As you would expect, many of the GOP are not happy with his remarks. Don't worry, he'll be back tracking tomorrow. He comes off as (and I'm being kind) kind of a goofy guy to me. He's hard to take seriously.


TIS

I'm sure I have no idea why you would say that..

Yeah, but I wouldn't get too excited. Six in one hand . . .

In latest sign of trouble for US Democrats, 2 senators, 1 governor ditch re-election plans

By Liz Sidoti (AP) – 2 hours ago

WASHINGTON — With the 2010 election year barely under way in the United States, two senators and one governor - all Democrats - ditched plans to run for re-election in the latest signs of trouble for President Barack Obama's party.

Taken together, the decisions by Senators Chris Dodd and Byron Dorgan as well as Colorado Governor Bill Ritter caused another bout of heartburn for Democrats as they struggle to defend themselves in a sour political environment for incumbents, particularly the party in charge.

As 2009 ended, Democrats watched a string of their House members announce retirements and one congressman defect to the Republican Party.

Now, with Dodd, Dorgan and Ritter out, Republicans have even more to crow about, if not better opportunities to pick up Democratic-held seats.

Democrats, who have a 60-40 Senate majority that includes two independents who vote with them, now will have to defend four open seats in the Senate. The other two currently belong to Senators Ted Kaufman, who replaced Vice-President Joe Biden, and Roland Burris, who replaced Obama, aren't running for full terms.

Republicans, for their part, are defending six open seats.

All seats in the House of Representatives and a third of the seats in the Senate will be on the ballot in the November midterm election. Analysts generally expect Democrats to lose seats, while keeping their majorities in both chambers.

But the loss of even a few seats in the Senate could be detrimental to Democrats, who need 60 votes to overcome Republican procedural obstacles. If Republicans continue to stand united against Obama, it could lead to political gridlock in the second half of his four-year term.

That increases pressure on Obama to get any major legislation - such as his health care overhaul or a climate change bill - passed this year. Yet even with commanding majorities, Obama has struggled to keep his party united on health care and other initiatives.

Among governors, Democrats are seeking to maintain their 26-24 majority in a year when those elected will oversee the redrawing of congressional and legislative districts for the next decade.

Republicans and Democrats alike say they now expect competitive races for Dorgan's Senate seat in North Dakota, a Republican-tilting state, and the governor's seat in Colorado, a pivotal swing state that has trended toward Democrats in recent years but may be shifting back toward Republicans.

In Democratic-leaning Connecticut, Dodd's retirement may actually heighten the likelihood that the seat he's held for five terms will remain in Democratic hands. The party can now recruit a more popular candidate to run, bolstering the prospects of thwarting a Republican victory. The former presidential candidate's poll standing has fallen precipitously since 2008.

Dodd planned to announce his retirement Wednesday, according to Democratic officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to publicly pre-empt the senator's remarks. Dodd told Democrats of his plans late Tuesday.

Dodd, 66, is chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, which was at the centre of efforts to deal with the economic meltdown. And he has played a prominent role in the contentious debate about overhauling health care, taking over for his friend Sen. Ted Kennedy during his illness and then after his death. Dodd underwent surgery for prostate cancer in August; he said it was in an early, treatable stage.

Dorgan's announcement Tuesday that he would retire stunned Democrats. They were confident that the 67-year-old moderate Democrat would run for re-election in the Republican-leaning state even as rumours intensified that the state's Republican governor would challenge him.

In Colorado, Democratic officials informed on Tuesday of Ritter's decision said the governor planned to announce Wednesday that he won't run for a second term in November.

Elected in 2006, Ritter was among those Democrats who helped the party make inroads into what was once a solidly Republican state. He helped pave the way for Obama to win Colorado in 2008 and had been widely considered a rising star in the Democratic Party.


Associated Press writers David Espo, Ken Thomas and Andrew Miga in Washington, Steven K. Paulson in Denver, Dale Wetzel in Bismarck, North Dakota, and Susan Haigh and David Collins in Hartford, Connecticut, contributed to this report.

