.gif) Les Cohortes Célestes ont le devoir et le regret de vous informer que Libres Propos est entré en sommeil. Ce forum convivial et sympathique reste uniquement accessible en lecture seule. Prenez plaisir à le consulter.
Merci de votre compréhension. |
|
| | Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise |  |
|
+6Charly Shansaa Alice jam EddieCochran Biloulou 10 participants | |
| Auteur | Message |
|---|
Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 6/7/2009, 08:44 | |
| Rappel du premier message :Bonjour Biloulou  Il me semblait que cette nouvelle plairait! |
| | | |
| Auteur | Message |
|---|
Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 5/1/2010, 01:05 | |
| Il y a deux jours, la gauche decriait le manque d'impartialite de Rasmussen dont les resultats de favorabilite du POTUS etaient en dessus de 50% alors que les autres firmes de sondages etaient tous dans le positif. Les chiffres de Rasmussen et de Gallup publies aujourd'hui: Rasmussen: 47 - Gallup: 49 Pas enorme la difference! Race/Topic (Click to Sort)PollResultsSpread | President Obama Job Approval | Gallup | Approve 49, Disapprove 44 | Approve +5 | | President Obama Job Approval | Rasmussen Reports | Approve 47, Disapprove 52 | Disapprove +5 |
Faut-il le rappeler, Rasmussen ne questionne que des electeurs potentiels, les autres firmes toute personne acceptant de repondre a leur questionnaire. |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 5/1/2010, 10:39 | |
| Tout etant calcule par son entourage en ce qui concerne sa presentation et la facon dont celle-ci se traduit dans le public, faut-il en conclure, que sans cravate depuis ses remarques d'apres Noel, le message est que le POTUS travaille dur (entre les journees passees sur le terrain de golf) pour trouver une solution au probleme des "desastres causes par l'homme"? A quand les manches retroussees pour intimider les "suspects"?  Tuesday's meeting is Obama's opportunity to set the tone and tempo for the government's response to the terror plot against Northwest Flight 253. | AP Photo Close |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 5/1/2010, 10:53 | |
| Comme quoi, rien n'est jamais vraiment perdu en politique, il suffit d'attendre le bon moment pour revenir apres avoir ete mis a l'ecart. A quand, Edwards (il fait penitence la, il travaille pour Habitat for Humanity, enfin j'ai vu une photo ou il semblait travailler!)? The resurrection of Howard DeanBy KENNETH P. VOGEL | 1/3/10 6:31 PM ESTAfter four relatively low-profile years pushing the official party line as chairman of the Democratic National Committee, Dean is once again the tribune of frustrated liberals. And after he called out President Barack Obama and his congressional allies over their concessions on health care, those close to him predict he’s just getting warmed up. - Spoiler:
Dean’s health care stand has infuriated party leaders, who have alternately tried to marginalize him and to bring him on board. Yet at the same time, his provocative approach has re-energized the political group he founded and thrilled legions of progressive activists, many of whom were drawn to politics by Dean's insurgent 2004 presidential campaign, then deflated when he didn’t land an Obama Cabinet post.They have grown increasingly disenchanted with Obama’s presidency and are urging Dean to keep up the drumbeat as the health care debate heads to conference this month; to push Obama to stand more firmly with liberals on other issues; and, if the administration continues to disappoint, to consider challenging Obama in the 2012 Democratic primaries (a far-fetched scenario for which one liberal blogger recently posited Dean was “perfectly positioned”) or — if nothing else — to seek the party’s presidential nomination in 2016, when Obama could be finishing his second term. “It’s almost like the circle has come all the way around again, and Howard Dean’s voice is leading the same charge that he started to lead in 2003,” said Joe Trippi, who ran Dean’s 2004 campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination. In fact, Dean’s resurgence in some ways resembles his meteoric rise to national prominence as a dark-horse presidential candidate whose strident anti-war rhetoric set the left ablaze even as it made Washington Democrats uneasy. This time around, his supporters and allies say, he is even better positioned to channel liberal frustrations, given his health care bona fides. A medical doctor, Dean as governor of Vermont oversaw the creation of a universal health care program for children and pregnant women in that state. But — policy specifics aside — for many supporters, Dean’s harsh December allegations that Obama and Senate Democrats caved to big insurance companies by shelving both a public health insurance option and the Medicare expansion that replaced it – and his much-criticized assertion that “the best thing to do right now is kill the Senate bill and go back to the House and start the reconciliation process” – brought to mind his 2004 campaign pledge “to represent the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party.” Dean did not respond to requests for comment for this story. But sources close to him said that when the health care debate concludes, he’ll likely continue pushing the White House and congressional Democrats to take liberal stances on other issues, including alternative energy, and also will stay involved with Democracy for America (DFA), the political action committee he founded and recently reconnected with. “He is going to keep pushing the envelope on health care and some other issues,” said Dean’s brother, Jim Dean, chairman of DFA, which was created from the remnants of his brother’s presidential campaign. “Someone’s got to do it, because a lot of Obama’s core constituencies don’t feel like they’re getting paid attention to right now.” Howard Dean “certainly subjugated a lot of stuff because he was the DNC chair,” his brother said. “But when he realized he wasn’t going to be in the administration, he was going to speak out about something, and he’s been committed to health care ever since he first ran for office.” After Obama last January tapped close ally Tim Kaine to replace Dean at the DNC, Dean hired former DNC communications director Karen Finney as his spokeswoman and signed on as a contributor at CNBC, a strategic advisor with McKenna Long & Aldridge (a major lobbying firm for which he specializes in healthcare and alternative energy issues) and a consultant at DFA, where he participates in regular strategy sessions. The group, which had previously focused primarily on grass-roots organizing and campaigns, mobilized in support of the public option more than it had around any other policy issue, Jim Dean said. It saw a corresponding spike in both its membership and donations and is planning to continue taking on the administration over policy issues, said Dean, explaining, “I see us constantly having to make sure that this party doesn’t fall back on its heels the way it did in the 1990s. And this health care thing wasn’t exactly a confidence builder.” After top White House aide David Axelrod last month set into Howard Dean for trashing the latest iteration of the health care bill, DFA blasted an e-mail to its 1.2 million members declaring “Governor Dean speaks for me” and urging donations to DFA “right now to get Howard’s back and fuel our campaign for real reform.”On a Florida progressive listserv, one poster urged readers to donate to DFA instead of the DNC, which in the days before the Senate’s pre-Christmas vote to pass health reform, urged the 13 million subscribers on Obama’s campaign e-mail list to call their senators in support of the Senate bill. After unsubscribing from OFA and pledging to turn his efforts to DFA and another liberal PAC that supports the public option called the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, former Obama volunteer and donor Michael Hermann, a Los Angeles musician, told POLITICO: “I find the administration's hubris in thinking they will never lose their liberal base astounding.” Wendy Sejour, a DFA leader in Homestead, Fla., who is also active in her local Democratic Party, said “what the administration does not understand is that when they try to marginalized Dean and DFA, they insult us and dismiss our hard work. We are the foot soldiers.” Another DFA volunteer, Patrick Briggs of Pasadena, Calif., said he scrapped plans to become more involved in OFA over what he saw as its health care capitulation. He said Dean’s salvos “reminded some of us in the movement that at least there’s someone out there in the progressive community who’s looking out for our interest.” Howard Dean is once again the tribune of frustrated liberals. Photo: AP
On a Florida progressive listserv, one poster urged readers to donate to DFA instead of the DNC, which in the days before the Senate’s pre-Christmas vote to pass health reform, urged the 13 million subscribers on Obama’s campaign e-mail list to call their senators in support of the Senate bill. After unsubscribing from OFA and pledging to turn his efforts to DFA and another liberal PAC that supports the public option called the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, former Obama volunteer and donor Michael Hermann, a Los Angeles musician, told POLITICO: “I find the administration's hubris in thinking they will never lose their liberal base astounding.” Wendy Sejour, a DFA leader in Homestead, Fla., who is also active in her local Democratic Party, said “what the administration does not understand is that when they try to marginalized Dean and DFA, they insult us and dismiss our hard work. We are the foot soldiers.” Another DFA volunteer, Patrick Briggs of Pasadena, Calif., said he scrapped plans to become more involved in OFA over what he saw as its health care capitulation. He said Dean’s salvos “reminded some of us in the movement that at least there’s someone out there in the progressive community who’s looking out for our interest.” Dean and his supporters even seem to be relishing the broadsides he’s absorbed from liberals eager to pass some form of health care reform. After MSNBC host Joe Scarborough late last month cited a Washington Post columnist’s suggestion that Dean had “lost his mind,” Dean shot back, “Those are also the same people who said I didn’t know what I was talking about when I said we shouldn’t get into Iraq, when our party caved in on that issue six years ago.”On NBC’s “Meet the Press” last month, Dean said that the left has “been very disappointed” by the Senate’s shelving proposals for a government-run health insurance plan. “We don't think that there has been much fight in the White House for that,” Dean charged, asserting that the Senate bill falls well short of the type of reform Obama promised during his campaign and could make an already difficult Democratic 2010 election cycle even harder. DFA could help make the 2010 election cycle a bloody one for Democrats, since it plans to support primary challenges to Democratic incumbents it deems insufficiently supportive of the public option, said Jim Dean, adding, “I’m not going to name names right now, but there are some actors in this who the Party and the country would be better off without.” Additionally, Trippi said DFA could serve as a vehicle to help launch a future Howard Dean campaign by paying for staff and travel. Though he rejected the Netroots-stoked speculation that Dean would challenge Obama in a 2012 Democratic primary, Trippi asserted a 2016 Dean presidential run is not all that far-fetched. Dean would turn 68 just after election day in 2016. “A lot of establishment people might laugh at that, but there’s angst in the progressive wing of the party, and it matters that Howard Dean is emerging as the leading voice of that angst,” said Trippi. “It could matter on a number of other issues, and it could lead to another Howard Dean campaign for president,” said Trippi, who had a falling out with his old boss toward the end of the campaign but would not rule out signing on to a Dean 2016 campaign. “There’s a real chance that if progressives feel at the end of the Obama era that there wasn’t enough movement on issues they care about, then somebody will emerge out of the progressive wing of the Party as a leading contender. If you follow that logic, then you have to conclude that it could be Howard Dean.”
