cannot agree with the methods for some of their current actions. And thankfully we can all have our own opinions and make our own decisions on how to love our country. And listing quotation marks around the word in your post doesn't make it any less real that that is what it is.

January 28, 2010 at 1:15 p.m.
AndrewLohr said...

Hotdiggity, of course Bush's 2003 Medicare law, reducing competition, was a bad law. (Did any Democrats vote for it? Now that they're in power, have they repealed it?)

How keep the banks in line? Well, maybe IF there are bailouts, bail out at 70% instead of 100%. Keep 'em alive, but put on some pressure. One problem is that the government gets involved: heads the bank wins, tails the taxpayers lose. If the government weren't backing up the banks, they'd have to be more careful.

Another problem is transparency about risks: apparently packages of dubious mortgages were being traded without the risks being made clear. I'm not keen on the government, which knows nothing about my particular situation, telling me what risks I can or can't take, and I know nothing about how to assess these risks, but let the risks be made clear. It's legal to try to climb Mt Everest, but about 1 in 12 who tries has died there.

The government has been growing since 1929 or so; shrinking it would be change and hope.

January 28, 2010 at 2:03 p.m.

Andrewlohr, I agree. Less government is the best government. Freeeeeedom!!!!!!

January 28, 2010 at 3:35 p.m.
Clara said...

larrythelibertarian,

I'm curious to know how you would define your personal freedom. What limits would you, yourself, set on your behaviour or actions. What ethical standards would you set for others? How would you enforce them?

January 28, 2010 at 8:07 p.m.
sd said...

Clay, I laughed when I first saw your cartoon. The expression on the man’s face is what did it; your point is hardly funny.

Some partisanship is unavoidable. Our political system is complex and it’s difficult to interest people in systems that are hard to understand. Political parties simplify the process by lumping people and issues into basic categories. While this makes politics more accessible, it also encourages a “go team” mentality.

At it's current level, American politics is less about exchanging ideas and finding solutions and more about scoring points.

Both the politicians and the people are responsible for the current political climate. Politicians can still "win" in spite of this level of partisanship, but the people will only lose.

January 28, 2010 at 9:44 p.m.

I skipped everyone's comments but I have to say Clay, ARE YOU SERIOUS? The Democratic Party has had a super majority, the highest in a century to pass anything they wanted including health care. With this current loss of ONE seat, they have lost the right to say sit down and shut up. They now have the second largest majority, oh my god, what a horrible thing. What is bringing down any Democratic passages are the Democrats bickering between Blue Dogs and Progressives, I mean progressives are seriously throwing forth commercials putting down their own party, wanting to replace any moderates. So you Should really have PELOSI take down the letters while blaming it on the GOP, the only thing she ever gets done is putting down the party across the aisle...............Thanks White House for the new IPHONE APP....Not getting much done? We have an app for that.

January 28, 2010 at 10:23 p.m.

Still believe the lies of that speech and his Congress? Recently there was a really good explanation of the Credit Card act that he signed off on last spring. It supposedly was to protect the cc consumers from further gouging by these companies and banks, as many folks were for no reason at all having their rates increase 10, 20% or more. Instead, the cc Companies, having been given a very long notice to 'fix' things, have been busily figuring out "tricks" like changing consumers fixed low rates to variable, in preparation of the new law coming into effect in Feb/2010. The consumer is screwed now, regardless of the now useless 'protections' Obama said he would enact.

This is one example of lying and subterfuge. There are hundreds, in less than a year. The only majority opinion today is that of American taxpayers fed up and hunting for bear over what has transpired last year and what will be in the coming years.

January 29, 2010 at 10:06 a.m.
rolando said...

As these new changes come on-line, canary, I have been slowly and methodically "opting out" and refusing to accept their changes. My 4 and 6 percent fixed rates remain exactly that.

With the newest law changes, any excess over the minimum I pay is applied to the highest interest rate first -- and I always pay extra. That eliminates the last "trick" they played of putting all kinds of fees at the highest rate.

Another thing they do is use a variable due date. Instead of making the payment due on the same business day each month, they change it month to month. Should you pay them on the same day each month and fail to notice their slight of hand, they slap you with a late fee equal to the payment. Sears is very, very bad for this habit; their "interest month" has varied during the last year from 33 days to 27 -- this is not related to week-ends/holidays, etc.

