Mrs-O.com is a blog dedicated to chronicling the fashion and style of First Lady Michelle Obama. Founded September 2008.
Willow, you don't make sense to me. So why is Nelson playing the abortion card now? Why is he holding out for that and trying to gut Medicaid? I haven't heard the president speak against these two issues openly, so are we to now assume that along with him not wanting a public option, and allowing Lieberman to do his dirty work, he wants the Stupak language and to gut Medicaid so he's allowing Nelson to do that too.
I categorically reject your and Greenwald's assertion. I think it is the height of paranoia that you think the president has decided it is good politics to give lip service to the public option, in an effort to do the insurance companies' bidding. It is fools like yourself who do not see what is sitting in front of your face....
We NEVER had the votes for the public option in the Senate. Realizing this early on, the president and his team made a strategic decision that the rest of the bill was more important than the public option which was always limited to the exchange, always limited to having to survive off of payment of premiums, and always going to have to compete with private insurers. They decided that regulating the private insurance industry was more important and impactful than dumping some "public option" in the middle of our current system. Especially since once they set up the insurance industry regulations and exchange, they could add a public option thereafter.
Further, lost in all of this public option hysteria is the fact that Medicare is in financial trouble and these bills, both the House and Senate bills have needed Medicare reforms to put Medicare on better financial footing. So when it became clear that we do not have the votes for the public option, that no amount of badgering was going to revive it, the president and his team made the decision to stop emphasizing the public option.
I believe thoroughly that the president wanted a public option. I just don't think he is like most liberals in that he was willing to die at its altar.
The president has more leverage over progressive members. The progressive members are more loyal to him. That is probably why he's able to play hardball with them. He has nothing on Lincoln or Landrieu or Nelson. He lost their states. His approval ratings in their states suck. They are independently able to raise money from local backers and institutions. And they are probably the only type of Democrats that can come out of such conservative states. So, why would he badger them when they don't really need him for the electoral viability? What can he legitimately threaten them with when they don't need him to campaign for them, they don't need him to endorse them, they don't need him to raise money for them?
Also, JUST BECAUSE YOU HAVEN'T READ SOMETHING DOESN'T MEAN IT'S NOT HAPPENING. You have NO clue what kind of deals and hard-balling is going on with Nelson, Lieberman, etc. All you know is what you read, which is probably not even 1/2 the story.
The last thing I will say is that you are not welcome in this thread. I specifically left the President Obama thread in order for you to link and talk and have paranoid delusions with yourself there. You are something else to drop in here with you shit. Yes, shit. I have said numerous times to you that I viist progressive blogs and that I'm well aware of what is out there. I know what Greenwald and Hamsher and Kos are wriiting. I just don't buy what they're peddling. And I resent that you are chasing me around linking to them like I don't know what their deal is.
I'm sure there are people lurking who may join you in the President Obama thread. I don't want to talk politics with you because I don't like your style. I don't like your politics. I don't like your debating/discussion skills. It's not even so much that I disagree, it is that you have not formed any opinions on your own. You read other people's opinions, find them to fit your paranoia, and you run with it. It is hard for me to talk to someone who relies on other people making their arguments.
Now you have made Bevi leave this thread. Good job. You are runining this thread. I suppose you are honing your "kill the bill" skills that some on the left need for these last moments of the health care issue.
@ Nyon - no that bill is about the defense spending which was needed in order to fund the troops that are fighting in the wars the Republicans started. Last night the Republicans filibustered that spending bill hoping that the Democrats couldn't break the filibuster, so that would have ended up delaying the health care bill. But the Democrats found the votes, and broke the filibuster, so the spending bill will be voted on Satruday, and then health care will come by Monday. That's the tentative schedule.
If you have been following this legislative session, particularly in the Senate, you would be disgusted by the antics of the Republicans. Willow and her paranoid friends are so busy dreaming up schemes about how Barack Obama who despite numerous opportunities never went corporate, is now a corporate sell-out so much so that he is willing to sink his entire presidency, alienate a part of his own party, and pass an alleged bad bill that he will forever be judged by, that they are doing little to get the word out that the Republicans are delaying everything in a cyncial and destructive attempt to break Obama.
