google.com, pub-4909507274277725, DIRECT, f08c47fec0942fa0 Slapinions: Obama

Search This Blog

Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts

Thursday, June 22, 2017

A Political Post

No one seems to care, but Obama's DHS Secretary testified under oath that the DNC refused to cooperate with Homeland Security as it investigated hacking charges during the election season. The Democrats - speaking only in terms of the official party here - are as crooked and shady as they come.

Wednesday, February 17, 2016

I find it appalling that the President will not attend Justice Scalia's funeral - and won't rule out a game of golf at the time instead. 

Tuesday, July 14, 2015

So we're funding Iran now?

Ugh. People on FB are celebrating saving a few cents on gas, and ignoring the fact that we just cut a NUCLEAR deal with Iran in order to accomplish this great feat.

That's Iran, the Western hating, anti-Semitic nation that's ignored endless sanctions in the past but, we're told, will surely behave *this time*. 

Any statement saying this is a wise or necessary deal is just smoke up your a*s. 

Here's hoping it isn't radioactive too.

Sunday, July 5, 2015

Fail

Agreed. If he's going to turn the White House into a Disney attraction, then he should have had it done for the most important day in the American year too. #Fail

Friday, September 26, 2014

The Coffee Cup Salute

I think that the hubbub over President Obama's "coffee cup" salute is much ado about nothing. I don't think he meant any disrespect, and frankly, as Commander in Chief, if he decides the new standard is for the President to return a salute with a wave and a wink, it's his call. We have become hyper-pro-military in this country. It's a natural swing of the pendulum away from the liberal idiocy of decades past, but I detest the venom it produces.

Friday, August 8, 2014

Kudos

Kudos to President Obama for authorizing airstrikes against ISIS in Iraq. He should have done it months ago, just like he should never have left the country to twist in the wind alone in the first place, and in the end the job probably won't get done without boots on the ground, BUT . . . it's something.

Tuesday, November 6, 2012

Election Night

 We took the kids with us to vote right as the polls opened, and it was quite a long line, looping around the hall and out the door, but it moved quickly. Voter #69 in my ward - not as cool as being voter #420, but still worthy of a snicker.


Ok, my prediction: Lisa anticipates an Obama landslide, but that's not going to happen. I think, in one of the lousier moments in American history, that Obama will eke out a win in a tight contest, finishing with ~290 electoral votes. It's a far cry from '08, and a sign that a lot of the country wised up and quit swallowing the Kool-Aid, but still a loss for the good guys. Still, many people wiser than me are predicting a Romney win, and I hope and pray that they are right. That said, their optimism brings to mind a quote from the great Winston Wolfe: "well boys, let's not start sucking each other's d**ks quite yet."


(don't worry - this was a sample ballot. No law was broken)


The kids' school held a mock election today and Romney beat Obama 104-90. The Big Three voted correctly (Smiley was very proud of his choice) but Feral Child (age 5) claims to have voted for Obama because she "wants him to have four mo' years".


ROMNEY wins GA, IN, KY, SC, WV... Obama takes VT . . . . still waaaaay early . . .


ROMNEY WINS: AL, GA, IN, KY, MS, OK, SC, WV...
OBAMA WINS: CT, DE, IL, MA, ME, MD, RI, VT...

ROMNEY WINS: AL, GA, IN, KY, MS, OK, SC, TN, WV...
OBAMA WINS: CT, DC, DE, IL, MA, ME, MD, RI, VT...
Romney up 82 to 79 electoral votes at present . . .

Wisconsin looks to go for Obama. No surprise, personally, as the weight of the Milwaukee and Madison electorate is forever an anchor around the throat of progress.

But on the bright side CNN is reporting that it's a given the GOP will retain the House. So, quoting Kristofer Frankenberg: should Obama win, after billions spent on this election, we will be exactly where we were. Nothing will change; nothing will get done. Here's to a fun four years!