As it used to say in an old US Army Officers' Manual, "Enlisted men [Credit card companies] are sly and cunning and bear watching." [Addition mine]

January 29, 2010 at 11:09 a.m.

Clara, I believe the Government has three main purposes; safety, security and infrastructure. I'm a strict constitutionalist. If it needs amending we have a mechanisim in place to do that. I don't want the government bailing companies out, let them fail their will be another one stood up right behind them. When you owe someone money they own a piece of you until you pay that debt. Right now the federal government owns a big chunk of several banks and the automotive industry.

January 29, 2010 at 11:34 a.m.
hotdiggity said...

Rolando..same here. I recently had my credit card carrier contact me to raise my rate from 7.99% to 10.99%. I have always had excellent credit and have had the card companies try this dodge before.

As I have done several times before I and contacted the CC company, asked if they would honor the 7.99% as per my high credit rating or I would drop their card. After a little back and forth they relented.

A shame the CC have been given so much time to "prepare" for the new legislation. An amendment to have the law immediately go into effect Dec. 1, 2009 failed. http://www.creditcards.com/credit-card-news/implement-credit-card-act-sooner-1282.php?aid=7704c6a5

Bunch of crooks. But hey, with their new found voice of free speech and their deep pockets, maybe they can get this overturned, LOL.

January 29, 2010 at 1:22 p.m.
Clara said...

Larry,

" Less government is the best government. Freeeeeedom!!!!!!"

You spoke so vigouresly about "Freedom", I had the idea that you were about 15 years old and were tired of restraints of all kinds, probably imposed by your parents.

My remarks questioned that outlook and I wondered.

It had nothing to do, at that point, with politics or the Constitution.

It is not "government" but bureaucracy that is the problem, as each department head or director tries his best to magnify his position and budget by enlarging a probably worthless and questionable area of control.

I remember, way back, I think it was in the 60's that a D.C. Mayor took office. I looked in the telphone books, old and newer, during his "Reign" The earlier book at his term start had about a page and a half of D.C. agencies.

A few years later, as I remember, there were about 4 pages.

January 29, 2010 at 4:03 p.m.
alprova said...

For all of you folks rooting for Republicans, how many of you were paying attention yesterday?

The Senate took a vote on extending the federal debt ceiling.

All 40 Republicans voted NO.

The Senate took a vote to prevent Congress from passing legislation that is unfunded.

All 40 Republicans voted NO. Despite all charges to the contrary, Republicans have been and will continue to be fiscally irresponsible, especially if it can restore them to a majority power.

The Senate took a final vote on passing the overall "Paygo" package.

Thirty-nine Republicans voted NO. Republican Senator Mike Enzi of Wyoming was not present to vote.

As hard as the Republicans are attempting to sell themselves to the voters, the fact is that that behind the scenes, they are not interested in CHANGING the way they operate, and there's little HOPE that they care one whit about America.

You folks who claim to be Tea-Partiers are being scammed.

Republicans are clearing happy with the current system where they are courted by special interests and they clearly want to buy votes through earmark legislation.

January 29, 2010 at 4:49 p.m.
SavartiTN said...

If you want to see the Republican "solutions" for our nation's current problems, go to www.gop.gov/solutions and read for yourselves.

I particularly like the one that suggest a 5.25% tax rate on the profits earned by U.S. companies that took their businesses to other countries. The current rate is 35%.

They also state that they will "lower health care premiums for American families," "end junk lawsuits," and "plan promotes prevention & wellness by giving employers greater flexibility to financially reward employees who adopt healthier lifestyles." I couldn't find any mention of how they would control the outrageous prices of the pharmaceutical costs or reduce the donut hole...I must be overlooking something because surely that would be an issue that the GOP would address.

And their Summary Table on how this country should become "Fiscally Responsible" is quite curious...especially the savings listed as "Indeterminate." I do like the suggestion to quit giving government subsidies to brand name companies.

I couldn't find how they plan to do this but I am FASCINATED.

January 29, 2010 at 5:32 p.m.
Jhenry said...

