I support the President

[freddie mertz]

I support his recent statement criticizing the Stupak amendment, which he rightly said has no place in the HCR bill.

Who will join me in agreement here?

I'm especially interest in hearing from the self-styled Obama supporters who either defended the legislation or minimized its importance over the past 24-48 hours.

Are you prepared to support the president on this most important issue?

[geek tragedy]

1. I support his stand here.

Not because it's him, but because he's saying the right thing.

It's very telling that some people will support him no matter if he says the wrong thing, and that some people will attack him even if he does the right thing.

[freddie mertz]

3. Doing right should be applauded.

Hopefully many others will join us in applauding his leadership on this matter.

[sandnsea]

45. I don't think that's what he said

I think he said we're not going to sneak abortion into the bill, and we're not going to go further than Hyde. He said both sides were playing games. And they both need to write legislation to maintain the status quo.

This is going to be an ugly week.

[me b zola]

60. Bullshit

~snip~
OBAMA: You know, I laid out a very simple principle, which is this is a health care bill, not an abortion bill. And we're not looking to change what is the principle that has been in place for a very long time, which is federal dollars are not used to subsidize abortions.

And I want to make sure that the provision that emerges meets that test -- that we are not in some way sneaking in funding for abortions, but, on the other hand, that we're not restricting women's insurance choices, because one of the pledges I made in that same speech was to say that if you're happy and satisfied with the insurance that you have, that it's not going to change.

~more @ link--but nothing that supports your made-up claim~

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8746141
http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=9034309

No where is there any evidence that anyone was attempting to sneak in funding for abortions, but we know damn well that at the eleventh hour an amendment was used as weapon which restricted the ability of women to access reproductive health services.

[sandnsea]

74. Then why'd he say it? n/t

[me b zola]

75. Because he is saying that *no* changes should be made re accessibility to abortions

Because anti-choicers are trying to paint the health care bill w/o Stupak as something that will give more accessibility to abortion which is false. Is this what you believe?

President Obama is saying that the bill adds further restrictions, and that changes the status quo which is unacceptable.

[sandnsea]

76. AND he's saying

that there will be no sneaking abortion coverage in, where it doesn't exist now.

BOTH sides are wrong. Stupak needs fixing, but it's also true that the health care bill without Stupak - vastly increases womens access to abortion. *I* think that was an admirable attempt to help women - but it failed. So now let's fix Stupak.

That's what Obama is saying too. If you read ALL his remarks which I have posted to you before.

[me b zola]

77. Show me where someone tried to sneak in greater rights for women!

Show a link!

Here, I have a link from Rep Degette saying that in the bill itself pro-choice and anti-choice(she used the term "pro-life) advocates came to an agreement. There would be no changes to the status quo. The only changes to the status quo came from anti-choicers:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4vWWkWzszs


Where is your proof that anybody attempted to further women's rights in this bill? You have no proof because it never happened. You have been proven wrong time after time, yet you continue with your charade. What is your motivation to mislead?

[IndianaGreen]

2. Has Obama threatened to veto the bill if it reaches his desk with the Stupak amendment?

If he hasn't, then all you got is more sweet words without any deeds to back them.

[freddie mertz]

5. We'll see. I hope so personally and politically. nt

[geek tragedy]

10. He's not going to threaten a veto. Presidents don't

get stuff done by acting all loud and belligerent. They send the signal that they want something out, and it gets taken out.

We tried crude, loud, and obvious with Bush. No thanks.

[IndianaGreen]

13. Silence is consent

that's another lesson we learned from the Bush years.

[geek tragedy]

17. There was no silence. He spoke out against Stupak.

The head of the pro-choice caucus is smart and honest enough to recognize this. Unlike others.

[freddie mertz]

21. I know some of us (me included) have felt betrayed

By how a lot of this has gone down.

But one way to apply "positive" pressure on the White House is to rally strong support for Obama's recent statement.

It may help us to actually beat back the pigs who put this amendment in the bill in the first place, and discourage the effort in the Senate to add it there as well.

We have to at least TRY to protect our citizen's basic rights.

[geek tragedy]

24. I never understood why, when Obama makes a statement

supporting a position, why anyone holding that position wouldn't try to make as big a deal of it as possible and hold him to it.

It makes no sense for pro-choice people to say 'he really doesn't mean it.' DeGette and you are much smarter, and much more interested in preserving women's choice.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

46. Here you are again

You are in defense overdrive this morning.

[Cha]

66. Right, unlike others who have no freakin' clue..

and only know how to act Loud and Belligerent.

