News Obama for President: Experienced Leader

[BobG]

Every female already had access to birth control, his policy just makes sure that someone else is paying for it.

He basically constructed a straw man and beat it down with his 'contraception mandate'. What deficiency was he honestly correcting? This 'separation philosophy' is coming at the expense of everyone's choice. What is the harm in allowing someone (or a religious orgnization...) a choice in what medical coverage they buy? Freedom is constricted via the President's policies (with this being the latest in a long line), I don't see how there is any other way to look at it.

I'm far from being a religious person, but President Obama (and his cohort) are waging a war on freedoms, starting with Religion. If (reasonable) Religious freedom can be thrown to the wayside by the government so easilly, what other freedoms should I be prepared to give up? Women (and men) already had the freedom to buy contraception, but now they lack the freedom to NOT buy contraception (via paying for insurance).

I'm divided on this issue.

I don't think the government should be able to require employers to offer health insurance at all and, aside from preventing sham policies or fraud, shouldn't be dictating what services have to be provided by health insurance policies purchased and/or operated by employers.

Whether an employer offers health insurance and the cost of that health insurance is just part of the overall compensation package an employee should consider before deciding to accept the job. Not providing health insurance will put an employer at a competitive disadvantage in attracting employees, but it shouldn't be illegal.

But, if the government can require employers to provide health insurance and dictate what those policies have to cover, then I don't see any justification for exempting a business that just happens to be owned by a religious group. The mandate covers university employees and hospital employees. Running a university and/or hospital is extending beyond strictly religious functions and the university/hospitals should be subject to the same laws as universities/hospitals owned by non-religious entities.

Women (and men) already had the freedom to buy contraception, but now they lack the freedom to NOT buy contraception (via paying for insurance).

Don't employees of a private business also lack the same freedom? Do Catholic employees get a discount on their health insurance just because they don't plan to use the free contraceptives their employer's plan provides? And what happens when the company I work for donates to a super-PAC for a pro-abortion candidate? Should employees that oppose that candidate get a special refund from their employer to free them up from supporting a candidate with moral views incompatible with theirs?

In other words, I don't think this works on an individual employee basis.

 

[Alfi]

http://www.google.ca/search?q=‘Afri...s=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

playing a race card?

 

[WhoWee]

http://www.google.ca/search?q=‘Afri...s=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

playing a race card?

I don't see it that way. I think a candidate should be able to communicate directly with special interest groups. At the same time, they should expect content to leak and can run the risk of being considered too biased with that group (whatever group that might be - trial lawyers for instance).

 

[mheslep]

whatever group that might be

Whatever group? You would defend 'Whites for Newt'? 'White Men for Santorum'?

 

[WhoWee]

Whatever group? You would defend 'Whites for Newt'? 'White Men for Santorum'?

If they want to run the risk of such a collaboration - it's not a problem for me - although it would probably be a big problem for them.

 

[WhoWee]

The President recently apologized for the burning of religious materials and has vowed to investigate.
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-02-27/obama-apologizes-for-koran-burning-as-afghan-riots-continue.html

I don't think it's fair to attack the President for his apology - he was put in a difficult position by news reports - IMO.

However, I'm a bit confused about the original source of these reports? Who broke this story?

 

[Alfi]

How about a balance? We will burn 1000 bibles in competence.

Book for book ... let's burn them all. And get on with life.

 

[WhoWee]

How about a balance? We will burn 1000 bibles in competence.

Book for book ... let's burn them all. And get on with life.

Our President was blind sided and our soldiers were shot - I think the source of the leak is important and may impact the re-election campaign.

 

[Alfi]

Our President was blind sided and our soldiers were shot - I think the source of the leak is important and may impact the re-election campaign.

I can agree that sources are important. Re-election ? not so much. There is no competition.

 

[MarcoD]

We will burn 1000 bibles in competence.

Yeah well, your book isn't their book. Right?

 

[WhoWee]

My point is this - if this account is accurate:
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2012/02/ap-7-afghans-killed-in-afghan-protests-over-koran-burning-022212/

"Gen. John Allen, the top commander of American and NATO forces in Afghanistan, said after the books had been mistakenly given to troops to be burned at a garbage pit without realizing it.

“It was not a decision that was made because they were religious materials,” Allen said Tuesday, one day after Afghan workers at the garbage pit found the books. “It was not a decision that was made with respect to the faith of Islam. It was a mistake. It was an error. The moment we found out about it we immediately stopped and we intervened.”"