Granted, when the Repubs held Congress they didn't do that great of a job. But how quickly people forget that Pelosi and Reed have run our government since 2006 which effectively made GDub a lame duck. That being said, I'm glad the Repubs have "found" their conservative roots and are fighting the expansion of this liberal government tooth and nail. Isn't that why we elect people? To fight for us?

January 29, 2010 at 6:22 p.m.
hotdiggity said...

If anyone truly wants to understand Obama's stance on the issues without the hype of Fox or MSNBC, go to this site and watch Obama being questioned by the GOP. It might open your eyes...then again maybe not, LOL. Anyway, instead of just bashing him maybe you should see him directly explaining himself in front of the Republicans. Admirable performance IMHO.

Anyway, watch it and bash away. Scroll to the video at the bottom of the page. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/29/obama-goes-to-the-gop-lio_n_442331.html

January 29, 2010 at 7:06 p.m.
rolando said...

You should have watched it on CSPAN, hotdiggity. That's live and uncensored/unedited, although it DOES require extended attention and a bit of thought; which may make it too deep for shallow, someone-think-for-me folks.

<p>Huffpost.com is not what any objective person would call hype-free media. Far from it. Just type huffpost.com and read the headlines.

They are as bad as The National Inquirer, et al.

January 29, 2010 at 7:25 p.m.
hotdiggity said...

Rolando, please tell me what part of it was censored on the Huffpost site? The video at the bottom of the page was the question and answer session. Please tell me where the video was censored or edited. I did not say this was the entire session, only the Q&A that I ask people to look at. I can't find the Q&A session at foxnews.com. Hmmm.

Conservatives wanted transparency. What is more transparent than going in front of the other party with open questions? Oh, by the way, he schooled the GOP at the Q&A session.

I'll wait for your reply on the censor/edit question. Oh and also, Faux News stopped the live Q&A 20 minutes before it was over, LOL. Would you call that censoring or did that have a breaking story about a lost dog?

January 29, 2010 at 7:47 p.m.
rolando said...

I didn't watch huffpost cite, hotdiggity, and I am not about to. I don't watch MSNBC, ABC, NBC, etc. either. Their well known bias in reporting the "news" is too well established; they are a waste of time and oxygen. I DO occasionally watch CNN and FoxNews.

I would not walk across the street to listen to The Great Liar BHO...he is simply a bit too slick, a bit too polished, a bit too slimy to be completely trustworthy...or he is so long as his teleprompter is working, anyway. Without it he is a bit more human.

LOL -- "schooled the GOP". Straight off the huffpost frontpage. LOL

Whatever is "Faux News"? That's a new one.

January 29, 2010 at 8:21 p.m.
Clara said...

Hotdigity,

I LOVE (HAH) Faux News!C:-) Great! But I only watch it once in a while. I have to get it on the Internet. I am openo-minded to a degree. I don't want my blood pressure to go up!

January 29, 2010 at 9:14 p.m.
eeeeeek said...

Murray Hill Incorporated is running for Maryland's 8th congressional district seat on the Republican ticket

http://murrayhillweb.com/pr-012510.html

January 29, 2010 at 9:16 p.m.
Oz said...

I LOVE (HAH) Faux News!.....The best news source for coverage of a Faux President.

January 29, 2010 at 9:56 p.m.
sd said...

Network news is a circus--it's barely a step above blogs, radio and HuffPo. Even if you don't like the NYT there's still the WSJ and others. The hardcore among us probably use news aggregators to get the true scope.

January 30, 2010 at 12:30 a.m.
hotdiggity said...

Rolando, If you never checked the huffpost site how can you make the insinuations of censoring and bias?

Hmmm, "straight off the huffpost frontpage". So you DO check out their site. Dare I say you also have occasion to visit MSNBC, LOL? By the way, just checked huffpost and it DOES say schooled. Now how did you know that? Rolando, you closet huffposter you.

As for myself, I don't limit myself to "mainstream media" as the Cons put it. I like to know the opinion or spin of Fox and crew, Limbaugh, etc. also, even if I know its not "uncensored/unedited".

Anyway, it was fun to see Obama take on all comers at the GOP retreat and account himself admirably. No spin, no hype, just the Prez explaining his position. I wonder if there is a GOP leader out there who would have the courage to have a Q&A before 140 Dems?