If Obama's grand plan was to have Congress drag heath care reform until the new year, piss off 1/2 the Democratic party, light up the netroots, fire up the teabaggers, and sink his poll numbers below the 50s, all in the name of protecting the insurance companies, then he's doing a great job. He's also crazy, and we are too for voting for him in that case.
I understand your frustration and I lost my patience a long time ago. But if we leave everytime she posts something then we will never get to have these conversations. Hopefully, after this she will respect our wishes and return to the Obama thread for her posts and those that want to read them. I hope you actually get to read this and change your mind.
Thanks for explaining the bills to me. As you can see, clearly I have not been following any legislation sessions. First, I am not going to lie, I have never been interested in politics until now. (really not that interested now, but I am paying more attention) So, I am not interested enough to watch. Secondly, I have little patience and when I see foolishness, it irks my nerves and I get upset. Therefore, I don't even put myself through that. So, I get what little info I do know from CNN or MSNBC or from articles that I might see. And from you guys, of course. That's why I don't want everyone to let Willow run them away because I am learning so much and in a language I can understand(sounds selfish, but its true).
You expressed the way I feel exactly in your last paragraph (and in a few more LOL! ;-)
Please know that there is no intent to hurt your feelings, but I think it is better that you refrain from posting your opinions on this particular thread. Not saying you can't post at all, but just not here. That's why the Obama thread was left for you to express your opinions freely and for those who wanted to discuss politics with you. I am not saying that I won't visit that thread and read your opinions, I just have to be in the right frame of mind to do so. I hope you take no offense and I hope you respect our wishes.
Don't tell me. There was a perfectly nice conversation going on, and then someone came in and turned it into a politicised row? Baffling. It's almost as if they want to make the chat room somewhere unpleasant, a place where people no longer want to go.
You are right, Nyon. We should be able to talk her and learn from each other, and not feel marginalized. I really enjoy and learn from both Sharon Nelson and IVA, and am eager to hear more.I miss Alsace, and Christina, who both added so much to the political discussions we had. As did jerseygirl. And Susan2.
I think it will be interesting to see the events of the next few days vis a vis the health care reform bill unfold.
Posh, what is your take on the Copenhagen talks?
Dear IVA, Bevi, Nyon, and other readers,
I hesitated to post my link to Greenwald's article here, but did so because several of you voiced confusion as to what was going on, and I thought that political calculation played a role in the decisions made by this administration, as it does in all administrations. It may not be the total answer, but it certainly plays a role, and it's a perception held by many.
I am going to respond to you here in the best way I can, but I think that after that I will not post any of my political views on the Mrs O site because it seems that unless one is completely supportive of everything President Obama does, one is accused of paranoia or of having no clue, and one is "invited" not to participate.
I think that this entire political thing is so complicated that none of us has a corner on truth. I also believe that none of us really understands it. All we can do is search for facts, opinions and analysis where we can. I believe that we all do selective "hearing" of what we read. So any one of us who thinks we have the real truth and others do not is deluding ourselves. I come from a liberal bias, which clearly influences how I see things. The bias I seem to perceive in you, IVA, Nyon, and maybe Bevi, is the belief that President Obama can do no wrong and any criticism of him will not be tolerated. I don't reject anything categorically, because I think we are all dealing with part of the truth, and that the real truth lies somewhere in the middle of everyone's opinions. But I think it's naive to think that political calculation has not played a role in this whole thing.
Bevi, I'm sorry if you found my response before reading Klein's article disrespectful. It was not meant to be. I expect you can appreciate that illness and limited energy requires one to do less and to do things less perfectly than one would like. I had already read rebuttals of Klein's article here and here. Those rebuttals appeared on firedoglake. I have incredible respect for the digging their people do to find accuracy about the implications of what is in the bill. I think they are right. However, IVA doesn't share that view. Is the "truth" somewhere between our two perceptions?
I also want to respond to your comment about Howard Dean, Bevi. I was surprised to hear you call him a hypocrite. I don't live in Vermont and have no intimate knowledge of what went on there. Personally, I find it hard to believe that he would tell people one thing, if he knew the opposite would be true. Is it possible that he fully believed that premiums wouldn't go up when he said it, and that he was simply mistaken, or that factors he could not have known about at the time played a role?