Si le POTUS n'est pas reelu, je ne vois pas Dean elu (les Americains auront eu trop peur d'etre arrives si pres du gouffre du liberalisme), ils voteront pour Sarah ou Ron Paul avant de voter pour Dean. De plus Dean jouerait le role de Ross Perot ou de Ralph Nader et je ne vois pas le Parti Democrate accepter une telle chose. Mais... je peux me tromper!  |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 1677 - 6/1/2010, 09:01 | |
| Un peu d'oxygene s'echappe du bol d'air frais.  Sen. Chris Dod Will Not Seek Re-electionFOXNews.com  The Democratic stalwart had been at the center of efforts to deal with the financial meltdown and played a prominent role in the debate over overhauling health care.Sen. Chris Dodd Will Not Seek Re-electionFOXNews.com - Spoiler:
The Democratic stalwart had been at the center of efforts to deal with the financial meltdown and played a prominent role in the debate over overhauling health care.
BREAKING NEWS -- Connecticut Sen. Christopher Dodd, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, is set to announce he will not seek re-election this fall, Fox News confirmed early Wednesday.
The five-term Democrat's decision is the latest in a string of big-name Democratic retirements revealed on Tuesday as the party struggles to contend with a challenging political climate.
Word of his retirement came hours after North Dakota Democrat Byron Dorgan announced he will not seek re-election, stunning many in his party.
The departure of Dodd, first elected to the Senate in 1980, carries the most symbolic value because of his seniority and his close association with the financial system bailout and other economic policies.
Dodd, 66, is chairman of Senate Banking Committee, which was at the center of efforts to deal with the economic meltdown. And he has played a prominent role in the debate over overhauling health care, taking over for his friend Ted Kennedy during his illness and then after his death.
Given Dodd's bad poll standing, other Democrats have gone out of their way to give him the spotlight in hopes he could recover before November.
With the embattled Dodd stepping aside, Democrats can now try to recruit a more popular candidate to run in Democratic-leaning state, bolstering the prospects of thwarting a Republican victory.
Dodd, who has taken heat for a discounted VIP mortgage loan he got from a subprime lender, has been consistently behind potential GOP challenger Rob Simmons in Connecticut polls. Simmons, a former House member, has his own challenger in World Wrestling Entertainment co-founder Linda McMahon, who is also seeking the Republican nomination for Dodd's seat.
Among the early favorites to replace Dodd is longtime Connecticut state Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, who is seen as one of the state's most popular politicians.
Dodd ran for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008, moving his family to Iowa for weeks before the caucuses and angering Connecticut constituents. He dropped out after a poor showing in Iowa.
As chairman of the Senate banking panel, Dodd has come under fire for his reliance on Wall Street contributions. He drew criticism for his role in writing a bill that protected bonuses for executives at bailed-out insurer American International Group Inc., and for allegations he got favorable treatment on two mortgages with Countrywide Financial Corp.
The Senate ethics panel cleared Dodd of breaking rules by getting the Countrywide mortgages, but scolded him for not doing more to avoid the appearance of sweetheart deals. The Countrywide controversy, however, dogged Dodd for several months.
Dodd in August underwent surgery for prostate cancer. He also lost his closest friend in the Senate, Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., who died last summer after a battle with brain cancer.
Connecticut is a Democratic state that President Barack Obama won handily in 2008.
The Wall Street Journal and Associated Press contributed to this report.
|
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 6/1/2010, 13:12 | |
| Ouffff... Mauvais debut d'annee pour les Democrates en general et le POTUS en particulier. - les consequences de l'attentat manque de Noel: O'Reilly - Quatre quittent le navire: Top Democrats head for the exits - Nancy, forcee a faire passer Obamacare vote par 60 Senateurs Democrates (entre autres sans Assurance Gouvernementale) s'en prend directement au president pour des promesses electorales non tenues. - Spoiler:
..... During a White House meeting Tuesday, Obama told the speaker and other congressional leaders that he would like to see them approve a final bill by his State of the Union address, set for late January or early February. Earlier in the day, House Democrats weren't convinced they could meet that deadline - and seemed ambivalent about whether they even wanted to try. .....
Nancy Pelosi takes swipe at President Obama's campaign promises - La chaine CSpan demande au Congres a ce que les dernieres seances tenues entre la Maison et le Senat concernant la version finale d'Obamacare le soient ouvertenment (Barack Obama, le candidat, avait promis que ce serait le cas pour TOUTES les negocations mais comme on a pu le voir, non seulement les Americains ont ete tenus a l'ecart, mais aucun elu Republicain n'a assiste aux reunions non plus! Ah! si les Republicains avaient fait ca juste parce qu'ils avaient la majorite.. C-SPAN Challenges Congress to Open Health Care Talks to TV Coverage
(bizarre, la photo!  choisie pour l'article, mais bon) |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 1679 - 6/1/2010, 14:24 | |
| The Tom DeLay Democrats So much for the President's pledge of C-Span transparency. Rehabilitating Tom DeLay's reputation always seemed hopeless, or so we thought—but then again, President Obama ran on hope. Against the odds Democrats are making the former GOP Majority Leader look better by comparison as they bypass the ordinary institutions of deliberative democracy in the final sprint to pass ObamaCare.- Spoiler:
Instead of appointing a formal conference committee to reconcile the House and Senate health bills, a handful of Democratic leaders will now negotiate in secret by themselves. Later this month, presumably white smoke will rise from the Capitol Dome, and then Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and the college of Democratic cardinals will unveil their miracle. The new bill will then be rushed through both chambers with little public scrutiny or even the chance for the Members to understand what they're passing.
Evading conference has become standard operating procedure in this Congress, though you might think they'd allow for the more open and thoughtful process on what Mr. Obama has called "the most important piece of social legislation since the Social Security Act passed in the 1930s and the most important reform of our health-care system since Medicare passed in the 1960s."
This black-ops mission ought to be a particular embarrassment for Mr. Obama, given that he campaigned on transparent government. At a January 2008 debate he said that a health-care overhaul would not be negotiated "behind closed doors, but bringing all parties together, and broadcasting those negotiations on C-Span so the American people can see what the choices are."
The C-Span pledge became a signature of his political pitch. During a riff at the San Francisco Chronicle about "accountability," he added that "I would not underestimate the degree to which shame is a healthy emotion and that you can shame Congress into doing the right thing if people know what's going on."
Apparently this Congress knows no shame. In a recent letter to Congressional leaders, C-Span president Brian Lamb committed his network to airing "all important negotiations," which if allowed would give "the public full access, through television, to legislation that will affect the lives of every single American." No word yet from the White House.
At a press conference in December, even Mrs. Pelosi said that "we would like to see a full conference." One reason she mentioned was that "there is a great deal of work involved in reviewing a bill and seeing what all the ramifications are of it," though her real motive at the time was that a conference seemed like a chance to drag the bill closer to the House version.
With public support collapsing, however, Democrats now think the right bill is any bill—and soon.
Democrats know that a conference forces the majority party to cast votes on awkward motions and would give the Republicans who have been shut out for months a chance to participate. This sunlight, and the resulting public attention, might scare off wavering Democrats and defeat the bill.
Ethics rules the Democrats passed in 2007 also make it harder to "airdrop" into conference reports the extra bribes they will no doubt add to grease the way for final passage.