Still neck and neck (CNN has Romney up, Fox has Obama up, but both by a hair) but the loss of WI and PA means it'll be a rough road to 270. Florida shows a slight edge for Obama but an entire county has yet to be counted, and if I remember my history it's a county heavily GOP. I have to leave for work soon but if I had to lay a bet I'd say its four more years of debt, apologies, and a lesser America. All Hail the magnitude of the propaganda machine!

Belling very insightful on WISN

On behalf of your Democratic sister and ( mom dad and Chrissy too they voted my way ) Hahahahaha we WON 🙂 - Katie

Thursday, October 4, 2012

Post-Debate

LOVING the morning headlines, where even pure blue sources like CNN trump Mitt Romney as "the clear winner" of last night's debate. CNN.com also brandishes a headline reading:  "Obama took it on the chin". Well done Mitt. Maybe some of this country will finally wake up and realize that Obama is nothing more empty promises and failed ideas.

Thursday, June 21, 2012

An Opinion

Not to get overly political here (that's what paid columns are for) but: the US Attorney General is hit with contempt of Congress proceedings because he refuses to come clean about White House connections to a scandal involving gun-running, Mexican cartels, and the death of a U.S. Border Agent - and it doesn't even crack the top headline of most sites/papers. A) could there be any clearer proof of a media bias towards Obama, even at the cost of their own integrity? B) Obama should have canned Holder months ago and distanced himself from this mess. A clumsy, pointless mistake on the President's part.

Monday, April 30, 2012

Unlikely, but let's hope

"There is a term for Presidents like Obama. One term. Not two terms!" Jimmy Kimmel, Washington Correspondents Dinner

Thursday, August 4, 2011

President a Obama turned 50 today, and in celebration the markets had their worst day since the lows of 2008-2009. 

Wednesday, June 22, 2011

OMG stop with the interruptions!

Leave it to Obama to interrupt prime time on a day when I'm in a foul, dark mood, now ratcheted up a notch by the Prez. It's old news Mr. President. It leaked all over the net. You're pulling combat troops from Afghanistan by next year, against the wishes of your generals and some of your staff. Well done. It's certainly not a ploy to seek re-election at the expense of our anti-terror policy. No sirree.

Wednesday, February 9, 2011

Lu's report

 Lu had to list 3 Presidents as options for a report, & her teacher then chose 1 on a 1st come/1st served basis so there'd be no repetition among the students. Lu listed Obama, Polk & Adams. She got *Obama* which presumably means no one else in the class had him listed high; quite a diff from what MPS, no? She solicited my help to start it. I quipped "Barrack Obama, our 44th President, was born in Kenya . . . "

lol. I thought the book was awfully presumptuous as well, said he was the president till 2013....how do they know that for sure? I would be creeped out if someone put that, like they jinxed me and tomorrow someone's gonna assassinate me. - Lisa

Saturday, March 27, 2010

The Kids Choice Awards

Michelle Obama just won a Kids Choice Award on Nickelodeon. I find it odd that the award she accepts for a health and fitness program . . . is a Blimp.

Friday, October 9, 2009

The international Date Line always confuses me - is it April 1st in Oslo?

I'm tinkering with announcing an 'intermission' here at Slapinions as I tangle with real-world issues, but I had to sally forth for this obligatory subject . . .
* * * * *

My reaction when Lisa told me Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize: "For what?!" That's a point of view shared by many Americans, even those in his corner.

[The best snarky reaction I've read? "Where's Kanye West when you need him?"]

Keep in mind that the nominations for the Prize closed on February 1st, which meant that Obama's administration was all of 12 days old when the committee felt The One was worthy of the honor. 288 hours, with at least the first 24 devoted to dinner and dancing.

Ah, but Oslo didn't award the Prize based on accomplishments, saying "Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future."

In other words, it's just a high profile political endorsement.

