+1 except some polls due allow us to draw conclusions.

I'm in the same boat. Heard both sides and am sick of the debate. The Dems have the 60 Senate seats and an overwhelming majority in the House. Can't blame not passing this on anyone anymore.

Tired of talk. Just fucking get something done.

I still think most of the polls are irrelevent because none of the people being polled really know what's in the bill. We still have people believing in death camps and forced abortions. I think a lot of the responses are based off of fear of the unknown. That's partly the Democrats fault for letting special interests and Republicans control the debate and throw out some lies to scare people.

Kind of like the Iraq War polls before the war started. Most people supported it but didn't know that the WMD thing was a farce and Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. If people were more educated on it, the polls would have been much different.

Basically what I'm saying is that polls mean shit if the people being asked don't know what the fuck is going on.

None of those bills have more than a few dozen Republican supporters. The GOP House leadership said well over one hundred days ago that they were putting the finishing touches on their alternative proposal, but so far they have delivered nothing. There isn't any piece of legislation or proposed legislation that would garner support from a majority of GOP members.

Which, as the posters above have shown, is irrelevant because the Democrats don't need the GOP's support anyway.

again showing my naivete, I do wish that there could be a bill that is bipartisan on input, support, and results.

Irrelevant in passing a bill, but certainly not irrelevant when the argument is that the GOP has presented alternatives.

Wow.

Some of these politicians are modern-day drama queens. It's got to be over the top or else.

Pelosi's not too bright and is a poor leader, but she's certainly not an enemy of the constitution.

How quickly some people forget how fast-and-loose with the Constitution folks like Tom Delay and Dick Cheney were not so long ago.

Save it for the 'Dancing With The Stars' thread.

Given the rednecks Broun represents, he's just trying to rally his voting base a little. I doubt most in his district (except the obvious college students) can even spell "Constitution" let alone tell you what's in it.

In fact, his most recent accomplishment...

H.CON.RES.121 : Encouraging the President to designate 2010 as "The National Year of the Bible".

H.R.227 : To provide that human life shall be deemed to begin with fertilization.

H.R.1621 : To withhold Federal funds from schools that permit or require the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance or the national anthem in a language other than English.

Ahem.

At least he's spending his time on important stuff.

That still exceeds the accomplishments of the current administration and congress as a whole.

How about we make 2010 "The Year of Doing Something and Not Complaining About Everyone Else".

I can see why that's important to someone voting on the bill (so they're not solely blamed if it bombs), but why is that important for a regular citizen? Why is it so important for you to Republicans to agree?

I mean, you don't agree with the Republican platform in general, right? You believe that the Democratic platform is generally more correct. So why don't you want to see that actual platform in action, not some watered down version of it that Republicans agree with? What's with all the waffling now that the Dems have power?

Watch out, molson. You may be getting fact-checked by CNN if you keep making comments like this.

Eh, I'd give him 1-1-1 on that list.

The Con. R. took some staffer a few minutes to write, if that, I'm down with the idea but it's fluff.

Me & Broun part ways on when life begins, so that's a loss.

1621 I'm very proud he's attached to, even if it sadly doesn't have any real hope of being passed. As important a use of his time as any of a hundred other things it could have been spent on afaic.

really? wow. what a douche. so if they PERMIT it to be recited in another language (say Native American reservation schools?) he wants Federal funds withheld? What a fuckwad.

you've got the answer there in your statement. GENERALLY MORE CORRECT, not 100% ALL CORRECT

I guess that really doesn't surprise me.

As far as REQUIRE I guess I'd agree with (although what about say optional Chinese Language Immersion programs within public schools?). As far as PERMIT I'd strongly disagree with.

And this coming from someone (me) who thinks that bilingual education is largely a crock and we should require all immigrants to learn English. So I'm not exactly liberal on this issue.

OK - so does that mean you'd have doubts with a plan that Democrats universally supported, and Republicans universally opposed? I can understand that. That's what sucks about the partisianship of all this.

i wouldn't say my doubts were tied to who supported it or opposed it, but more just in general.

i don't necessarily think it'll be a better plan because it'll be 100% democrat. there's a real danger in that in that you don't have any outside input into it looking out for other ways to get things done and it can all just sort of snowball.

that being said i'm much more in favor of the general idea of the plans put forth by the democrats than the republican proposals. but the devil is in the details, and i think the Republicans are really failing to do their job as far as engaging in the political process and raising legitimate questions and offering legitimate alternatives.

i hate coming off like i'm partisan, because my views are really a lot more nuanced than that.

shit...i'm for universal healthcare, but i'm also for making english the national language and requiring immigrants to learn it.

but the whole environment has become so polarized that everyone is pushed onto one side or another, largely based on where they stand on social issues (gay rights, abortion, that type of thing).

cuz generally I think veering more than X from the middle is bad for America.

