The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I've completely missed this, to be honest. Do you have a link?

For the record, I don't think the poster is "dangerous". Creepy, though.

Obama "Joker" Poster Causing a Stir in L.A. - KTLA

Pretty easy to find.

[molson]

I wish people had more respect for the office of the president, on both sides. Call 'em liars, crappy presidents, but I could do without the nazi/superhero villain stuff. It's like a crappy middle-eastern county's political protest.

[CamEdwards]

Obama "Joker" Poster Causing a Stir in L.A. - KTLA - link to the Hutchinson story.

My point in posting that poll was (as I said) to point out that there are fringies on the left and the right, and that these are really non stories (both the "birther and "bush knew").

I have as much interest in debating the percentage of Democrats that believed Bush had prior knowledge of the 911 attacks as I do in debating the percentage of Republicans who think Obama's not really a US citizen. I just don't think either are really important.

With that, I'm off to take the kids to G-Force. *Shudder* I think I'd rather debate politics than watch superhero hamsters.

[flere-imsaho]

Here's Nate Silver's take. He's pretty good with numbers.

Over at Real Clear Politics, David Paul Kuhn has a pretty good take on the recent Research 2000 / Daily Kos survey revealing that 58 percent of Repulicans either don't believe or aren't certain that Barack Obama was born in the United States. Kuhn points out that in a Rasmussen Reports poll in 2007, 61 percent of Democrats either believed that George W. Bush had advance knowledge of the 9/11 attacks, or weren't certain that he didn't.

I agree with Kuhn that there are lowlifes and imbeceles of every political persuasion, and that they ought to be treated with equal scorn. I also agree that the Birther "movement" has gotten far more media attention than it deserves. That's one reason that I've shied away from talking about it. People like Orly Taitz, the Russian-born dentist/real-estate-agent/attorney who has become the birthers' unofficial spokeswoman, ought to be institutionalized somewhere rather than being given a platform on cable news.

However, I don't buy that the two phenomena are entirely equivalent. For one, there are some quantitative differences. In the Research 2000 poll, only 7 percent of Democrats have doubts about Barack Obama's origins. That compares, in the Rasmussen poll, to 26 percent of Republicans who had doubts about George Bush's role in 9/11, and 43 percent who had doubts about whether the CIA had advanced knowledge of the attacks. Trutherism is pathetically widespread -- somewhat more so than birtherism -- and is also somewhat more "bipartisan" than its counterpart. By the way, I'd expect that you'd find a pretty wide overlap between the two groups -- that controlling for party ID and other factors, truthers are much more likely to be birthers and vice versa.

The other difference is qualitative. I can't recall any sitting Congressmen raising doubts about 9/11 (if I've forgotten one or two instances, I'm sure someone will remind me in the comments). On the other hand, quite a few Republican Congressmen have mimicked the birthers' doubts about Obama's place of origin. So, indeed, let's not give Taitz any more facetime. Instead, let's give Senators Jim Inhofe and Richard Shelby, and Represenatives John Campbell, Marsha Blackburn, Bill Posey, Roy Blunt and Dan Burton the ridicule they deserve for enabling these unpatriotic and malicious conspiracy theories.

Silver doesn't even bother to discuss the difference in the questions asked between the two polls, or the context in which they were set.

On the first, there's a definite expansion of the numbers one can expect when you ask if someone thinks the CIA had some advance knowledge of the 9/11 attacks, especially when the CIA wrote a briefing report specifically on this topic for the President's review. A certain number of people are going to answer "Yes" to that question but believe nothing more than the CIA felt it was likely attacks were going to be attempted by Al Qaeda on the U.S. mainland, in the near future. Hardly a "fringe" belief because, in fact, that's exactly what the CIA reported to the President.

On the second, the context of Bush's approval rating in 2007 needs to be addressed. How much would an overwhelming public dislike for Bush color participants' responses to a poll which essentially asks them to determine the likelihood that he was anything from an incompetent (ignoring intelligence about the attacks) to a villain (knowing specifically about the attacks that would happen)? I'd expect it would be at least a small but statistically significant number.

Oh, I've run out of time again. Back after the next commercial....