After the first wave of genuine shock, and no doubt a glance at the calendar to see if it was April 1st, there were hesitant predictions from the Left that the Nobel win could help Obama push through health care and aid in ending the war in Afghanistan. Apparently, the idea is the award will legitimize his efforts and give heft to his arguements.

Yeaaaah.

It makes more sense to say it'll be more difficult for him to do what needs doing - how can you win the Nobel Peace Prize on Friday and send in 40,000 more troops to Afghanistan the next day?

In reality, it'll probably do nothing to aid or hurt him, other than costing him a small share of voters made uneasy by the Cult of Personality. Oh, and of course, it furthers the decay of the awards legitimacy, but if Norway doesn't care, why should we?

Kudos, btw, for the hyperbole from DNC Communications Director Brad Woodhouse: “The Republican Party has thrown in its lot with the terrorists – the Taliban and Hamas this morning – in criticizing the President for receiving the Nobel Peace prize."

Remember kiddies, criticism is only patriotic when its directed at a Republican!



[Note: For his part, the President said "I am both surprised and deeply humbled [by winning the Prize]." Hmmm. I'll give him the former, but call b.s. on the humble bit. That man's ego isn't capable of recording a hit.]

Sunday, September 20, 2009

On Race and Opposition to Obama



Even when it comes to blogging, Jimmy Carter somehow finds a way to screw things up.

I just completed reading a trio of books on Carter - a newly published work, his presidential autobiography, and a '76 biography. I would have liked the opportunity to discuss them here without having to muddy the waters with current events. Instead, Carter sounds off, gets some national facetime, and worms his way into Slapinions through a side door.

Thanks Jimmy.

Just in case you've been encased in Carbonite for the last week, Carter claims that much of the criticism of President Obama is due to the color of his skin. I don't know the inner working of Carter's mind. Maybe he believes that story. Maybe not.*

It's not that his was such an original statement. Oh, the things that have been said online on this subject, not to mention at the water cooler! Boiled down and simplified, it sounds something like this: if you strongly disagree with Obama, especially if you take action to show that disapproval, then there's a chance that you are acting out of an unspoken or (at least) subconscious reaction to the color of his skin. Hell, if you listen to some of the Far Left, there's no 'chance' - you ARE acting out of racial bias.

Hmm. With respect to those who sincerely believe this . . .schtuff, I call bullshit.

Are there cuckoos out there that are walking advertisements for Birth of a Nation? Sure there are. Idiots abound in a world of nearly seven billion, and if you get together a group of 100 people - much less millions - you're going to get some.

A fringe minority does not discredit the ideas and beliefs of millions of concerned American citizens. And frankly, saying it's true but that it "isn't everyone on the right" is insulting. It's implying that 'you' are the rare good apple and impugning those who stand with you. (and you'll always assume it's you, because who wants to be thought of as the racist in that comparison?).

You'll hear a lot of the Left reference the freaks who get all the media play. But I wonder how it would be if the show was on the other foot? Do the same type of nutters speak for the Left?

I watched (and laughed along with) a video taken by a conservative who went 'undercover' at a pro-Health Care Reform rally. Among the crowd there was every conceivable liberal stereotype: the hippie who lived in a commune and didn't 'believe' in property, the radical, and the leech who lived off the system and had no intention of ever changing her ways. Funny as hell, but not even worth a repost, because it was obviously skewed to show *only* the Funny Farm rejects.

But if I wanted to , what lesson could I extrapolate from that piece of selective reporting? Hmm. Let me see. How about: everyone who backs Obama is a drug addled welfare recipient that advocates the use of violence to save a tree.

Stupid right? A damn ignorant thing to say? Then why is it okay to slap labels on the Right?

Somewhere in America, right this very moment, there is an act of racism at play. Perhaps its white on black, or black on white, or Hmong on Arab, but it's happening. Scream to the heavens at the injustice of that, and I'll join your cry. But this?