I respect Howard Dean for what he has done for the Democratic Party. The DNC fought his 50-state strategy, but if it were not for Dean and his 50-state strategy, Obama wouldn't be in the White House and we would not hold majorities in the House and Senate. Then the DNC rewarded him by kicking him aside. I believe the DNC did that because he is not beholden to corporations for campaign contributions like the DNC is and refuses to play that game. For the first time in my life, I have come to the conclusion that Ralph Nader is right that there is little difference between the Republicans and the Democrats when it comes to being controlled by the money of lobbyists and corporations. I know that others here will find that opinion completely unacceptable and tell me that because I hold it, I have no right to post anything here. What is with that exactly? Why would one feel the need to banish someone who doesn't share one's view? Is that because of insecurity? Is it because of fear? Is it too upsetting to hear from someone who holds a different point of view?
If we must banish someone who doesn't agree with us, what hope is there for this pluralistic society? If we can't accept that there might be some kernel of truth in a view different from our own, and believe that we might be able to learn from each other as we muddle our way toward the "truth", where does that leave us?
Now, to respond to one of Klein's big things on the necessity for the mandate. I hardly know where to begin with the bill currently on the Senate floor. It makes me shudder. In my view, this mandate, without a public option, and without strict regulation of the insurance industry, is a terrible, terrible mistake. To the best of my knowledge, this is the first time in our history, and in the history of the industrialized world, that a government will require it's citizens to buy an unregulated product from unregulated industry. How can this be called democracy? Not only that, we will be using tax $$$ to help people buy that unregulated product from unregulated industry. More corporate welfare. More proof that our government is wholly controlled by the corporations. If the Senate bill becomes law, the insurance companies will have won big, as evidenced by the fact that their stocks have gone up dramatically since the demise of the public option and the medicare buy-in. We also have that guy who defected from the insurance industry (I apologize for not remembering his name) saying that the insurance companies have gotten every single thing they have wanted.
There are just two industrialized countries who rely totally on private insurance to provide health care, The Netherlands, and (I'm sorry, I'm not good at remembering names) I think it's Denmark. But in both of those countries, the insurance industry is strictly regulated. We have no regulation here. I could be wrong, but I don't think there's anything in this bill or any other that controls how much insurance companies can raise their premiums. Also, I understand that under this bill, older people may be paying premiums three times higher than younger people. As I understand it, we could be paying higher premiums for things as small as high cholesterol, high blood pressure, or asthma. So, this bill may not allow insurance to deny you coverage for a pre-existing condition or to drop you if you become seriously ill, but it allows them to raise premiums based on pre-existing conditions. So it may come to the same thing. Pricing people out of being able to afford insurance if they have a pre-existing condition is pretty much the same thing as denying them coverage. Only now we'll be fined if we can't afford to pay these higher premiums based on our pre-existing conditions. I've also read that lower-income people who may be helped with their mandatory purchase of insurance may not be able to take advantage of it because of high co-pays and deductibles, which are not regulated in this bill -- to the best of my knowledge. As I understand it, the Senate bill would hold insurance companies to a certain percent of profit. But, that may only add to the incentives to raise premiums so that profits will be higher.
I think that a mandate could be a good tool if choice was provided by a public option of some sort, or if our insurance industry were strictly regulated. But without either of those two things, I think it is a disaster. I can hardly believe that our government will fine poor people $750 per year for not giving their money over to ruthless insurance companies for insurance they may not be able to pay the co-pays and deductibles on. What a landfall for the insurance industry. What a sad day for our "democracy".
I've been thinking about my response here for several days while my energy was committed to other things, so this may not flow well from one topic to the next.
I want to make another comment about Howard Dean. I do not deride him for saying he would not vote for this bill. I thank him for it, and I'll tell you why. The thing that fascinates me so much about watching politics is trying to figure out what people are really saying and why they are saying it, because I've learned that in the game of politics, almost nothing is what it seems on the surface. Since Howard Dean will forever be "persona non grata" with the DNC, he has nothing to lose. I believe he felt the best thing he could do for the American people was to say he could not support this bill. By stating that loudly and clearly, he used whatever clout he had to force the Senate to make a few changes to the bill. As a result, it's a bit better in some ways today than it was.
