shooter

Yes it was different. Sarah Palin was on record as advocating drilling in Anwar. This does not do that. Also, the "Drill-here! Drill now!" initiative did not include all the hurdles that that Obama has put on drilling in these areas. If Obama is really doing something that the Republicans mentioned time and time again in '08, something Obama did not support during the '08 campaign, them my question to you is why did he change his mind? If you stuggle to find that answer, it might dawn on you in the coming weeks as Obama begins his push for Cap-n-Tax in ernest.

I see this as purely symbolic step designed to win-over voters who can be misled into believing this decision will actually result in additional domestic drilling. It won't, Obama knows that, which is why he is willing to take that step. If he were truly interested in increasing docmestic production he would not have the numerous conditions before drilling can take place and he would allow drilling in areas that are more likely to yield oil. I believe it a prelude to trying to get Cap-n-Tax legislation passed. Obama will cite this decision as proof of his willingness to pursue a comprehensive energy policy that includes increased domestic oil production with out actually taking a meaningful step toward increased production. This is a decision designed soley to provide political cover.

Is the origin of those rights the constitution? If we take them out of the Constitution do those rights cease to exist? If we add something to the Constitution does a right get created? What is the ultimate source of a right?

I found it amusing that Obama would refer to "his bill" and what was in "his bill" when he didn't have any bill. There was the Senate bill and the House Bill and they said different things. You never knew to which bill he was refering particularly when he would tout certain features that could only be found in the Senate bill and then turn around and tout other features that could only be found in the House bill. It's little wonder why some people would be confused.

When in the course of human events it becomes necessary............

I would be much happier if they had written a 2 or 3 page law to get that provision passed and thrown away the other 2400 pages.

Joe Wilson was even more right than he imagined.

As I predicted, the Democrats are trying to change the rules of the game. By adopting the "Slaughter Solution", the Democrats are trying to act as if the House had passed the Senate bill without the House actually passing, or even voting on the Senate bill.

Do you believe the CBO report?

I agree. I don't think there will be the radical reform that the hard core liberals in Congress want and I am conjecturing which is normal when discussing possible future events.

The House won't pass the Senate bill verbatim because it's unacceptable to the House. If it were acceptable it would already be law. Passing something nearly identical to the Senate bill is passing something nearly identical to unacceptable. So it's clear that the House will have to make significant changes to make it acceptable to the House. The House bill was acceptable to the House (obviously) so it only makes sense that they would look to sections of the House bill that can be incorporated into the Senate bill to make it more palatable. So, IMHO, the process is a merging of the Senate bill with as many sections of the House bill as possible but I doubt they'll be able to create an acceptable bill and stay within the rules of reconciliation which is why I believe they will try to redefine the rules.

There are many many significant differences between what the Senate has passed and what the House has passed that do not affect revenue. They are two very different bills. Both are over 1000 pages with contradictory language galore. The reconciliation process, as previously practiced, is incapable of melding two bills of this size and scope to produce a new bill that is anything but incoherent. Look for the Democrats to attempt to redefine the meaning of the reconciliation process to provide them the power to re-write the bill without having to go through the same parliamentary procedures that a re-written bill should require.

I agree 1000%. To imply that the primary motivation to oppose this bill is to deny Obama an "accomplishment" is akin to saying you're opposed to shooting yourself in the foot because you want to save ammo.

Insenitive? Absolutely. Racist? First, you'll need to tell me to which race that you belong if you're Muslim before I'll be able to decide.

Those Pakistani 'libruls' are probably asking him very nicely.

I always thought that Miami killed Notre Dame in the '80s because they were a lot more talented. Now I know it was the T-shirt.

IMHO, asking for examples of restrictions that the Obama administration has tried to put on economic activity and at the same time putting aside Obama's healthcare proposal(s) is a bit like asking Mrs Lincoln to critique the play.

"By offering one of the most coveted advertising spots of the year to an anti-equality, anti-choice, homophobic organization, CBS is aligning itself with a political stance that will damage its reputation, alienate viewers, and discourage consumers from supporting its shows and advertisers," That's pretty strong language from those opposing the ad.

I do not believe that the following statement is necessarily true: Overturned Precident = Activist decision

This just confirms my belief that the far left global warming crowd are as much a group of religious zealots as some on the far right (like Pat Robertson).

Am I the only one who would feel a bit uneasy about going through whitehouse.gov to donate money to charity? Why go through any middle man? Is there a less trustworthy middle man than a politician?

South Carolina has a 10 game winning streak against Kentucky and yet nobody has yet to list the South Carolina game as a loss. There seems to be an abundance of optimists in this thread.

I suppose that when LBJ was pushing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 there might have been some Senators who voted for or against that bill based on their support or opposition to LBJ. But to emphasize the short term political impact of a 'W' or an 'L' would have been a monumental underestimation of the impact of that bill. IMHO, emphasizing that aspect of this bill is no different. This Health Care Bill fundamentally changes health care just as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 fundamentally changed civil rights. Unfortunately, 40 years from now this health care bill won't be viewed in the same positive light as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is today.

I disagree. This is not a insignificant bill where passing or opposing "something" is the most important result of the debate. Even though the exact definition of the bill is subject to change it is arguably the most significant piece of legislation in the last 50 years. If there is something worth being for or against on principle, it's this bill.

Welcome to Chicago politics!