Democrats howled at the strong-arm tactics Mr. DeLay used to pass Medicare drug coverage in 2003, and so did we. But they've managed to create an even more destructive bill, and their tactics are that much worse. We can't even begin to imagine the uproar if the Republicans had tried to privatize Social Security with such contempt for the democratic process and public opinion.
Je trouve le silence des supporters du POTUS assourdissant. |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 1680 - ... et toujours au sujet de CSPAN 6/1/2010, 15:18 | |
| Robert Gibbs, WH Press Secretary, "repond" aux questions... Au Sujet de CSPAN - Obamacare Au debut, pauvre Gibbs, la torture semble pire que celle subie par Fernandel dont les pieds etaient leches par une biquette apres qu'ils aient ete couverts de sel  et ca ne va pas aller en s'arrangeant! --- "we fill your newspaper and many others with the back and forth and the details of what's in these bills, I don't want to keep that from continuing to happen"...Une menace a peine voilee? |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 1681 - 6/1/2010, 20:20 | |
| Evolution des declarations des representants du Gouvernement Obama depuis la tentative ratee de Noel. Obama Changes Language about Terrorism Ils vont finir par y arriver, surtout le plus on va approcher de novembre prochain! |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 1682 - 6/1/2010, 21:19 | |
| AHAAA!  January 6, 2010 The New Two-Party System By Dick MorrisThe very public way in which the existence of a center-right in the Democratic Party proved to be a mirage has done more to undermine the party's chances for victory in 2010 than any other aspect of the healthcare debate.- Spoiler:
When liberal Republicans failed to rally to Bill Clinton's 1993-1994 agenda - including his failed healthcare proposal - they laid the basis for their total demise in subsequent years. Sens. Jeffords, Chaffee, D'Amato, Packwood, Hatfield and Specter (as a Republican) are gone. Sens. Snowe and Collins are all that remain of the once-dominant Rockefeller wing of the GOP. They have been replaced by real Democrats.
Now that Ben Nelson, Blanche Lincoln, Mary Landrieu and Byron Dorgan in the Senate and the likes of Marion Berry, Tom Perriello and John Spratt in the House have shown how easily they fold under pressure and how thin their conservatism really is, their states and districts will no longer be deceived into reelecting them. They will be replaced by real Republicans.
The Democratic game of electing moderates in conservative districts who then vote to keep liberals in power is over. It overreached. By collapsing so completely and so publicly, it has become self-evident to even the most gullible of voters that there is no such thing as a moderate Democrat. You are either an Obama, Pelosi or Reid clone or you are a Republican. That's the new two-party system.
In Bill Clinton's day, there were such things as moderate Democrats. Voters were not deceived when they cast their ballots for center-right Democrats.
For example, when welfare reform passed in 1996, it got the support of 99 House Democrats, while 99 voted against it. But those days are long gone. Only their memory remains. And voters have only just come to grasp this essential fact.
All of which leaves the Democrats with a problem: America is not as liberal as they are. Voters will no longer return moderate Democrats to Congress any more than they select liberal Republicans.
Democrats have had a tortuous history as a party.
After Lyndon Johnson and Vietnam, they were consigned to permanent minority status. Nixon's excesses earned them a second chance from a wary electorate, but Jimmy Carter blew it and they were back in the minority again for 12 more years. The likes of Carter, Walter Mondale and Mike Dukakis kept the party in the minority. Voters simply would not trust their liberal ways with the country.
Bill Clinton ended the exile by persuading voters that there was a center-right in the party after all and the Democrats were freed but on probation.
And they screwed it up by passing tax hikes and pushing healthcare reform, leading to the GOP sweep of 1994.
Then Clinton's moderation in 1995 and 1996 assuaged voter skepticism again and put the Democrats back in the game. By 2008, voters were actually willing to elect a liberal Democrat. Now that Obama's administration is exploding due to its own extremism, the Democrats again face consignment to minority status. And the first to go will be those who try to make their political living on the conservative edge of a liberal party.
For them, in 2010, the mandate is clear: Switch parties or lose the election.
checkTextResizerCookie('article_body');
Morris, a former political adviser to Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) and President Bill Clinton, is the author of "Outrage." To get all of Dick Morris’s and Eileen McGann’s columns for free by email, go to www.dickmorris.com.
|
| | | | Biloulou
 Nombre de messages : 54566
Localisation : Jardins suspendus sur la Woluwe - Belgique
Date d'inscription : 27/10/2008
| | Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 6/1/2010, 21:32 | |
| - Sylvette a écrit:
- Evolution des declarations des representants du Gouvernement Obama depuis la tentative ratee de Noel. Ils vont finir par y arriver, surtout le plus on va approcher de novembre prochain!
La réalité est tenace, n'a pas de couleur politique et ne s'en laisse pas compter....  | |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 1684 - 6/1/2010, 21:36 | |
| Nice.... Dems' Only Hope For 2010: Make The Race About The Other GuyFirst Posted: 01- 4-10 04:18 PM | Updated: 01- 4-10 04:50 PM - Spoiler:
Democratic incumbents face the most threatening political environment since the Republican landslide of 1994 -- and they know it.
The trends are all moving in the wrong direction. Voters are shifting to the right; white antipathy to the President has intensified; the popular consensus backing Obama and his agenda has collapsed in less than a year; and a growing number of center-conservative House Democrats are jumping ship. It's not that voters are suddenly becoming big fans of the Republican Party -- its poll numbers are falling just as rapidly as the Democrats' -- but political scientists and strategists from across the spectrum agree that simply by virtue of being the opposition, the GOP is positioned to make large gains on November 2. There's even an outside chance they'll wrest back control of the House.
Most recently, the failed Christmas day bombing by an alleged Al Qaeda operative of a flight to Detroit has spurred Republicans to revive the national security fears that served them so well in the 2002 and 2004 elections.
"If the election were held today, we'd lose the House," says Democratic campaign consultant Tom King, a view shared, off the record, by a number of his colleagues.
So what should Democratic candidates do to survive 2010? A strong consensus has emerged among Democratic operatives, based on a strategy developed under the guidance of pollster Geoff Garin. Garin declined to be interviewed for this story, but other party strategists say the most crucial order of business in each contest is to prevent Republican challengers from turning the race into a referendum on the Democratic candidate, the Democratic Party, President Obama, or all three. Rather, they say, Democrats need to turn the public's attention to the failings of the Republican candidate and the national GOP.
Democratic pollster Celinda Lake says that as soon as her clients know who their opponents will be, her advice is "to get them [the Republican candidates] defined." Democratic candidates, Lake and others say, should pre-empt Republicans seeking to present a positive image to the public. Among the techniques to achieve this goal are floating negative stories in the press, taking full advantage of sympathetic bloggers to create a hostile portrait of the GOP opponent, and actively using "less visible" means of communication such as phone banks, direct mail, and canvassers.
In this atmosphere, consultants say the key advice for Democratic incumbents is: "Don't get on the defensive, don't allow [the Republican] to define you." Along similar lines, Joe Trippi, who has managed a host of campaigns, including overseeing Howard Dean's 2004 presidential bid, says that any incumbent facing a challenger emerging from the Sarah Palin, Tea Party wing of the GOP "should make sure that's known right away, before they get up populist steam."
Another Democratic consultant with clients running in House, Senate and gubernatorial races, speaking on background, says "basically it comes down to one thing. You've got to kick the shit out of somebody."
The burden for a Democratic incumbent is to "make it a 'choice' not a 'retention' election. The voters need to be thinking a whole lot about the other guy, not about you," this consultant says. Party operatives agree that an election conducted on disputes over the deficit, health care legislation, the stimulus, the bank bailout, and/or climate change will work to the disadvantage of Democrats.
Unemployment will inevitably be a major factor in the November election but Democratic strategists also stress that independents angry about government spending may be the key swing voters in some districts. As a result, when Congress returns later this month, Democrats in battleground districts will face intense cross-pressures over proposals to expand federal job creation programs.
Consultants break it down this way: in districts with unemployment rates exceeding the 10 percent national average, active support of federal spending to create jobs is a plus; conversely, in many competitive districts with lower unemployment, particularly those south of the Mason Dixon line where conservative-leaning independents are deeply concerned about the growing deficit, it's a minus.
"This is not an easy question, and you have to look at it district by district," one consultant noted. Reappropriating some of the money roughly $200 billion still available for bank bailouts in TARP funds -- and putting it toward public works, teachers' pay, and pumping up police forces -- could buy those skittish Dems some cover. By comparison, voting for extending unemployment coverage and COBRA health care subsidies -- widely recognized as essential for those now out of work -- is a no-brainer.
Concerns about red ink also make claiming credit for bringing federal money home -- traditionally, one of the great benefits of incumbency -- a little trickier than usual. "Be project-specific," advises King. "Cite the number of jobs created, the problems fixed. If the money went to repair a bridge, point out how past traffic jams have been eliminated, that commuters get to the job half an hour faster. Be concrete."