Howard Dean's stand on the Senate bill reminds me of Byron Dorgan (Senator from North Dakota) being the lone voice back in 1999 when the Glass-Steagall Act was repealed: ""I think we will in 10 years' time look back and say we should not have done this." Exactly 10 years later, we were in the worst finanacial crisis since the Great Depression, and it was entirely because of the regulations rescinded by repeal of that Act.
Nelson has made the Senate bill worse, of course. Good for NOW for standing up for access to reproductive health coverage for poor women. I am appalled by the way Lieberman and Nelson -- or any other single senator -- can completely control something as major as health care for everyone in the whole country, and demand ransom for their state besides. What an undemocratic body! What a sad commentary on our "democracy". The rules in this body are in desperate need of reform. The House is a much more representative, democratic body. Pelosi did a terrific job of delivering a strong bill, and she worked hard to get the votes -- with no help from the White House. In fact, she was so disappointed that when it came time to get the votes for war funding, she said that Obama himself would have to come and get the votes, she wasn't going to do it.
Now, about Obama being a helpless victim who could not have done anything different in this health care debate and struggle. I guess I come as close to "categorically rejecting" that as IVA is to rejecting my belief that politics played a huge role in how the White House dealt with it. It's difficult for me to believe that the most powerful leader in the world is helpless to have any influence over the members of the senate of his own party. Best I can tell, most people have watched every president fight hard for legislation they want. It's what we elect a president for. It's what we expect. The vast majority of people are quite surprised at how little Obama seemed to do to influence the bills in the House or Senate. I'm not alone in believing that Obama should have done more to. One of the networks posted a poll on national news Friday night showing that 87% of Democrats and 71% of Independents believe that Obama should have done more to influence Lieberman. Since that is the case, it would appear that this thread is open to the opinions of just 13% of Democrats and 29% of Independents.
Here's another poll that
"finds only 33 percent of likely voters favor a health care bill that does not include a public health insurance option and does not expand Medicare, but does require all Americans to get health insurance. Slightly more Democrats -- 37 percent -- favor the idea, while only 30 percent of Republicans and 31 percent of independents do.Meanwhile, if the public option and Medicare buy-in are added, 58 percent of people support the idea. The number of Republican supporters drops to 22 percent, but independent support rises to 57 percent and Democratic support to a whopping 88 percent.
"This poll shows voters in full-blown revolt against the Senate bill," said PCCC co-founder Stephanie Taylor. "Only one-third of voters support mandates without a public option, while nearly two-thirds want the public option and Medicare expansion. This will be a disaster of epic proportions for Democrats in 2010 if it's not fixed -- fast."
There are other polls showing Obama's approval and disapproval ratings overall and on certain issues in really negative territory.
These are pretty scary numbers for President Obama and his White House, as well as for Democrats in the 2010 elections. I think that Obama came into office not understanding how much the country had changed since Clinton. He campaigned before the primary like he understood, but after that, he seemed to think that governing from the middle or middle-right was what the country wanted. For such a brilliant politician, I think it was a major mistake. He came into office with a strong, clear mandate to truly make serious changes. But, he has been timid on the domestic issues that angered the base that worked for him. This health care bill looks so much weaker than most people believe he could have gotten. We hoped he would restore our constitution and let the world know we do not torture by actually investigating and prosecuting the war criminals, but he refuses to do so. He promised to repeal DADT, but instead he is refusing to grant medical coverage to the partner of a gay federal employee which has been ordered by a judge. Many of us are completely baffled, and very disappointed. We expected him to defeat or make significant changes to the Patriot Act, but that has not happened. The transparency he promised seems to have vanished behind secret deals cut with pharma, etc. Hence the lack of interest on the part of Democrats in voting in 2010. What a tragedy! What a squandered opportunity!
You all know from reading my introduction to the Obama thread how much hope I had for this presidency. In my 65 years, I had never been more hopeful or frankly, more in love with a candidate. He seemed more honest than the average politician, he seemed to support the issues I cared about; and, as frosting on the cake, he was black besides, giving us an opportunity to elect our first black president. I loved the whole thing.