This is about creating a distraction in order to explain an administration mired in legislative setbacks. This is about ridiculous claims, like a member of the Congressional Black Caucus saying

"I guess we'll probably have folks putting on white hoods and white uniforms again and riding through the countryside intimidating people. ... That's the logical conclusion if this kind of attitude is not rebuked"

and still having a job. This is about coming to grips with the fact that the man you view as a hero, one destined to change the world, is simply human after all.

What I say doesn't matter much in this world. In the end, we can only speak for ourselves and our own actions. I'm not going to judge our President by his color, but neither will I ever again devote so much as a paragraph to defending myself from such hateful generalizations. I will continue to speak out, with increasing volume if need be, in opposition to any plan I feel is against the spirit or well-being of this country.

If you feel the need to call me names for doing so, well, that's on you.


** * * *** * * * *



* Either way, IMO he wasn't there to express his own opinion so much as to act as the designated 'hammer' for his party. He has sufficient national presence to go out there, throw himself on a sword, and say what needs to be said (good or bad) to jump start a media debate. Following that the President can step in and say he respectfully disagrees, thereby distancing himself from the fray while reaping the results. Politically, it's not a bad way of conducting business.

Wednesday, September 9, 2009

On Socialized Medicine



Let's start out with some ground rules: opposition to socialized medicine is not opposition to reform, nor does it indicate a diabolical wish to watch millions suffer without medical care. Ideas like that are the stuff of political pornography, poorly crafted urban myths put forth to discredit opposition to the White House. It's wrong, factually and ethically, and frankly, it's downright silly.

If you continue to believe those tall tales, it will do you no good to continue reading. But if you keep an open mind, by all means, pull up a seat.

When it comes to discussing health insurance reform, my experiences are not unique, but I think they're far from typical. This argument has increasingly become a tit-for-tap of anecdotal evidence, almost all of it referring to a friend or a 'friend of friend' with a sad tale to tell. Well, in my lifetime - MY lifetime, not that of someone I know- I've been covered by both good and 'bad' private insurance - and by its public equivalent.

I know what it's like to pay upwards of $500 a month for insurance when you're making $10 an hour, and what it's like to count out coins to pay for your wife's medicine. I've been hit with a garnishment to pay off my daughter's hospital bills. And, I've had private insurance so thorough that I had twenty consecutive weeks of dental work without paying so much as a dime. All true.

I've also known the shame (and, make no mistake about it, the relief) of being seen under the banner of a state insurance card. I've seen how it rations care (not in theory a bad thing), allocating resources to cast the widest net possible while sacrificing both 'quality' of care and the self-worth of the patient. There are exceptions, of course, wonderful doctors going the extra mile for their charge and accomplishing great things. But if the devil is in the details, than at its purest form socialized medicine is as demon free as your nearest place of worship.

I object to Obamacare on several fronts: Politically, I find the expansion of federal power an abuse of our government's purpose, and an unwelcome intrusion into our private lives. Philosophically, I think it is a corruption of the ideals of self-reliance and independence that forged this nation and its people. Economically, I think it is vague to the point of fantasy, and destined to be an albatross around the neck of our nation for generations to come, and Pragmatically, I think it fails to accomplish the purpose for which it was designed.

Unlike other sites that argue for/against the issue, I won't devote much time addressing my first few objections. I have no interest in joining the vast number of bloggers who constantly preach to the choir. (what's the point in that??)

If you believe in Obamacare, then by definition you disagree with me on those early points. You either believe - or have conceded the argument - that the federal government has the right, duty, intelligence, and administrative acumen to assume the planning, orchestration, and settlement of your individual health insurance needs. You are entitled to your opinion, but frankly, I think you're as wrong as you're ever going to be in your life.

I do not believe that it is the Federal government's obligation or right to assume that mantle of responsibility. I think it intrusive, unwarranted, and a poor omen for the future. We are inching closer and closer to a socialist nanny state. I understand that America now approaches that future with far less dread then ever before, and nearly with open arms - how quickly we as a people look for the easy way out! - but that doesn't mean it's the right path.