Every President changes his mind on certain things once he's elected and the current one is no different. However this health care benefits tax is pretty key. The switch is pretty fast. And there's too much evidence of the President going after McCain for the same policy he now endorses.

by ERICA WERNER, Associated Press Writer Erica Werner, Associated Press Writer – 12 mins ago

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama signaled to House Democratic leaders Wednesday that they'll have to drop their opposition to taxing high-end health insurance plans to pay for health coverage for millions of uninsured Americans.

In a meeting at the White House, Obama expressed his preference for the insurance tax contained in the Senate's health overhaul bill, but largely opposed by House Democrats and organized labor, Democratic aides said. The aides spoke on condition of anonymity because the meeting was private.

House Democrats want to raise income taxes on high-income individuals instead and are reluctant to abandon that approach, while recognizing that they will likely have to bend on that and other issues so that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., can maintain his fragile 60-vote majority support for the bill.

Obama has defended the tax as a way to drive down health costs.

"I'm on record as saying that taxing Cadillac plans that don't make people healthier but just take more money out of their pockets because they're paying more for insurance than they need to, that's actually a good idea, and that helps bend the cost curve," the president said in an interview with National Public Radio just before Christmas. "That helps to reduce the cost of health care over the long term. I think that's a smart thing to do."

Very disappointing, Lilo. A real About-Face for the President. He's beginning to flip-flop like John Kerry .

As a New Year's resolution I have sworn off of cable television news, and it has been wonderful. As for Obama, a year ago they were all saying he was Lincoln. As of the end of December he was Jimmy Carter. I wonder who they'll make him in the next news cycle?

I don't understand why health reform has to be so complicated. Forcing people to purchase it is bull. I too am disappointed withthis President because he seems to complicate things beyond that which is necessary.

That's my biggest beef, Oli. It's insanity.

Saw a bumper sticker yesterday:
"I was anti-Obama before it was cool."

At least he "manned up" and said the buck stops with him.t As for politics, the GOP is going to have a big circlular firing squad with the teabaggers and the real conservatives. Also as long as crazies like Giuliani continue with their lies,i.e. there was never a domestic attack in the Bush Administion (9/11, the Anthrax attacks and the shoe bomber don't count I guess) I remained convinced of their hopeless situation.

I don't know the details as to how much this would be. Btw, does anyone know the costs?

For some reason, as I understand it, requiring people to buy health insurance doesn't bother me. I mean we do have to buy car insurance.

Not that I "would" but I'd more likely take a chance not having auto insurance (if I didn't "have" to purchase it) then I would health care. We pay for "uninsured motorists" (at least I do on my auto policy). If everyone had auto insurance we wouldn't have that fee. I don't know. Like I said, I don't know the details but I'm not as bothered by that.

Like many on the left though, I am bothered though by the fact that there will be no public option giving more choices. I just don't think enough is being done to keep the insurance companies in check.

TIS

Hillary was right! O fails the '3 a.m. phone' test

Charles Hurt, The New York Post

WASHINGTON -- Turns out Hillary Rodham Clinton was right all along.

During the nastiest battle of the entire 2008 presidential race, she aired an alarming television commercial warning voters that they would come to regret nominating Barack Obama to occupy the White House.

If -- in a national security crisis -- the "red phone" rang at 3 a.m., the ad intoned, Obama would not hear it.

Or he would fail to answer it.

Or he would be on vacation.

In any case, an Obama White House would so diminish the threat of terrorism that the government's focus would shift away from the harsh and determined tactics used to protect the homeland.

Instead, Obama would turn his attention to becoming more popular in the world and stress negotiations over hardball tactics.

This attitude from the commander in chief would trickle down to every corner of the federal government responsible for national security.

Obama lashed out at Clinton, dismissing her and accusing her of desperation and playing upon people's fears.

"Sen. Obama says that if we talk about national security in this campaign, we're trying to scare people," replied Clinton, appropriately mystified.