This is so much longer than I intended, and I have spent my entire Sunday here. But I want to ask you to consider one more possibility. You all seem to assume that few people participate in political discussion on Mrs. O because of something Willow has done or said. Wow! What an assumption. I know I made a fool of myself stating too many times that I thought the Nobel Prize was premature, but that unpopular position (on this thread, not in the country, where 75% of people share my view) earned me one of the most irrational, inaccurate, and personal attacks ever put on anyone on this blog. Could it be that few people participate in political discussion here because it is clear that only complete support of President Obama will be tolerated? Could it be that most people come to this fashion site merely to escape the stresses of life, and don't want to think about politics here?
As for my posting links to articles, and not taking time to discuss them, I am often without time to repeat what some other author has said much better than I would or could.
I believe that in the future, when I have a strong reaction to something going on, I will post a comment or link to the Obama thread, and people can read and comment or not.
I love you all, IVA, Nyon, and Bevi. I think you might be a little closed to the possibility that there is validity to opinions other than your own, but I don't take that as personally as you all seem to take my views.
I won't post here in the future, as you request, although reading your views of things sometimes pains me, because I think they are too narrow and don't consider realities supported by majorities in the polls.
Bless you all. I hope you stay safe and warm and happy and that you will have great holidays.
Bevi I'm afraid I have been out of the loop in many ways over the last two or three weeks so I'm not up to speed on Copenhagen. I've only been paying attention to Avaaz.org and responding to calls for action. According to them and their conversations with Gordon Brown, things are being achieved, but I didn't pay attention to the details. Apologies for not being able to add anything useful.
I just read your post and thought about it long and hard. You're right, who am I to tell you not to post on this thread? I definitely have alot of nerve to even fix my mouth to say that. This is a free country and we all have our right to freedom of speech. Plus this is not my site, so I can't regulate it. Shoot, post wherever you like and it is up to me whether I read it or not.
I would like to clarify my reasons for asking you not to post here, though. Please don't get it twisted, I am neither afraid nor insecure about voicing my opinions or hearing your opinions. The truth is that you irritate me. Sorry, I can't find a better way to explain it. All your articles and polls irk the hell out of me. And while I think I am a very open-minded person, you might be right that I may be a little narrow minded when it comes to Barack Obama. Hell, I am not liking the way HCR is coming along and I def think the Pres has some fault in that, but I refuse to believe he never wanted the public option. Also, I live by that mentality that I can talk bad about my family or friends(in this case, the Pres), but if I hear somebody else talking bad about them, I am not cool with that. So for no other reasons, than selfish reasons, I asked you to refrain from posting on this thread. And for that only, I am sorry.
I also need to state that I don't think there is a problem with you posting your opinions. The problem is the way you go about doing it. You post an article for us to read then when we (most likely not me, but i included myself because I have asked 1 or 2 questions) come back with questions for you, you never answer them or you throw another article up that is suppose to be your answer. I don't want to hear an author explain it better than you, I want to hear you explain in your own words. IVA tried to engage you in a political discussion and all we heard were crickets chirping. It seems like if you are not teaching or preaching to us then your not interested in communicating. And I know your illness may hinder your participation sometimes, but all I am saying is the same amount of energy you use to post an article and tell us about it is the same amount of energy you can use to answer our questions.
I don't know who said that the political threads are lacking because of you. I definitely don't think you have that much power to stop people from posting all together. People might not want to discuss it with you, but if their not posting at all, it is because they don't want to talk politics, not because of you.
I am mad at myself because I have not been living by my motto, which usually keeps me out of situations like this. "You do you and Imma do me" If I consistently live by this then I won't have any issues with people and their lives or their opinions. So, do you Willow because I am definitely going to do me and I have no other choice but to be cool with that.
There is no love lost.
I'm just now reading these recent comments.
Willow - it was me who asked you not to comment in this thread, and that was probably not the way to go about it. That was closed-minded of me. This is an open forum and all should be able to say what they please.
Tonight the Senate got over the hurdle to pass the health care bill and prepare to vote to send it to conference to reconcile with the House bill. I will confess that I have mixed emotions. I support a public option completely and the fact that it does not appear that we will get it is very upsetting. I see the good in the bill - no more pre-existing conditions, no more recission, capping out-of-pocket expenses, and so on. So that is fine. But I do think this is a temporary bandaid. They will have to revisit this bill because I do think insurance companies are going to find another way to deny people coverage or limit it. But what was the alternative? McCain had a mandate, he'd give vouchers, allow insurance companies to operate across state lines, and do "tort reform," which is code of limiting the damages someone who WON their case could collect. With those 2 options, we got a better deal, although not ideal.