[joeycola]

30. Well, Obama threatened a VETO on this issue. ........

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/transcript-abc-news-exclusive-interview-president-barack-obama/story?id=9034309

TAPPER: Are you willing to pledge that whatever cuts in Medicare are being made to fund health insurance, one third of it, that you will veto anything that tries to undo that?

OBAMA: Yes. I actually have said that it is important for us to make sure this thing is deficit neutral, without tricks. I said I wouldn't sign a bill that didn't meet that criteria. And what I also said in that speech to the joint session was that I'm willing to put in some safeguards where if we don't obtain the savings that have been promised, that we've got to make adjustments in terms of the benefits, because the goal here is to reduce costs for families, give them more security, but do so in a way that is not adding to our deficit, that, in fact, over the long-term, if we can bend the cost curve, will reduce our deficit.

And I promise you, we're already starting to look at the, you know, fiscal year 2011 budget and the out years. And although we are in the midst of recession and we inherited a big structural deficit, nobody is more mindful of me -- than me of the fact that we can't have a -- a bill that simply blows up an additional entitlement that's not paid for.

TAPPER: So Congress needs to know that you'll veto any attempt to walk back what they pass?

OBAMA: Congress needs to know that when I say this has to be deficit neutral, I mean it.

TAPPER: The -- under the House bill, those who can afford to buy insurance but don't -- can afford to do it but don't -- pay a fine. And if they refuse to pay a fine, there's a threat, as there is with lots of tax fines, there's a threat of jail time. And the Senate removed that provision in the Senate Finance Committee. Do you think it's appropriate to have a threat of jail time for those who refuse to buy insurance?

[geek tragedy]

31. Funny how the people who really care about choice issues

are happy with his statement on this, while those who despise Obama on a personal level aren't.

Very revealing.

Of course, it really is too bad he isn't more like your hero George W Bush.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8744438

[joeycola]

34. "Presidents don't get stuff done by acting all loud and belligerent. " yeah , funny

you change the subject when you are cornered.






geek tragedy Tue Nov-10-09 02:33 PM
Response to Reply #5
10. He's not going to threaten a veto. Presidents don't

get stuff done by acting all loud and belligerent. They send the signal that they want something out, and it gets taken out.

We tried crude, loud, and obvious with Bush. No thanks.

[geek tragedy]

35. So says the person who willfully posted an obsolete and deceptive

story that mislead DU readers about Obama's position on Stupak.

And, as Obama said, this is a health care bill, not an abortion bill. Reducing costs and the deficit is a core purpose of the bill. Abortion is not.

But, again, Obama's big crime is that he's not George W Bush

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8744438

[joeycola]

38. I see you changing the subject once again.

[geek tragedy]

40. I addressed the subject.

Costs and deficit issues are a CORE aspect of this legislation. Abortion is not. Ergo, he is going to have firmer rules for CORE aspects than extraneous ones.

Of course, if like you I put myself on the record preferring George W Bush over Barack Obama:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8744438

I would be kind defensive too.

[joeycola]

41. "I put myself on the record preferring George W Bush over Barack Obama" You can but NOT me.

[geek tragedy]

42. You're the one who posted pro-Bush rightwing filth here

just so you could use it to bash Obama.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8744438

you can blame yourself for revealing your hand.

There is zero reason to give you the benefit of the doubt. There is zero reason to assume your agenda is not what it appears to be.

[joeycola]

43. You keep repeating yourself which is boring. bye.

[geek tragedy]

44. So sayeth the one trick pony.

Good to see that irony hasn't died.

[dionysus]

55. it's amazing, do these people think they're fooling anyone?

[Ikonoklast]

62. Yes, they do. But no one is really fooled for long...

Oops.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=user_profiles&u_id=245107

[dionysus]

63. sweeeet.

:woohoo:

[jenmito]

53. You misquoted what that poster wrote. THIS is what he said:

"Of course, if like you I put myself on the record preferring George W Bush over Barack Obama:

I would be kind defensive too."

Wow-you act just like a RWer!

[dionysus]

54. do you really think you are fooling anyone here? do you really?

:rofl:

you were already obvious before but you totally outed yourself yesterday.

[firedupdem]

61. Wow...you're still here? Unbelievable after your pro bush post. n/t

[dionysus]

64. not here anymore.

[firedupdem]

69. Finally!!!!!!

**even though it will be back soon under another name.

[freddie mertz]

80. I wish you would use someone else's thread for your little victory dance...

It's unseemly.

[firedupdem]

81. Oh you're not happy a troll is gone? Wonder why.....n/t

[freddie mertz]

82. I hardly knew the guy. He had that one thread that was stupid that I saw

And I said so.

