The Selfishness of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and Healthcare Reform.

If healthcare reform was so important to Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, why didn't they back Hillary Clinton in 2008?

When Bill Clinton wanted Hillary Clinton involved in Health Care discussions with the republicans back in 1992, the talks failed not because of Hillary Clinton, but because of how Bill Clinton won the presidency.

Don't be fooled by Michael Moore's insipid video in which he shows a short clip of an exchange between Hillary Clinton and the Republicans back in 1992 as if to imply that Hillary Clinton ruined health care reform back then. That was typical Michael Moore serving up a hackneyed innuendo that is nonsensical.

1992 was an abomination for the republicans. George Bush had a 91% approval rating right after the desert storm war of 1990-1991. The 1991 republicans were so giddily looking forward to the 1992 presidential elections and another four years of George Bush that they could not contain their premature celebratory glee. Rush Limbaugh laughingly called the seven 1992 presidential democratic candidates the "seven dwarves". Rush Limbaugh ridiculed the individual democratic candidates as well, calling Paul Tsongas "Paul Tax On Gas".

Republicans were also looking forward to a bigger 1992 presidential victory margin than Ronald Reagan had achieved against Jimmy Carter and then Walter Mondale in the 80's. Then Bill Clinton happened, and the republicans disgust at losing to a hic from Arkansas was apoplectic. From George Bush and on down the line, the embarrassment the republicans felt was boundless.

All of these early 90's events conspired to doom healthcare in 1992. The idea that it was Hillary Clinton's persona that killed health care in 1992 was preposterous. The 1992 republicans were not humbled, they were ANGRY. Sister Theresa could not have passed health care in 1992.

The Michael Moore Hillary Clinton slam is just another of the typically stupid Michael Moore documentary claims that are starting to pile so high I am beginning to wonder why I ever liked the guy.

As for Nancy Pelosi, how come 16 years later is Pelosi so bent on NOT SUPPORTING Hillary Clinton in the 2008 democratic nomination?

Are Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid so devoid of common sense they can't even understand what actually happened in 1992? Would it have been so awful to have Hillary Clinton, 16 years later, charm the pants off of the republican party and actually include them in the health care reform talks to the point where neither democrats or republicans could take full credit for health care reform and instead would admit to the reform being bi-partisan?

Would it really have been so bad to give Hillary Clinton her first real shot at passing health care in 2009? Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have got to lose their re-election bids, please, for the sake of the democratic party, please let it be so.

Please Download the Chase Bank Protest Flyer for FREE, and then all that needs to be done is just give a few copies out, it is really that simple.

A Powerful Excerpt From Barack Obama's Nobel Peace Prize Speech and the subtle political rebukes that appear to be intertwined.

A very strong rebuke of Ron Paul's world political view can be found in the excerpt below from Barack Obama's Nobel Peace Prize Speech. A more subtle rebuke of George Bush, John McCain and Hillary Clinton's position that we don't negotiate with rogue nations can be found as well.

However, earlier in the speech, Barack Obama also acknowledges that speech making is never enough (which kind of reminds me of the Hillary Clinton's 2008 campaign quote about Barack Obama's political experience amounting to a speech he wrote...)

------------------excerpt from Barack Obama's Nobel Peace Prize Speech--------------------

...."The same principle applies to those who violate international laws by brutalizing their own people. When there is genocide in Darfur, systematic rape in Congo, repression in Burma -- there must be consequences. Yes, there will be engagement; yes, there will be diplomacy -- but there must be consequences when those things fail. And the closer we stand together, the less likely we will be faced with the choice between armed intervention and complicity in oppression.

This brings me to a second point -- the nature of the peace that we seek. For peace is not merely the absence of visible conflict. Only a just peace based on the inherent rights and dignity of every individual can truly be lasting.

It was this insight that drove drafters of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights after the Second World War. In the wake of devastation, they recognized that if human rights are not protected, peace is a hollow promise.

And yet too often, these words are ignored.

