Feisty,

At least our President is picking them off one by one. At this rate I will no longer collect my Navy Pension but Patty will get the Life Insurance. He should look at all those that have been stalled and activate the most important ones NOW. That is what the Republicans would have done. While at it Joe should either appointment himself as Senator to replace Byrd or pick a qualified DEM to hold that seat until 2012. Why even think of opening the seat to a special election knowing that in this infested environment they may very well loose to a Republican. From what I understand the law is on his side on this one. Hey Joe, where's the balls.

If you have been paying attention, you would know who was nominated and when. You would know why Obama thought they were qualified and why Republicans thought they weren't. You would also know when Republicans put a hold on them or why Republicans blocked their vote to confirm. Do you see the common element here? Republicans.

As of Oct 1, 2008 Bush had made 171 recess appointments, Clinton had 139 at the same time in his terms.. Its tool that Presidents have used for years. If the party doing the blocking or holding up votes, would let the person come to a vote and have an honest discussion about him or her, maybe there wouldn't be a need for recess appointments.

Just what would a committee hearing do no joe all blow? It would just give the republicans another change to make up lies and whine and cry that nobodies listening to them. We all know what the republicans will say, the only word they know NO.

No Joe No Bo NJ

Bush put Bolton in as our UN ambassador and we all know what a great job he did. The Repubs are going to have a problem w/ anyone Obama nominates period.

Bolton appeared before the relevant committee. the Democrats refused to release the nomination for a floor vote. then, and only then, was he given the job as a recess appointment.

there has been no committee hearing. Fromwhat I am reading in the Washington Post, Obama did not want his views getting media attention.

there is your transparency.

Mo

It might have given the people who don't get to spend time on a computer a reason why the Republicans are saying no.

This is the same nominee the Repubs LOVED when W was in office.

When Bush and others did the same thing was there a peep out of you? I doubt there was.

Gee, No Joe, I guess the Democrats must've been REALLY impressed with Revoltin' John Bolton! I salute the President on his efforts to avoid a partisan food fight!

It's hard to be transparent when republicans put HOLDS on every nominee for months. Republicans have put holds on second level staffers. The GOPers told people they intended to stall every chance they had. Cheers for Pres Obama for deciding "nuts" to repubs.

Considering how Health Care is rationed today, by the Insurance Companies trying to keep THEIR costs low and Profits sky high, the Health Care Reform will go a long ways towards dismantling this system by not allowing these insurance cos to disqualify paying insurance holders for medical care based on "Pre-Existing Conditions," things not being covered under those policies and changing people's policies without them having any recourse against such changes of contract. The Insurance Corporations have the blood of hundreds of thousands on their hands and yet THEY are screaming that "This will cause Death Panels (which they already use) and Health Care Rationing (which they do daily) and it will all be the Democrat's Fault (not the Repubs because they refused to vote on it)!"

The thing to do is stop listening to their lies, which are all based on them making obscene profits on the backs of the sick and injured. Making them responsible for Upholding their insurance contracts, and not bilking the customers for the protections that they have paid for, and stopping THEIR rationing of health care for their profits will go a long ways towards healing what is broken in Health Care today. IF the Insurance Corporations do NOT start being responsible players, then we will NEED to pass a Universal Single Payer Plan and put the insurance folks out of business, at least as far as health care goes...One should not have to spend lots of money only to have to "spin the wheel" to see if their medical problems are actually covered and if the insurance company will actually pay for it!

B. Honest - I would bet to wager I share a lot of your values and concur with your issues. Believe me I was for health care reform. I walked my precinct, I called in phone banks. I got a lot of doors shut on my face and angry phone callers spout off to me. Not saying I did more or less than I'm sure you or a lot of progressives did.

That being said what does the current HCR do to help the average american. I don't believe any of the right wing lies 'death panels' etc. Believe me I've tried to read the bill passed. Past the talking points, you've got to admit it wasn't the best.

Without competition how are costs brought down. Not even a public option let alone universal coverage was included. Sure somewhere in there a limit that insurance companies can charge a patient, but won't they just bilk us up to that point? Sure a hard to insure pool and the practice of dropping coverages will go away, subsidies for people will be available to enroll but won't the insurance companies keep bilking people? Where are the price controls?

Once all is implemented only 30 million covered! I remember when Obama was campaigning the estimates were that there was 47 million without health care. As this recession has claimed another 15 million that is more than 60 million without health care. So covering 30 million by 2014 is supposed to be a great accomplishment?