Using terms such as Dear Leader and the Great Liar BHO is a little unseemly, don't you think? It reminds me of some from the right before the Iraq war calling anyone who protested the war as "UnAmerican, unpatriotic, cowards, etc". and being told to move to France. You know, those people protesting and exercising their free speech rights that Cons have so fervently embraced lately. Sad that the Cons refused to respect dissent and free speech at that time.

BTW, you can also find the speech and Q&A session at cspan.org Strange that foxnews site does not have the video since they covered part of it live. You would think they would be salivating at having the Prez before 140 GOP representatives answering questions for them to report on. Hmm, must of not went to their liking?

“If you can't answer a man's arguments, all is not lost; you can still call him vile names.” Elbert Hubbard -American editor, publisher and writer, 1856-1915

January 30, 2010 at 1:52 a.m.
SeaSmokie59er said...

Diggity wrote - "You know, those people protesting and exercising their free speech rights that Cons have so fervently embraced lately. Sad that the Cons refused to respect dissent and free speech at that time."

Well said!

January 30, 2010 at 2:18 a.m.

Diggity wrote - "You know, those people protesting and exercising their free speech rights that Cons have so fervently embraced lately. Sad that the Cons refused to respect dissent and free speech at that time."

Obviously some said those horrible things to the poor Dems and the Pinks and the violent Left protesters. Obviously. And Bush maybe didn't orate before 140 Dem-Progressives, no. But he welcomed many into into his decision-making and into his gov't. Now, THAT has been proven to be a huge, sad mistake for our country, I'd say.

Now some will say , what about the Patriot Act? Well, Obama hasn't decreased the powers of that Act but increased them. Along with usurping even more power for his Administration and Congress, effectively telling the American people to shut up. So, his actions have been one thing. His words and speeches another. Do children believe whatever they hear?

When was the last time any of the Left protesters were threatened by a Bush WH email (I received one too btw-probably by accident, written by David Devious-Axelrod), that told his 'followers' to report any strange or "fishy" statements /emails from the Left? When is the last time Bush's Homeland Security put out memos to the FBI to keep a watch on pro-abortionists, NAMBLA, The Gay/Lesbian Coalition and SEIU? Or set up a Council of Governors (10), signed by the President while the country was distracted, outlining new powers for the POTUS and the National Guard for powers to arrest and jail citizens for whatever they deem a slight? When was the last time the Left and the Black Panthers were intimidated and threatened at the voting precincts, preventing some from voting in many cities?

I'd say the above trumps the few on the Right-who told the Progressives who are always complaining and dissing this country-to go to France and get lost. IMHO, France is too good for them. Send them to the Afghan/Pakistan Front for a vacation and a five-star Hotel Hostile welcome.

January 30, 2010 at 9:04 a.m.
Echo said...

The libs ramrodded the Obamacare down the throat of the American people on Christmas Eve, and ignored us at their town hall meetings. Consequently, voters put a unabashedly conservative Republican in a senate seat that did not have a Republican since the 1920's, and the wheels come off of the Obama vision of socialized America. It's not the GOP politicians that made this possible, it was disgruntled voters. Thank you Massachusetts voter for reaffirming my faith in the American democracy. Bravo!

January 30, 2010 at 11:09 a.m.
rolando said...

hotdiggity - re-read my initial post on the subject and direct me to the exact point where I said anything about huffpost.com censoring anything. At least TRY to get it right, huh?

yes, I DO scan those "news" sources you mentioned. [That's about what you do in reading my posts, evidently.] Note the word, "scan" vice "watch", "read", or "study". Evidently you do not bother to "Understand your enemy." -- ho she moon or whoever.

As to the "unseemly" crack, as you call it, I call them as I see them. All the Dear Leaders have a common characteristic or belief. I will let you choose whichever one you want to see.

As you already know, I firmly believe in free speech for any citizen, even the liberal ones...pity they don't reciprocate... That includes war protesters; calling them such names as you list for asserting their rights is inappropriate. There are limits to free speech, of course..."Fire!" comes to mine. Before you start in, research those you would defend...more often than not, "traitor" is the operative word.

Your closing quote is more appropriate for the liberal lefties than the conservatives here. Accurate for them, too.