It's a bit sad that the Dems actually made some effort to meet Reps in the middle on legislation since the last election, and the Rep response has basically been to attack whatever the Dems put forth. It would have been nice if the extreme partisanship from the Bush / Clinton days could have been scaled back some, and both sides could have tried to work towards something mutually acceptable. But obviously, that's not going to happen.

What I don't understand (and frustrates the hell out of me) is why the stupid Democrats are unwillingly to say, "okay, you don't want to play ball, so we'll just do things our way, and you can go screw yourself" and take advantage of their holding both chambers and the Presidency. You KNOW the Republicans would be passing all sorts of stuff if the tables were turned. I wish these guys could get on the same page and get some stuff done. Quit trying to reach out and getting your hands cut off, you idiots. You may never get another chance like this for decades. STEP ON THEIR NECK WHEN THEY ARE DOWN. THEY WOULD DO IT TO YOU.

Somehow I don't think Obama would have been as successful in the election, especially the primaries, if the message was, "Change We Can Believe In As Long As The Republicans Agree".

I'm sure they are, but for the Democrats to blame the minority Republicans for their failures - that's just sad and pathetic.

They think they've set it up well though. SOMETHING will pass eventually. It will be a big compromise. If it doesn't work out, the Dems will still have their scapegoats. Even though this particular scapegoat is completely ridiculous. It's all about setting up who to blame ahead of time.

The Democrats' failures are on their own shoulders. The Republicans couldn't really do much about things if the Democrats had their act together.

Why would you expect that the party that seems largely antagonistic to the idea of personal responsibility would want to, you know, be responsible for anything? For eight years they've been able to demonize Republicans for the direction of this country, and now with a near supermajority in the Senate and a clear majority in the House, they're still demonizing Republicans for the direction of this country. After eight years of not having to take responsibility for the country, I'm convinced that many Congressional Democrats either don't want, or don't know how, to be an effective majority party.

The GOP is suffering from a lack of leadership now, which isn't that surprising. What is surprising to me is that the Democrats also seem to be suffering from a lack of leadership. Obama seems uninterested in details or specifics in legislation, and seemingly would prefer to just sign the bill that gets to his desk. But since he's both the president and head of the Democratic party, I don't think he can be a "hands-off" president. Most people, his critics included, thought that Obama was going to be a bold and strong president. Instead, almost one year in he looks like the weakest we've had since Carter.

Yeah. Honestly, Obama is really disappointing me. The stars are aligned like never before in my lifetime, he is well-regarded by the people who elected him and around the world, but he seems better at sweeping speeches than in getting in there, getting his hands dirty, and getting the job done. He's too worried about bipartisanship and playing nice. I won't vote for him next time out if he doesn't dramatically improve. I still have hope that he will rise up to the challenge, but that hope is a lot weaker than it was a year ago.

In baseball terms, swing for the fences. It's better to strike out than to not even swing.

I see two problems with minority support in legislation (esp when the White House and congress is held by the same party):

1. Politics is now a team sport. So, "helping" Obama pass legislation (even legislation that you may feel is good for the country) hurts your team. The republicans are much better off as a party if nothing passes on a major issue.

2. A lot of times the minority doesn't agree with the premise. Take "Cap and trade" - most republicans don't want any bill that would add stress to industry related to "carbon credits" or any similar measure. If that's your premise, how do you compromise? It's like telling a Red Sox fan: "You don't have to root for the Yankees the entire ALCS, just root for them for the first game or two". You are still asking someone to endorse an action they are diametrically opposed to.

As time passes, partisanship will continue to ratchet up and there will be less and less willingness by the party out of power to do anything. This is just a result of the "team sport" nature of politics combined with the 24-hour cable news cycle. Even if Mitch McConnell wanted to endorse a policy created by Harry Reid and helped it pass, he'd be tarred and feathered by the right for even helping them out. It's a lose-lose for the party out of power combined with the party in power getting put down by their supporters for trying to get a consensus (esp when one isn't needed).

I'd go more into it, but all that can said now is that "it is what is" and I don't see it changing anytime soon.

I'd strongly question whether he's considered the latter within the party. They haven't been able to figure out whether it's supposed to be Reid, Pelosi, or whomever but I've always gotten a pretty strong vibe that they all agree it's not Obama.

