Politics

[IrishJayhawk]

It turns out that Romney is for FEMA now. This guy has a serious problem with standing by anything he has ever said.


http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...59WWbbwoWiLn3x3dQ&sig2=ChcjOLuBqW0LocKNNnnhaw

You knew it was coming. Remember how much flack John Kerry took for flip flopping? Nothing compared to this guy.

 

[Downinthebend]

You knew it was coming. Remember how much flack John Kerry took for flip flopping? Nothing compared to this guy.

Neither candidate is consistent. If you want a person who will do what he says look elsewhere.

 

[pkt77242]

You know Medicare does this too, right? And when they find your charting doesn't match their "panel" standards, not only do they deny the claim, they also charge you with a felony. Big reason many providers just don't accept it.

They arenot charging the patient with a felony, they are charging the doctor and it rarely happens.

The people reviewing the claims is to make sure that medicares rules were followed, and to make sure that they aren't being defrauded (shockingly people like to defraud the government, just ask the defense contractors about it). yes if you chart one thing and bill another they do deny it until the hospital or doctors submits the correct billing. Then they pay it. Shocking that you need to bill for what was actually done.

I view medicare/medicaid similar to health insurance except that one is trying to profit of me and the other isnt'. I would be ok if insurance companies were nonprofits.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

Neither candidate is consistent. If you want a person who will do what he says look elsewhere.

I understand that I lean significantly to the left. So, I'm sure I'm jaded on the guy.

That said, I don't think I've ever seen a candidate who has taken so many positions that are diametrically opposed to his previous positions. Fundamental positions. IMO, this isn't your "run of the mill" inconsistent politician.

 

[Ultimate Penn St. Hater]

Neither candidate is consistent. If you want a person who will do what he says look elsewhere.

Consistent? Romney isn't even close. He has changed his stance on just about every issue out there. Whatever you want to hear, that's what he's for. Its amazing really.

 

[NDFan4Life]

Sources: Key task force not convened during Benghazi consulate attack

CBS News has learned that during the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. Mission in Benghazi, the Obama Administration did not convene its top interagency counterterrorism resource: the Counterterrorism Security Group, (CSG).

"The CSG is the one group that's supposed to know what resources every agency has. They know of multiple options and have the ability to coordinate counterterrorism assets across all the agencies," a high-ranking government official told CBS News. "They were not allowed to do their job. They were not called upon."

Information shared with CBS News from top counterterrorism sources in the government and military reveal keen frustration over the U.S. response on Sept. 11, the night ambassador Chris Stevens and 3 other Americans were killed in a coordinated attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya.

The circumstances of the attack, including the intelligence and security situation there, will be the subject of a Senate Intelligence Committee closed hearing on Nov. 15, with additional hearings to follow.

Counterterrorism sources and internal emails reviewed by CBS News express frustration that key responders were ready to deploy, but were not called upon to help in the attack.

CBS News has agreed not to quote directly from the emails, and to protect the identities of the sources who hold sensitive counterterrorism posts within the State Department, the US military and the Justice Department.

As to why the Counterterrorism Security Group was not convened, National Security Council Spokesman Tommy Vietor told CBS News "From the moment the President was briefed on the Benghazi attack, the response effort was handled by the most senior national security officials in governments. Members of the CSG were of course involved in these meetings and discussions to support their bosses."

Absent coordination from Counterterrorism Security Group, a senior US counterterrorism official says the response to the crisis became more confused. The official says the FBI received a call during the attack representing Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and requesting agents be deployed. But he and his colleagues agreed the agents "would not make any difference without security and other enablers to get them in the country and synch their efforts with military and diplomatic efforts to maximize their success."

Another senior counter terrorism official says a hostage rescue team was alternately asked to get ready and then stand down throughout the night, as officials seemed unable to make up their minds.

A third potential responder from a counter-terror force stationed in Europe says components of AFICOM -- the military's Africa Command based in Stuttgart, Germany -- were working on course of action during the assault. But no plan was put to use.

"Forces were positioned after the fact but not much good to those that needed it," the military source told CBS News.

"The response process was isolated at the most senior level," says an official referring to top officials in the executive branch. "My fellow counterterrorism professionals and I (were) not consulted."

More:
Sources: Key task force not convened during Benghazi consulate attack - CBS News

 

[PraetorianND]

^^ This is bad.

 

[JughedJones]

Obama just heard that Meatloaf endorsed Romney.