Look I agree with you about single payer, but we needed it passed when we had the votes and political capital. We can all blame the republicans but when 60 votes were there, the democrats misplayed their hand. With a four aces in hand they traded them in for a pair of dueces. Not to be overly pessimistic only realistic. The insurance companies will not be responsible players and no one will want to touch health care again for another decade.

Yellowdog, I agree, the Health Care Reform Bill, as passed, was terribly watered down to get Repub support, but even after that the Repubs went and voted NO against it. The Dems should have gone back to their beginning bill, once they realized that the Repubs would not play fair, and passed their full version, complete with a Single Payer Plan involved.

However, now that the 70 year old ice has been broken on the subject, and we DO have a National Health Care Bill, we can work to fine tune it if the Corporations don't want to play fair. We can make it much tougher as time goes on, especially if, in this Mid-Term election the Repubs lose even more seats, the Dems will be able to revisit the issue and make it appropriately tougher.

I agree that it is weak now, however, that can be improved once the 'Knights that say NO' are further removed from the scene!

B. Honest. HCR was watered down to get Democratic support. No Republican voted for it. The changes were made to get Ben Nelson, Blanche Lincoln and other Blue-Dogs on-board. As Yellowdog says almost no cost controls were included and the bill turned into a taxpayer funded gift to the Health Insurance companies. The sweet deal that Pharma received from George Bush was left unchanged, and they received a sweeter deal with the closing of the donut hole which accelerates patients past any co-payments to the point that taxpayers are now on the hook for brand name drugs.

I actually agree that rationing (and by extension Death Panels) are required because it is impossible to pay for all health care for everybody. The debate should have been over who decides the rationing. As one pundit put it "85% of voters were worried about costs, and Obamacare extended coverage".

B. Honest,

Not only would the Repubs not voted for it, we have Dems that would have voted against as well. We all have to remember in the Grandstanding Joe Lieberman, Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu, and Blanche Lincoln. These four also posed a greater risk to healthcare than the Repubs ever did

The democrats used reconciliation to pass HCR in Congress to get past the filibuster in the Senate. I'm not by any means an expert on Senate rules, but I thought if they only needed a simple majority to pass HCR, why didn't 51 senators rewrite it and pass a bill with the public option or with single payer? Surely they could have done some fancy interpretation to the show that the public option and single payer would save money and not add to the deficit. They proved that the passed bill saved money and didn't add to the deficit.

B Honest - I hope the dems do pick up some seats this november. That doesn't look likely. Optimistically, I see the House loosing 20 seats and the Senate losing six. That is of course with both Dems and Repub incumbents losing seats and each side picking seats up.

Alan - I think the old system in place with insurance company bureaucrats kicking people off coverage for minor errors or denying coverage was the real death panel system.

Hopefully in the future once other legislation is fought and pushed through, the dems can get back to health care. However, It is hard to expect a lot when congressman and senators vote not on what is right or even what they believe in, but they vote by election poll divinations.

The system works soooo well now, doesn't it? We overpay, wait for our appointment, pay for things our insurance was supposed to cover and still have the most expensive system in the world. What planet are you on?

Mary - If you are talking to me. I think that we are living on a planet where a basic human right like health care and caring for sick people is outweighed by profit margins for insurance companies.

Our doctors and nurses are the best in the world, my opinion as I've lived no place else. I think most in here would agree that the insane markups on their service is because of the insurance companies caring more about their shareholder numbers and profits than actually being a fair partner in all of this.

Britians Health care IS better than ours...........check the world wide ratings for infant morality and other issues, we are on average 37th! That's right f'king 37th. Check your facts before you speak of something you have no freakin idea about.

Joe,

Along with KLM, you both must be really misinformed with let the rationing begin! Health insurance companies already pick and choose what is authorized and what is not--you can call that rationing. By chance do you know which political group backs health insurance/drug companies more than the people of this country? Again stop listening to talking points and get better informed.

We already have rationed care by private insurance companies. In addition, those same insurance companies decide how much to pay and for what--they negotiate contracts and limit the amount of money paid to doctors, hospitals, etc.

We will see a public option in the future and the HCR improved over time. Without what was passed, we'd have no hope for change.

I voted for you because I thought you were being sarcastic; but then I remembered you are SERIOUS,...so I'd like my check mark back,...

Are you really that misinformed? Health insurance companies already ration your health care, please get a clue and stop listening to the talking points.

Sooooooo.....you're saying it's OK for the government to ration but not OK for the insurance companies? Health care rationing is not good at all - whoever is doing it. I researched Berwick, so I have no idea what "talking points" you're talking about.