How did this apparent mistake turn into an international incident requiring President Obama and generals to apoligize?

 

[SHISHKABOB]

My point is this - if this account is accurate:
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2012/02/ap-7-afghans-killed-in-afghan-protests-over-koran-burning-022212/

"Gen. John Allen, the top commander of American and NATO forces in Afghanistan, said after the books had been mistakenly given to troops to be burned at a garbage pit without realizing it.

“It was not a decision that was made because they were religious materials,” Allen said Tuesday, one day after Afghan workers at the garbage pit found the books. “It was not a decision that was made with respect to the faith of Islam. It was a mistake. It was an error. The moment we found out about it we immediately stopped and we intervened.”"

How did this apparent mistake turn into an international incident requiring President Obama and generals to apoligize?

because there are a few people out there who react violently to the burning of Korans?

 

[MarcoD]

Desecrating a copy of the Quran is punishable by imprisonment in some countries (life imprisonment in Pakistan, according to Article 295-B of the Penal Code) and has been punishable by death in Afghanistan, Somalia and Pakistan.

From Wikipedia, Quran desecration. I am guesstimating that to a number of them, western troops are now free game, effective immediately. Like I said, somewhere in between a major clusterfluff and dung happens.

 

[SHISHKABOB]

If the burning was nothing more than a mistake - how did anyone know what was being burned?

in your own post the quote mentions how Afghan workers found the burnt remains. One of them probably either got upset about it and told people, or just plain told people and then they got upset.

 

[WhoWee]

I don't think anyone will be surprised to hear my support is behind any Republican candidate that runs against President Obama. However, I think this issue should be off limits in the campaign.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I don't think anyone will be surprised to hear my support is behind any Republican candidate that runs against President Obama. However, I think this issue should be off limits in the campaign.

That train left the station already.

 

[WhoWee]

That train left the station already.

I think attempts to use this topic against the President will backfire.

 

[MarcoD]

IMO, given international relations, the only response possible was the one he has given.

 

[turbo]

There are times when honesty and pragmatism should trump ideology. I trust Obama to stay that course. Not so his potential opponents in the GE.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

It will narrow your choices, I think Paul is the only one who hasn't criticized the apology.

 

[turbo]

IMO, one of the benchmarks for adult behavior and intelligence is the ability to offer an apology when appropriate.

 

[AlephZero]

How did this apparent mistake turn into an international incident requiring President Obama and generals to apoligize?

One possible reason is because it shows the utter and complete lack knowledge on the part of whoever made such a "mistake", considering where they are operating and what they are supposed to be doing there.

IMO it's about the same level of "mistake" as an Afghani claiming that he/she accidentally burnt a US flag because he/she didn't recognize what it was.

 

[mheslep]

I can agree that sources are important. Re-election ? not so much. There is no competition.

No competition against President 25-million-unemployed,$1.3-trillion-deficit,punish-our-enemies,$4gas Obama? We'll see.

 

[WhoWee]

No competition against President 25-million-unemployed,$1.3-trillion-deficit,punish-our-enemies,$4gas Obama? We'll see.

That's my feeling - there are PLENTY of other reasons not to re-elect the President.

 

[Pythagorean]

If you actually put "punishment" in context, it might be a bit more fair... He's dressing up a simple concept with colorful language: vote for people who promote policies that are helpful to you, don't vote for people that don't promote policies that are helpful for you.

Can't comment on the rest, but I've seen numbers get taken out of context over and over in this thread.

 

[WhoWee]

The UAW clearly favors candidates that help them.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/25/u...help-obama-win-working-class-voters.html?_r=1

"The United Automobile Workers union, a primary beneficiary of President Obama’s decision to rescue domestic carmakers, is now trying to return the favor. "

 

[mheslep]

If you actually put "punishment" in context, it might be a bit more fair... He's dressing up a simple concept with colorful language: vote for people who promote policies that are helpful to you, don't vote for people that don't promote policies that are helpful for you...

The relevant context is that the President was addressing the collection of an ethnic group, encouraging the use of the term "enemies" in political rhetoric against other citizens in good standing. The relevant historical context is that a former President, Nixon, used the term to describe a list of political targets, or an "enemies list", also citizens. Obama went on to say, in addressing Senator McCain and others, "Those aren’t the kinds of folks who represent our core American values” in the same speech. This is exactly the same kind of us versus them tone that Palin used with her "real American" comment. She at least apologized for the statement later. This kind of rhetoric has become salt and pepper for this President.