John Lapp, who was the executive director of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in 2006, argues that in making a case for re-election, an incumbent should put the real names and faces of individual district residents in ads to make indisputable claims that government programs are working in behalf of constituents. Testimonials from actual voters who are benefitting from a congressman's intervention -- in obtaining a visa for an international adoption or resolving a dispute with Medicare or Social Security -- can take the wind out the sails of ideological attacks from Republican adversaries.
King says that many voters have forgotten that Democrats got them a tax cut in 2009, and need to be reminded of that. And because there is a widespread belief that the vote on the bank bailout, TARP, was the "single worst vote that anybody made," any incumbent who voted against TARP should make sure voters know about it. As for those who voted for TARP, there is a rough consensus that the best strategy is to call attention to votes or policy stances that show antipathy toward Wall Street and a willingness to break with the Obama administration on occasion.
Republicans, for their part, believe most of these efforts will prove futile and that Democrats running in 2010 will be unable to disengage from the national party in what both side agree is a powerfully anti-Democratic environment. "Good luck," says GOP pollster Whit Ayres. "The election already is nationalized."
Political scientists are generally predicting that the Democratic majority will survive in both houses, although with the margin of control dropping substantially. In the Senate, that means the Democratic caucus would no longer be able to defeat Republican filibusters, even when it sticks together.
Democrats currently control the House by a 257-178 margin. "I'd say a loss of 20-30 seats, but not yet in the high 30s to make change of control a probable outcome," says University of Wisconsin political scientist Charles Franklin, who bases his prediction on historical precedents. "Presidential support needs to be in the low 40s to predict a very large loss of seats, based on post WWII data.
Also, the GDP [Gross Domestic Product] per capita should be in decline or very small gains. At the latest revision of 2.2% in the third quarter, we are low but not as low as in worst midterms for parties."
The economy remains the crucial unknown: "If GDP grows at a three percent or so rate through the election, I think approval will turn up into the 50s, and that probably leads to Republican gains of 15 to 20 seats, which historically wouldn't be bad for the Democrats," Franklin says. If GDP begins to decline, "then approval will fall more and Democrats could be looking at 30-plus lost seats -- still a stretch for Republicans to gain control, but not out of reach."
The polls, however, are sending powerful signals to Democrats. "What's really exceptional at this stage of Obama's presidency is the extent to which the public has moved in a conservative direction on a range of issues," says Andy Kohut, president of the nonpartisan Pew Research Center.
The ideological shift to the right is readily visible in poll results on a whole gamut of issues from declining support for the government safety net, climate control, health care reform, abortion rights, and gun control, combined with what Kohut describes as "a lack of passion among Democrats -- and liberals in particular."
In an analysis of George Washington University's December 2009 Battleground Poll, Lake wrote: "The gap in enthusiasm between the two parties at this early stage is the most striking dynamic framing the 2010 cycle. Just under two-thirds (64%) of Democrats say they are 'extremely likely' to vote in the upcoming elections, compared to 77% of Republicans and independents....The political environment for Democrats running in 2010 is becoming increasingly more treacherous.
For the first time in several years, the generic Republican leads the generic Democrat in the Congressional horse race."
There are, however, a number of factors that suggest 2010 will be quite different from the Democratic rout of 1994 -- the so-called Gingrich Revolution. "First, 1994 was the culmination of the South moving into the Republican column; there's no equivalent regional shift trending against Democrats in this cycle. Second, the GOP brand is still in terrible shape relative to 1993-1994," says Brendan Nyhan, a political scientist at the University of Michigan.
One key Democratic strategist playing a central role in the preparations for 2010 -- who asked to remain anonymous -- makes the case that that the political environment has deteriorated with such extraordinary rapidity over the past eight to nine months that it is impossible to predict with any certainty what will happen in November. Last May, this strategist says, he and others thought Democrats could actually pick up as many as two seats in the Senate and keep House losses to the low teens. Now, he notes, Democrats appear almost certain to lose three or four Senate seats, with the possibility of losing as many as six. In his view, if House losses are kept to 20 or so seats, that would be a major victory.
One of the major distinctions between the political situation now and the parallel situation in the year before the 1994 Republican overthrow is that this time Democrats will not go into the election unprepared for potential disaster. "There are several differences with 1993," says the University of Virginia's Larry Sabato. "First, Democrats then didn't believe it was possible for them to lose the House; now they know better and are more cautious." In addition, he says, there have been fewer retirements this year; the Democratic base after Obama's 53 percent win is stronger than it was when Clinton only won a 43 percent plurality in 1992; and the public image of the GOP was much better in the early 1990s than it is now.
Republicans, needless to say, have their own spin: Ayres, the GOP pollster, claims that this round Republicans have it easy: "Democrats are doing such a wonderful job of flying a suicide mission, we are not going to have do to a hell of a lot. . . . They are spending like they have no concept of where money comes from, how you produce it, or if there is any limit on it. People are scared."
Some Democratic strategists are indeed fearful. "I hate to say it, but he's right," said one, after hearing Ayres' comments. "That is just what we have to be worried about."
But Trippi contends that in this bleak-for-Democrats setting, 2010 losses may not be as devastating as some expect because Republican incumbents could also lose in droves. "This could turn out to be the most scorching anti-incumbent year we have ever seen," Trippi says -- in which case the Democratic gains in Republican seats could make up for some, but not all, of the Democratic losses.
Dernière édition par Sylvette le 6/1/2010, 22:48, édité 1 fois |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 1685 - 6/1/2010, 21:39 | |
| - Biloulou a écrit:
- Sylvette a écrit:
- Evolution des declarations des representants du Gouvernement Obama depuis la tentative ratee de Noel. Ils vont finir par y arriver, surtout le plus on va approcher de novembre prochain!
La réalité est tenace, n'a pas de couleur politique et ne s'en laisse pas compter.... Non, en effet! |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 1686 - 6/1/2010, 22:52 | |
| Comme prevu, certains Democrates vont payer cher leur vote pour Obamacare:
January 6th, 2010
AR Sen Poll: Lincoln Trails Four
Posted by Kyle Trygstad
Four Republican opponents lead Arkansas Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D) in potential general election matchups, according to a new Rasmussen survey. On top of trailing each Republican by at least 8 points and never reaching even 40% support, 55% say they hold an unfavorable opinion of the second-term senator.
Those tested against Lincoln include: State Senate Minority Leader Kim Hendren; State Sen. Gilbert Baker, a former state GOP chair; Safe Foods CEO Curtis Coleman; and Tom Cox, a Tea Party organizer.
Hendren 47 - Lincoln 39 - Und 10
Baker 51 - Lincoln 39 - Und 7
Coleman 48 - Lincoln 38 - Und 9
Cox 48 - Lincoln 38 - Und 9
Health care could be weighing down Lincoln, who supported Senate Democrats' reform bill in the Christmas Eve vote. The survey found just 35% of Arkansas voters support the proposal. |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 1687 - 6/1/2010, 23:41 | |
| Blue state govs. rip Senate health billThe governors of the nation’s two largest Democratic states are leveling sharp criticism at the Senate health care bill, claiming that it would leave their already financially strapped states even deeper in the hole. - Spoiler:
New York Democratic Gov. David Paterson and California GOP Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger are urging congressional leaders to rework the Medicaid financing in the Senate-passed bill, warning that under that version their states will be crushed by billions in new costs.
After the Senate passed the bill in a Christmas Eve vote, Paterson said the expansion would leave New York $1 billion in the lurch. The state faces a $6.8 billion budget shortfall heading into the 2010 fiscal year.
“[I] am deeply troubled that the Senate version of the bill worsens what was already an inequitable situation for New York and I will continue to be an advocate on behalf of New Yorkers to ensure we are treated fairly by this critical federal legislation,” Paterson said in a statement.
In a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Schwarzenegger wrote that the legislation would create a “crushing new burden” for a state with a whopping $20.7 billion budget deficit.
“When asked for my support, I was assured that federal legislation would not increase costs to California or include new unfunded mandates,” Schwarzenegger wrote. “Unfortunately, under nearly every scenario we can predict, the federal health care reform legislation being debated would cost California’s General Fund an additional $3 billion to $4 billion annually.”
The resistance from the governors of two Democratic megastates underscores the anxieties facing states as they grapple with the prospect of a massive expansion of the Medicaid program.
The problem is that New York and California, both of which already have expansive Medicaid programs, will pay a higher share of the new expansion costs than many other states that have traditionally limited coverage.
“The inequity built into the bill puts hardship on states and would put them in the position of making cuts to providers,” said Susan Van Meter, vice president of federal relations for the Healthcare Association of New York State.
Schwarzenegger warned that the Senate health care legislation could sink his state.
“As the partner responsible for implementing this program, I am telling you that our Medicaid program is already at the breaking point, and if federal health care reform is passed without addressing the underlying faults in the system, health care reform will fail,” Schwarzenegger wrote in his letter to Pelosi. “[I]f Congress fails to address the existing unfunded mandates and adds yet another layer, federal health care reform could collapse the very safety net system it seeks to expand.”