KLM, fixing the system so the insurance companies can't do that no more is not rationing. Please get more informed, You make yourself look like a, well you input the word not me.

For the first time ever, I have to say I agree with Eric: Barry SHOULD make all his appointments recess appointments. Just like the minority Dems in the Senate set the stage for abusing the filibuster under Bush, this move will set the stage for the next Republican President to abuse the recess apointment just like Barry is now doing. I'm looking forward to the lefty liberals whining and complaining about their own abusive tactics being used against them, just like they're doing right now about the filibuster. Payback's a b!tch. LOL!!!

Joe in Albany,

Bush did it, so how is this payback? Oh I see, its only when the Dems do something or anything to get the Government moving that Repubs like you object. But didn't Senator Gregg from New Hampshire say something about majority rules and the minority just needs to accept it. Your hyprocrisy is as bad as the ones in Congress

"majority rules and the minority just needs to accept it. Your hyprocrisy is as bad as the ones in Congress"

I guess that you would then agree that when the Senate rules (which were passed with a majority of votes) provide for a minority filibuster, then the Dem majority "just needs to accept it" also. Funny thing about that is all the lefty liberals are SCREAMING "OBSTRUCTION".

So, Phillip do you agree they should "just accept" the Republican filibusters??

Again with the lies. Nobody is FILIBUSTERING anything. Are you people really so proud of your ignorance that you will constantly use the wrong word to describe an action or activity just because someone else does the same ignorant thing? Secret holds in the Senate are an affront to the Republic. FINOs, filibusters in name only, are a lie the media tells the ignorant public, and they believe because they don't know how to question anything they are being told unless it has to deal with sports.

"Again with the lies. Nobody is FILIBUSTERING anything. Are you people really so proud of your ignorance that you will constantly use the wrong word to describe an action or activity just because someone else does the same ignorant thing?"

Someday I hope we will ALL be as smart as you are Paul. Until then, I'm LMAO@U and your reading comprehension skills.

Seems that you totally missed the point: My post was not about Barry's recess appoinments. I changed the subject in my post. It was about whether or not Phillip's belief in "majority rules" applied to the fillibusters all the lefty's are screaming about when fillibusters are approved in the Senate rules by a majority vote.

Clearly it's not going to ever happen for you Joe. The intelligence thing. Filibusters are approved by majority vote in the Senate on establishing the rules of the Senate. The FINO, Rule 22 of the Senate, is not a filibuster, it is an indefinite hold on a bill which can last the entire session. This differs from the filibuster in that no actual filibuster has much chance of lasting longer than five days; the majority of the Senators would soon tire of the inconvenience of being unable to go home or conduct any other business, they would vote it down. The FINO, Rule 22, imposes no such hardship on the minority or the majority so the status quo of the FINO rarely gets overturned. If you don't like recess appointments either have the hearings and vote or don't go to recess.

And my reading comprehension is fine, as anyone can see from reading along. What they will also recognize is that you don't understand what you are writing about. There is a difference between intelligence and being informed, between stupidity and ignorance. You mentioned the filibuster five times. I tried to explain to your ignorant self that neither the Democrats nor the Republicans were employing the filibuster, or the "minority filibuster" whatever that is. The actual filibuster is a longstanding Senate tradition, it is one of the things that distinguishes it from the House. It has only been used ONCE since 1984. So how has anyone abused it of late? They haven't! The majority rule discussion is academic and bogus if you are trying to understand gridlock in the SENATE. What is being abused is RULE 22. With the majority leader's consent the minority, with only 41 votes, can shelve forever any piece of legislation. This is not the filibuster at work. Now why Harry Reid is willing to continue to allow the minority to employ rule 22 instead of requiring them to actually get up on their feet and do the damn filibuster is anybody's guess, but the mainstream media avoids that discussion by lying to you ignoramuses by never mentioning Rule 22 instead calling it the filibuster which you dolts parrot in political discussions on blogs like this.

So tell me again why you and Philip are arguing about the majority rule aspect of a legislative tactic that hasn't been used even once in this freaking century, Joe.

Paul, you seem pretty impressed with yourself. That tells me you are easily impressed.

I'm fully aware that current practice in the Senate doesn't require them to stand there and debate endlessly, which is the "technical" definition of the filibuster. However, the current practice in the Senate has the same end result. A rose by any other name still smells the same.