 

[Pythagorean]

See, now that's much more trivial than what I imagined when I first read it. A politician using rhetoric? That's unheard of!

 

[WhoWee]

Does anyone recall when President Obama took office 3 years ago and promised to close Gitmo within a year - signed an order?
http://articles.cnn.com/2009-01-22/politics/guantanamo.order_1_detention-guantanamo-bay-torture?_s=PM:POLITICS
"January 22, 2009

President Obama signs the order requiring that the Guantanamo Bay facility be closed within a year.Promising to return America to the "moral high ground" in the war on terrorism, President Obama issued three executive orders Thursday to demonstrate a clean break from the Bush administration, including one requiring that the Guantanamo Bay detention facility be closed within a year."

Not only is Gitmo still open now in 2012, but this was in the news yesterday. my bold
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...the-air-again/2012/02/28/gIQAboPngR_blog.html

"When the authorities at Guantanamo Bay closed Camp 4, the open-air, communal-living facility here, and moved the detainees to an indoor facility called Camp 6, the inmates lost the small patch of dirt where they played soccer. Or, as they call it, football.

The competition, though, was not lost forever.

The Pentagon has said it is restoring the glorious game to Gitmo with a new 28,000-square-foot “super-rec” space that includes a field surrounded by a gravel track with shaded areas in the corners. Detainees will reach the field by walking through covered walkways that the military is calling “habitat trails” — rather like the tunnel to the pitch at, say, Manchester United’s Old Trafford stadium, but without the crowds.

The cost of the project: $744,000.

Officials here said the detainees had desperately missed their matches and boosting the morale of the inmates makes the job of the guard force easier. "

What happened to the small patch of dirt?

 

[ThomasT]

Does anyone recall when President Obama took office 3 years ago and promised to close Gitmo within a year - signed an order?
http://articles.cnn.com/2009-01-22/politics/guantanamo.order_1_detention-guantanamo-bay-torture?_s=PM:POLITICS
"January 22, 2009

President Obama signs the order requiring that the Guantanamo Bay facility be closed within a year.Promising to return America to the "moral high ground" in the war on terrorism, President Obama issued three executive orders Thursday to demonstrate a clean break from the Bush administration, including one requiring that the Guantanamo Bay detention facility be closed within a year."

Not only is Gitmo still open now in 2012, but this was in the news yesterday. my bold
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...the-air-again/2012/02/28/gIQAboPngR_blog.html

"When the authorities at Guantanamo Bay closed Camp 4, the open-air, communal-living facility here, and moved the detainees to an indoor facility called Camp 6, the inmates lost the small patch of dirt where they played soccer. Or, as they call it, football.

The competition, though, was not lost forever.

The Pentagon has said it is restoring the glorious game to Gitmo with a new 28,000-square-foot “super-rec” space that includes a field surrounded by a gravel track with shaded areas in the corners. Detainees will reach the field by walking through covered walkways that the military is calling “habitat trails” — rather like the tunnel to the pitch at, say, Manchester United’s Old Trafford stadium, but without the crowds.

The cost of the project: $744,000.

Officials here said the detainees had desperately missed their matches and boosting the morale of the inmates makes the job of the guard force easier. "

What happened to the small patch of dirt?

Not clear what the point of this post is. Are we to be angry at Obama for keeping the Gitmo prison open though he said he would close it? Or are we to be very disappointed that he has spent $744K of our money on a soccer field for people suspected of terrorist activities? Either way, not good for Obama, imho. Which, I suppose, was the point of the post.

 

[WhoWee]

Not clear what the point of this post is. Are we to be angry at Obama for keeping the Gitmo prison open though he said he would close it? Or are we to be very disappointed that he has spent $744K of our money on a soccer field for people suspected of terrorist activities? Either way, not good for Obama, imho. Which, I suppose, was the point of the post.

I'm not sure if his base approves of Gitmo being kept open - possibly not? I think non-supporters of the President appreciate that he changed his position after gaining access to all of the information (what ever that might be?).

On the second point - a cost of $744,000 - it seems a bit much to replace "the small patch of dirt where they played soccer" - doesn't it? I don't think we invested more than $20,000 to prep and equip our community soccer fields.

 

[Gokul43201]

I'm not sure if his base approves of Gitmo being kept open - possibly not? I think non-supporters of the President appreciate that he changed his position after gaining access to all of the information (what ever that might be?).

He changed his position because Congress forced him to, by making a big hullabaloo about imprisoning detainees within the mainland, and how it would be such an unconscionable - not to mention dangerous - act to invite blood-thirsty terrorists into our backyards.