[molson]

It's really hard to get any kind of read on which side's fringe is more mainstream/substantial. I think we really rely on our own experience. I was pretty much warped from my years at a very liberal law school, in a very liberal city, where many students and professors liked to hint at 9/11 conspiracies and Bush's grand plans for global domination, and they often predicted he would try to hold the office past the end of his term. A few of them actually became anti-gun control because they felt people needed to prepare for Bush's coming monarchy. It was absolutely insane. These were really educated people. I'm sure this was an over-the-top experience, but to me, the left fringe has always been scarier than the right fringe, because they're not hillbillies in a motor home somewhere, they're all over the legal profession and academic elite. It definitely made me more conservative because it just seemed every liberal argument needed to completely exagerate and distort reality to make a point. I think that's a product of being out of power, as you see a similar thing from some conservatives now, yelling about socalism and the country collapsing.

The Republicans definitely didn't do a very good job of highlighting that element as substantial within the Democratic party.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

ink to the Hutchinson story

Well, well....

I just don't think either are really important.

The claims themselves aren't really important because they're obviously false to any rational-thinking person. If, however, prominent GOP politicians continue to be made to look foolish by their dalliance with the Birther movement, it could (emphasis could) have a detrimental effect on the GOP's electoral success, especially outside of the South. That's probably the limit of the importance here, to be honest.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by molson

I was pretty much warped from my years at a very liberal law school, in a very liberal city

...

I'm sure this was an over-the-top experience, but to me, the left fringe has always been scarier than the right fringe, because they're not hillbillies in a motor home somewhere, they're all over the legal profession and academic elite. It definitely made me more conservative because it just seemed every liberal argument needed to completely exagerate and distort reality to make a point.

Sounds like you were caught up in an ivory tower liberal echo chamber. Yes, we have them too. There is, however, plenty of good rational liberal/progressive thought elsewhere, much of it linked in this thread.

My father told me once that his skepticism of liberal academics grew substantially when he saw how, in the 60s, guys like Chomsky would rile up the students about something or other and then retire to the Faculty Lounge while the kids got beaten up by the police.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by molson

The Republicans definitely didn't do a very good job of highlighting that element as substantial within the Democratic party.

Where were you in 2004?

Seriously, though, aside from the ritual burnings of Michael Moore every two years or so, I'd suspect that the overuse of the "liberal media elite" anonymous bogeyman resulted in a situation where it doesn't carry a lot of weight anymore. Especially when it competes with a veritable parade of bona fide "fringies" (to use Cam's word) out of the right.

[molson]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Where were you in 2004?

Seriously, though, aside from the ritual burnings of Michael Moore every two years or so, I'd suspect that the overuse of the "liberal media elite" anonymous bogeyman has been overused to the point where it doesn't carry a lot of weight anymore. Especially when it competes with a veritable parade of bona fide "fringies" (to use Cam's word) out of the right.

The "liberal media elite" is different, that's an attempt to paint liberals as out of touch with regular people. (I think that worked to some extent, and Hollywood's support of Gore certainly didn't help him, and probably cost him votes) The actual fringe wasn't really highlighted.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Hardly a "fringe" belief because, in fact, that's exactly what the CIA reported to the President.

Yeah, that's a +1.

[flere-imsaho]

/falls over dead

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by molson

The actual fringe wasn't really highlighted.

Yeah, I don't know why this is (if it is)? Maybe the nutcases on the right are more prominent?

[SirFozzie]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Yeah, I don't know why this is (if it is)? Maybe the nutcases on the right are more prominent?

The nut cases on the right have radio and TV contracts? (yes, the fringe of the left has Air America, which I GUESS could be called a radio network. )

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

/falls over dead

No reason to, when you're right you're right. There were definitely elements within the security community that had a surprisingly good read on what would eventually become known as 9/11.

Thing is, even as someone who supported some of those theories before 9/11 ever happened, it's hard not to admit that there's the benefit of hindsight in assessing that analysis. It's somewhat of a damned if you do, damned if you don't sort of business & for every notion that isn't given enough credence that does happen there's probably a hundred others that are totally off base & are rightfully not given priority. But it is hella frustrating (and costly) when someone gets it right but wasn't listened to at the time.