Both governors’ criticisms are notable because they are distinct from the opposition to the health care bill voiced by many Republican governors. Neither Paterson nor Schwarzenegger has opposed Democratic health care reform efforts in general and both have been largely supportive of President Barack Obama’s domestic agenda.
Schwarzenegger has embraced Obama and singled him out for his “great leadership” in a joint appearance in Los Angeles in March. Obama returned the favor by calling the California governor an “outstanding partner.” And in an interview with CNN as recently as last week, Schwarzenegger said Obama "should get a straight A" for his first year in office "when it comes to effort."
While Paterson’s relationship with Obama has been cool since the White House asked him earlier this year not to pursue a bid for a full term in 2010, he is not philosophically at odds with the administration.
“The bottom line here is money,” Rep. Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.) told POLITICO on Monday, adding that bill the House passed in November was far more generous to New York. “I think that if a state like mine is doing what it is supposed to be doing we should be praised and not punished.”
In a Christmas Day op-ed that appeared in the Buffalo News, Paterson wrote, “New York taxpayers are being used to pay for handouts to other states.” *1
“New York was an early leader in covering its citizens, with limited assistance from the federal government. The Senate bill will fund Medicaid expansions for states that lagged far behind New York while depriving New York of the same funding. We are being punished for our leadership,” Paterson wrote.
Paterson has an ally in another prominent officeholder who is considered a presidential ally: New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who has enjoyed a mutually beneficial political relationship with Obama.
Last week, Bloomberg called the Senate-passed bill a “disgrace,” and warned that if it could result in city health clinic closings if it were enacted as passed.
Paterson also carries the backing of the majority of the New York House delegation, which last week wrote a letter to Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid asking them to correct the inequities as the bill moves into conference negotiations.
New York Democratic Sens. Chuck Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand said they were receptive to Paterson’s concerns.
"We agree that states that have already expanded their Medicaid programs should be rewarded for their generosity, and we are going to work very hard to make sure that happens in conference,"*2 Schumer said in a statement.
Brendan Daly, a Pelosi spokesman, told POLITICO that the speaker intended to address Schwarzenegger’s concerns in the upcoming conference negotiations.
“While the House health insurance reform bill is more favorable to California than the Senate bill, we understand the governor’s concerns, and we will work with the Senate to address them when we reconcile the two bills. Our goal is to ensure that all states are treated fairly,” Daly said.
* 1 tiens tiens, ca le derange parce que c'est son etat qui va devoir payer pour les autres mais il trouve normal de taxer certains Americains pour payer les assurances des autres. Ca drole tout de meme!
* 2 Oups normalement il ne va pas y avoir de Conference
|
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 1688 - 7/1/2010, 00:08 | |
| ... comme Lawrence l'explique: il n'y a pas de difference entre la droite et la gauche americaine...sans oublier le petit smiley...   Dans l'article qui suit: la veritable vision politique et ideologique d'Obama et de la majorite des Democrates qui l'ont elu. En novembre 2008, il s'est cru charge d'une mission: mettre en place toutes ces idees de gauche. Realisant que ce n'etait pas tout a fait ce qui etait attendu de lui mais convaincu d'agir pour le bien des Americains, il fait passer au forceps Obamacare en utilisant toutes les armes politiques a sa disposition (politique de Chicago), persuade que les Americains, une fois qu'ils auraient compris, finiraient bien par lui en etre reconnaissants. C'est lui qui n'a pas compris, ses idees ne sont pas celles de la majorite des Americains. La preuve? les sondages. Son pourcentage d'approbation en cette fin de premiere annee a la Maison Blanche est le pire de tous ses predecesseurs. Without a movement, progressives can't aid Obama's agendaBy Harold MeyersonWednesday, January 6, 2010 Every Democratic president since Lyndon Johnson -- Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama -- has raised the hope that he would bring with him a new era of progressive reform. The legislative torrents of the New Deal and the Great Society -- a few brief years in the 1930s and the '60s that fundamentally reshaped the nation's economy and society -- are the templates that fire the liberal imagination. - Spoiler:
Two great liberal historians -- the Arthur Schlesingers, senior and junior -- posited a cyclical theory of American political history, in which periods of progressive advance alternate with times of conservative reaction once every generation. And even when liberals have discounted this theory as too mechanistic, their hearts, if not their heads, have responded to the election of every Democratic president since LBJ -- each of whom entered office with a substantial Democratic majority in Congress -- with the hope that this time would be different, that a new burst of progressivism was at hand.
And each time, they have been disappointed. While Carter and Clinton could both point to progressive legislation enacted during their terms, many of their most significant achievements -- the deregulation of transportation, the consolidation and deregulation of finance, the abolition of welfare, the enactment of trade agreements with low-wage nations -- actually eroded the economic security that Franklin Roosevelt, Johnson and their congressional contemporaries had worked to hard to create.
Unlike Carter and Clinton, however, Obama took office at a moment when the intellectual force of laissez-faire economics was plainly spent. His reform agenda was nothing if not ambitious: health care for all, financial re-regulation, climate-change legislation and a Keynesian stimulus to revive a wounded economy. But as the first anniversary of his inauguration approaches, it's clear that despite the impending enactment of a genuinely epochal expansion of health care, a progressive era has not burst forth. Major legislation languishes or is watered down. Right-wing pseudo-populism stalks the land. The liberal base is demobilized. The '30s or the '60s it ain't.
The reasons for the stillbirth of the new progressive era are many and much discussed. There's the death of liberal and moderate Republicanism, the reluctance of some administration officials and congressional Democrats to challenge the banks, the ever-larger role of money in politics (see reluctance to challenge banks, above), the weakness of labor, the dysfunctionality of the Senate -- the list is long and familiar. But if there's a common feature to the political landscapes in which Carter, Clinton and now Obama were compelled to work, it's the absence of a vibrant left movement.
The America over which FDR presided was home to mass organizations of the unemployed; farmers' groups that blocked foreclosures, sometimes at gunpoint; general strikes that shut down entire cities, and militant new unions that seized factories. Both communists and democratic socialists were enough of a presence in America to help shape these movements, generating so much street heat in so many congressional districts that Democrats were compelled to look leftward as they crafted their response to the Depression. During Lyndon Johnson's presidency, the civil rights movement, among whose leaders were such avowed democratic socialists as Martin Luther King Jr. and James Farmer, provided a new generation of street heat that both compelled and abetted the president and Congress to enact fundamental reforms.
In America, major liberal reforms require not just liberal governments, but autonomous, vibrant mass movements, usually led by activists who stand at or beyond liberalism's left fringe. No such movements were around during Carter and Clinton's presidencies. For his part, Obama won election with something new under the political sun: a list of 13 million people who had supported his campaign. But he has consistently declined to activate his activists to help him win legislative battles by pressuring, for instance, those Democratic members of Congress who have weakened or blocked his major bills. To be sure, loosing the activists would have brought problems of its own: Unlike Roosevelt or Johnson, who benefited from autonomous movements, Obama would be answerable for every loopy tactic his followers employed. But in the absence of both a free-standing movement and a legion of loyalists, Congress isn't feeling much pressure from the left to move Obama's agenda.
The construction of social movements is always a bit of a mystery. The right has had great success over the past year in building a movement that isn't really for anything but that has channeled anew the fears and loathings of millions of Americans. If Glenn Beck can help do that for the right, can't, say, Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann help build a movement against the banks or for jobs programs? It might well be too little too late, but without left pressure from below, the Obama presidency will end up looking more like Carter's or Clinton's than Roosevelt's or Johnson's.