BTW, I'm guessing you are an out of work lawyer that can't find a job because you waste everyones time arguing about minutia. LOL!!!

The end result is NOT THE SAME, and thank you for proving to everyone that you are indeed an idiot. After I inform you that no one is using the filibuster, you scoffed at the notion, now you claim that you knew it all along, and then you contradict reality by saying exactly what the MSM wants you to think; "the end result is the same." And if you are going to try to quote Shakespeare make the effort to get it right. The ability of the minority to block, squelch, shelve, terminate, eviscerate, whatever word I need to use for you to understand this, stop the democratic process of a bill completely and forever, is not a power provided by the FILIBUSTER. NO FILIBUSTER COULD EVER HOPE TO ACCOMPLISH THAT! Rule 22 on the other hand allows the minority to prevail in perpetuity. This could not have been what our founding fathers ever wanted the Senate to be able to do. Just because the majority of the Senate voted to approve a Rule in the Senate which undermines representative democracy, doesn't make it right or constitutional, the can't vote for cockfights and murder for hire as ways to decide votes on legislation. We're not talking about any kind of "rose" here, what we are all smelling is a pile of crap which you are calling a rose.

And bad guess, I am not out of work, I have all the work that I need.

That is what should happen when you have stolen an election. TWICE!

I T M - [from Friday pm]

The “we” is the same “we” as in “We the people …”

Our military is controlled under civilian authority. Thus, WE have a right to determine the mission {period}. I served 6 years but my point is valid even if I had not.

It is often said that the Iraq war was unjust because; our country, its territories, foreign bases or allies were not attacked. This was the first ever declared war without being provoked.

Isn't it funny how you never want to talk about the past, unless you need to talk about the past.

So, Paul, I suppose it's ok if Democrats do it, but not ok if Republicans do it.

You guys are such hypocrites.

And nobody "stole" any elections.

Check the facts Jill. Just because you are ignorant of the truth doesn't make it go away. Read Greg Palast. Bush stole both elections. And no, I don't think the legislature should be able to hold up appointments for duly elected officials. That wouldn't apply to Bush. The gridlock, in the Senate is unforgiveable.

And Dennis, I don't believe any war was declared by congress, since WWII. The size of the engagement doesn't make it a war, it is a legal proceeding.

Paul, you really need to adjust the antenna on your tin foil hat, it's getting bad reception and delivering you lots of bad information. Maybe it's the federal Department of Secret Alien UFO's that's broadcasting the beams picked up by your out of tune antenna. LOL!!!

Another ignorant chimes in, proud of his ignorance, Way to go Joe.

Diebold's entire purpose was the enabling of stolen elections, there is no such thing as a re-count of ballots, because no paper ballots exist to be re-counted.

Paul,

A Declaration of War was approved at 10:00pm on March 18, 2003 and announced by President Bush at 10:15pm (0315 GMT).

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/19/sprj.irq.int.bush.transcript/

Is it the headline of the article that is confusing you? Congress declares war, not the President. He can engage in warfare, for a limited time without Congress's approval. What was the vote in Congress that declared war on Iraq?

Paul, A Declaration of War was approved at 10:00pm on March 18, 2003 BY CONGRESS.

I was trying to give you some factual information given your statement:

"And Dennis, I don't believe any war was declared by congress, since WWII. The size of the engagement doesn't make it a war, it is a legal proceeding."

No it wasn't. Answer my question. Authorization of the use of force, is not a formal declaration of war. I believe you have posted this link to the CNN article before. Under the War powers resolution act of 1973 CONGRESS can either declare war or, the operative word here is OR, authorize the use of American forces. THESE ARE SIMILAR, BUT NOT THE SAME THING. Give tme the vote totals in congress declaring WAR, if you can't do that, don't tell me you want to talk about FACTS.

Dennis, where in the article does it specifically say that Congress declared war? Look very hard as you aren't going to find it. Why? It isn't there. War has NOT been declared by the US Congress since December 8, 1941. That would be WWII.

WE ARE WAITING FOR YOUR FACTS Dennis. *crickets*

Paul and Alder,

Thanks for the lesson. I didn’t understand the difference.

Today has been good … I learned something.

And Paul I did post this link before. I wish you would have corrected me then. I try to provide accurate information and making the same mistake twice is unpleasant. If you follow my post you understand I like what you say and almost always agree.

Again, Thanks !!

Happy to help. Glad we understand each other, the search for truth is difficult in a world where our sources of information are paid to confuse and conflate reality with falsehoods.

