Top Leaderboard, Site wide
September 1, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Help us grow by sharing
and liking Truthdig:
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Newsletter

sign up to get updates


A Market Basket of Dignity






Truthdig Bazaar more items

 
A/V Booth

Obama Takes Health Care Show to Colorado

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Aug 15, 2009
Obama
youtube.com

Last summer around this time, Barack Obama was entering the busiest phase of his presidential campaign, and now he’s back on the road giving speeches. Here, he talks to a seemingly polite crowd about his health care reform plan at a town-hall-style gathering in Grand Junction, Colo.

Update: Click here to read a transcript of Obama’s speech from his Grand Junction stopover.

AP via YouTube:

Advertisement

Square, Site wide
TAGS:


Subscribe to the Truthdig YouTube channel:

Get truth delivered to
your inbox every week.

Previous item: ‘Left, Right & Center’: The Return of Big Government?

Next item: Onion Puts the Bite on PETA for Being Beastly to Women



New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, August 20, 2009 at 6:29 pm Link to this comment

glider,

Do you know what a legislatively institutionalized political party is?—- if so, what is it? 

The United States must have one but needs a Multi-Party Political System institutionally legislated into constitutional law, so that denying the 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION representation will be impossible for the Nearly Nobles and the Nobles.

With only a 3rd Political Party, that party could, again, be taken over by the Nearly Nobles the same as the Democratic Party has been, and a Multi-Party Political System would keep that from happening, as the Multi-Party Political System would make takeover moot, therefore a Multi-Party Political System needs to be put in place by institutional legislation into the constitution, so that any political party when formed would be equal by law with the Democratic Party and the Republican Party, so that whatever happens, the 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION will be able to be represented in the Congress of the United States in the making of law and order.

Your link was only information relative to a run off, a run off is where the votes are to close to decide a winner. Run offs are not Primaries, although Primaries may need a run off.

Because of the NEW CLASS Nearly Nobles, the United States political system is currently leaving out the 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION in representation regarding Law and Order, therefore, a 3rd institutionalized political party is necessary, but we actually need a Multi-Party Political System, so that there will be no way for the 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION to be left out of the decision making in deciding law and order for the 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION.

Report this

By glider, August 20, 2009 at 10:48 am Link to this comment

While we are dreaming I really like Instant Runoff Voting as the ultimate system (combined with public campaign financing and outlawing lobbyists).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting

You have me getting a little dizzy.  Are you now advocating a 3rd party? “The ... already have control of the Democratic Party so what we need is a NEW political party”. 

We do have some very good democrates in office.  I would love to see a new “Social Democrat” party that can work with the better elements in the Democrat party put provide a counter balance to them chasing conservative votes.  That is why I pointed you to the Hamsher video as a potential start.  There is a large critical mass element to political parties.  If the Republicans don’t shift back to the center they will continue to dwindle and marginalize themselves (I hope, otherwise our pseudo-fascist state will mature to a more pure fascist form).  Eventually, the “I don’t want to waste my vote” comes into play and the party dies.  You can see that happened to the Whigs in the past and culminated in the election of Lincoln and the solidification of the Republican Party.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, August 19, 2009 at 10:08 pm Link to this comment

glider,

“I think your right that we favor a two party system but in a very long perspective it could be the Republicans disappear and another party rises up.  The transition phase would look like a 3 party system with a single very strong party (the democrats).”

I sure don’t favor a two-party system, since we have three distinct classes and cultures in the United States, but the powers that be do, therefore we are stuck with a two-party system until there can be legislation to institutionally legalize another political party to be equal with the other two political parties.

There is no reason for the Republican Party to disappear, because they are suppose to represent their constituents, they aren’t suppose to represent the common population or the Nearly Nobles.

The Nearly Nobles NEW CLASS already have control of the Democratic Party so what we need is a NEW political party for the 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION, since the 20% Nearly Nobles NEW CLASS separated out of the common population.  The new political party could be called the Commons Party, the Socialist Party, the Labor Party or the Majority Party, I’m fond of the Majority Party or the Commons Party, but the Democratic Party is out, because it has been taken over by the Nearly Nobles NEW CLASS and it is best to let them stay where they are and start a brand new party for the 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION that is currently being taxed without representation in law and order.

Report this

By glider, August 19, 2009 at 9:16 pm Link to this comment

MarthaA,

Check at the bottom of the page of the following link showing the party affiliations of all the major presidential candidates.  There has been quite a rich history of political parties in America, which I admit is largely in the distant past.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election

I have a hard time seeing the long term viability of the Republican Party given the demographic trends of the country and the intransigence/wackiness of their base.  Maybe its just me but it seems like something has to give.  I think your right that we favor a two party system but in a very long perspective it could be the Republicans disappear and another party rises up.  The transition phase would look like a 3 party system with a single very strong party (the democrats).