|
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 1689 - 7/1/2010, 08:48 | |
| Democrats Wary After Two Senators Decide to Retire By JEFF ZELENY and ADAM NAGOURNEYPublished: January 6, 2010 WASHINGTON — The sudden decision by two senior Democratic senators to retire shook the party’s leaders on Wednesday and signaled that President Obama is facing a perilous political environment that could hold major implications for this year’s midterm elections and his own agenda.- Spoiler:
The rapidly shifting climate, less than a year after Mr. Obama took office on the strength of a historic Democratic sweep, was brought into focus by the announcements that Senators Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut and Byron L. Dorgan of North Dakota would retire rather than wage uphill fights for re-election. With the chances growing that the election in November would end the 60-vote majority Democrats enjoy in the Senate — the practical threshold for being able to overcome united Republican opposition — the president and his party face additional urgency to make progress on his agenda this year. There was no immediate sign that the developments would further complicate White House efforts to secure final passage of Mr. Obama’s main domestic priority, the overhaul of the health care system, but the political pressure on Democrats from competitive states and districts will not make it any easier. Following on the heels of the news of the senators’ retirements, Gov. Bill Ritter Jr. of Colorado, a Democrat, also announced Wednesday that he would not seek a second term. Together, the developments heightened a perception that a conservative push against the president’s ambitious agenda, a sluggish recovery from the deep recession and an outbreak of angry populism have combined to deplete Mr. Obama’s political strength and give Republicans a chance for big gains in this year’s races for the Senate and the House. To the degree that the retirements reflect increasing skepticism among voters about the direction Democrats are pushing the country, Mr. Obama could face a tougher time winning legislative support as he presses ahead with initiatives on climate change, financial regulation, education and other issues. Republicans seized on the resignations as a way to raise money and generate enthusiasm among voters in their conservative base. “Voters and donors out in the country see two senior Democrats, both of whom were perceived to be safe a year ago, now retiring for fear of losing,” said Rob Jesmer, executive director of the National Republican Senatorial Committee. “This further underscores our belief that with each passing day, the environment is getting better and better for Republicans, which energizes our people and demoralizes theirs.” The White House and Democratic Party leaders reached out on Wednesday to reassure other potentially vulnerable Democrats in an effort to prevent any more retirements or party-switching. Obama aides played down the developments, saying it would be foolish to make predictions now about the November elections before Mr. Obama had even delivered his State of the Union address. If health care legislation passes and the economy improves, advisers believe the president and the party will be in a stronger position by fall. “We’re weathering the greatest economic downturn since the Great Depression,” said David Axelrod, a senior adviser to Mr. Obama, “so it’s not a hospitable environment for incumbents generally. We’re in the majority party, so the brunt of that falls on us.” “There’s not an election tomorrow,” he said. “There’s not an election next week. There’s not an election for 11 months.” The effects of the retirements are not entirely negative for Democrats. Mr. Dodd had been widely expected to lose if he had stayed in the race; his departure clears the way for Democrats to put in a stronger candidate — Richard Blumenthal, the state attorney general, who announced Wednesday that he was running. Mr. Dorgan was facing tough going as it was; his departure, Democrats and Republicans said, left the Democrats with an uphill battle to hold on to the seat in North Dakota. While Democrats seemed confident about holding on to a majority in the Senate, they acknowledged that keeping their 60-seat majority would be difficult and that 51 votes are not enough to advance most legislation in the face of united Republican opposition. For Mr. Obama, that means the legislative clock is ticking. Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey, the chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, said the retirements of Mr. Dodd and Mr. Dorgan would not create a ripple effect among other senators facing re-election. Mr. Menendez said the senators were hiring campaign staff and raising money with an eye toward November. “They are all in it to win it,” he said. Still, seldom has a week passed in the last few months when a House or Senate Democrat, fearful of the outcome in the midterm elections, has not switched parties or retired. And the image of Democrats struggling could have the effect of encouraging other Democratic officeholders worried about the political climate to step aside. “We should be concerned,” said Gov. Edward G. Rendell, a Democrat from Pennsylvania, “and we should develop our plans and our policies and the programs we are going to push for with an eye to 2010. But there’s no reason to panic.” While Republicans appear to be in a position to make strong gains in Congress, analysts say they appear unlikely to regain control of either the House or Senate, given the strong margins Democrats built in 2008. In the Senate, Democrats hold 58 seats, and two independents align themselves with the Democrats; Republicans hold 40 seats. About seven Democratic seats and four Republican-held seats appear to be in play now. In the House, Democrats have a 256-to-178 seat majority. Analysts on both sides say Democrats could lose from 20 to 25 seats in the current climate, though obviously a whole host of factors — the strength of the economy, public views of Mr. Obama’s health care plan, another attempted terrorist attack — could reshuffle that deck. Despite the focus on the Democrats’ problems, Republicans are faring worse this year in terms of resignations putting seats in play. In the House, 14 Republicans and 10 Democrats are retiring, and Representative Robert Wexler, Democrat of Florida, has resigned, leaving one vacancy. In the Senate, six Republicans, including several in swing states requiring expensive campaigns, and four Democrats, including Mr. Dodd and Mr. Dorgan, are retiring. Republicans have to defend open Senate seats in New Hampshire, Ohio and Missouri, after a spate of retirements last year. When the Republican Party’s national chairman, Michael Steele, was asked on Sean Hannity’s syndicated radio program earlier this week if he believed Republicans could win the House, he replied: “Not this year.” One day later, after facing considerable criticism from his own party, he revised his assessment in an interview with MSNBC. “Yes, we can,” Mr. Steele said.
|
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 7/1/2010, 11:23 | |
| Aaaaaahhhh! tout est super c'est pour ca qu'il a demande une interview d'urgence avec le journal. En tout cas c'est interessant que des procureurs generaux soient pres a questionner la constitutionalite de certains aspects d'Obamacare. Les reactions des lecteurs ne sont pas exactement en sync avec ses "9 personnes sur 10 qu'il rencontre le remercient!" Nelson: We should have waited on health careBy Chris Zavadil/Fremont TribuneWednesday, Jan 06, 2010 - 10:17:59 am CSTSen. Ben Nelson said Tuesday it was a mistake for the Obama Administration to take on massive health care reforms in 2009, and suggested efforts would have been better spent addressing the economy.- Spoiler:
Nelson, who provided the crucial 60th vote to advance the bill toward Senate passage on Dec. 19, has been active ever since trying to explain his actions to Nebraskans. Ads have aired on television and Nelson is making the rounds with the state’s media.
He requested Tuesday’s interview with the Tribune.
“I think it was a mistake to take health care on as opposed to continuing to spend the time on the economy,” he said.
He complimented President Barack Obama’s handling of the war in Iraq and the troop surge in Afghanistan, and pointed out other administration successes, but said they were areas that “are minor in comparison to health care.”
“I would have preferred not to be dealing with health care in the midst of everything else, and I think working on the economy would have been a wiser move,” he said.
Nelson also said the legislation wasn’t as rushed as people might think, having been in the works for almost a year. But he explained that setting deadlines is often what prompts governments to action.
“One thing I’ve found in Congress is that if there is no urgency, things don’t get done. Leadership always has an urgency,” he said. “Deadlines and crises are the very nature of how legislation passes.
“In this case, it was so public for so long, with all the anger and all the town hall meetings and all the coverage that this kept getting, that’s why I think everybody’s felt rushed, because they set a number of different deadlines and didn’t meet them. I think it was unwise in retrospect,” he said.
Nelson said by insisting on certain changes before casting his vote he “took a bad bill and made it better.” He pointed out aspects of the Senate’s bill he said will benefit Nebraska, and called the “Cornhusker Kickback” a “sideshow” that’s gotten too much attention.
Nelson said the two keys to securing his vote to advance the bill were eliminating the so called public option and not allowing federal funds to pay for abortions. He called those provisions “deal breakers,” and believes he accomplished them.
The Senate bill “supports the private market 100 percent,” Nelson said. “There is no federal government insurance involved in this whatsoever.”
He does not expect the public option to rear its head again when the House of Representatives has its input. He expects a final bill in February.
The public option “is dead,” he said. “If it isn’t, then it dooms the entire bill.
“If there’s very much of (the House) bill in there, and if it’s got the public option in there, it loses not only my support, but perhaps a couple of others,” Nelson said.
He said he is puzzled by criticism he has taken about language banning federally funded abortions.
“I cannot understand the level of anger and frustration aimed at me because this language that I put together does ban (federally funded abortions). It absolutely bans it,” he said.
Nelson said the Senate bill stipulates that if an insurer writes a plan with abortion coverage, they must write a similar plan without abortion coverage. People who choose to have an abortion coverage rider on their policy will have to pay that portion of the premium out of their own pockets.
A tax credit was put in, intended to make adoption more affordable, and $25 million a year will be committed to support for pregnant and parenting teens, “so they can continue their education rather than seek an abortion,” Nelson explained.
Nelson said the “Cornhusker Kickback” -- $100 million that was included in the Senate bill to help Nebraska cover Medicaid expenses -- was not intended to be a special perk for Nebraska, but rather a vehicle by which individual states could choose to opt out of federal funds for Medicaid in the future.
“Several of us have been concerned about the funding of Medicaid because it’s an unfunded mandate from the federal government. The federal government pays a portion of it and the state pays the rest,” he said.
“Under this program,” he continued, “there would be a whole new group of individuals who would qualify for Medicaid coverage. Until 2017 the federal government would pay 100 percent of that.”
The state would then start picking up some of the costs in 2017.
“The Congressional Budget Office could not, in the time frame we had, figure out what states would opt in and what states would opt out, and couldn’t put a number to it,” Nelson said. “So what they did is just put $100 million on Nebraska in a line item in there. It’s really nothing more than a place holder for us to deal with the issue in conference, which I’ve already started doing.
“There was never a time when I fought to get something only for Nebraska; not then and not now,” he added.
Nelson said the reform bill offers some positives for Nebraska. He said 220,000 Nebraskans currently unable to acquire private health insurance because of pre-existing medical conditions will be able to get it.