Paul:

Go somewhere and sit your stupid azz down with all of these conspiracy theories. Man don't spew this BS nowhere else.

You sound like a damn fool. Who in the hell died and scribed your name as Jesus Christ the Truth Teller?

LOL..........stop clowning yourself

You are a sad excuse for a military man. Tell me one place where I have been factually inaccurate. Then provide me with the proof.

And do me one small favor InThe Middle, go to youtube and watch the "interview" of Dr. Steven Jones on what was the Tucker Carlson show. Tucker didn't last long after this awful piece of "journalism". The guest has supplied the "show" with a digital video file so that they can intelligently discuss his theory about what brought down WTC7. TUCKER MAKES A JOKE OF HIS APPEARANCE BY REFUSING TO RUN THE VIDEO. Now why book the guest if you have no intention of making a good faith effort to listen to what he has to say about a video he has provided and you have agreed to show to the public? Ambush journalism is wrongheaded, especially in studio.

ITM

Did you just run away , cut and run from an intellectual argument? Sad.

Paul:

Dude I think you are one of those conspiracy hacks. I have no intention of holding any type of conversation whether intellectual or hostile with you.

I have seen some of your posts and they are off of the radar.

And there you have it folks. Clear evidence of the brainwash. The person can't even bring themselves to investigate information which doesn't comport with what they have been force-fed by the MSM. None of my posts are "off the radar", I asked you very clearly to list my deviations from fact and provide proof. Instead all you can do is call the messenger names rather than listen and investigate his message. I will say it again, SAD, REALLY SAD . Man up and watch the youtube of Steven Jones and Tucker Carlson and get back to me when you have grown an itellectual spine.

And there you have it folks. Clear evidence of the brainwash. The person can't even bring themselves to investigate information which doesn't comport with what they have been force-fed by the MSM. None of my posts are "off the radar", I asked you very clearly to list my deviations from fact and provide proof. Instead all you can do is call the messenger names rather than listen and investigate his message. I will say it again, SAD, REALLY SAD . Man up and watch the youtube of Steven Jones and Tucker Carlson and get back to me when you have grown an itellectual spine.

Oh... I agree Bev - just trying to point out more GEENOPEE double standards!

That's one of the things that drive them nuts... THIS President is actually doing something and the free ride for the last eight years came to a screeching halt! lol

But Beverly were still waiting for him to keep his promises.

"Because if we are willing to work for it, and fight for it, and believe in it, then I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children…that this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal…"

Alan NJ

Do you really expect the Repubs to work w/ him? They have taken grandstanding to all new heights. McConnell has decided and w/ the Repubs, the pretty much walk in lock step behind the leader of the Party to Just Say No. Not give any real suggestions in how to actually do something Bi-Partisan, its been our way or the highway. And even when some of their suggestions are used, its still NO. If you have any suggestions in how they can work w/ the President, I'm the Dems would be willing to hear you out

I think the democrats are having enough problems with Ben Nelson, Blanche Lincoln and Joe Lieberman. However, it seems to me that George W Bush knew how to peel off enough democrats to pass his legislation. The indictment against the Obama administration is that they cannot get their own party to agree, and that they cannot convince any of the Republicans like the senators from Maine or Scott Brown to vote with them. Could it be that there are no consequences for voting against the administration?

BTW I did not agree with the Bush tax cuts etc I am just making the observation that his administration could push through controversial legislation with a smaller majority.

More from 'this' bastard and yet so much LESS than the previous bastard,...perspective, Michael, perspective.

And keep keeping it real, Michael. You are indeed the gift that keeps on giving to Democrats.

Steelman, if your not in anger management therapy you ought to be.

Steelman... you got my vote but it doesn't involve a 'check'!

That's right, bone-head- MY president. YOURS was a dunce with a capital 'D'. (or was that a criminal, with a capital 'C'??) "Steel" man, my ass.

Just more of the same devious sh*t from this bastard that some refer to as their president. FU Obama!

Such an intellect. FIRST READ - there has to be a time when posts like this are not allowed.

Elise:

It is called Free Speech. Bush was called much worst and you guys still take hacks at him in 2010.

Everyone in America do not love Obama as everyone do not love Bush.

If you don't want to hear BS thrown at Obama then I think political boards is not a place for you.

"I'm DISGUSTED that the Repub talking points --aka LIES -- about healthcare are still being cast out there for the low information voters to swallow whole."

Health law risks turning away sick

By Julian Pecquet - 07/01/10 07:13 PM ET

The Obama administration has not ruled out turning sick people away from an insurance program created by the new healthcare law to provide coverage for the uninsured.