[larrymcg421]

It seems silly to argue about what fringe is more numerous as if that somehow suggests the birther movement isn't worth talking about. Yes, there are loonies on both sides. But currently there is a birther bill in Congress, co-sponsored by several Republicans. It is a current topic. There is not a "Bush knew about 9/11" bill or a "Dick Cheney is Satan" bill.

If we couldn't discuss any topic if the other party had done the same thing in the past, then there would be no topics to discuss and there would be no need to post anything in any political thread.

[molson]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

It seems silly to argue about what fringe is more numerous as if that somehow suggests the birther movement isn't worth talking about. Yes, there are loonies on both sides. But currently there is a birther bill in Congress, co-sponsored by several Republicans. It is a current topic. There is not a "Bush knew about 9/11" bill or a "Dick Cheney is Satan" bill.

So you think it's silly to argue about, but then you make an argument.

I'm very surprised there wasn't something like the "birther bill" in place already. When you file your statement of candidacy, it seems reasonable to have to provide a showing that you're constitutionally elligible.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by molson

So you think it's silly to argue about, but then you make an argument.

Are you being purposefully dense just so you can make a stupid statement?

I mean, that's like jbmagic logic you're using there.

I think we should discuss the original topic. I think it's silly to say that we shouldn't talk about it just because someone else did it however many years ago.

Maybe I'll break it down easier...

Original topic? Not silly.
Claiming the topic is worthless because someone else does the same thing? Silly.

[molson]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Are you being purposefully dense just so you can make a stupid statement?

It's just interesting that your rules about not comparing parties doesn't appear to apply to you. You say that birthers are worth talking about, because there's more of them than truthers, whom by implication then, are not worth talking about. Seems like the same kind of thing you're yelling about me doing "90% of the time".

[molson]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Claiming the topic is worthless because someone else does the same thing? Silly.

That's not the point. When someone has a problem with something party X does, but not when party Y does it, they lose credibility. That's what those comparisons are about.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by molson

It's just interesting that your rules about not comparing parties doesn't appear to apply to you.

How did I compare parties? I said it is a current topic, thus it is worthy of discussion. If there are truther bills, or any leftwing fringe bills being submitted, then fine, let's talk about them.

I mean, the similar logic you guys are using is saying we can't talk about Sanford because Clinton also cheated on his wife.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by molson

That's not the point. When someone has a problem with something party X does, but not when party Y does it, they lose credibility. That's what those comparisons are about.

Wait, can we review which of us has credibility again? I forget.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by molson

It's just interesting that your rules about not comparing parties doesn't appear to apply to you. You say that birthers are worth talking about, because there's more of them than truthers, whom by implication then, are not worth talking about.

When did I say this?

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

How did I compare parties? I said it is a current topic, thus it is worthy of discussion. If there are truther bills, or any leftwing fringe bills being submitted, then fine, let's talk about them.

I mean, the similar logic you guys are using is saying we can't talk about Sanford because Clinton also cheated on his wife.

For the millionth time, according to top lawyers, a handjob that results in a ruined dress is not cheating.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by molson

That's not the point. When someone has a problem with something party X does, but not when party Y does it, they lose credibility. That's what those comparisons are about.

When did I say I didn't have a problem with truthers? You have a quote or were you just assuming?

[molson]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

When did I say this?

"It seems silly to argue about what fringe is more numerous as if that somehow suggests the birther movement isn't worth talking about. Yes, there are loonies on both sides. But currently there is a birther bill in Congress, co-sponsored by several Republicans. It is a current topic. There is not a "Bush knew about 9/11" bill or a "Dick Cheney is Satan" bill."

Unless I misunderstand (which is very possible), that says that birthers are worthy of talking about because there's more right fringe than left fringe. That's been a pretty common theme in this thread.

Or in other words, you think it's silly to argue that the left fringe is more numerous and thus the right fringe isn't worth talking about, but it's perfectly acceptable to argue that the right fringe is more numerous and is thus worth talking about.

[molson]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

When did I say I didn't have a problem with truthers? You have a quote or were you just assuming?