Well, yesterday those chickens came home to roost.

On a day when the administration desperately hoped to calm America's fears that a soft-headed, bumbling raft of politically correct peaceniks had taken over and fallen asleep at the national security switch, there wasn't much to see in the White House other than bungling of previous bungles.

These guys could not even settle on a time for Obama to address the country without rescheduling four times.

When he finally did speak -- in the late afternoon -- Obama offered a crushing analysis.

Evaluating all the ways in which his administration failed leading up to the attempted crotch-bombing of a US airliner on Christmas Day, Obama declared it a "systemic failure."

Yes, indeed.

Far more terrifying was how basic and fundamental these breakdowns were.

In the future, Obama said, "we must follow the leads that we get."

You think?

"We can't sit on information that could protect the American people."

Seriously?

"We must do better in keeping dangerous people off of airplanes."

You don't say!

Is anyone else feeling a little less than reassured right about now?

Not that any of this should have come as much of a surprise.

It is certainly not the first piece of evidence that Obama would rather be liked in the world than pursue the tactics proven to beat this evil and unceasing enemy.

Never will be forgotten Obama's trip to Cairo last year to address the Muslim world, when he said that he believes it is "part of my responsibility as president of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear."

Forget for a moment that such folly appears nowhere in the American president's job description.

If you have time for such nonsense, then you are not spending enough time thinking about how to thwart this enemy.

But it is not like we weren't warned by Hillary Clinton.

There was, however, a glint of good news yesterday. Obama invited former President Bill Clinton into the White House for an unexpected private chat.

Let's hope Obama asked him where the red phone is and how to answer it.

churt@nypost.com

There are costs and costs..
One estimate that I saw was that a family of four that had an income as low as 88K (which is 400% of Federal poverty level) would not be eligible for subsidies. If they were unlucky enough to have to purchase insurance on their own they'd be on the hook from anywhere between 15K and 19K. Ouch.

What's in it for me?

But the fairest thing to do is probably have a side to side comparison between Senate and House bill.
Comparison of Bills

Both bills are estimated to reduce the deficit for reasons that are longer and more detailed than I care to explore here.

You can always choose not to drive-some people do just fine by not driving- so mandated auto insurance for drivers doesn't bother me. But a federal mandate to purchase health insurance from a private insurer is a Rubicon I'd just as soon not cross.

Although I would like to think that you are correct I wouldn't underestimate the conservative opposition. They like to fight and to keep a simple narrative. They are very good at both. I think the President should learn a few things from their tactics. I think sometimes that liberals, progressives, moderates, whatever, can sometimes overlook the power of passion because of an overemphasis on rationality and process. It is funny to listen to Giuliani attempt to rewrite history...

88K is 400 per cent poverty level?????? I'm not a family of four, but I would be well below the poverty level if that's the case. I don't get that figure.

Here in CA, we have had quite a few hospitals close,because of course, they can't refuse care to those who have no insurance and need emergency medical care. There simply has to be a change.

As a matter of fact, part of my consideration to retire was because the school district told everyone to be prepared for a major health insurance increase in 2010. Since I retired when I did, it won't affect me. Yet, my co-workers' are experiencing major increases.

As far as the conservative opposition goes, they are very good at spin (better than the right) and I do think we should not assume anything as far as a next election goes. Yet, it is hard to believe that the party who has absolutely no ideas or input and opposes everything this President does, will prevail, but never say never.

TIS

I dunno, Tis.

It's ridiculous to be talking about 2012 right now, but the truth is that Obama has lost a LOT of the people who were originally on the fence about him, yet voted for him anyway. And those are the very people who won him the election.

I would make him the clear underdog at this point.

You know what this means??? It means that Apple and DoubleJ will be posting again.

SHIT!!!!

Hard to believe but accurate.
http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/09poverty.shtml

I would guess that these levels are paycheck income alone and do not include retirement benefits, investment income, pensions, annuities, IRA withdrawals, Social Security or any number of other items which retired individuals might have but I am hardly an expert on the issue..