Governments don't shrink. They don't. They may wax and wane, but City Hall will always be there, and it will always be hungry for more. This generation is vigorously debating an expansion of the Federal Government, and has already acquiesced to a ridiculous bailout of the private sector. Step forward to the time of my grandchildren, and the dustups of today will have been settled for decades. It all will be commonplace, accepted, par for the course. The government will have continued to grow; in power, in size, in 'responsibility'. A perversion of the constitutional limits imposed upon Washington has repercussions down through the ages, and should not be considered lightly.

In my opinion, it should not be considered at all.

If you disagree and push forward, then I argue that the financial burden of this program is still too much to bear.

We are in the midst of a severe recession, one that necessitated (ha!) the bailout of large segments of the private sector, and the use of gimmicky stimulus measures like the Cash for Clunkers program. In this environment, with unemployment soaring, tax revenue at a minimum, military deployment being expanded in Afghanistan, etc. etc. now - NOW - is the time to push this through?

Was there something I missed in the last election? Not Obama's talking points, which were just that. But if 2004 was about Iraq, 2008 was about the economy, stupid. If you surveyed people last November I doubt "health care reform" would have trumped "keep my job" and "keep my house out of foreclosure", and I'd argue the same holds true now. So why now? Easy. Obama thought it would be a cake-walk proposal, and underestimated American opposition to the plan. Now he's obliged to continue the fight or lose face, and so a plan best left for rosier times must now divert attention and money from areas that need it more.

I'll admit it's hard to get a handle on numbers here, as the White House spins its totals and everyone else does the same, but this isn't going to be cheap. No matter what plan (if any) gets passed, it will necessitate, at a minimum: the creation, staffing, and housing of a new cabinet level body, one massive enough to administrate a plan capable of needing a 1000 page Congressional bill. Local offices will have to be established at the state and city level. Add in the cost of doing business - the accountants, lawyers, claim specialists, clerks, staples, paper, and whatnot, and you'll have to wonder exactly how we'll pay for it.

The answer? I don't know if ANYONE has the answer.

So, despite all his promises to the contrary, we go into (deeper)debt to make this concept happen. Again, if it has to happen - why now?? Is it worth extending the recession just to ensure a President doesn't walk away with his won/loss record blemished?

No, it's not.

* * * *

I feel the most compelling argument against ObamaCare, in any of its shifting forms, is the simplest: it will not accomplish its intended goals.

I wish I'd had the courage to write about an experience I had last summer, but at the time I feared embarrassing my father-in-law. He had surgery and was hospitalized at our local VA Hospital. Start to finish, he was seen, treated, care for by, and had his bill paid by the government. Great right? No.

The hospital was overcrowded and dilapidated. The halls were in need of painting and, disturbingly, featured large home made posters reminding the medical staff to follow elementary hygiene procedures. My father-in-law was housed in a dormitory with multiple patients, as if I was watching a movie about the polio epidemic. The equipment was outdated and flat-out looked ancient.

His incision became infected. Worse yet, this: months later, the surgery has to be repeated. Why? Because the VA admitted the surgeon had incorrectly installed the knee replacement.

All this, from a government institution politically untouchable from both sides of the aisle. That,my friends, is socialized health-care. At the time, I wondered out-loud if it would not have been better to scrap the entire VA system, and simply grant the vets carte blanche insurance to go where they wished. I still think that's more cost effective than paying for building upkeep, payroll, etc, and maybe someday Congress will take the hint.

But what would happen if there was nowhere else for them to turn? What if every hospital was under the same pressure, the same guidelines, the same cost constraints? It would be a disaster.

You see, I think everyone should have health insurance. I just don't think the federal government is the best vehicle for achieving that goal.