Back on the health care, yes, "work" is a great word and I am fortunate. My coverage is excellent but it is expensive, never said it wasn't. What's the old adage? Quality-Service-Cost: pick 2. My empathy is in the quality of health care and living/maintaining a healthy lifestyle (which is also the priority of my company which recently won a national(?) award for healthy living initiatives - against good competition since Colorado is the healthiest state). Anyway, there are a lot of people working for companies so I reacted against that 94% are one illness away from bankruptcy (if I read that right).

And yes, it is tied to the deficit. What if Congress over the decades had not done a lot of stupid things - or were encouraged not do such things? These range from temporary expenditures that ended up being permanent, to wasteful "war" on X, to ridiculous parochial weapons programs, to ill-thoughtout nationbuilding, to corporate welfare, to cheating tax codes and to alledged stimuluses that are only targeted to help the fewest people possible (and not the ones that really needed help). Perhaps they cried wolf too many times that they would be hard pressed to do something that could actually matter. But instead, we shouldn't trust them as they have not proven they can be trusted with many big things. I wish health costs were lower and I wish more can get basic coverage (without having to resort to CORBA, which is ridiculous) but I do not trust or believe they can do that.

Well, I was leaving Athens out of my redneck comment (for the most part), however your approval of 1621 reinforces your other occasional racist comments. I recited the pledge in French during my AP French class in high school (as she wanted everything done in french, no english), but we all know what Broun means to write is that he wants funds pulled if it's recited in Spanish. Plays perfectly in to the xenophobia in rural Georgia, however I guess it's better that he wastes his time pushing drivel into committees (like Saxby) rather than gain any traction for any of his issues.

Dola, I also think bilingual requirements are stupid, but we know the true undercurrent of the bill and who he's trying to appeal to.

Speak English or die motherfucker pretty well covers it within the borders of the 50 states as far as I'm concerned & most especially when it's on the taxpayers dime. I don't bitch cause Quebec likes French, why anyone has a problem with English here beats the hell out of me (or it would if I particularly gave a damn why).


Yep, which makes sense since we aren't seeing many Hungarians in northeast Georgia lately. If we were, he'd want 'em pulled for doing the Pledge sounding like Zsa Zsa Gabor.

On the bright side, the economic downturn has at least reduced the crowd outside the Home Depot enough that you can get into the parking lot most mornings without having to dodge the loitering throng as it no longer spills over beyond the tent into the entrance, so we've got that going for us.

On the whole I'm pretty happy with Broun, and the instances where we do part company are more than made up for by how wound up he gets our local assortment of nouveau hippies & garden variety liberals. Heck, he could never introduce another piece of legislation as long as he's in office and still be worth keeping around just for his votes and the service he provides by discomfiting the enemy so consistently.

Unfortunately, I agree with this statement. He has been a disappointment over the past couple months.

I like him but winning the Nobel Peace Prize is premature and, imo, a joke.

He's doing a lot of payback for what he did to get elected and most of that is...well...looking like he's in charge, but ultimately realizing he's way in over his head. I mean, most of his team seems that way too. Like in theory thought they could do this, brought in a ton of ex-DC paperweights to "help" him look more experienced and really, everyone is just "getting theirs" and the Boy Emperor is really just doing what he does.

Getting on planes and riling up people.

You left out winning stuff he has zero business winning in a remotely sane world.

Schools should be English, but being bilingual is extremely important in today's global market. Raising kids to speak 2 or 3 languages is a huge benefit to their future.

Yeah, if they are languages like Japanese or Chinese.

Damn it, you better speak English in your own home too!

If you're a CEO or something. But a large percent of the population speaks it in this country and throughout the world. If you're bilingual, it opens a ton of jobs for you. I remember when I worked at a large furniture company, they'd hire managers who were bilingual because they could communicate eaiser with a lot of the workers on the lines.

Lot of professions like doctor, dentist, social worker, teacher, etc have a major advantage in the job marketplace if they speak Spanish.

It won't be once we get all them Mexicans out of this country.

For domestic work, sure. For international work, other languages are better. French and Chinese would sure be handy for me right now, but I took Spanish in high school and German in college. Sigh.

I agree. But for the most part, the average person has a higher chance of needing another language for domestic instead of foreign. In any event, knowing multiple languages can only enhance your job prospects no matter what it is.

Yes, like trying to order food. My wife and I still laugh at the time we ordered an Egg McMuffin with folded egg and they tried to put lettuce on it...

For the future, I would vote for Mandarin and Spanish. Mandarin obviously because of China's growth and importance to US businesses and Spanish because of Mexico/Caribbean/Latin/South America.

Unfortunately, the French I learnt in school, is ... old Europe.