And I now see the poorly attempted jest - "faux/false news" for FoxNews. Pronunciation is completely different, of course, but I will let it go. You folks need your little groupie chuckles -- Heaven knows you need a little joy in your prissy, humdrum lives.

January 31, 2010 at 12:08 a.m.
rolando said...

I was wondering where Dear Leader was going to get his brownshirts, canary. The National Guard. hm-m-m. Interesting. I wonder how those guys will take it? Just fine, probably.

Hm-m-m #2. One state's troops invading another state's territory and arresting its citizens while under the command of a tyrannous President... Now where have I heard that before?


Fittingly enough, The Citadel Cadets manning an artillery battery on Morris Island fired the first hostile shots of the Civil War, repulsing the federal steamship Star of the West, carrying supplies and two hundred federal troops dispatched by President Buchanan to reinforce Union Forces garrisoned at Fort Sumter.

Perhaps they will again rise to the occasion...

Another fitting quote:

"...if they mean to have a war, let it begin here." -- John Parker, Captain of the 70 Lexington Minutemen. Thus began the American revolution.

We come from a long line of men and women who put down despots and tyrants.

January 31, 2010 at 12:39 a.m.

Amen Rolando, a fine, long line. The question is, has the bloodline run a bit too thin? Do good men and women today have the guts and fortitude to stay the course?

January 31, 2010 at 9:42 a.m.
hotdiggity said...

Canary, would you care to post a few excerpts from the email you received from Axelrod that you consider devious? What did it have to do with, health care, national defense, etc. You provide NOTHING regarding the context of the email.

Would this by chance be the email? http://open.salon.com/blog/dorinda_fox/2009/08/13/david_axelrods_email_on_healthcare

What part of it is "threatening"? If you are going to post something smacking of a conspiracy at least lend credence by posting something other than "threatening", "followers", or "fishy".

Do a basic Google and you will see that others have received this email. Most likely this was forwarded to you from a liberal friend.

January 31, 2010 at 7:20 p.m.
hotdiggity said...

Rolando you say "Before you start in, research those you would defend...more often than not, "traitor" is the operative word.

What the heck does that mean. Care to elaborate. Which "traitors" are you talking about?

Oh, and once again....

“If you can't answer a man's arguments, all is not lost; you can still call him vile names.” Elbert Hubbard -American editor, publisher and writer, 1856-1915

January 31, 2010 at 7:25 p.m.
hotdiggity said...

Canary..you said, "Or set up a Council of Governors (10), signed by the President while the country was distracted, outlining new powers for the POTUS and the National Guard for powers to arrest and jail citizens for whatever they deem a slight"?

So it appears you are insinuating that while the country was "distracted", the Dems and/Obama surreptitiously slipped in a bill on the American people giving the Prez new powers to "arrest and jail citizens for whatever they deem a slight"?

Pretty serious charge. Unsure where you got this info, (Hannity? Rush? Fox News). Once again you throw out info without any source to corroborate. Here, let me help you out. I would not want you to suffer under the illusion of a conspiracy nor attempt to misinform others.

The bill you are talking about is part of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008. Note the date. This bill was signed into law by GW Bush on Jan. 28, 2008. The original bill was H.R. 4986. Final bill was H.R. 1585 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National...

The establishment of a Council of Governors was part of this bill, (once again signed by Bush and not a new bill "signed by the President while the country was distracted"). The bill mandated that this Council of Governors be created. http://143.84.202.9/news/archives/2008/01/013108-national_defense.aspx

President Obama complied with this by establishing A Council of Governors on Jan. 11, 2010. Here is a copy of that order. http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/2010executive_order.pdf

So Canary, what "new powers for the POTUS and the National Guard for powers to arrest and jail citizens for whatever they deem a slight?", do you see in this authorization?

Do some of you people not do the most basic research before you post your allegations, misinformation, conspiracy theories, or slanderous statements?

Canary, please feel free to post the source of your allegations. Perhaps I missed something, LOL.

January 31, 2010 at 9:44 p.m.
hotdiggity said...

Canary found your sources yet?

January 31, 2010 at 11:15 p.m.