 

[Rhode Irish]

Sources: Key task force not convened during Benghazi consulate attack

CBS News has learned that during the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. Mission in Benghazi, the Obama Administration did not convene its top interagency counterterrorism resource: the Counterterrorism Security Group, (CSG).

"The CSG is the one group that's supposed to know what resources every agency has. They know of multiple options and have the ability to coordinate counterterrorism assets across all the agencies," a high-ranking government official told CBS News. "They were not allowed to do their job. They were not called upon."

Information shared with CBS News from top counterterrorism sources in the government and military reveal keen frustration over the U.S. response on Sept. 11, the night ambassador Chris Stevens and 3 other Americans were killed in a coordinated attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya.

The circumstances of the attack, including the intelligence and security situation there, will be the subject of a Senate Intelligence Committee closed hearing on Nov. 15, with additional hearings to follow.

Counterterrorism sources and internal emails reviewed by CBS News express frustration that key responders were ready to deploy, but were not called upon to help in the attack.

CBS News has agreed not to quote directly from the emails, and to protect the identities of the sources who hold sensitive counterterrorism posts within the State Department, the US military and the Justice Department.

As to why the Counterterrorism Security Group was not convened, National Security Council Spokesman Tommy Vietor told CBS News "From the moment the President was briefed on the Benghazi attack, the response effort was handled by the most senior national security officials in governments. Members of the CSG were of course involved in these meetings and discussions to support their bosses."

Absent coordination from Counterterrorism Security Group, a senior US counterterrorism official says the response to the crisis became more confused. The official says the FBI received a call during the attack representing Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and requesting agents be deployed. But he and his colleagues agreed the agents "would not make any difference without security and other enablers to get them in the country and synch their efforts with military and diplomatic efforts to maximize their success."

Another senior counter terrorism official says a hostage rescue team was alternately asked to get ready and then stand down throughout the night, as officials seemed unable to make up their minds.

A third potential responder from a counter-terror force stationed in Europe says components of AFICOM -- the military's Africa Command based in Stuttgart, Germany -- were working on course of action during the assault. But no plan was put to use.

"Forces were positioned after the fact but not much good to those that needed it," the military source told CBS News.

"The response process was isolated at the most senior level," says an official referring to top officials in the executive branch. "My fellow counterterrorism professionals and I (were) not consulted."

More:
Sources: Key task force not convened during Benghazi consulate attack - CBS News

GTFO of here with this garbage. I do not understand why we are talking about this still. The right will make an issue out of anything. It was a terrorist attack. You can't stop every crazy person on earth from doing crazy things. People are only talking about this because they're trying to make a political issue out of it.

I feel very badly for those who lost their lives and their families. I trust the President when he says that those responsible will be hunted down and brought to justice. His track record is impeccable in that regard. Beyond that, I'm sick of hearing about it.

 

[Ultimate Penn St. Hater]

Obama just heard that Meatloaf endorsed Romney.

I'm sure Romney hated meatloaf until last week. He's a Filet Mignon and caviar kinda guy.

 

[Rizzophil]

I still can't believe that our Ambassador was alerting the State Dept a month in advance, the highest levels of the Pentagon watched the murder in real time, we had laser sight on the attack, our Delta Force agent gave his life for the Ambassador, and the regime blamed a video for two weeks for the attack.

Wake up America and seek the truth.

 

[RubberSoul]

So what is going to happen on election day? Not what you want to happen but if you had to make a prediction as to what will happen, what would it be.

If I had to predict, I would say that Romney will win. I honestly think that he is going to win Ohio and either Iowa or Wisconsin. I base this on two things: I believe that Romney still has momentum and undecided voters go for the challenger in a clip of 2 to 1 .

Mind you, this is not a slam at Obama at all or an endorsement for Romney. Its just what I believe will happen.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

Obama's Nate Silver winning probability just went up to 80.8%.

Nate Silver - FiveThirtyEight Blog - NYTimes.com

 

[IrishJayhawk]

So what is going to happen on election day? Not what you want to happen but if you had to make a prediction as to what will happen, what would it be.

If I had to predict, I would say that Romney will win. I honestly think that he is going to win Ohio and either Iowa or Wisconsin. I base this on two things: I believe that Romney still has momentum and undecided voters go for the challenger in a clip of 2 to 1 .