That's directed to comparison with other parties in general, not to anything you said.

If I say, "X party did that too", I'm not saying it's pointless to talk about, I'm looking to see if the poster will condem that too, or try to distinguish it. Usually, they try to distinguish it, which tells me that the opinion is pretty much just partisian blather.

Like if a Republican complains about Democratic Congress spending. If a democrat responds, "Bush wasn't exactly Mr. Fiscal responsibility", the response to that is telling. If the republican tries to distinguish Bush as being somehow better, then they're just making a partisian argument. If they, "Bush sucked too", then they have a little more credibility (IMO) Or if someone goes hard after Clinton and Roberts on infedelity but downplays McCain.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by molson

"It seems silly to argue about what fringe is more numerous as if that somehow suggests the birther movement isn't worth talking about. Yes, there are loonies on both sides. But currently there is a birther bill in Congress, co-sponsored by several Republicans. It is a current topic. There is not a "Bush knew about 9/11" bill or a "Dick Cheney is Satan" bill."

Unless I misunderstand (which is very possible), that says that birthers are worthy of talking about because there's more right fringe than left fringe. That's been a pretty common theme in this thread.

Nope, I'm saying it because the birthers are a current topic, for reasons I explained above. The truthers are not. Just like Sanford was a current topic, not Clinton. I mean, that was pretty clear in my statement. There a bill for X, not a bill for Y. How you translated that into "There is more X than Y' is beyond me.

Or in other words, you think it's silly to argue that the left fringe is more numerous and thus the right fringe isn't worth talking about, but it's perfectly acceptable to argue that the right fringe is more numerous and is thus worth talking about.

I never said the right fringe is more numerous. I don't know or CARE which fringe is more numerous. A current topic is a current topic. The birther stuff is current. It's in the news, there's a bill, Congressmen have commented on it.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

LOL........the last few pages of this thread get a monumental FAIL. This is borderline awful.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

LOL........the last few pages of this thread get a monumental FAIL. This is borderline awful.

It's silly to say this argument is awful since there have been arguments before in these threads that have been awful.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

It's silly to say this argument is awful since there have been arguments before in these threads that have been awful.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

It's silly to say this argument is awful since there have been arguments before in these threads that have been awful.

Please stop comparing this awfulness to previous awfulness. thx.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

It's silly to say this argument is awful since there have been arguments before in these threads that have been awful.

The original discussion wasn't too bad, but I think people are arguing about what they're arguing about at this point. The last couple of pages need a padded cell.

[larrymcg421]

So now on in political threads, maybe I should just start every post with a disclaimer saying the truthers are morons. Will that suffice? Or maybe I should rotate the left wingers I bash? I've got lots of others - PETA, NARAL, Sharpton/Jackson, etc.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

The original discussion wasn't too bad, but I think people are arguing about what they're arguing about at this point.

+1

Me? I'm in favor of exploring every avenue available to minimize or in a perfect world eliminate completely the damage that can be done by our fencepost turtle in chief. Exploring his legal qualifications for the job are one avenue, it'd be foolish not to explore it. It's probably a long shot, hell it is a long shot and it's an even longer shot IMO that no matter what was found that his minions wouldn't come up with a way to excuse the discrepancy & try to retroactively legitimize him anyway.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Dutch

For the millionth time, according to top lawyers, a handjob that results in a ruined dress is not cheating.

At least something different for a change of pace

SI

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

As a sidenote, how long before we see a photoshopped version of the Clinton-Kim Jong Il photo where Kim has a white stain on his green jumpsuit?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Oh, by the way, does anyone want to agree with Earl Ofari Hutchinson's belief that this spoof of Obama is somehow "dangerous"?

The only thing dangerous is that people don't know what that word really means.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

This recess is quickly becoming a disaster for Democrats. The protests at the town halls are being broadcast in the MSM and it is really hurting the Democrats from a PR perspective. As one analyst notes in this article, the Democrats would make a dangerous mistake by trying to demonize the vocal citizens at the town halls. Obama failed to mobilize his internet army to provide supporters at these gatherings and the Democrats are paying for it.

