Reasoning with dining room tables

"The first quesitoner had an accusation concerning the AARP stance, and was quickly told he was factually wrong"

Ah yes, the old Clinton It depends on what the definition of 'is' is defense.

Daschle and AARP definitely significant others.

There seems to be a conflict of interest issue as to Daschle. He's apparently paid by a law firm, representing pharma companies. What's Daschle doing in the W.H. frequently? It's not clear if Daschle is a paid "lobbyist" or not. Hum?

Actually wrote:

There seems to be a conflict of interest issue as to Daschle. He's apparently paid by a law firm, representing pharma companies. What's Daschle doing in the W.H. frequently? It's not clear if Daschle is a paid "lobbyist" or not. Hum?

I think it's crystal clear. At least the republicans tried to hide that kind of stuff. Maybe this is what the ultra-liberals call 'open government'?

RustyS wrote:

<quoted text>
I think it's crystal clear. At least the republicans tried to hide that kind of stuff. Maybe this is what the ultra-liberals call 'open government'?

I discovered Daschle isn't a "registered lobbyist." I'm sure there are many just like him going in and out of the W.H.

Rasmussen:

NEW LOW for Obama's approval index

Strongly approve 27% NEW LOW
Strongly DISAPPROVE 41%- on its HIGHS

Total approval 48% NEW LOW
Total DISAPPROVAL 51%, 1 point off its HIGHS

At what point do you think the democrats will figure out the nation doesn’t want what they’re pushing?

Will it be when Obama’s approvals are in their 30s?

And as pointed out, Obama is willing to be a 1 term president to get his health care approval through.

So, if his HC initiative is SO popular, why would he be a 1 term president?

Are the democrats willing to follow him off that cliff?

Are THEY willing to lose their jobs in order to shove this down the nation’s throat?

Took the democrats 10 years to recover from 1994 when they tried to do this. Think it will take them another decade this time?