Mind you, this is not a slam at Obama at all or an endorsement for Romney. Its just what I believe will happen.

The polls would nearly all have to be wrong for that to happen in Ohio.

EDIT: Except Rasmussen. But, Rasmussen had a 5+ point error in all of those states in favor of McCain last time.

Ohio
RealClearPolitics - Election 2008 - Ohio: McCain vs. Obama

WI
RealClearPolitics - Election 2008 - Wisconsin: McCain vs. Obama

Iowa (Ras is further down)
RealClearPolitics - Election 2008 - Iowa: McCain vs. Obama

Ras was very close on the national vote, but they totally missed the states.

 

[Downinthebend]

Consistent? Romney isn't even close. He has changed his stance on just about every issue out there. Whatever you want to hear, that's what he's for. Its amazing really.

Obama isn't a model of consistency either.

 

[Rhode Irish]

Obama's Nate Silver winning probability just went up to 80.8%.

Nate Silver - FiveThirtyEight Blog - NYTimes.com

Very good day for the President, both in state and national polls. Nate Silver, who has been called out by frustrated conservatives (who apparently believe math is some sort of newfangled gibberish) with increasing vigor, is not backing down. He bet Joe Scarbrough $1000 dollars, and continues to defend his method in his column.

Its obviously infuriating to conservatives that the math doesn't match their perceptions about the race, so they just dismiss Silver as an interested party because he, personally, is a progressive. The irony is apparently lost on those making the accusations - like Karl Rove and all the crazies at Politico. My belief is that Silver - regardless of his personal views on issues - has a better grasp of the empirical numbers here than his critics (who are only capable of thinking in a partisan fashion and do not understand that others may not do the same).

Here are a couple solid defenses of Silver:

Nate Silver's Critics
People Who Can't Do Math Are So Made at Nate Silver
Nate Silver is not an Outlier
The Nate Silver Backlash


Also, really great to see The Economist endorse the President: The Economist Endorses Barack Obama. I posted the New Yorker's endorsement last week. The Economist's endorsement is, not surprisingly, more tepid than the New Yorker's, but it always feels good to be on the same side of an issue with the people who you consider to be the smartest people in their field - the New Yorker and the Economist are that.

 

[Ultimate Penn St. Hater]

Obama isn't a model of consistency either.

Obama and Romney aren't in the same galaxy when it comes to flip-flopping. Romney has changed positions on everything. Everything. He's hard to take seriously because you know its just a matter of time before he flips. His wife must go nuts when they have dinner at the country club.

 

[RubberSoul]

The polls would nearly all have to be wrong for that to happen in Ohio.

EDIT: Except Rasmussen. But, Rasmussen had a 5+ point error in all of those states in favor of McCain last time.

Ohio
RealClearPolitics - Election 2008 - Ohio: McCain vs. Obama

WI
RealClearPolitics - Election 2008 - Wisconsin: McCain vs. Obama

Iowa (Ras is further down)
RealClearPolitics - Election 2008 - Iowa: McCain vs. Obama

Ras was very close on the national vote, but they totally missed the states.

Fair enough but to try to be objective, I only pay attention to the internal polls and Gallup. Galllup had Romney up two in Ohio as of monday I believe. Romney internal has him up three, hence going to wisconsin and now pennsylvania. They are all within the margin of error but I believe that turnout, momentum and undecideds favor Romney. I dont follow Silver and 80% sounds pretty out there. anything can happen of course and may the best man for our country win!

 

[PraetorianND]

Fair enough but to try to be objective, I only pay attention to the internal polls and Gallup. Galllup had Romney up two in Ohio as of monday I believe. Romney internal has him up three, hence going to wisconsin and now pennsylvania. They are all within the margin of error but I believe that turnout, momentum and undecideds favor Romney. I dont follow Silver and 80% sounds pretty out there. anything can happen of course and may the best man for our country win!

Most of those polls have between a 2 and 4 percent margin of error too. So really who knows at this point.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

Fair enough but to try to be objective, I only pay attention to the internal polls and Gallup. Galllup had Romney up two in Ohio as of monday I believe. Romney internal has him up three, hence going to wisconsin and now pennsylvania. They are all within the margin of error but I believe that turnout, momentum and undecideds favor Romney. I dont follow Silver and 80% sounds pretty out there. anything can happen of course and may the best man for our country win!