Sigh, hotdig: What good is it to do homework for you and your rabid 'friends' on this site or any other? You guys are demagogic, tunnel-visioned cement-heads who deny, refuse to listen, trash vilely when we answer with facts... And continue to look at only one side of the story. FYI, my posts above were exactly pertinent to the subject: Change and Hope. I just gave another perspective, other than the mindless 'blame the GOP' mantra that is prevalent on this site.

I posted the Council of Governors that Obama signed in December, on two threads on this site-go to it. I did it for the folks-FYI, and many out there feel this is a violation of the 10th amendment and will give the Pres. more unconstitutional powers, not less. Before you accuse others (me) of not doing research, heal thyself. You've done alot of homework on Bush and we've seen and heard it all. Now, you need to concentrate on the present POTUS because he's jerking all of us around while you guys are still stuck on Bush & Co.

The David Axelrod email WAS posted on the WH website at one time. When angry armies of receivers of said email saw what it contained, from the mouthpiece of the Obama administration, it went virile over the internet, then the WH hastily removed it. He did indeed encourage his Gollums to report "suspicious" and "fishy" emails from anti-Obama types. I received one and read it. There are numerous video feeds also from earlier last year, of Obama not wanting any detractors disagreeing with him. None of this is new and isn't always reported by just FNC. You are so mired in your little hate-conservatives world that you assume we just love and worship FNC, Hannity, O'Reilly et al. Now that many reasonable Democrats are seeing the light of the truth about what and who is in the WH, you guys are going nutzo bigtime on us. Tsk, tsk.

February 1, 2010 at 9:23 a.m.
hotdiggity said...

Canary, where to start. I posted the email from Axelrod, here it is again. http://open.salon.com/blog/dorinda_fox/2009/08/13/david_axelrods_email_on_healthcare

You specifically stated of the email, "(I received one too btw-probably by accident, written by David Devious-Axelrod), that told his 'followers' to report any strange or "fishy" statements /emails from the Left"?

Of course you mistyped and said Left when you meant Right at the end of the sentence.

There is nothing in the email that says anything about "fishy" or "followers" or anything that can be construed as threatening. Perhaps you would care to point out in the email your assertions since you "received one and read it".

Regarding the implementation of the Council of Governors, it was signed on Jan. 11, 2010 not in December. http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/2010executive_order.pdf

It was part of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, signed by Bush on January 28, 2008, and approved 369-46 in the House. Every Republican except two voted for it. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2008-11

Approved by the Senate 91-3 with all Republicans voting for it. http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00001 National Guard Empowerment Act of 2007

Geez, from your ramblings it seems your party is trying to supersede the 10th Amendment with their overwhelming support of the bill, LOL.

When you post regarding the implementation of the Council of Governors, "Or set up a Council of Governors (10), signed by the President while the country was distracted, outlining new powers for the POTUS and the National Guard for powers to arrest and jail citizens for whatever they deem a slight?", you are implying by the word "distracted" that this was pushed through surreptitiously without the people knowing of it. Otherwise, why the word "distracted"?

If you choose to believe this council, approved by nearly all in your party, and signed by Bush, will give "powers to arrest and jail citizens for whatever they deem a slight?," then far be it for me to challenge your delusions. Take it up with your party.

I particularly enjoyed this in your last rant (post). "You guys are demagogic, tunnel-visioned cement-heads who deny, refuse to listen, trash vilely when we answer with facts." LOL, FACTS?? Are you serious? You have offered only wild eyed speculation, innuendo, and conspiratorial opinions concerning the Axelrod email or the implementation of the Council of Governors. What "facts" are you referring to?

February 1, 2010 at 11:49 a.m.

In my haste hotdig, I said Dec instead of Jan because I also posted something he (Obama) signed off on in Dec too.

I'm glad you 'know' my Party. You assume way too much. I critique all Parties and sometimes defend the Repubs when I see they are unjustly damned, in order to show the other side. Your source of the email doesn't outline the ENTIRE email-gee, big surprise.

Yes, I meant Right, not Left. Forgive my tiredness.

This is what I meant by narrow-minded and demagogic. You ignored my central point which is : WHOEVER signs this Council of Governors (and Obama did in Jan) has given unusual and unconstitutional powers to the Office of the Pres. Surely, you of all people should be raving on about this action. And most American people are distracted by other, inane stories the MSM feeds them. They usually never know what hit them. If that's a "delusion", better check with a whole lot of non-partisans because they say the same thing too.