Democrats' break looking like a bad trip - Alex Isenstadt and Abby Phillip - POLITICO.com

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

This recess is quickly becoming a disaster for Democrats. The protests at the town halls are being broadcast in the MSM and it is really hurting the Democrats from a PR perspective. As one analyst notes in this article, the Democrats would make a dangerous mistake by trying to demonize the vocal citizens at the town halls. Obama failed to mobilize his internet army to provide supporters at these gatherings and the Democrats are paying for it.

Democrats' break looking like a bad trip - Alex Isenstadt and Abby Phillip - POLITICO.com

what are you talking about?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

what are you talking about?

This may be asking too much, but you may want to read the article and watch the videos first before asking what it's about.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

what are you talking about?

I saw an article earlier today on what Specter & Sibelius ran into, the linked story is basically a similar story with some more examples. I don't envy legislators who come home & try to sell this pig in a poke in a lot of districts, doing so seems like a very bad call for many of them.

edit to add: Speaking of which, just as a related tangent, I got a political call last week that was different than any I'd ever run across before & I thought it was actually pretty smart business. It starts out as a robocall from our Congressman but if you stay on the line he apparently picks up & has a (presumably short) conversation with you about health care. A sort of long distance individual town hall meeting was the gist of it. Truth is, I didn't bother to stay on the line because a)I just wasn't in the mood and b)there wasn't going to be any shortage of people getting those calls in this district that would be saying what I would have said anyway. I'm not operating under any illusions about how the numbers getting the calls were chosen, whether he gives a damn about what I think personally, or anything else that's remotely naive, I was just impressed by what seems like a smart way to provide some interaction with past & future voters while controlling both the message & the exposure.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Kathleen Sebelius - Health-Care Reform's Many Benefits Include Peace of Mind - washingtonpost.com

Lifting A Burden Of Worry

By Kathleen Sebelius
Tuesday, August 4, 2009

As the political debate about how to pay for and pass health reform grows louder and more contentious, we shouldn't lose sight of the reason we're even having this conversation: We have a huge, once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to improve the lives of all Americans, insured and uninsured alike.

Health insurance is fundamentally about peace of mind. If you have good insurance, you don't have to worry about an accident or sudden illness. You know that whatever happens, you and your family will be taken care of.

We can't eliminate all disease. But through health reform, we can give every American access to quality, affordable health insurance so that if they do get sick, they have the best chance possible of getting better without bankrupting their families.

The current health-care system gives insurance companies all the power. They get to pick and choose who gets a policy. They can deny coverage because of a preexisting condition. They can offer coverage only at exorbitant rates -- or offer coverage so thin that it's no coverage at all. Americans are left to worry about whether they'll get laid off and lose their insurance or wake up from surgery with a $10,000 bill because they didn't read the fine print on their policy.

By giving Americans choices, health reform will switch the roles. Americans will get peace of mind and insurance companies will start getting nervous. They will know that if they don't deliver a great value, their customers will flee. So they will start offering better coverage.

Reform will close the gaps in our current system. When my two sons graduated from college, I had mixed feelings. I was incredibly proud of their accomplishments, but I dreaded the fact that they would lose their health insurance when they left school. The peace of mind that comes with health reform means college graduations can go back to being the celebrations they are supposed to be.

Consider the entrepreneur sitting at her desk, dreaming about her idea for a new business. Right now, many entrepreneurs are paralyzed by our fractured health insurance system. They know that if they leave their job, they might not be able to get insurance for their families. So they, and their innovations, stay put. Health reform means unleashing America's entrepreneurs to chase their big ideas.

Without reform, we will miss out on these benefits. And our health-care system will still be a fiscal time bomb. Recent estimates indicate that by 2040, health-care costs will eat up 34 percent of our gross domestic product. By comparison, the entire federal budget today is just 20 percent of our GDP. By acting now, we have the chance to slow health-care costs in a way that doesn't slash benefits or reduce care. Instead, we can make investments in prevention, wellness and health information technology that will allow the health-care system to deliver incredible results at prices we can all afford. Imagine a system in which your doctor spends as much time trying to keep you healthy as treating you when you're sick, in which you and your doctor have all the information you need to choose the treatments that work best for you, in which you never have to fill out the same paperwork twice. Health reform is the first step in that direction.