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, August 19, 2009 at 8:06 pm Link to this comment

glider,

Sen. Bernie Sanders I-VT was elected as a single Independent that gets to sit on the Left with the Democrats, and takes orders from Democrats Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer the leaders of the Democrats and any committees he gets on will have to be OK’d with the Democrats, although since he is an Independent, he could chose to sit with the Republicans. Independent is not a political party, only a single position in either the Right or the Left.  It is really a pretty weak position.  Sen. Joe Lieberman I-CT used to be a Democrat, but he was kicked out of his party by the Democrats because he represented Republicans, so he ran singularly as an Independent and got back in and still sits with the Democrats, although he mostly votes with the Republicans.

When in our history before was there a viable 3rd Political Party? What was the name of this political party? Maybe it can be resurrected.

Being under the Democrats leadership or under the Republicans leadership does not allow political freedom. Senator Sanders has a website and he can talk, but his legislation has to be approved by the leaders before it is brought before the Senate, whereas if we had a 3rd institutionalized political party there would be three columns in the Senate, with the Republicans to the Right, the Democrats to the Middle, and the, let’s say Commons Party to the Left and the members of the Commons Party would only sit in committee with other members of the Commons Party.  We do not have this now, but it is sorely needed, like Medical Care for all individuals.

Report this

By glider, August 19, 2009 at 12:58 pm Link to this comment

Thanks for the answer.  I not sure what you are talking about but am willing to be educated.  I know TV networks have restricted candidates in debates to those who polled a certain percentage of the votes.  I was pissed off about Kucinich being omitted that way. 

I am sure it is very very difficult to get a viable 3rd party but it has happened in our history before.  Perhaps the conditions may become right again.  Can you tell me what new laws are in place now to prevent this from happening again.  Also, why are these laws not excluding an independent like Bernie Sanders from being elected?

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, August 19, 2009 at 12:04 pm Link to this comment

glider,

How do you expect to get an effective 3rd Political Party without that new 3rd Political Party being institutionalized the same as the other two institutionalized political parties?

Do you know what an institutionalized 3rd Political Party means?—- it means that the same LAW and ORDER that is made and enforced to empower the Democratic Party and the Republican Party would apply EQUALLY to empower the 3rd Political Party and this type of a system does not currently exist in the United States.

Report this

By glider, August 19, 2009 at 11:52 am Link to this comment

MarthaA,

Check out Rachael Maddows show last night when she interviewed Jane Hamsher of FireDogLake.  This is the kind of action progressives need to take.  I was inspired enough to make a donation.

Here is the link.  Move forward to 5 minutes 55 seconds into the program:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#32469058

Report this

By glider, August 19, 2009 at 11:39 am Link to this comment

MarthaA,

I am unconvinced.  Obviously it is extraordinarily difficult to get an effective 3rd party started.  The only thing I see in the first 2 videos you linked was someone who is extremely challenged at communicating their views in a concise fashion.  I saw no conclusive evidence of anything in these videos (admittedly I could not make it all the way through #2).

What I am proposing is contrary to a lot of spin I am hearing claiming a defeat of the healthcare bill will result in a resurgence of the republicans in 2010.  I am suggesting that republicans may be in the process of destroying themselves as a viable party and that parallels to 1994 are misplaced.  I contend that the tactics they are pursuing will alienate them from independents and will reduce their ranks.  If this is the case it may be possible for a 3rd party to begin to take hold.  People can join a 3rd party and continue to vote for progressive democrats as well.  Such a development could empower progressive democrats so they are not marginalized by corporate democrats.  This would be a game changer because elected democrats would have to think twice about steering to the middle after getting elected based on their reasoning that the progressives have nowhere else to go.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, August 17, 2009 at 6:55 pm Link to this comment

glider,

A 3rd party won’t help, it is only wasting time, the only way is to use the Primary Election Process through the Democratic Party.  Other than revolution, there is no other way to defeat the system through a 3rd Party. Peruse through this post by Mark A. Adams JD/MBA, here on Truthdig and the links on the post and you will become increasingly aware as to why the Democratic Party is the only one of the two party’s that needs to be converged upon in the Primaries if we want change.

By Mark A. Adams JD/MBA, August 15 at 10:34 pm #

Interesting side discussion of the problem with our system resulting from control by two parties.  Some realize that there is little difference between the two and note that they both seem to favor the big money interests.  As a result, many of us recognize that we are ruled by the Money Party.

I won the first two injunctions getting a third party candidate into the debates since Ross Perot scared the hell out of the rulers in the debates in 1992.  For more on that, see this short video at http://blip.tv/file/1672498 and if you want to know what happens to attorneys who rock the boat by getting third party candidates into debates, exposing election fraud, and judicial corruption, see this video at http://blip.tv/file/1339250 and don’t miss the links below it.

For evidence confirming that we do live in a fascist police state, see this article and the links in it at http://dailycensored.com/2009/06/24/why-does-the-u-s-government-torture-people/  If you check it out, you will also learn about the fundamental right which was stolen from you which allows government agents and those who can influence them to treat you any way they wish.