“There are also about 127,000 Nebraskans that are going to be able to change from their expensive individual policies to a less costly private group plan,” Nelson said.
“There are 270,000 Nebraska seniors that are going to receive free preventive medical care. Those who are on Medicare will have that so called donut hole on Part B closed,” he said.
Nelson said the CBO estimates that the bill will save around $132 billion over the first 10 years.
Tax credits will be aimed at helping middle class families afford private insurance, and helping small businesses afford group plans. States will be able to join together and allow private insurance to be purchased across state lines.
Another benefit, he said, will be having more people on the insurance rolls, which will reduce the amount of uncompensated medical care expenses that get shifted onto the premiums of people who have insurance.
“It’s estimated that that’s about 15 percent of a person’s premium in Nebraska,” Nelson said.
Current language in the Senate bill calls for a one-year study of tort reform.
Public reaction to the bill has been positive, Nelson said, contradicting Rasmussen Poll numbers.
“You have people totally stirred up with misinformation and confused,” Nelson said.
“The poll showed that 50 percent are Democrats that didn’t support the plan,” he said. “That’s hard to believe, that’s really hard to believe. It might be possible but it just doesn’t seem quite right. I don’t really give a lot of credibility to that particular poll.
“I’d have to say that nine out of ten people that come up to me thank me,” he said.
|
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 1691 - 7/1/2010, 11:51 | |
| January 6th, 2010A Bad News Day for the GOPPosted by Sean Trende
First the good news for Republicans: Byron Dorgan has decided to retire and popular Governor John Hoeven has decided to run for his Senate seat. This turned a tough race into a likely-to-safe Republican pickup. It also, for a brief moment, put together a plausible (though by no means likely) scenario for shared GOP control of the Senate beginning in 2011.- Spoiler:
But then Chris Dodd announced his retirement, and Attorney General Richard Blumenthal jumped in. This is something of the reverse of the North Dakota race, and this race has quickly entered "Likely-to-Safe Democrat" territory. Even though the country is uneasy and presently aligned against Democrats, Blumenthal is one of the most popular politicians in this blue sate.
Moreover, Attorneys General are uniquely well positioned to run for office -- they spend their days toughening child support laws rather than taking a million stands on controversial issues like state legislators. This is probably doubly true for Democrats, as it gives them a "daddy issue" to run on (and also to the extent Democrats still need inoculation against the "soft on crime" label).
More bad news followed at the gubernatorial level in Colorado. Incumbent Bill Ritter, who had Bush-like approval ratings, announced that he would retire. Andrew Romanoff switched may switch to the governor's race. This was would be a double whammy for Republicans, as Romanoff's switch cleared would clear the field for Senator Michael Bennet for his primary election, and it removed would remove a damaged incumbent and replaced it with something of a fresh face. This might not switch the race to a Democratic retention, but given Ritter's polling numbers, it probably would helped the Democrats out. Other solid Democratic contenders exist, such as Mayor Hickenlooper and the Salazar brothers. [NOTE: Bad info on Romanoff. My apologies]
Finally, in Michigan, Lt. Gov. John Cherry dropped out of the Michigan Governor's race. Cherry's polling numbers had been abysmal against his potential GOP opponents, and his ties to a deeply unpopular administration, which has presided over an 8-year recession, were probably too much for him to overcome. A number of Democrats will probably get into the race. It's still a tough retention, but probably at least marginally easier with Cherry out of the way.
But even though the individual news items were bad for Republicans, the fact remains that it is Democrats who feel the need to abandon their races, not Republicans. That tells you all that you need to know about the overall political environment, and it isn't a good sign for those Democrats who want to stay and fight.
|
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 1692 - 7/1/2010, 15:41 | |
| Will Al Qaeda destroy the Obama administration?
O'Reilly |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 1693 - 7/1/2010, 16:23 | |
| Aaaah en voila une qui suit les conseils donnes dans l'article du Huffington Post (poste en 1684) a la lettre: Ne laissez pas les candidats Republicains le temps de se presenter, attaquer les immediatement, detruisez-les ne les laissez surtout pas parler de ce qui preoccupe les Americains... Incroyable!! Ca doit etre une de ces paniques chez les Democrates!!! Oh, Byron, We Hardly Knew YeBy GAIL COLLINSPublished: January 6, 2010 Senator Byron Dorgan is retiring! I know this comes as a shock to you, people. Also Senator Chris Dodd! We are only one week into the new year, and the political world is in turmoil. It’s a wonder we can continue on with our regular duties.- Spoiler:
Two Democratic senators quitting is seen as a terrible portent for 2010. (“Democrats’ Black Tuesday,” said a headline on MSNBC.) That seems a tad overblown given the fact that six Republican senators already have announced their retirements.
Plus, Dodd has been in terrible trouble back home ever since he ran for president and tried to get a jump on the competition by moving his family to Iowa. Connecticut has feelings, too. When your senator registers his daughter in kindergarten in Des Moines, the voters in Bridgeport don’t feel the love.
It’s really all good for the Nutmeg State Democrats. Dodd can leave with dignity. He has an overall record to be proud of, including a major role in health care reform. He also worked very hard on issues that have no political payoff whatsoever, like early childhood education.
In his place, the Democrats can nominate the popular attorney general, Richard Blumenthal, who has been waiting in the wings since Cyndi Lauper was at the top of the charts. He was the Democrats’ young man on the rise in the ’70s, and he’s been attorney general for nearly 20 years. It’s a good thing Dodd decided to get out of the way now or when Blumenthal’s turn came, Connecticut would have wound up electing a new senator who looked like Robert Byrd without seniority.
Blumenthal’s opponent might turn out to be Linda McMahon, who formerly ran World Wrestling Entertainment with her husband, Vince. There are other, perhaps better, Republican candidates in the race, but I am rooting for McMahon for entertainment value. She used to be a central character in cable wrestling shows whose scripts had family members shrieking, betraying and, occasionally, slugging one another. One episode featured a villain who broke into the “palatial McMahon headquarters” while Linda was recovering from a neck injury that she had received when an aggrieved wrestler flipped her upside down and slammed her head onto the floor. “You are a rather aggressive beauty, aren’t you?” he breathed, before forcing a kiss upon her resistant lips and promising to break both her son’s legs.
Lately, there have not been all that many good times on the political front. In Washington, the Democrats are sulky about Obama spending all his political capital on health care while the sane people in both parties are completely freaked out by the tea partiers. Meanwhile, interested civilians are being required to spend an excessive amount of time worrying about cloture votes and yearning for the good old days when the only senators you had to know anything about were your own.
Until recently, all I knew about Byron Dorgan was that he was a populist from North Dakota who had once been named Person of the Year by the durum wheat growers. Now he is the center of the universe.
In North Dakota, Democrats are petitioning him to change his mind and run again. The 60th vote could hang on it! Nobody seemed to have expected Dorgan to call it quits even though he has been a professional politician since he was 26 and made history as the most youthful person ever appointed to the North Dakota Tax Commission.
Now the guy is 67 years old, and he says he wants to write books and teach. I think we should give him a thumbs up on his new life plan, except for the part about how he might “also like to work on energy policy in the private sector.” That sure does sound like a lobbyist, but perhaps it just means investing in a gas station.
I’m beginning to suspect that he doesn’t expect to go back to North Dakota at all. I am basing this mainly on the fact that the “Notable North Dakotans” page on the Byron Dorgan Web site lists 19 people, none of whom seem to actually live there. In fact, seven of them are dead and one of the others is the guy who is married to the pop star Fergie.
No wonder that when Dorgan bolted, a top North Dakota Democrat instantly called Ed Schultz, the former Fargo native turned MSNBC talk-show host, and asked him if he had ever thought about running for the Senate. Even the people in North Dakota don’t seem to think there are any actual residents left in the state.
You’re giving yourself too little credit, North Dakota Democrats. There’s got to be a potential junior senator somewhere in your 641,000 fine residents. Who, of course, get exactly the same number of senate votes as the 36.8 million people in California. But that’s a complaint for another day.
|
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 7/1/2010, 21:32 | |
| Ben dites vouar.... voila bien une annee politique qui commence sur les chapeaux de roues... Roulement de tambours..... Schwarzenegger Withdraws Support for Democrats’ Health Care ReformJanuary 06, 2010 2:13 PM In his annual “State of the State” message today, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger withdrew his support for the health care reform measures Democrats are attempting to finish up in Washington, DC. - Spoiler:
“While I enthusiastically support health care reform, it is not reform to push more costs onto states that are already struggling while other states get sweetheart deals,” the governor said.
The White House had in the past brought much attention to Schwarzenegger’s previous support for the effort.
“Health care reform, which started as noble and needed legislation, has become a trough of bribes, deals and loopholes,” Schwarzenegger said. “You’ve heard of the bridge to nowhere. This is health care to nowhere.”