I guess I don't understand how that's being objective. RealCleaPolitics aggregates all of the polls. Gallup and Rasmussen have skewed quite a bit toward Romney compared to nearly all others this cycle. And Gallup isn't polling in Ohio right now. Eight of the most recent 9 polls in Ohio say Obama leads. Rasmussen is the outlier.

I have to think that leaked "internal polls" are some of the most biased.

People think there is some sort of systematic polling bias right now. If that's wrong, Romney could be in trouble.

 

[irishjet34]

This election from a prediction stand point basically comes down to a Gallup vs Silver method of thinking. Gallup is working along the lines that the % of voters would be prety evenly split between the two partys or even a 2% higher margin for the republicans with the perceived lack of excitement in the democratic party(notice i said perceived does not mean it is true) while the Silver method predicts about 7%-9% more democratic turnout. That is why you see the vast difference in their numbers. Alot of the big time media polls also subscribe to the Silver method. It should be an interesting night to see what actually happens. Both outfits have a decent rep. with Silver really building it on the last presidential election.

 

[ClausentoTate]

I understand that I lean significantly to the left. So, I'm sure I'm jaded on the guy.

That said, I don't think I've ever seen a candidate who has taken so many positions that are diametrically opposed to his previous positions. Fundamental positions. IMO, this isn't your "run of the mill" inconsistent politician.

You forgot to say "since McCain".

 

[PraetorianND]

True that most polls have 2-4 MOE. But, when 8 of 9 polls say the same basic thing, your statistical power goes way up.

I wouldn't be shocked by a win by either candidate at this point. Hurricane Sandy and whatever else comes out in the next couple days can swing voting 1 or 2 percent (or maybe more).

 

[PraetorianND]

I'd be a bit surprised by a Romney win. But, people need to remember that a 4 in 5 chance of winning means a 1 in 5 chance for Romney. That "1" happens sometimes.

I do think that Obama's handling of the hurricane relief, which includes high praise from one of Romney's main surrogates (as well as Bloomberg), will probably benefit him.

Ya 20% is ok odds. This race is close. Honestly I think at the end of the day, Romney is fairly moderate (if not left leaning) so the affect on the direction of the country is minimal in my opinion. If Romney gets elected I think he goes back to his policies as Gov of Mass.

Like I said, had he stuck to his guns from last election's primary I'd probably vote for him.

 

[PraetorianND]

Under Romney...as a lefty, I would worry about (a) the affordable care act and (b) supreme court nominations. I think the recovery is taking hold and whoever is elected will get lots of credit for it (in my opinion, as a result of Obama's policies staving off a depression...but, that's a different discussion. ).

You shouldn't worry about either of those things because the ACA is basically his plan from Mass. Also, repealing it wouldn't be as easy as he's making it out to be. Let's not forget it's been upheld by the SCOTUS already. Also, aside from the ACA the SCOTUS has been leaning towards constitutional orignal intent for the past few years anyways.

I'm just worried that austerity will plunge us back into recession like it did Europe if he goes that route.

 

[Downinthebend]

Obama and Romney aren't in the same galaxy when it comes to flip-flopping. Romney has changed positions on everything. Everything. He's hard to take seriously because you know its just a matter of time before he flips. His wife must go nuts when they have dinner at the country club.

You can't take either of them at their word, I don't care if you can take one of them at their word 10% more of the time.

 

[NDFan4Life]

Apparently, some people would much rather stick their head in the sand instead of seeking the truth. I'm not going to "GTFO of here with this garbage". We deserve to know the truth. There's been so many inconsistencies from the administration, it begs to be investigated.

'Troubling' Surveillance Before Benghazi Attack
Sensitive documents found amid the wreckage of the U.S. consulate shine new light on the Sept. 11 assault that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans.

BY HARALD DOORNBOS, JENAN MOUSSA | NOVEMBER 1, 2012

BENGHAZI, Libya — More than six weeks after the shocking assault on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi -- and nearly a month after an FBI team arrived to collect evidence about the attack - the battle-scarred, fire-damaged compound where Ambassador Chris Stevens and another Foreign Service officer lost their lives on Sept. 11 still holds sensitive documents and other relics of that traumatic final day, including drafts of two letters worrying that the compound was under "troubling" surveillance and complaining that the Libyan government failed to fulfill requests for additional security.