Why? A hundred reasons, but chief among them: we are a huge and populous country, with vast demographic differences. It is one thing for the U.K. to try to finagle the NHS for a population of 61.4 million, or Canada with its minuscule 33.5 million;California alone has 34 million, New York 19 million, and Texas 22 million people. All told, we have more than 300 million people to insure, five times more than the U.k.

And once again, that is a heterogeneous population. 19% of Florida residents are elderly. The predominantly male population of Alaska is legendary. The bratwurst friendly Midwest has different health issues than health conscious California, and so on.

Can you imagine one insurance plan that could effectively cover all the needs of that population? I can't. But I can guarantee you that Congress, when dispersing funds, would feel compelled to answer to their own constituents - thus making sure that so called flyover country would get the short end of the stick from a Hill dominated by the media and population rich coastal states.

No, federal insurance is not the answer. Heck, the perpetually endangered Medicare program should be proof enough of that.

Do I have all the answers? No, not by a longshot. I don't even pretend to claim expertise. But having run a company where the staff was burdened by excessive insurance costs, I have some ideas.

One,
deregulate to allow small business owners to join together and use their combined leverage to obtain lower rates.

Two, when an individuals health history skews the cost of the plan and places an unfair burden on his co-workers, there could/should be supplemental government insurance which restores a competitive balance to that plan.

Three,
tort reform. If a doctor is negligent or incompetent, by all means go after him. But medicine is not a perfect science, and the cost of lawsuit-avoiding but meaningless tests places a large burden on the system. The garnishment I spoke of earlier? The hospital kept YaYa overnight for several days, running tests when it was clear she had a stomach virus. At the time, we were first-time parents to a five month old and didn't see the legal reasoning behind the 'necessary' tests. We paid for it in the end; millions of us pay for it each year.

Four
, if we are doomed to resort to government health care, keep it at the state level, geared specifically for and paid by the residents of that state. While I have no doubt federal funds would seep their way in, and issues of residency fraud and whatnot would need to be addressed, I think this is the best means of involving government in health care IF THEY NEED TO BE INVOLVED AT ALL. Government works best when it is close enough to feel your heel on their throat; you have a better chance of managing a state run system than you do tackling Washington.

* * *

Just as I don't pretend to have all the answers, I also don't finish this thinking I've changed any one's mind. I've stated my case, just as many of you have stated your own. I promised Lisa I would document some of my thinking on the subject,and I've lived up to that promise.

Let's hope our leaders in Washington live up the promise of our Founders, and continue the fight.

Tuesday, September 8, 2009

On the crybaby Giants, the upcoming Obama speech, and why you shouldn't cook a frozen pizza at night, at least in this house

Most people who know me would say I was full of sh*t on this point (and many others), but I have a very competitive personality. 99% of the time its buried deep, but man, does it ever rise to the surface when you're talking about sports.

Today, word is that the Giants are p.o.'d over the home run celebration by Prince Fielder. Wah-wah.

Hey, it would pi*s me off too, if the shoe was on the other foot. But I'm a fan, and I have no say-so in the outcome of a game. My impotence would be the source of my rage. The Giants on the other hand . . .well, let me quote Dayn from a comment thread on Baseball Think Factory.

Maybe the best walk-off celebration I've ever seen. My stance--within reason--is that if you don't want to see the celebration, then don't lose the game.


Amen brother. Amen.

* * * *

A whackadoodle night. While we were preheating the oven to cook a late-night pizza some crumbs in the oven started smoking. The smoke traveled up the back stairs, hit the smoke alarms, and pandemonium reigned. Ginger was crying, Smiley was clutching his ears, LuLu slept through it, and YaYa was annoyed. We never could silence the hardwired alarms, and so I was forced to cut the power to the second floor (and remove all the backup batteries from the units) or continue to wake up the neighborhood. Dear Lord are they LOUD.

Did I mention LuLu slept through them, and YaYa stirred only to register her annoyance?