The one where he compared Obama to Bush.

That was very ignorant.

But stupid stuff gets in here all the time.

I can think of a number of other posters whose stuff is at least as reactionary.

[geek tragedy]

6. The chair of the House Pro-Choice Caucus thinks you're WRONG.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8747267&mesg_id=8747267

Unfortunately, some are so blinded by their hatred of the President that issues become secondary.

[freddie mertz]

9. I've been accused of hating by some of the anti-choicers here.

Nice to be on the right side with my president now.

[geek tragedy]

12. Principled disagreement with the President where honest is a duty.

If he had supported Stupak, he would deserve to get roasted.

[IndianaGreen]

11. Has Obama threatened to veto the bill if it reaches his desk with the Stupak amendment?

It is a simple question, requiring a simple "Yes", "No", or "I don't know."

[geek tragedy]

15. You're the only one who seems to give a shit.

But, it's not like the chair of the pro-choice caucus, as opposed to the "Obam sux" caucus, actually cares about this issue . . . :sarcasm:

[joeycola]

39. No, but Obama threatened a veto on this this ....

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/transcript-abc-news-exclusive-interview-president-barack-obama/story?id=9034309

TAPPER: Are you willing to pledge that whatever cuts in Medicare are being made to fund health insurance, one third of it, that you will veto anything that tries to undo that?

OBAMA: Yes. I actually have said that it is important for us to make sure this thing is deficit neutral, without tricks. I said I wouldn't sign a bill that didn't meet that criteria. And what I also said in that speech to the joint session was that I'm willing to put in some safeguards where if we don't obtain the savings that have been promised, that we've got to make adjustments in terms of the benefits, because the goal here is to reduce costs for families, give them more security, but do so in a way that is not adding to our deficit, that, in fact, over the long-term, if we can bend the cost curve, will reduce our deficit.

And I promise you, we're already starting to look at the, you know, fiscal year 2011 budget and the out years. And although we are in the midst of recession and we inherited a big structural deficit, nobody is more mindful of me -- than me of the fact that we can't have a -- a bill that simply blows up an additional entitlement that's not paid for.

TAPPER: So Congress needs to know that you'll veto any attempt to walk back what they pass?

OBAMA: Congress needs to know that when I say this has to be deficit neutral, I mean it.

TAPPER: The -- under the House bill, those who can afford to buy insurance but don't -- can afford to do it but don't -- pay a fine. And if they refuse to pay a fine, there's a threat, as there is with lots of tax fines, there's a threat of jail time. And the Senate removed that provision in the Senate Finance Committee. Do you think it's appropriate to have a threat of jail time for those who refuse to buy insurance?

[ClarkUSA]

4. Unlike you, I can tolerate differences of opinion with Pres. Obama without resorting to bashing.

And I always said the language would be defeated in conference and was simply a means to an end to move the House bill forward.

[freddie mertz]

7. I am glad you have changed your mind on Stupak.

Are you prepared, now, to endorse coverage for contraception as well?

[ClarkUSA]

14. I haven't. But I'm not heavily invested in an amendment that I knew was going to be removed. nt

[freddie mertz]

19. Whatever. nt.

[geek tragedy]

8. This isn't even a difference of opinion.

Obama has sided with the pro-choice caucus.

But, some people want an excuse to bash him.

[ClarkUSA]

37. True, in the sense that both the President and I are pro-choice. nt

[freddie mertz]

16. Who would unrec a post in support of the president's position today? nt

[geek tragedy]

18. Anti-choicers and fanatical Obama haters. nt

[ClarkUSA]

20. Glad to see you stop bashing the President for once. Nice CYA moment, then back to your Hater norm?

[geek tragedy]

22. Please, take 'yes' for an answer.

I do not know what you two said to each other yesterday, but fighting over who supports the President better is really dumb.

[ClarkUSA]

26. Don't be fooled. The OP has been an Obama Hater since Day One. Check the archives. nt

I've read his poisonous replies since the day he arrived. Then yesterday, I called him on her Hater/Failer/Meow Meow agenda
multiple times and voila! she comes up with a nice OP today. Now, no doubt, she'll turn over a new leaf and pretend to be
"fair and balanced" so she has cover.

[geek tragedy]

27. Take 'yes' for an answer.

This person is supporting the President and his agenda.

There are plenty of haters to fight with.

[ClarkUSA]

29. Hmm... One "supportive" OP that calls Obama supporters out vs. 700+ Obama bashing replies

No thanks, I know better.