President Obama and I are working closely with Democrats and Republicans in the House and Senate and health-care experts to make sure we get the details of health reform right. But we can't let the details distract us from the huge benefits that reform will bring. The urgency behind reform has nothing to do with the schedule of Congress and everything to do with the needs of the American people.

Nor should we let ourselves be distracted by attacks that try to use the complexity of health reform to freeze Americans in inaction. We've learned over the past 20 years that "socialized medicine" and "government-run health care" are code words for "don't change anything." With some insurers raising premiums by more than 25 percent and 14,000 people losing their health insurance every day, Americans want to hear something more from their leaders than "wait and see" and "more of the same." People have enough to worry about these days. Americans deserve the peace of mind that only health-care reform can provide.

1. She makes $250,000 between her and her husband and they're worried about covering their kids? What a terrible situation that's indicative of the general public and their insurance plight. We can only hope and pray that her sons are covered under the new bill.

2. Don't let the details get in the way? Yes, what a silly thought to consider the details when you have 1000+ pages of documents and a system changing bill being considered.

And people wonder why Kansans didn't shed a tear when she moved out of town.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I saw an article earlier today on what Specter & Sibelius ran into, the linked story is basically a similar story with some more examples. I don't envy legislators who come home & try to sell this pig in a poke in a lot of districts, doing so seems like a very bad call for many of them.

Agreed. This can't help the relationship between the White House and moderate Democrats. They're being nudged/forced to vote for this mess of a bill and then they have to go back to their constituents to try to sell it. It's a no win situation and there's going to be hard feelings either way.

[panerd]

I can't wait for the Obama supporters to claim how Republicans are drafting people to do this. Sorry this is independents & Republicans who think this is a terrible idea and who make up more than half the population. I would say it is the same when the independents and Democrats started turning against the Iraq wars. You didn't complain then when organized Democratic groups brought out the troops. The country thinks this is a bad idea and it's not going to happen.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Actually.

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/08/04/...reen-townhall/

Fox’s local Houston affiliate reporter, Duarte Geraldino, reported that he talked to the participants and found that ‘some attendees admit they don’t live in the district.’ How did they get there? Geraldino noted ‘an internet campaign’ by far right activists urging their allies to attend and heckle Democratic Representatives.

During the town hall, one conservative activist turns to his fellow attendees and asks them to raise their hands if they “oppose any form of socialized or government-run health care.” Almost all the hands shot up. Rep Green quickly turned the question on the audience and asked, “How many of you have Medicare?” Nearly half the attendees raised their hands, failing to note the irony.

So what has more weight? Your opinion or public polls that say Health Care has less than 50% support. Why wouldn't you expect there to be about 50% of the people there against the Senator/Democratic Official?

If they were doing a speech against Child Porn or Murder there probably wouldn't be a strong turn out against. A lot of people have different opinions on this health care proposal. Just saying they are wrong doesn't change 50%+ of the population's mind.

[panerd]

Anyone ever wonder if these board members who joined in July 2009 are just Democratic and Republican shills sent out to debate talking points on larger message boards?

[sterlingice]

Nah, we've had a lot of both for years

SI

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

1. She makes $250,000 between her and her husband and they're worried about covering their kids? What a terrible situation that's indicative of the general public and their insurance plight. We can only hope and pray that her sons are covered under the new bill.

Her kids graduated college and would no longer be covered under her health insurance plans. With no one hiring, a lot of kids graduating college are going uncovered.

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

And people wonder why Kansans didn't shed a tear when she moved out of town.

Kansans also wanted to teach our kids that the Earth is 6,000 years old. We aren't talking about the brightest bulbs in the box.

[larrymcg421]

Well, she stepped down with a 46% approval rating. But I'd say that's not too bad for a Democrat in a deep red state. Among independents, she had a 58% approval - 37% disapproval.

I'd say it's more accurate to say they were divided on her than they were happy to see her step down.

SurveyUSA News Poll #15290

[Flasch186]

Lets not let accuracy get in the way.