Comments

  1. SADIE says

    Bugs Bunny was a perfect choice. The cartoonish Harry Reid is Nevada’s version of the Road Runner.

    Reid’s concern ends at the State line. I am sure living in a desert has provided Harry with the concept of sand and that’s why he has drawn a line in it. He further proves his ability to manage sand, by telling the rest of the country to go ‘pound it’.

    snip/ link at bottom.

    No sooner than the Senate Finance Committee’s chairman released his long-awaited health care bill today than Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said it’s not good enough for Nevada.

    Reid is concerned about the cash-poor state’s inability to boost Medicaid spending as would be required under the bill.

    “While this draft bill is a good starting point, it needs improvement before it will work for Nevada,” Reid said in a statement. “During this time of economic crisis, our state cannot afford to shoulder the second highest increase in Medicaid funding.”

    Reid said he received assurance from the chairman, Sen. Max Baucus of Montana, that the formula would be changed before the bill goes to committee next week.

    “I spoke to the Chair of the Finance Committee and he assured me that this bill will be improved for Nevada,” Reid said.

    “Let me be very clear, I will not bring a health insurance reform bill to the Senate floor that is not good for Nevada.”

    http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=508591

  2. suek says

    >>…our state cannot afford to shoulder the second highest increase in Medicaid funding.”>>

    That says something right there now, doesn’t it! Forget Nevada…what about the rest of us?

  3. SADIE says

    Harry’s chutzpah is not even thinly disguised – it’s utter disdain and contempt for anyone or thing but Harry.

    My eyes popped, suek. This actually got me more ticked off than most things I’ve read lately ( and we both know there’s plenty to choose from). It was his blatant disregard for ‘the rest of us’. We don’t exist for this twerp! I am hoping the Nevada voters feel that same way next year.

  4. SADIE says

    TV Guide for Sunday – I’ll be sleeping in late.

    Expect two contrasting topics – President Barack Obama’s surprise Nobel Peace Prize and the eighth anniversary of the start of the war in Afghanistan – to dominate this weekend’s Sunday shows.

    CNN’s new “Amanpour,” airing Sunday afternoon, has the week’s biggest names – Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who’ll appear together.

    NBC’s “Meet the Press” offers a foreign policy-heavy lineup, with Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and committee member Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), along with two retired generals – former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Richard Myers and former head of the U.S. Southern Command Barry McCaffrey.

    ABC’s “This Week” has the chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), and committee member Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.), along with Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) and former Army Vice Chief of Staff retired Gen. Jack Keane.

    Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) and Bob Casey (D-Pa.) stop by CNN’s “State of the Union.” And White House Communications Director Anita Dunn appears in the Reliable Sources segment, where she’ll surely be asked about her line this week that Fox News is “opinion journalism masquerading as news.”

    “Fox News Sunday” keys on the economy, with Michigan Democratic Gov. Jennifer Granholm, Indiana Republican Gov. Mitch Daniels, Wynn Resorts CEO Steve Wynn and Moody’s chief economist Mark Zandi.

    On CBS, “Face the Nation” has Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.).

    C-SPAN’s “Newsmakers” hosts Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), who’ll field questions from The New York Times’s David Herszenhorn and The Hill’s Jeffrey Young.

    Finally, on Bloomberg TV, “Political Capital” host Al Hunt discusses the president’s push for financial regulatory reform with White House economic adviser Lawrence Summers.

    Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28143.html#ixzz0Ta4XOqkj

  5. says

    Yeah, Doug, it was a shame. It’s also the first time I can ever remember them doing that. Still, the pilots’ safety is the most important thing.

    We were very lucky to have a lovely day on the Bay, in a real patrol boat. There are worse things.

  6. BrianE says

    Former Senator Bob Kerry offers this opinion at the WSJ, and is surprisingly frank.

    In a wonderfully stunning decision, the Nobel Committee in Oslo awarded our president its Peace Prize. They said the award was as much for the hope that he will contribute to a more peaceful world as it was for any specific accomplishment during his first nine months in office.
    [snip]
    By awarding the prize to Mr. Obama, the Nobel committee also surely hoped to influence the debate about U.S. policy in Afghanistan. I wish they had waited until the debate was settled here at home. My wish is based on a fear that American political leaders are about to talk themselves into breaking yet another foreign policy commitment.

    In December 2006, President George W. Bush was faced with a similarly difficult foreign policy decision. The Republicans had suffered tremendous losses in the November election, in part because of the conduct of the war in Iraq. At the time, the unpopular Republican president was being pressured by ascendant congressional Democrats and some members of his own party into withdrawing from Iraq. Failure in Iraq loomed, as public opinion for the effort to help the democratically elected government survive had faded thanks to a series of tactical blunders and inaccurate assessments of what would be needed to accomplish the mission.

    Then, against all reasonable predictions, President Bush chose to increase rather than decrease our military commitment. The “surge,” as it became known, worked. Victory was snatched from the jaws of defeat.
    [snip]
    President Obama’s lack of domestic strength is his biggest problem. His actions to stabilize the financial system prevented an economic meltdown of dire proportions. However, our economy is still very fragile. Our public debt is growing at the fastest rate since the World War II, the dollar is weakening, and economic experts are making ominous statements about the possibility of our currency being replaced as the world currency of choice. Anxiety over unemployment and the devaluation of assets has contributed to America’s unwillingness to support much of anything that doesn’t contribute directly to our recovery.

    As for his capacity to manage crises, this skill is being tested right now in Afghanistan. There is surely a strong temptation to conform his better judgment to popular opinion. If he chooses this politically safe route and does not give his military commander on the ground the resources needed to win, history will judge him harshly. Great American leaders of our past have ignored popular sentiment and pressed on during the darkest hours, even when setbacks give rhetorical ammunition to the skeptics.

    President Obama’s decision is extremely difficult. Today, less than 50% of Americans support the war. No doubt even fewer Americans would be on the side of doing what Gen. Stanley McChrystal wants to do: temporarily increase the number of troops and dramatically change our strategy.

    The way we have provided development assistance to the government in Afghanistan hasn’t improved the lives of the Afghan people. A cloud of illegitimacy hangs over President Hamid Karzai because of the recent election. Even friends of the Karzai administration have reported cronyism and corruption.

    Yet despite these setbacks, our leaders must remain focused on the fact that success in Afghanistan bolsters our national security and yes, our moral reputation. This war is not Vietnam. The Taliban are not popular and have very little support other than what they secure through terror.

    Afghanistan is also not Iraq. No serious leader in Kabul is asking us to leave. Instead we are being asked to withdraw by American leaders who begin their analysis with the presumption that victory is not possible. They seem to want to ensure defeat by leaving at the very moment when our military leader on the ground has laid out a coherent and compelling strategy for victory.

    When it comes to foreign policy, almost nothing matters more then your friends and your enemies knowing you will keep your word and follow through on your commitments. This is the real test of presidential leadership. I hope that President Obama—soon to be a Nobel laureate—passes with flying colors.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703746604574463012564519346.html

    Personally, I’m undecided as to what our future policy should be in Afghanistan. Given the tribal nature of the country, can a strong central government be established without a heavy dose of authoritarianism?

Leave a Reply