I tried flipping the power back on later but the alarms rang again. We'll hunker down in the dark like savages overnight, then try it again in the morning.

* * * *

I've read the text of the Obama speech and find nothing to object to in its content. It's all standard fluff, but well written standard fluff. I noted it had plenty of the Jimmy Carter "I was born poor but now I'm President!" anecdotes, but that's ok in this context. If they have indeed scrapped the Orwellian classroom activities, it's kosher.

I still don't know if the school(s) my kids attend will play the speech. I've asked the offspring and they have no clue. I'm betting none of them will see it. Smiley because his class is too young and has special needs, and the girls because their school is not a hotbed of Obama-love. But again, I have no direct knowledge and could be way off.

* * *

I promised Lisa to offer my opinion on socialized medicine, and I haven't been putting it off so much as been distracted by other subjects. I'll try to publish that in the next 48 hours, along with a long-overdue comment on the Left's awfully convenient obsession with labeling anything anti-Obama as racist.

Tuesday, August 11, 2009

Update: Town Hall Meeting

Did any reader actually attend the town hall meeting? I couldn't, but I just caught a synopsis of the event on the news. Apparently Moore answered only "five or six" questions during the entire two hour session, and the crowd was described as largely pro-Moore. I expected that, given the restrictions on speech she imposed, but I was suprised at the large number of opposing viewpoints that managed to be heard. Things got heated, but not violent, and if you think it was some grand GOP plan that got emotions running, think again.

Quoting Moore, verbatim, from the telecast of the meeting:

"One of the things we['re] gonna do is we're gonna repeal THOSE TAX BREAKS for the wealthiest Americans [applause, cks notes] . . . Number TWO, we're gonna end the war in Iraq! [applause, cks notes again, then yells the following] Number THREE, we're gonna MAKE THOSE INSURANCE COMPANIES BRING SOMETHIN' TO THE TABLE BESIDES THEIR APPETITE [loud applause]."

Really?? This was not a campaign rally, and all that crap did was satisfy the faithful who were already in her corner and harden the opposition's belief that she's all slogans and nothing more. I think that instead, she might have spent a little more than the half-hour that she devoted to *actually* interacting with the people of the district.

Again, as expressly pointed out by the reporters, this is the one and only time Moore will meet with her constituents.

Sigh.

Town Hall Meeting Tonight

Egads, it galls me to promote anything connected to my Congresswoman, but she is hosting a town hall meeting about Obamacare tonight, in uh, four minutes actually. It runs until six, so you can still attend, but don't bother going with a question in mind: Moore, never the sharpest pencil in the pouch, is responding only to questions that were submitted in advance and pre-approved by her staff. Why, that sounds like a joyous, give and take expression of democracy to me!

Oh, and please, if you go: remember to bring a spare tire. Ok, ok - cheap shot. Deserved, but cheap.

On a serious note: this is the first and only town hall meeting she'll be holding. The local Republican Congressmen have scheduled multiple sessions; off the top of my head, Paul Ryan has more than a dozen on the table.



WHO: Rep. Gwen Moore, D-Wisc.
WHAT: Informational session on health care reform
WHEN: Tuesday, August 11, 2009, 4-6 p.m.., CST
WHERE: North Division High School, Milwaukee, WI

Congresswoman Gwen Moore (D-Wisc.) will Tuesday hold an informational session to hear from her constituents on the proposed health care reform legislation that the House of Representatives will likely consider in September.

A representative from the University of Wisconsin is expected to be on hand to give a non-partisan, informational presentation on the bill’s specifics.

Congresswoman Moore will also answer questions that constituents have submitted online on health care reform. Those who plan to attend need to submit their questions online prior to the event.

EDIT: Formatting and text changes were rejected by Blogger at the time of publication, citing code errors that were over my head. I posted as-is given the time sensitive issue. Coming back now, a few hours later, I went with the original (intended) post.