On the second point - a cost of $744,000 - it seems a bit much to replace "the small patch of dirt where they played soccer" - doesn't it? I don't think we invested more than $20,000 to prep and equip our community soccer fields.

Do we have more details on what the money was spent on, and what the rationale was that permitted the budget to be approved? Could it be that this expenditure is estimated to provide much more in savings? Could it be a result of some analysis which shows that detainees are more likely to spill valuable intel when they have $744K soccer fields to play in? Could it be that a $0.7M soccer field might stop the next $7T war?

 

[mheslep]

Congress overriding a veto would force the President to do this or that. Obama signed the Defense Authorization bill that blocked transfer of the prisoners. Whatever he said in protest is meaningless to me, so much blather.

 

[WhoWee]

He changed his position because Congress forced him to, by making a big hullabaloo about imprisoning detainees within the mainland, and how it would be such an unconscionable - not to mention dangerous - act to invite blood-thirsty terrorists into our backyards.

Do we have more details on what the money was spent on, and what the rationale was that permitted the budget to be approved? Could it be that this expenditure is estimated to provide much more in savings? Could it be a result of some analysis which shows that detainees are more likely to spill valuable intel when they have $744K soccer fields to play in? Could it be that a $0.7M soccer field might stop the next $7T war?

Didn't President Obama have control of both the House and Senate in 2009? Perhaps he shouldn't have made (a big hullabaloo on his part as well) promises he couldn't keep?

As for justification for the spending - it's not clear - looks like they added a guard tower and expanded the fence so they don't need to be escorted to the field?

I did find this info.
http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/02/28/2666083/744000-buys-cooperative-guantanamo.htmlry .

"The showcase soccer field — half the size of an American football field — is being built by Burns and Roe Services Corp., said a Pentagon spokesman, Army Lt. Col. Todd Breasseale. It should open in April, as the third recreation yard at Guantánamo’s main prison camp complex, a year after construction began on what is currently the largest expansion under way at the decade-old detention center.

The Obama administration estimates that it spends $800,000 a year per captive on basic operating costs for the detention center, whose staff numbers 1,850 government employees from contractors to guards.

When it was suggested that the price tag was excessive, Reese replied that this base’s remote location at times doubles construction costs. "

 

[Gokul43201]

Congress overriding a veto would force the President to do this or that. Obama signed the Defense Authorization bill that blocked transfer of the prisoners. Whatever he said in protest is meaningless to me, so much blather.

It would have been nothing more than a waste of time for him to veto on the basis of the Gitmo argument. He tried that argument way back in 2009 and learned that neither party was interested. Nimby-ism is much too easy a seed to sow.

The Senate voted overwhelmingly on Wednesday to cut from a war spending bill the $80 million requested by President Obama to close the detention center at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and to bar the transfer of detainees to the United States and its territories.

The vote, which complicates Mr. Obama’s efforts to shutter the prison by his deadline of Jan. 22, 2010, was 90 to 6. Republicans voted unanimously in favor of cutting the money.

“The American people don’t want these men walking the streets of America’s neighborhoods,” said Senator John Thune, Republican of South Dakota. “The American people don’t want these detainees held at a military base or federal prison in their back yard, either.”

(emph mine)

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/21/us/politics/21detain.html?pagewanted=all

I do agree with WhoWee, however, that Obama deserves a sound heckling for demonstrating an over-abundance of naivete.

 

[mheslep]

It would have been nothing more than a waste of time for him to veto on the basis of the Gitmo argument. ...

Waste of time? I doubt that. It think trade off is the more likely reasoning. I was aware of the lopsided vote on the defense spending bill when I made that previously post. That vote is far from indicative of a veto override from a Nancy Pelosi House and a Harry Reid Senate in the first ~year of his presidency. No, if Obama was determined to fulfill a campaign pledge, regardless of the political consequences, he likely could have had his way on Gitmo. One consequence might be a loss of the pull needed to get the pending health care bill though. I think it more likely that he saw the large political cost and backed down.

 

[BobG]

On the second point - a cost of $744,000 - it seems a bit much to replace "the small patch of dirt where they played soccer" - doesn't it? I don't think we invested more than $20,000 to prep and equip our community soccer fields.

What year was that? Just perusing a few proposals for soccer fields gives an estimate somewhere around $400k to $500k per field. But I think many of those proposals include the whole package (parking, restrooms, etc). The only proposal that broke down each of the individual costs had about $125k for the soccer field, itself.