When we visited on Oct. 26 to prepare a story for Dubai based Al Aan TV, we found not only Stevens's personal copy of the Aug. 6 New Yorker, lying on remnants of the bed in the safe room where Stevens spent his final hours, but several ash-strewn documents beneath rubble in the looted Tactical Operations Center, one of the four main buildings of the partially destroyed compound. Some of the documents -- such as an email from Stevens to his political officer in Benghazi and a flight itinerary sent to Sean Smith, a U.S. diplomat slain in the attack -- are clearly marked as State Department correspondence. Others are unsigned printouts of messages to local and national Libyan authorities. The two unsigned draft letters are both dated Sept. 11 and express strong fears about the security situation at the compound on what would turn out to be a tragic day. They also indicate that Stevens and his team had officially requested additional security at the Benghazi compound for his visit -- and that they apparently did not feel it was being provided.

One letter, written on Sept. 11 and addressed to Mohamed Obeidi, the head of the Libyan Ministry of Foreign Affairs' office in Benghazi, reads:

"Finally, early this morning at 0643, September 11, 2012, one of our diligent guards made a troubling report. Near our main gate, a member of the police force was seen in the upper level of a building across from our compound. It is reported that this person was photographing the inside of the U.S. special mission and furthermore that this person was part of the police unit sent to protect the mission. The police car stationed where this event occurred was number 322."

The account accords with a message written by Smith, the IT officer who was killed in the assault, on a gaming forum on Sept. 11. "Assuming we don't die tonight. We saw one of our ‘police' that guard the compound taking pictures," he wrote hours before the assault.

The State Department declined to comment directly on the documents, citing an ongoing investigation. "An independent board is conducting a thorough review of the assault on our post in Benghazi," deputy spokesman Mark Toner said. "Once we have the board's comprehensive account of what happened, findings and recommendations, we can fully address these matters."

Obeidi, the Libyan official named on one of the printouts, said he had not received any such letter, adding, "I did not even know that the U.S. ambassador was visiting Benghazi." However, a spokesman for the Benghazi police confirmed that the ministry had notified the police of the ambassador's visit. "We did not receive that letter from the U.S. consulate. We received a letter from Ministry of Foreign Affairs Benghazi asking for additional security measures around consulate during visit of the ambassador. And the police provided all extra security which was asked for," the spokesman said.

It is not clear whether the U.S. letters were ever sent, and if so, what action was taken before the assault on the evening of Sept. 11. But they speak to a dangerous and uncertain security environment in Benghazi that clearly had many State Department officials worried for their safety.

Since the fall of Muammar al-Qaddafi's regime, the country's powerful militias have often run roughshod over the police and national army -- and often coopted these institutions for their own purposes. U.S. officials were certainly well aware of the sway that various militias held over Benghazi, given that the consulate's external security was supposed to be provided by the Islamist-leaning February 17 brigade.

***MORE:
'Troubling' Surveillance Before Benghazi Attack - By Harald Doornbos and Jenan Moussa | Foreign Policy

 

[NDFan4Life]

And a blistering editorial from the Las Vegas Review-Journal:

Benghazi blunder: Obama unworthy commander-in-chief
Posted: Nov. 1, 2012 | 2:01 a.m.

U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens and three other Americans died in a well-planned military assault on their diplomatic mission in Benghazi seven weeks ago, the anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. So why are details surfacing, piecemeal, only now?

The Obama administration sat by doing nothing for seven hours that night, ignoring calls to dispatch help from our bases in Italy, less than two hours away. It has spent the past seven weeks stretching the story out, engaging in misdirection and deception involving supposed indigenous outrage over an obscure anti-Muslim video, confident that with the aid of a docile press corps this infamous climax to four years of misguided foreign policy can be swept under the rug, at least until after Tuesday's election.

Charles Woods, father of former Navy SEAL and Henderson resident Tyrone Woods, 41, says his son died slumped over his machine gun after he and fellow ex-SEAL Glen Doherty - not the two locals who were the only bodyguards Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration would authorize - held off the enemy for seven hours.

The Obama administration was warned. They received an embassy cable June 25 expressing concern over rising Islamic extremism in Benghazi, noting the black flag of al-Qaida "has been spotted several times flying over government buildings and training facilities." The Obama administration removed a well-armed, 16-member security detail from Libya in August, The Wall Street Journal reported last month, replacing it with a couple of locals. Mr. Stevens sent a cable Aug. 2 requesting 11 additional body guards, noting "Host nation security support is lacking and cannot be depended on," reports Peter Ferrara at Forbes.com. But these requests were denied, officials testified before the House Oversight Committee earlier this month.