Apple and DJ were on the fence?

I hear ya PB, but what exactly has the other side offered (besides criticism of everything) ??? Know what I mean? I don't look at him as underdog (at least not yet). Like I say though, never say never. Then again, a lot can happen in the next 3 years, good, bad or indifferent. We'll have to see.

TIS

I am obviously disappointed in the President.
But it is very very very early in his term. What his supporters will point out is that Reagan had similar low numbers at this point in his first term.
Times and challenges are different of course but it's a marathon, not a sprint.

I hope that things turn around -primarily so that I can quit my job and find something more interesting and higher paying - but also for the country as a whole. And if good times come again you know who will be front and center taking credit for it, rightly or wrongly..

It will be very ironic if Obama's handling of the "War on Terror" decides the next election, as opposed to how he handled the economy or the health care mess (the issues that got him elected).

Donald Trump??

Exactly....

It is way early to think about 2012, but I don't think Obama is the underdog even given his declined approval ratings. Once health care passes he'll claim victory. Never overestimate the intelligence of the public or the media. Once health care passes, everyone is going to wake up the next day and discover the heavens didn't fall, and nothing much has changed. In fact not much kicks in for several years anyway.
Many talking heads will be calling this an "historic" accomplishment, and he'll be back up there with Teddy Roosevelt and LBJ. He is smart to be talking tough on Al Queada, and will continue to do so. Sec. of Defense Gates just signed up for another year so that is a plus, and I don't think the Dems will take a terrible hit in 2010. In fact with
Chris Dodd out, there is a better chance the seat in Connecticut stays in the D column.

Bottom line is this: IT THE ECONOMY STUPID! If we are at 10% unemployment and people are still losing their homes in 2012, then he is in trouble.

Still who will the GOP run? IMHO their strongest candidates would be reasonable right of center people like Tom Ridge. Mitt Romney is a tad flaky, but electable. However if the teabaggers start splitting off from the GOP, and the party is split, Obama can get reelected with less than 50% of the vote.

$88,000 for a family of four living in my area would be damn close to poverty level. The average price paid for a home in my area in November, 2009 was $462,000. This is AFTER the housing crisis. Add "average" real estate taxes of $8500 annually, and your housing costs are ridiculous. If you could come up with the $50,000 you need to buy that house, your monthly housing costs would be about $3,000. Then you add on food, heat, electric, car, gasoline, insurance, phone, etc.

If you've got two kids to support, $88,000 isn't going to cut it, as absurd as that seems.

That has to be close to the poverty level anywhere.

Not necessarily, PB. Look at where you live in Florida. What does a house or condo go for now? You could certainly live comfortably on that sort of income. There are plenty of areas that have reasonable housing. Plus, we forget that other things are less expensive outside of NY.

My nephew was on my brother's auto insurance. When he graduated from college, he moved to VA, right near Washington, DC. My brother looked into what it would cost to keep him on their insurance. If I recall, it was about $1300 annually. My nephew got his own car insurance (from the same company that my brother has) for $700 a year, same coverage, same company. It was simply the difference between VA and NY.

That's the problem with a lot of federal programs. There are no regional adjustments.

The US estimated median income for 4 person families was only ~$70K in 2009.

US Median Income by State in 2009 (FY)

Every state is different of course but in Michigan a four person family pulling in 88K would be lower middle class to middle class. They wouldn't have a lot of amenities or room for emergencies but poor? Nope.

Well sure, you can buy a three bedroom condo in Palm Beach County for less than 150k, if you don't need a "fancy" address. But the cost of living is pretty much still the same. That's the misconception about South Florida. Yes, the housing is cheaper, but dinner and drinks at a nice restaurant on Worth Avenue will run you the same amount of money as dinner and drinks at just about anywhere in Manhattan.

FYI: I'm not taking into account senior living here (condo deals for 55+ and early bird specials ).