[geek tragedy]

32. This person is showing a willingness to be honest

and give the president credit for taking the right stand.

Unlike some of the other trolls . . .

[freddie mertz]

68. Thank you, GT.

Some people really do seem to thrive on a "with us or against us" mode of discourse.

you are apparently not one of them.

There may be hope for us all, yet.

[freddie mertz]

57. You never give up with the bashing, do you?

[freddie mertz]

23. I have never hated the president.

Stop projecting.

[dionysus]

25. ROFL. um...yeah...

[freddie mertz]

47. Which position do YOU support?

Stupak/House Bill, or the president's?

[ClarkUSA]

28. Your comments from Day One of arriving here have been non-stop Obama bashing until today's CYA OP.

"Stop projecting"??? :rofl:

[freddie mertz]

58. You really do seem to carry a grudge, my friend.

Like a dog with a bone.

Guess that explains why you are still holding out for Clark on '04.

[Ikonoklast]

65. Your previous posting history speaks for itself.

It's a simple thing to search.

You have been relentlessy negative until this OP. That, as they say, is a fact.

[freddie mertz]

67. Who asked you?

This is a pro-Obama thread.

[Ikonoklast]

73. No one need ask me anything.

I am a member and can post in threads as I see fit.

See how that works?

[freddie mertz]

79. But you are trying to derail a pro-president, ant-Blue Dog/Repuke thread.

Why?

[Ikonoklast]

83. Just to piss you off, or so it would appear.

Why do you ask?

[freddie mertz]

87. Why do you hate our president?

[JTFrog]

86. Right. That NON hatred was apparent from the get go.

"Hoover" and "Obamavilles", etc. etc. ad nauseum. :eyes:

And it's those special little treasures one leaves behind that really show support:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=8627273#8628493


By the way, your OP is transparent as hell: "I'm especially interest in hearing from the self-styled Obama supporters"

Why you are still here is an absolute mystery.


Projection my ass. :shrug:

[Bluenorthwest]

33. I am happy to hear him speak out against this

It is the right thing for him to do, and it is refreshing to hear him take a stand. More and stronger stands on this and many other issues would also be very welcomed.

[JNelson6563]

36. I will join you!

I can't wait till I see Stupak again so I can tell him what I think of his amendment.

Julie

[freddie mertz]

48. Thanks. Are you up there in Michigan?

Stupak lives at C-street, and as Rachel pointed out last night, is an evangelical conservative with close ties to the Family and with many anti-choice Republicans.

Has he always been this way?

[JNelson6563]

49. Yes, but not in his district currently.

My county was in his district until the last redistricting. He still comes to my (affluent) county to fundraise. It's likely we'll be back in his district after the next redistricting.

I believe he has bigger plans than Rep for the podunk first district. I think he will aim higher. I will do all I can to support any primary challenger against him and will not vote for him should he be the Dem candidate on my ballot in the future.

Julie

[freddie mertz]

50. Thanks for the info. He is certainly very bad news.

Is there a good chance that he could be defeated next time out in a primary over this very issue?

I've decided to stop giving donations to DCCC and DNC out of the fear that my money could end up going to one of these jerks.

I am switching to a are targeted approach, supporting "real" Democrats as individuals instead.

Do you think DFA is at least still a fair bet?

[JNelson6563]

59. He's there to stay.

His district is over 30 counties. There's not another Dem who could win it and the Rethugs don't even try.

Julie

[freddie mertz]

71. Not even after this business?

He's a household word now.

[JNelson6563]

72. I know of no Dem who could beat him

Did you ever try to work a district over 30 counties big? Ever try to raise the funds to run a viable campaign in that size territory? Do you realize that the bulk of that district is MI's UP?

Yeah, those three things alone insure Stupak's seat. Trust me.

Julie

[freddie mertz]

78. That's really too bad.

I'd like to see him pay for this with his seat.

[freddie mertz]

51. Kicking for the world!

[treestar]

52. No one opposed Obama's current position

We were just willing to live with the amendment. No one was rabidly for it.

[freddie mertz]

70. Willing to live with is pretty much the same as supporting it.

Especially when the tone turns ugly and sincere people are trashed as "haters."

(I'm not saying you did that, I have no idea..)

[Life Long Dem]

56. Doesn't mean anything except the President feels a particular amendment doesn't belong

Anyone ask what would belong? Of course not.

[Brigid]

84. I will support him.

But that doesn't mean I will stop pushing for single-payer health care in this country.

[akbacchus_BC]

85. Well, I support President Obama! Not too sure if you need a star to

solicit opinions on here!