In terms of the process. Time certainly will tell who were the culprits and who weren't. If the president really just wanted this bill as is, and went through a whole year of drama and public option drama in particular, to end up with poll numbers as poor as you have provided, then he is either a glutton for punishment, foolish, or God knows what. The media is already spinning this bill as a purely partisan bill and a failure since it did not contain the public option the president championed. Some people are still believing that this bill represents a government takeover. So he will get no help from pundits in trying to rehabilitate the bill and his poll numbers in the short term.
In terms of corporate power - yes the Republicans and Democrats are very much in the pocket of corporations. The only reason we didn't get a public option is because of corporate power. These insurance companies had key senators in their back pocket and used them wisely. Whether or not the president supported their efforts is unknown, but will be brought to light eventually. I doubt it, but this concern seems to be gaining traction in some progressives circles so I hope we find out details about where people stood sooner or later.
In the end, this bill is turning out to be a very sour victory for me. Our president's credibility is being questioned. His popularity has greatly diminished. The bill is not the same as he campaigned on and not as strong as I'd like. The partisanship in the Senate is high and not likely to get any better for our upcoming battles on immigration, financial regulations, and climate change.
I don't know what to expect. I see the Senate as a very limited body, unable to make bold change. I am preparing myself for such sour victories in the above issues.
At this point I have a hope - that come new year, something changes for the better. The feeling in the air is very negative. I miss the hope and positivity that swept in last January. I don't know if the president can recapture that vibe, but I hope so. I'm tired of his wins being sour. The stimulus was the largest in history - but not enough. He wins the Nobel - but too soon. He makes something out of a mess in Copenhagen - but it's not sufficient. And now historic health care - but it's a corporate giveaway.
I'm just blabbering now, so I'll end here.
I'm not going to go on and on with this, but there are a few points here I would like to address:
1) Wlllow, I concur with Nyon regarding your style of posting when we get into the realm of politics. My opinion is it is preachy, and you come off as knowing more than others based on your age and your familiarity with blogs that are linked to progressive thought. Someone coined the phrase "concern troll", and for me that sums up the feeling I get when I read your too-lengthy posts. And in rereading some of the chats that took place in other threads, this is not the first time you have driven fellow posters to distraction.
In the past, you pull apart others' responses to glean an opinion that concurs with yours, and you get euphoric and come off as having won some sort of hollow victory. It's as if you need to point out that some of us "get it" - while others are not enlightened enough to reach that level of understanding.
Also, there have been times you have had a visceral reaction to what others post, such as the Wise article, or my posting of the Prufrock poem, and it seems to me that you had a closed mind on those discussions, or as you put it, " you might be a little closed to the possibility that there is validity to opinions other than your own". So you suggesting to me that I reject things categorically comes off as hypocritical, to my mind.
2) When I said Howard Dean was a hypocrite, I referenced his stance on the HCR bill ONLY. I am well aware of his election winning 50-state strategy, and I am also aware of the legislation that he got passed in Vermont. As a result, we have in this town one of the highest property tax bills in the state, and insurance payments that are through the roof. So you can assume that I have experience with Howard Dean as one of his constituents.
3) Since you have been called out a number of times when it comes to politics, you might want to examine your way of communicating and not assume these flare ups are the result of the rigidity of the rest of those who post. That's a fair request. When you complain about the "irrational" attack you received, you owe yourself a favor by examining what you can do as a poster to avoid instilling the frustration that is engendered by some of what you write in the political vein.
4) I have several friends whose political thinking is vastly different from mine, and we agree to disagree or not talk politics. I enjoy relating with you in other ways, and will continue to do so, but I find your political discussions and the way you go about them very annoying.
5) I am not happy about the way the HCR is morphing - I am no fool - but I ask myself if I am sorry that Obama is in office, and I am not. I think POTUS has set a tone where globally we are in a better place, he has to deal with a Republican juggernaut that has gone on record numerous times as declaring they want to destroy his Presidency, and he does care about disenfranchised people.
6) I'll probably refrain from engaging you politically, unless you take a different approach in the future. But, as I previously stated, I value your opinions and postings in every other way.