 

[lisab]

What year was that? Just perusing a few proposals for soccer fields gives an estimate somewhere around $400k to $500k per field. But I think many of those proposals include the whole package (parking, restrooms, etc). The only proposal that broke down each of the individual costs had about $125k for the soccer field, itself.

I'm guessing those proposals were for fields that were stateside. You can't exactly go to the local Communist party official in Cuba to arrange for concrete, asphalt, fuel, housing for employees, etc. Nearly everything has to be shipped in. That could add substantial cost.

 

[WhoWee]

What year was that? Just perusing a few proposals for soccer fields gives an estimate somewhere around $400k to $500k per field. But I think many of those proposals include the whole package (parking, restrooms, etc). The only proposal that broke down each of the individual costs had about $125k for the soccer field, itself.

We developed one main field and a dozen unimproved practice fields with portable goals. We started with flat and cleared land that required minimal grading - all owned by the school district. The majority of the cost was for goals/nets. The parking was shared and the school donated a few old bleachers that we rebuilt (paint and a few boards). Most people bring their own folding chairs. We purchased a shed for a concession stand and a local company donated portable toilets. None of the fields have lights.

I'm familiar with another project that used property (parking area) at our county fair grounds - the costs were comparable to ours.

 

[WhoWee]

I'm guessing those proposals were for fields that were stateside. You can't exactly go to the local Communist party official in Cuba to arrange for concrete, asphalt, fuel, housing for employees, etc. Nearly everything has to be shipped in. That could add substantial cost.

Why would you need all of those things? The inmates were content with "a small patch of dirt" previously.

 

[daveb]

Didn't President Obama have control of both the House and Senate in 2009? Perhaps he shouldn't have made (a big hullabaloo on his part as well) promises he couldn't keep?

I'm tired of this line from Obama's detractors. It is (imo) patently false. Obama did not "control" the House and Senate. The democrats did. However, Democrats, unlike Republicans, do not tend to tow the party line. There is frequent enough crossover from the likes of Ben Nelson and others. How the ACA got passed is beyond me.

Republicans don't seem to have that problem (remember Santorum's comment of "taking one for the team"?) When it's important, they seem to tow the party line (granted, there are exceptions, like the ACA).

Additionally, just about every politican makes promises they end up not keeping.

However, yes, it was naive of Obama to expect no political heat from trying to close Gitmo.

 

[WhoWee]

I'm tired of this line from Obama's detractors. It is (imo) patently false. Obama did not "control" the House and Senate. The democrats did. However, Democrats, unlike Republicans, do not tend to tow the party line. There is frequent enough crossover from the likes of Ben Nelson and others. How the ACA got passed is beyond me.

Republicans don't seem to have that problem (remember Santorum's comment of "taking one for the team"?) When it's important, they seem to tow the party line (granted, there are exceptions, like the ACA).

Additionally, just about every politican makes promises they end up not keeping.

However, yes, it was naive of Obama to expect no political heat from trying to close Gitmo.

I think President Obama relied heavily on Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid in his first two years - they were able to pass hundreds of billions in additional spending - weren't they - "cash for clunkers" was my favorite.

 

[WhoWee]

Does anyone know the history of this program - was it originated or expanded under President Obama?

https://www.fbo.gov/?s=opportunity&...303b27d&tab=core&tabmode=list&print_preview=1

"The United States Government, as represented by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) Mission to Indonesia, is seeking proposals from qualified local Indonesian non-governmental organizations that are interested in implementing the USAID-funded program entitled "Program to Extend Scholarships and Training to Achieve Sustainable Impacts, Phase Two (PRESTASI II)". USAID plans to award one Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee completion-type contract, with a total estimated cost in the range of $16 to $20 million, covering a period of five years.

Through short- and long-term training in the United States and Indonesia as well as other training-related activities in the Mission, PRESTASI Phase II will provide opportunities for Indonesia's emerging leaders to earn advanced degrees, professional accreditation and specific technical and other skills. The Contractor shall manage more than 100 selected participants currently training in the United States and Indonesia from PRESTASI Phase I. The Contractor's responsibilities shall include the recruitment, identification, and placement of Indonesian professionals in training programs that will maximize their skills and potential as leaders and managers within their communities and technical fields. The Contractor shall be responsible for providing related technical assistance for a variety of Indonesian nationals and targeted institutions, which is an additional key element of the program."