For some countries, the failure to uphold human rights is excused by the false suggestion that these are somehow Western principles, foreign to local cultures or stages of a nation's development. And within America, there has long been a tension between those who describe themselves as realists or idealists -- a tension that suggests a stark choice between the narrow pursuit of interests or an endless campaign to impose our values around the world.

So even as we respect the unique culture and traditions of different countries, America will always be a voice for those aspirations that are universal. We will bear witness to the quiet dignity of reformers like Aung Sang Suu Kyi; to the bravery of Zimbabweans who cast their ballots in the face of beatings; to the hundreds of thousands who have marched silently through the streets of Iran. It is telling that the leaders of these governments fear the aspirations of their own people more than the power of any other nation. And it is the responsibility of all free people and free nations to make clear that these movements -- these movements of hope and history -- they have us on their side.I reject these choices. I believe that peace is unstable where citizens are denied the right to speak freely or worship as they please; choose their own leaders or assemble without fear. Pent-up grievances fester, and the suppression of tribal and religious identity can lead to violence. We also know that the opposite is true. Only when Europe became free did it finally find peace. America has never fought a war against a democracy, and our closest friends are governments that protect the rights of their citizens. No matter how callously defined, neither America's interests -- nor the world's -- are served by the denial of human aspirations.

Let me also say this: The promotion of human rights cannot be about exhortation alone. At times, it must be coupled with painstaking diplomacy. I know that engagement with repressive regimes lacks the satisfying purity of indignation. But I also know that sanctions without outreach -- condemnation without discussion -- can carry forward only a crippling status quo. No repressive regime can move down a new path unless it has the choice of an open door...."

---------------------------------------------------------

Please Download the Chase Bank Protest Flyer for FREE, and then all that needs to be done is just give a few copies out, it is really that simple.

Lets Get Ready to Rumble! Not! Bill Clinton and George Bush do the right thing and cancel their Los Angeles and New York "Cage Match Debates".

Apparently an overzealous promoter kept amping up the PR regarding two panel discussions that was to feature Bill Clinton and George Bush. Instead of the two former presidents meeting to discuss issues based on their presidential experience, the promoter of the event chose to publicize there appearance as a "debate" between two former presidents.

If this is true, than the promoter is an idiot in my opinion. It makes me wonder how they rose to such a position of importance that they could be trusted to promote such an important event.

I wonder if the promoter was envisioning a G. Gordon Liddy vs Timothy Leary series of debates between Bush and Clinton. If so, how could anyone be that misguided, and disrespectful of our two former presidents?

Click on this sentence to read the entire story at the LA Times.

One could argue that their appearance fee was "too low" at 150,000 dollars each. But I don't think that was it at all. I just think they realize how easily the press capitulates to stupid PR angles and decided not to be a part of it.

Please Download the Chase Bank Protest Flyer for FREE, and then all that needs to be done is just give a few copies out, it is really that simple.

The Bush Administration warned about Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae but were overruled by Congress.

This YouTube Video paints the Bush Administration as trying to warn everybody about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. What I don't understand is why the Bush Administration didn't have a fall back plan that could have been implemented immediately when the sub prime mortgage rates were spiking overnight. I believe the economic downturn could have been softened if home owners didn't just give up paying their mortgage because it dramatically increased overnight.

Regulation does not just have to happen on the front end. Bush, the Republicans and the Democrats seemed more concerned about the banks failing then people who had been paying their mortgage just giving up overnight when the monthly payment ballooned. I still blame the banks for offering a mortgage program that increased the monthly mortgage payment overnight by a factor of 50%, 100%, or even 200% on homeowners.

It would have been amazing if just once, we could have seen Bush ride in and actually rescue the average american.

Can MSNBC continue to cover Barack Obama Speeches day after day?

Barack Obama was speaking recently and MSNBC was providing a live feed and I noticed a few "cheerers" in the back of the room that seemed to be obvious plants. How long can MSNBC and Barack Obama continue to sponge off of each other?

Did MSNBC show George Bush live, everyday and everywhere he went? Is it plausible that Barack Obama will continue to make live, daily televised appearances to the merriment of MSNBC? I guess I just can't believe it can keep up for his entire term in office without a backlash occurring.