IVA - Thank you for your post. It was refreshing to me to read that you have a mixed reaction to the HRC bill as it stands, and that you are open to the possibility that President Obama's actions and decisions in all of this can be discussed. Your post leaves room for discussion of the pros and cons of what is going on. I look forward to engaging in that on the other thread, if you feel inclined.
Nyon, Thank you for your response. I'm sorry that I irritate you. I'm just here doing the best I can. I think this sentence "Also, I live by that mentality that I can talk bad about my family or friends(in this case, the Pres), but if I hear somebody else talking bad about them, I am not cool with that.", while charming and endearing, also shows why discussion of the President and his actions may be difficult. I still think you're a great person, and I'm sorry that I irritate you.
Let me explain here why I did not respond to IVA's questions a while back. It felt like a set-up to me. I felt that there were several people whose views seemed to be entirely directed at supporting the president in everything he did, cheering IVA on and just waiting to pounce on anything I said that would not support him 100%. I am not willing to go there.
Also, I have limited time and energy, and I thought that by posting a link to a point of view worth considering, I might be contributing.
Bevi - Once again, I'm sorry that for some reason my style irritates you. Perhaps it's the result of 25 years of almost complete isolation. I'm doing the best I can.
I'm glad to hear that you, too, have mixed feelings about this HRC process. I hope that I in no way gave the impression that I'm sorry Obama is in office. I'm not. His style of governing simply surprises me, based on the impression I formed of him during the campaign.
I'm glad you're making use of the chat forum, but I'm not sure this is right thread to discuss political issues. It began as a thread for Dancing with the Stars and really should stay that. Would you mind using a different thread or starting a new one? Greatly appreciated and happy holidays!
Just to clarify, Willow did not come over here to write about politics - a few of the rest of us did. But I know those of us who do get into politics are happy to go elsewhere.
Actually, Willow did not start the political discussion on this thread. A few of us left the Obama thread and used this thread (because DWTS ended) as an alternative. I just didn't want you to think she was the one who steered it away from its original discussion. Happy Holidays to you and your family!!!
You don't have to be sorry, like I said do you and it is up to me whether I can handle it or not.For the record, I don't think it was a set up. I just think people were very anxious to hear your answers to such clear and precise questions. Thats all. Whether you believe it or not people don't want to crucify you for your beliefs. You have to know that politics is a very hot topic, so people can get heated or better yet passionate about it. I think you're a lovely lady and although we might not agree about certain things, I still respect your opinions. Merry Christmas!!
Dang Bevi, I just saw your post. My bad for posting the same thing, but oh well, it is real clear now.
Oh, got it! My apologies Willow. I sensed tension, and thought it was because there was political chat on the Dancing with the Stars thread. Whoops!
Please feel free to continue chatting here of course and excuse my rather botched attempt at moderating.
IVA, DWTS starts tonight. Are you going to watch this season?
Oh yea! I watched it on Monday. I'm actually thinking this season will be better than last one. So far:
Kate (from John and Kate plus 8) - Terrible, embarrassing, crappy attitude. BYE!
Pam Anderson - weird, entertaining though
Nicole from Pussy Cat Dolls - I really liked how elegant she danced
Erin (Maks's partner) - I like Maks so I'm happy she doesn't suck.
Shannen Doherty - Needs to get her nerves together, but she did good. Clearly lost concentration throughout the dance.
Buzz - don't hurt yourself - but great attitude
Evan L - obviously carried himself well, I thought his feet were sloppy
Jake - I don't like him for some reason, but he and Chelsie look like Barbie and Ken, so they'll go far.
Chad Ochocinco - Best start of a football player I've seen. I like him the most
Aidan - felt bad for him, music was weird, and Edyta's costume gimmick and the choreography was generally weird
Niecy - She's fun.
I think that's everybody. My fave woman is Nicole, but Erin will be good. My favorite guy was Ochocinco.
What say you, Nyon? Or anyone else who saw it and wants to join in!
IVA, I basically agree with what you said.
I don't think Kate was that bad and I think because she is way out of her comfort zone, she is real anxious and I already know she is a control freak from her show, so her not having control may be causing her to act a lil bitchy, which is not good because that is what everyone thinks of her anyway.
Pam is crazier than that thang, but I like her and she did WAY better than I thought she would.