February 2, 2010 at 1:18 a.m.

Here it is again, for brevity's sake above in one of my posts, I mentioned the National Guard (which is mentioned below). But there should be equal concern about how this "council" and the president will instruct Homeland Security or other entities mentioned, on how to control the populace. Who cares which Party signed or voted for this? This is in itself, an un-Constitutional act.

THE WHITE HOUSE Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release January 11, 2010

EXECUTIVE ORDER (BARACK OBAMA) ESTABLISHMENT OF THE COUNCIL OF GOVERNORS

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 1822 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-181), and in order to strengthen further the partnership between the Federal Government and State governments to protect our Nation and its people and property, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Council of Governors.

(a) There is established a Council of Governors (Council).The Council shall consist of 10 State Governors appointed by the President (Members), of whom no more than five shall be of the same political party. The term of service for each Member appointed to serve on the Council shall be 2 years, but a Member may be reappointed for additional terms. (b) The President shall designate two Members, who shall not be members of the same political party, to serve as Co-Chairs of the Council.

Sec. 2. Functions. The Council shall meet at the call of the Secretary of Defense or the Co-Chairs of the Council to exchange views, information, or advice with the Secretary of Defense; the Secretary of Homeland Security; the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism; the Assistant to the President for Intergovernmental Affairs and Public Engagement; the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and Americas' Security Affairs; the Commander, United States Northern Command; the Chief, National Guard Bureau; the Commandant of the Coast Guard; and other appropriate officials of the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Defense, and appropriate officials of other executive departments or agencies as may be designated by the Secretary of Defense or the Secretary of Homeland Security. Such views, information, or advice shall concern:

(a) matters involving the National Guard of the various States; (b) homeland defense; (c) civil support; (d) synchronization and integration of State and Federal military activities in the United States; and (e) other matters of mutual interest pertaining to National Guard, homeland defense, and civil support activities.

Username: canaryinthecoalmine | On: January 25, 2010 at 8:47 a.m

February 2, 2010 at 2:19 a.m.
hotdiggity said...

Canary, its good to know that you share the concerns of people who have questioned acts implemented in the previous administration that some thought were invasions of privacy and/or unconstitutional. Patriot Act, unauthorized wiretapping, etc.

Although you have not said anything that shows this is unconstitutional. All you care to do is offer your same, tired derogatory adjectives that I am "narrow-minded and demagogic".

Don't you think if this was a little bit unconstitutional that there would be an uproar by this time? Please provide some proof as to this being unconstitutional.

The intent of the act was to help the National Guard within our borders to protect the citizenry in "the war on Terror" and to provide for domestic insurrection. It was hardly put in place to, as you state, "to arrest and jail citizens for whatever they deem a slight"? Don't you think your statement seems a little paranoid to say the least?

Having a Council of Governors provides a type of safe guard between the Prez and citizens.

You continue to scream this is unconstitutional, over and over, without offering a shred of proof. Perhaps this will help you.

"The Insurrection Act (Title 10 USC Sections 331-334). This act allows the President to use U.S. military personnel at the request of the State Legislature or Governor to suppress insurrections. It also allows the President to use federal troops to enforce federal laws when rebellion against the authority of the United States makes it impracticable to enforce the laws of the U.S.

Perhaps you are referring to the this..

"The 'Posse Comitatus Act' (PCA), Title 18 of the U.S. Code (USC), Section 1385, states:

"'Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."

Now do you see why a Council of Governors was set up? This allows the 10 Governors a chance to monitor the Act since it takes a "request of the State Legislature or Governor to suppress insurrections".

Hopefully you will provide some proof as to why this is unconstitutional instead of shrieking the word at me continuously.

February 6, 2010 at 4:54 a.m.
hotdiggity said...

Canary, forgot to add. With a little research you can see the progression of the current National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, what was changed and amended to reduce any threat of the Prez abusing his powers.

This Act, as it currently stands, addresses the attempted hijacking by Bush of the Constitution in regards to the Insurrection Act and Posse Comitatus Act. It was approved overwhelmingly by the House and Senate

February 6, 2010 at 7:27 a.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »

advertisement
advertisement

Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.