Administration officials insist they can make changes to the program to ensure it lasts until 2014, and that it may not have to turn away sick people. Officials said the administration could also consider reducing benefits under the program, or redistributing funds between state pools. But they acknowledged turning some people away was also a possibility.

http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/106887-health-law-risks-turning-away-sick

Health overhaul may mean longer ER waits, crowding
CHICAGO – Emergency rooms, the only choice for patients who can't find care elsewhere, may grow even more crowded with longer wait times under the nation's new health law.

That might come as a surprise to those who thought getting 32 million more people covered by health insurance would ease ER crowding. It would seem these patients would be able to get routine health care by visiting a doctor's office, as most of the insured do.

But it's not that simple. Consider:

There's already a shortage of front-line family physicians in some places and experts think that will get worse.

_People without insurance aren't the ones filling up the nation's emergency rooms. Far from it. The uninsured are no more likely to use ERs than people with private insurance, perhaps because they're wary of huge bills.

_The biggest users of emergency rooms by far are Medicaid recipients. And the new health insurance law will increase their ranks by about 16 million. Medicaid is the state and federal program for low-income families and the disabled. And many family doctors limit the number of Medicaid patients they take because of low government reimbursements."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100702/ap_on_bi_ge/us_med_er_crowding_8

I hope that these aren't some of those LIES aimed at the "low information voter"

We didn't get single payer, we got screwed...but it isn't just republicans doing the screwing.

Dangerfield, If you come to California you'll hear lies from the Republican candidate for Governor. Meg Whitman is putting out commercials that are nearly 100% lies. If one does a check on fact check they soon discover just how full of lies she is.

Brown hasn't responded, yet. He is waiting for her to spend millions more of her own money and then when people are really paying attention debunk her lies and do so for a lot less money. I am not all that fond of Jerry Brown but compared to Meg Whitman he is an angel. She's just a typical lying Republican.

Dangerfield - You always seem to bring something interesting to the table to contemplate. I guess the devil is in the details on HCR. I thought I read before you were an independent. You seem a bit more jaded even than me coming from the left side of the spectrum. From your past posts you don't like enteries without adding to the discussion but here is a shout out.

Good post.

Dave,Tn

Seriously? Cowards? When the last administration used recess appointments it was so "tricky" and "intelligent". If the Repub bums had any guts they'd stand up and fight for what they wanted instead of just saying NO to everything . Bring your A game and fight for what you believe in! Oh, that's right. You guys don't believe in anything except oil, big business and tax cuts for the rich off the backs of "the little people".

Mary O-001286608

Give DaveTN a break, some people are always going to be upset when the opposition uses his party of choice's tactics. Obama will never get a fair shake and TeaBaggers like Dave never plan on giving him one.

Philip

I agree with your sentiments. Please look up the facts. The media tells you that the minority is using the filibuster. This is NOT THE TRUTH. Why do they refuse to tell you what is actually being used?

Why does it matter? because the media should not be in the business of deliberately misleading you into believing that someone is "doing the work" when they are not. Rule 22 of the Senate allows the disruption of majority rule for indefinite periods which can last an entire legislative session, a filibuster has no chance of lasting more than a week. We are all being punked by the Senate and the people like Mark Murray, Chuck Todd, et al., who report upon their activities while leaving out the truth.

Paul-977599

I stand corrected, Rule 22 and not the Filibuster is being used which in itself is even more insidious. The fact that they just sit there, raise their hand and stop everything in its tracks is intolerable. I mean this this for BOTH sides of the aisle. The Senate has become nothing more than a log jam of BS because these hacks actually know that nothing happens w/o their approval. The House is where problems get solved, but the Senate has to put their filth on the bills and then it go back so all the differences can be ironed out. The Senate needs to be abolished period. Both sides and their grandstanding need to just stop.

Considering that the Repubs have repeatedly lied about and distorted what Berwick actually said, it is no wonder that they sidestepped the chance for the Repubs to spout their lies and venom yet again. The whole death panel and rationing lies that the Repubs spout is totally ludicrous and has been debunked, yet the lesser educated populace whipped up by Rush/Beck/Palin etc. are clueless and yet believe these bald faced liars.

President Obama did the right thing in not allowing them the chance to spew their debunked lies and bitter, minority party venom once again. He filled a vital position with someone who is imminently qualified...much better than old FEMA's Brownie, who did 'One Heck of a Job' on New Orleans!