Based on documents released by the committee, on the day of the attack the Pentagon dispatched a drone with a video camera so everyone in Washington could see what was happening in real time. The drone documented no crowds protesting any video. But around 4 p.m. Washington received an email from the Benghazi mission saying it was under a military-style attack. The White House, the Pentagon, the State Department and the CIA were able to watch the live video feed. An email sent later that day reported "Ansar al-Sharia claims responsibility for Benghazi attack."

Not only did the White House do nothing, there are now reports that a counterterrorism team ready to launch a rescue mission was ordered to stand down.

The official explanation for the inadequate security? This administration didn't want to "offend the sensibilities" of the new radical Islamic regime which American and British arms had so recently helped install in Libya.

The official explanation for why Obama administration officials watched the attack unfold for seven hours, refusing repeated requests to send the air support and relief forces that sat less than two hours away in Italy? Silence.

An open discussion of these issues, of course, would lead to difficult questions about the wisdom of underwriting and celebrating the so-called Arab Spring revolts in the first place. While the removal of tyrants can be laudable, the results show a disturbing pattern of merely installing new tyrannies - theocracies of medieval mullahs who immediately start savaging the rights of women (including the basic right to education) and who are openly hostile to American interests.

When Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney promptly criticized the security failures in Benghazi, the White House and its lapdog media jumped all over him for another "gaffe," for speaking out too promptly and too strongly. Prompt and strong action from the White House on Sept. 11 might have saved American lives, as well as America's reputation as a nation not to be messed with. Weakness and dithering and flying to Las Vegas the next day for celebrity fund-raising parties are somehow better?

This administration is an embarrassment on foreign policy and incompetent at best on the economy - though a more careful analysis shows what can only be a perverse and willful attempt to destroy our prosperity. Back in January 2008, Barack Obama told the editorial board of the San Francisco Chronicle that under his cap-and-trade plan, "If somebody wants to build a coal-fired power plant, they can. It's just that it will bankrupt them." He added, "Under my plan ... electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket." It was also in 2008 that Mr. Obama's future Energy Secretary, Steven Chu, famously said it would be necessary to "figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe" - $9 a gallon.

Yet the president now claims he's in favor of oil development and pipelines, taking credit for increased oil production on private lands where he's powerless to block it, after he halted the Keystone XL Pipeline and oversaw a 50 percent reduction in oil leases on public lands.

These behaviors go far beyond "spin." They amount to a pack of lies. To return to office a narcissistic amateur who seeks to ride this nation's economy and international esteem to oblivion, like Slim Pickens riding the nuclear bomb to its target at the end of the movie "Dr. Strangelove," would be disastrous.

Candidate Obama said if he couldn't fix the economy in four years, his would be a one-term presidency.

Mitt Romney is moral, capable and responsible man. Just this once, it's time to hold Barack Obama to his word. Maybe we can all do something about that, come Tuesday.

Benghazi blunder: Obama unworthy commander-in-chief - Opinion - ReviewJournal.com

 

[RDU Irish]

I think conservatives have pretty much cornered the market in "Fear Politics".

Anywho, you keep implying that the President doesn't give us access to facts/numbers. That is simply untrue. You can read the entire plan (even the hard numbers) on the site they designed specifically for people to find out the details of the plan.

Health Reform in Action | The White House

If there is one thing that is absolutely true about the President, is that he has given us more access to his plans possibly than any other President in history. Romney is the one that hasn't explained how he is possibly going to follow through on anything that he has promised.

I'm guessing you wont read the site though. You make up your mind on every Obama policy before you know what they are. That's what is wrong with politics today. So many people would rather get the "facts" from talking heads at their "news" channel of preference instead of actually trying to find the real facts.

I click on your link and the point in bold on page one is "54,000,000 Americans have coverage for preventative services free of cost" highlighting insurance is mandated to cover the cost of these services.

Now tell me you don't see anything wrong with that statement? Preying on the ignorance of the masses. Probably think you cell phone was "free" too when you signed up for service.

 

[Rhode Irish]

I don't have my head in the sand about it. I don't think it's a big deal. There's a difference. If there weren't an election around the corner, nobody would be talking about it. It's absurd to pin a one-off event that occurs abroad on the President, especially a President with the foreign policy track record of this one.