It appears the program (Page 11 - Background) began after a report was released in 2010 and follows another initiative from 2009?
https://www.fbo.gov/utils/view?id=2904b146ce9433bc7f02b9ab0b6988ee

 

[thorium1010]

I am not participant in this thread, but i thought this was interesting -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zskn9gQoGLY

 

[mheslep]

However, Democrats, unlike Republicans, do not tend to tow the party line. There is frequent enough crossover from the likes of Ben Nelson and others. How the ACA got passed is beyond me.

Maybe the ACA got passed because your premise is wrong.

 

[daveb]

Maybe the ACA got passed because your premise is wrong.

Maybe, or maybe not:

Ben Nelson

Nelson's votes in the Senate have often placed him at odds with the leadership of his party. A National Journal congressional vote rating from 2006 placed him to the right of five Senate Republicans (Gordon Smith, Olympia Snowe, Arlen Specter, Susan Collins, and Lincoln Chafee). Mary Landrieu was the only other Democrat to place to the right of any Republicans (she placed to the right of Chafee).[50] A similar 2007 National Journal congressional vote rating went even further, placing him to the right of eight Senate Republicans (the above five as well as Richard Lugar, Norm Coleman, and Mike DeWine), with Landrieu once again placing to the right of Chafee and being the only other Democrat to place to the right of any Republicans.[51] Most recently, the American Conservative Union rated his overall performance for 2010 at 48 percent, the highest given to any Democratic senator.[52]

Nelson was one of only two Democratic senators to vote against the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. Nelson is strongly opposed to replacing the income tax with a national sales tax, a position that finds favor with increasingly many conservatives. He has voted with Republicans on matters of bankruptcy reform, environmental protection, lawsuit reform, and trade. In 2004 he was one of only three Democratic senators to vote to invoke cloture on the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment; in 2006 he was one of only two Democratic Senators to vote that way.[53][54] He was the only Democratic senator to vote against a 2006 bill that would have extended federal funding for Stem Cell Research. He has, however, voted consistently against drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. He has also opposed President Bush's plan to send an additional 21,500 troops to Iraq.[55] Early in Bush's first term he voted with the majority of his party against scrapping President Bill Clinton's expansive new rules on ergonomics regulation for workers; many of his fellow conservative Democrats like John Breaux, Max Baucus, Blanche Lincoln, and Zell Miller voted with Republicans on the issue. On April 26, 2010, Nelson was one of two Democratic senators in attendance to vote against the motion to move a financial regulations bill forward, siding with Senate Republicans. The other was Harry Reid, who voted against his own proposed bill out of procedure.

On August 5, 2010, Nelson was the only Democrat to vote against Elena Kagan for confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court.[56]

On December 18, 2010, Nelson voted in favor of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010.

That seems like the voting record of someone who doesn't always tow the party line (and whie it might make an interesting exercise to analyze every republican, that's way to much work).

 

[WhoWee]

This headline - IMO - seemed to infer the President is being very tough on Iran.
http://news.yahoo.com/interview-obama-says-hes-not-bluffing-iran-130532562.html
"In interview, Obama says he's not bluffing on Iran"


However, the story seems to indicate the comments were directed towards Israel?

"His comments appeared aimed more at Israel and its supporters in the United States than at Iran. Obama addresses the influential American Israel Public Affairs Committee on Sunday and meets with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu Monday at the White House. Netanyahu will also address AIPAC.

"I think that the Israeli government recognizes that, as president of the United States, I don't bluff," he said in the interview. "I also don't, as a matter of sound policy, go around advertising exactly what our intentions are. But (both) governments recognize that when the United States says it is unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon, we mean what we say."

Obama will try to convince Netanyahu to postpone any plans his government may have to unilaterally attack Iran's nuclear facilities in coming months. An attack that soon would not carry U.S. backing, and the U.S. would probably not be involved in planning or executing it.

Nonetheless, it could force the United States into a new conflict and an arms race in the Middle East, as Obama made clear in the lengthy interview. It also could allow Iran to paint itself the victim and draw new support that would undermine rather than enhance Israel's security, Obama warned."

Is anyone else confused?

 

[turbo]

By the way, folks, the phrase is "toe the line". It comes from dart competitions, when the toes of your leading foot aren't allowed to cross the throwing line. The rule is there to keep competitors from inching closer to the dart-board. Off-topic, I know, but sometimes these things grate on my nerves.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

The journalist who writes the headline is not the journalist that writes the article. Did the President say which particular bluff wasn't a bluff?

 

[WhoWee]

The journalist who writes the headline is not the journalist that writes the article. Did the President say which particular bluff wasn't a bluff?