I was pretty surprised how emotional Shannen was. She did ok, though.
Evan and Anna definitely need to work on their chemistry. As beautiful as his lines were I felt nothing from the dance.
Niecy is hilarious!
Ochocinco was good, although I think his arrogance is going to hurt him in the end.
I though Aidan was ready to roast the judges because they were going hard on him.
I don't know if it was just me, but Bruno was saying some EXTRA off the wall stuff last night. It was funny, don't get me wrong, but a lil rough for the first week.
This season is def going to be one of the best that they have had in a long time.
You know, Nyon, you've pointed out what was wrong with Evan and Anna. Chemistry was lacking, but I find that she doesn't do chemistry well with any of her partners. I don't really care for her, for some reason.
I can see Ochocinco's arrogance getting the best of him, but I see Cheryl checking him when she feels it's a detriment to her chances of winning again.
Aidan was unfairly criticized. It wasn't the best dance, but damn - they gave him a 15 which was too low, and the comments were too negative.
Bruno's comment that Tony looked like he was pushing a shopping cart was messed up but funny. I never did watch Kate's show, so I didn't know she was controlling. That will cause her problems with how the producers show her, they will not shy away from playing up any attitude they detect. I hope she can soften and lighten up.
Drama, Drama, Drama!!!! They had alot of that going on last night.
Ok, so Nicole is the best, which means she probably won't win. If I was her I would have tried to not be as good the first few weeks so it can look like she is progressing. But she is the bomb and I like her. She has a good personality so that may help her win compared to Mya last season.
Poor Buzz!! He is so cute, yet so bad. He will probably last a couple more weeks just because of that.
There is something about Evan that is just not clicking for me. I can't put my fingerr on it, but I am not feeling him.
IDK what happened with Ochocinco, this was not a good dance for him.
Well just as you predicted the storyline for Kate is being bitchy and difficult. And boy, did they play that up last night. I am really hoping she leaves tonight. Not because she is the worst, but I don't think her reputation will benefit from her staying. Its like you were causing all that hell to learn the routine and you still get out there and dance like that and forget your routine. I'm thinking it might be OV for her tonight.
All the rest of them did well.
Man, Drama was on overload last night. I thought it was a bit much...this is a dance show, not a soap opera. I'm glad Len said something about the stars needing to chill out and let their pros do what they know how to do, which is teach them to dance.
Ocho was weird. I think he might be catching some feelings or something for Cheryl because he was oddly nervous. So the dance had nerves written all over it and was awkward and shaky. He looked very unhappy with the comments, understandably, but he has to understand that he sucked.
Kate does need to leave for her own good. That fight with Tony was bad. Tony is not known to blow up, so she must be on his last nerve if he walked out and said he quit. I can't see him doing that just for the show...I think he meant it. It was very embarrassing after the blow up during rehearsals that she went out there and danced so badly. It was painful to watch.
I, too, like Nicole and I foresee her getting second place because she's too good too soon. Derek has a hell of a fanbase, so that may make their fate different from others like her who were so good.
Yeah, I forgot to say that I thought it looked like Ochcocinco wanted to cry or at least his eyes were really watery. Was it just me or did you see that too? Whatever is wrong, he needs to get it in check.
I don't know about you, but I was not expecting Pam to be in the bottom two, let alone Shannen to be kicked off. Unfortunately for Pam not enough men watch DWTS and the soccer moms of the USA probably are not feeling her sexed up image, LOL!!! Poor Shannen. I think her reputation for being a bitch got her kicked off more than her dancing.
Yep...Pam doesn't have the type of fans that watch the show, and her pro is too new and doesn't come with enough fans to get them through very far.
Shannen was forgettable, I thinkt that was her problem.
Hey Ladies -
It's Basketball Central around here, but I am sure getting a kick out of your posts. Shannon is a Debbie Downer and I don't think the judges or the voters have time for that. Personally I think they'll keep Kate on for at least a few weeks to keep the ratings up. I read that there was a dip in the ratings last season so the producers took steps to tighten up the roster, and get personalities who had high Q ratings. Kate's bitchiness will keep viewers interested to see what kind of prima donna maneuvers she pulls.
Of course, take that all with a grain of salt - I'm sure my source was some rag like US or National Enquirer - whatever I was reading in the doctor's office.