For information about another fundamental right to control the government which has been stolen from you and how to restore it, see http://www.opednews.com/articles/How-to-Stop-Election-Theft-by-Mark-Adams-081023-879.html
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20090728_america_the_great_police_state/

Report this

By glider, August 17, 2009 at 5:54 pm Link to this comment

MarthaA,

Yeah, I have subscribed to and promoted such incrementalism here as well.  However after Obamas inspirational campaign he is showing himself to be a weak and uninspirational president.  I am hoping to see this result in two effects in the long term.  One, a devastating decline in the ranks of the Republican party, and two a commensurate rise in a 3rd party progressive alternative.  This may be possible without having a spoiler effect.  If it occurs then it would be a game changer.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, August 17, 2009 at 4:33 pm Link to this comment

glider,

It’s a process, we can’t change the common population in the moment, but if we act with cumulative effect over time we can change the common population so that they know what their best interest is and participate in the making and enforcing of law and order that is in the best interest of the 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION as a Class and Culture.

Report this

By glider, August 17, 2009 at 10:23 am Link to this comment

MarthaA,

It appears to be a media problem without an obvious or at least easy solution.  I expect it would be incredibly hard to educate and reverse the opinions of these people.  There are a lot of people who get all their information from Fox News and conservative talk radio.

The bright side of this in my opinion is that this sort of propaganda should drive away independents and marginalize the Republican Party.  We will see but I am hoping this backfires on them in that way.

Report this

By Fitz, August 17, 2009 at 10:04 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Goodbye Dems!

First they freeze out any talk of sinlge payer. Now the public option is “not essential.” Still waiting for the wars to end and for the freedoms stolen from us by the previous administration to be returned. I’m done with the dems. Even with a super majority, they can’t get it together.

If they have the audacity to hope for more money from me, my suggestion for them is to get with Max Baucus. He seems to be rolling in it these days. Nader was right all along. There is only one party in this country: the coporate party. Its time to abandon the faux populism of the democratic party (little d). The Greens are now my party of choice.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, August 16, 2009 at 9:40 pm Link to this comment

glider,

All those old gentile Right-Wingers on Medicare yelling because they weren’t satisfied with their Medicare couldn’t have helped.  It does seem to me we, as a common population class and culture should teach out class and culture the difference between the Right and the Left, because it is sickening to see so many Left contending for the Right against their best interest.

Report this

By glider, August 16, 2009 at 8:27 pm Link to this comment

Hmmm, president Caveman, if that is true it sounds like Obama has bowed to extortion.  Another example of governance in the greatest nation in the country.  So we will end up with mandated outrageously expensive health insurance.  That is the Dems/Obama getting tough with the health care profiteers?

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, August 16, 2009 at 3:57 pm Link to this comment

The Devil is in the details. Private insurance co-ops would be a good thing if the whole population is used as a base, but private insurance co-ops that do not use the entire nation as a base, will be excruciatingly expensive.

Auto insurance was originally suppose to use the whole nation as a base, but do not, now if you get a speeding ticket it goes into the insurance company and you are denied insurance, or your insurance goes up, and it doesn’t matter if you are going 5 mph over the limit or 100 mph over the limit.  I hate to see health care dealt with like auto insurance.

I’m still holding out for government single-payer public option health care.

Report this

By Jaded Prole, August 16, 2009 at 9:57 am Link to this comment

Unfortunately, President Caveman has caved once again to powerful corrupt interests. There will be no public option offered. Instead we’ll be offered sham “co-ops” for “affordable” insurance—for those who can still afford anything . . .
We mustn’t settle for it. We should make the repug brownshirts look sedate if that’s what it takes to move us out of the stone age. We didn’t vote for a caveman and we need to let him know it!

Report this

By glider, August 16, 2009 at 9:37 am Link to this comment

“That’s what happened when FDR tried to pass Social Security—they said that was socialist.  They did—verbatim.  They said that everybody was going to have to wear dog tags and that this was a plot for the government to keep track of everybody.  When JFK and then Lyndon Johnson tried to pass Medicare, they said this was a government takeover of health care; they were going to get between you and your doctor—the same argument that’s being made today.”

Finally this is coming out of Obama.  There really needs to be an strong ad campaign directed at the propagandized seniors drilling this specific point home hard.

Report this

By glider, August 16, 2009 at 9:24 am Link to this comment

I dislike the “insurance companies will not be able to deny you coverage because of a pre-existing condition” talking point.  It is vague and suggests political doublespeak.  In most instances the insurance companies will give you coverage for pre-existing conditions but they monetize the risk by charging you for it.  That is more of a problem than are denials.  What I want to hear is “the insurance companies will not be able to raise your premiums for pre-existing conditions”.  I never hear proponents actually say this in plain english and it makes me hope there is not a gotcha in there somewhere.

Report this
 
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.