He called for California's congressional delegation to “either vote against this bill that is a disaster for California or get in there and fight for the same sweetheart deal Senator Nelson of Nebraska got for the Cornhusker State. He got the corn; we got the husk.”
In the Senate bill, Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., secured a deal for the federal government to pick up his state’s share of the Medicaid expansion the bill legislates.
In his weekly address on October 10, 2009, President Obama heralded the "unprecedented consensus that has come together behind" health care reform, noting that Schwarzenegger and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg "came out in support of reform," among others, saying "these distinguished leaders understand that health insurance reform isn’t a Democratic issue or a Republican issue, but an American issue that demands a solution."
et l'autre Nelson qui n'en peut plus de s'emberlificoquer dans le remord d'avoir vendu son vote: (le 60eme), se bat maintenant a Washington pour que son etat ne soit pas le seul a avoir Medicaid subsventionne par les autres etats... Ce sont les etats payeurs qui vont etre contents. N'importe quoi! Pov type! Breath In - Breath Out Un bol d'air frais (qu'ils nous disaient!!) |
| | | | Biloulou
Nombre de messages : 54566
Localisation : Jardins suspendus sur la Woluwe - Belgique
Date d'inscription : 27/10/2008
| | Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 7/1/2010, 21:36 | |
| M'enfin, Sylvette, ne vous emportez pas, Arnold a aussi droit au CHANGEment... d'avis ! | |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 1697 - 7/1/2010, 21:54 | |
| Obama's Fiscal Fantasy World Spending is up nearly 24% since Bush's last full budget year. After President Obama devoted much of 2009 to health care and global warming—two issues far down Americans' list of concerns—the White House says he will pivot to jobs and deficit reduction in his State of the Union speech in a few weeks. The White House is considering dramatic gestures, perhaps announcing a spending freeze or even a 2% or 3% reduction in nondefense spending. - Spoiler:
But Americans shouldn't be misled by the election year ploy: Mr. Obama rigged the game by giving himself plenty of room to look tough on spending. He did that by increasing discretionary domestic spending for the last half of fiscal year 2009 by 8% and then increasing it another 12% for fiscal year 2010.
So discretionary domestic spending now stands at $536 billion, up nearly 24% from President George W. Bush's last full year budget in fiscal 2008 of $433.6 billion. That's a huge spending surge, even for a profligate liberal like Mr. Obama. The $102 billion spending increase doesn't even count the $787 billion stimulus package, of which $534 billion remains unspent.
Mr. Obama can placate congressional Democrats by arguing that all that extra spending he has already crammed through can cover their spending desires at least through the 2010 congressional elections.
Mr. Obama is thinking of tapping another pocket of cash. Now that the banks are repaying—with interest and dividends—the $240 billion the Bush administration lent them, the Obama administration is considering recycling those dollars into new spending on "green" technology and more stimulus, despite provisions Congress wrote into the law creating the Troubled Asset Relief Program that requires that repaid TARP funds be used exclusively for deficit reduction.
Meanwhile, defense spending is being flattened: Between 2009 and 2010, military outlays will rise 3.6% while nondefense discretionary spending climbs 12%.
All this leaves Mr. Obama in the enviable position of appearing tough on spending while growing the federal government's share of GDP from its historic post-World War II average of roughly 20% to the target Mr. Obama laid out in his budget blueprint last February of 24%.
There are also those pesky entitlements. This mandatory spending has grown to 66% of the budget, up from 29% in 1965. Serious budgeters understand spending cannot be brought under control unless these mandatory outlays are part of the mix.
One idea on Capitol Hill is to create a commission that would propose a package of entitlement reforms that Congress would have to vote on as a package, up or down, take it or leave it—much like the base closing commission.
The Obama White House likes this idea in part because the proposal calls for including some congressional Republicans but would reserve a majority of the seats on the commission for Democrats. That would put Democrats in charge while also making the GOP share in the political pain that would come with whatever the commission proposes. Conservatives worry, with justification, that a commission's purpose would be to provide Republican cover for tax increases and a permanent increase in the size of the federal government.
What's more, the White House may only be interested in an election-year gesture. White House staff are apparently considering creating a presidential commission that would look like it's working on deficit reduction but that would be established by executive order. Of course, without congressional authorization, there's no way to force Congress to vote on a commission's recommendations.
Whatever Mr. Obama says in his State of the Union, Republicans need to be tougher on spending and deficits. Later this month, Senate Republicans are planning to force their colleagues to go on the record on how to spend returned TARP funds by demanding that Democrats vote on the issue.
Some House Republicans are also considering calling for a return to the level of discretionary domestic spending that existed when Mr. Obama entered office last January.
Few things focus the attention of politicians as much as approaching elections. Democrats are aware that spending and deficits are big reasons Republicans have a nine-point lead on the Rasmussen Poll's generic ballot.
Independents are particularly sensitive about deficits, spending and taxes, whose growth they see aversely affecting jobs and the economy. They give Mr. Obama only a 21% approval on handling the deficit. Only 10% of independents want to spend unused bank bailout money on other government programs.
At the beginning of his term, Americans believed Mr. Obama would follow through on his campaign promises about "cutting wasteful spending" and going "through the federal budget, line-by-line, ending programs that we don't need" and putting "an end to the run-away spending the record deficits."
After a year of living in his fiscal fantasy world, Americans realize they have a record deficit-setting, budget-busting spender on their hands. Voters are now reading the fine print on all that Mr. Obama proposes and as they do, his credibility, already badly damaged, suffers.
Mr. Rove, the former senior adviser and deputy chief of staff to President George W. Bush, is the author of the forthcoming book "Courage and Consequence" (Threshold Editions).
|
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 1698 - 7/1/2010, 22:06 | |
| ... et ca..... On comprend mieux la HATE qu'a le POTUS a avoir le projet de loi Obamacare sur son bureau pour sa signature AU PLUS VITE!!! Les elections pour le remplacement de Kennedy est dans 2 semaines, si le Republicain etait elu, le Senat n'aurait plus ses 60 voix!!! The Man Who Can Stop ObamacareBy the Editors
The Democrats have gotten to the precipice — to borrow President Obama’s word — of victory on health-care reform for one reason above all others: 60 votes.- Spoiler:
Their supermajority in the Senate empowered them to muscle through a sprawling mess of a bill by partisan fiat. If the ball had bounced the other way in a close race or two (or if Arlen Specter had felt more loyalty to his party of decades), the Democrats wouldn’t have gotten to 60. Once there, they were willing to resort to any expedient to stay at the magic number. After Ted Kennedy’s death last summer, the Massachusetts legislature rushed to change state election law to allow for an interim replacement in advance of a special election, explicitly to keep the Democrats at 60.
Now, the special election for the seat is less than two weeks away. It represents the only electoral threat to 60 that Democrats will face until November. Republican Scott Brown is mounting a surprisingly strong bid, trailing Massachusetts attorney general Martha Coakley by only 9 points in the latest Rasmussen poll. A state senator, Brown is running an anti-spending, anti-Washington campaign perfectly suited to the political moment. Should he win, it could make it all but impossible for Harry Reid to get 60 votes for the current version of Obamacare — and he’ll almost certainly need to meet that threshold at least one more time. In short, Scott Brown is the man who could pull the brake on this train right before it gets fully out of the station.
Of course, his chances of winning in Massachusetts, in a race for Ted Kennedy’s old seat, are somewhere on the continuum between unlikely and unthinkable. Democrats have more than a million-voter edge over Republicans in registration, and Coakley’s name ID is higher and her bank account flusher. As of mid-November, she had nearly $2 million left to spend to Brown’s $250,000. In short, it’s David versus Goliath, except even David didn’t have to worry about getting overwhelmed by paid advertising.
Yet it’s still possible Brown could pull off a stunning upset. Since Reid managed to get the health bill through the Senate, we’ve heard the plaint of so many conservatives, “Is this really happening? Is there any way we can still stop it?” Anyone who has asked those questions in recent weeks should go to Scott Brown’s website and contribute, eroding at least one of Coakley’s key advantages. We don’t ordinarily make fundraising pitches for candidates, but these are special circumstances. The way the health-care debate is projecting right now, the Democrats will get their bill and Republicans will exact their retribution in the fall. It’d be even better if retribution arrived early this year.
Dernière édition par Sylvette le 7/1/2010, 22:09, édité 1 fois |
| | | | Zed
Nombre de messages : 16907
Age : 59
Localisation : Longueuil, Québec, Canada, Amérique du nord, planète Terre, du système solaire Galarneau de la voie lactée
Date d'inscription : 13/11/2008
| | Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 7/1/2010, 22:08 | |
| | |
| | | | Contenu sponsorisé
| | Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise | |
| |
| | | | | | Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise | |
|
Sujets similaires | |
|
| | Permission de ce forum: | Vous ne pouvez pas répondre aux sujets dans ce forum
| |
| |
| |
|
