But Obama’s primary message just before the election was tax cuts for 95% of Americans. He ran as a republican who would be moderate on social issues. I think it’s hilarious that he managed to do so after running to Hillary’s left on many issues in the primary. But with the MSM, all things are possible. His message of fiscal responsibility, reduced deficits, aggressive war actions in Pakistan, and repeating that 95% number thousands of times really gave me the impression that Obama doesn’t have faith in his true views being popular.

Really? I think he ran mostly on nothing at all, unless as a national Rorschak Test for anyone to project their own hopes and desires onto a thoroughly empty vessel. Hope! Change! OK, but what kind of hope and change? No details were made available, so our own little Chauncy Gardener became President.

It may be just small amounts in each category above, but there has to be some significant negative impact on me in order to bring an additional 46 million people into the system.

I agree w/ your critique of Obama, but none of that is the “rap” I was referring to in the post, which was that if Obama had been more involved, everything would be going better for the Dems now.

What? Of course it’s fair. No one forced him to introduce this legislation or in the manner he introduced it. He’s the chief executive. Moreover he’s repeatedly and publicly misrepresented the bill and his positions on its key points. Instead of acting in negotiating good faith with all the various parties of interest, most importantly the American people, on a hugely important bill covering so much of our economy, he’s gone out of his way to try to isolate and smear those parties and all critics. He’s conducted this entire process not as an American leader combining confident vision and mediating patience but as a precocious, sneaky and spoiled child trying to con his peers and parents into getting his way without any regard for the greater good. He deserves every shred of responsibility.

Perhaps the real issue is that something this sweeping and overblown is simply foreign to the American political way. It doesn’t compute. The Constitution never gave the Congress the power to nationalize whole tracts of the economy, but even if it had the Congress would not have been able to exercise the power. The institution makes deals. It allocates among competing interests.

Nationalization is different, and too complicated.

Someone needs to clue in the libtard elites that mentioning the wonders of the USPS and Social Security does NOT win them the argument.

I for one resent a program that robs me of 15% of my income, doesnt allow me the option to opt out, and may not even be solvent by the time I am old enough to use it, to be a ’success’. It’s a success in the same way that CNN can claim ’success’ in airports: Captive audience.

Troy Davis was convicted of the 1989 murder of an off-duty Savannah police officer. Seven key witnesses have since recanted, and several people have charged that the main prosecution witness was the shooter. Rather than arguing that there were procedural flaws in his trial, Mr. Davis is making the more basic claim that he is innocent and that new evidence proves it.

Just possibly, the NYT might be leaving something out unfavorable to its position. Shocking thought, I know.