Robert Stephenson's Blog
I think he has a clear picture of what needs to be done and some great ideas about how to achieve it. He's an eloquent speaker, intelligent, and he seems to genuinely CARE about this country and Americans. Many Americans have lost trust in the current administration and the traditional ways of government operations, and when people's trusts are compromised it is difficult to restore. I think Obama's plan to revamp what is possible in Washington is commendable. The derailment and abuse of power by the current administration, and the unprecedented unpopular results it is still producing will take many years of labor to mend. The Senator's aim to work on policy reform while honoring our constitution versus catering to lobbyists and special interest groups stands to reshape the Capital and it stands to trickle down to my home town. I believe Obama is the only candidate that genuinely speaks to the possibility of change in government. I believe he can make a difference.
Vote Barack Oboma March 4,2008
Vote Barack Oboma March 4,2008
Jodie Evans
Don't Buy Bush's War
Posted December 14, 2007 | 04:17 PM (EST)
How much of your tax payment this year would you like to allocate for waterboarding in Iraq or an invasion of Iran?
Around the world, people are puzzled as to why the U.S. public allows the Bush administration to wage illegal wars and usurp our power. Why do we tolerate it and continue to pay for it? Read More »
Don't Buy Bush's War
Posted December 14, 2007 | 04:17 PM (EST)
How much of your tax payment this year would you like to allocate for waterboarding in Iraq or an invasion of Iran?
Around the world, people are puzzled as to why the U.S. public allows the Bush administration to wage illegal wars and usurp our power. Why do we tolerate it and continue to pay for it? Read More »
In the beginning, I think our president had plans to breeze into Iraq, kill Saddam, install a puppet government and take control of the second-largest oil field on the planet. President Bush ignored the comparison of Iraq and Vietnam. He ignored those that stated that Iraq could become a quagmire just like Vietnam.
Now, several thousand troops are dead. More than 100,000 Iraqi citizens are dead. And the dead are growing every single day. This administration has failed in this war. There is no way to win this war because there is no trust or respect held for this administration by the Iraqi people. The troops we are sending are no more than placing a Band-Aid on an ax wound, and giving the bombers more U.S. targets to shoot at and blow up.
It's time to back off and let the Iraqi people work out their own differences and work for peace. The Sunni and Shiite factions hold a difference of opinions that go back more than 1,000 years. No one but themselves will ever be able to resolve this matter: It's time to get our troops out. It's time for them to come home. Thank you.
Robert Stephenson
Now, several thousand troops are dead. More than 100,000 Iraqi citizens are dead. And the dead are growing every single day. This administration has failed in this war. There is no way to win this war because there is no trust or respect held for this administration by the Iraqi people. The troops we are sending are no more than placing a Band-Aid on an ax wound, and giving the bombers more U.S. targets to shoot at and blow up.
It's time to back off and let the Iraqi people work out their own differences and work for peace. The Sunni and Shiite factions hold a difference of opinions that go back more than 1,000 years. No one but themselves will ever be able to resolve this matter: It's time to get our troops out. It's time for them to come home. Thank you.
Robert Stephenson
The House and Senate have voted on the withdrawal of our troops from Iraq.
With the war in Iraq out of control, President Bush promised a veto of the bill if it gets to his desk. The American people made their voice heard, and the president needs to wake up and listen to the American people. We have had enough! America wants out, and Bush needs to listen, not veto. Congress should continue to exercise its constitutional authority to hold the president accountable for a change of course that allows for our troops to come home.
Robert Stephenson
With the war in Iraq out of control, President Bush promised a veto of the bill if it gets to his desk. The American people made their voice heard, and the president needs to wake up and listen to the American people. We have had enough! America wants out, and Bush needs to listen, not veto. Congress should continue to exercise its constitutional authority to hold the president accountable for a change of course that allows for our troops to come home.
Robert Stephenson
The American people would be behind Bush and this war, which we are not even supposed to be in, if President Bush had not lied to get us into this war.
The war we are supposed to be in is in Afghanistan.
Iraq did not attack us on Sept. 11, 2001. Osama Bin Laden and his followers attacked us. Instead of focusing our efforts and resources on that, we let him go so we could go to war with Iraq.
In order to do this, Bush lied about the involvement of Iraq and 9/11 and about the presence of weapons of mass destruction. This is why Bush's approval rating is in the low 30s.
Congress is doing everything in its power to support our troops and to get them home safely. To suggest that members of Congress are committing treason by not giving Bush a blank check with no clear strategy for winning the war or getting out is insane.
This country is based on a democracy. This means that the beliefs of the few and powerful cannot and will not rule the roost. The majority rules. Unfortunately, the powers that be have forgotten that and are shaming the Constitution and the heart of what this country was founded on.
The "people" are telling those they elected that they are unhappy with the direction this war is going in, and they should be faithful to their commitment to them and not to the desires of the few.
Robert Stephenson
The war we are supposed to be in is in Afghanistan.
Iraq did not attack us on Sept. 11, 2001. Osama Bin Laden and his followers attacked us. Instead of focusing our efforts and resources on that, we let him go so we could go to war with Iraq.
In order to do this, Bush lied about the involvement of Iraq and 9/11 and about the presence of weapons of mass destruction. This is why Bush's approval rating is in the low 30s.
Congress is doing everything in its power to support our troops and to get them home safely. To suggest that members of Congress are committing treason by not giving Bush a blank check with no clear strategy for winning the war or getting out is insane.
This country is based on a democracy. This means that the beliefs of the few and powerful cannot and will not rule the roost. The majority rules. Unfortunately, the powers that be have forgotten that and are shaming the Constitution and the heart of what this country was founded on.
The "people" are telling those they elected that they are unhappy with the direction this war is going in, and they should be faithful to their commitment to them and not to the desires of the few.
Robert Stephenson
U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, failed Texas kids by voting against funding for the State Children's Health Insurance Program, a highly successful program that ensures children of working families have access to affordable health insurance.
Despite overwhelming support for CHIP in the Senate, Cornyn sided with President Bush and partisan Republicans, opposing legislation that will provide more federal money for Texas and help increase CHIP enrollment.
It's one more example of Republicans' failure to help Texas kids. Without health insurance, parents are forced to rely on emergency room visits, rather than doctor visits, to obtain care for their children.
Cornyn had a chance to turn things around and ensure all Texas kids have the opportunity for a happy and healthy childhood, but he chose to play partisan politics. Let's send a clear message to Cornyn, Bush and the rest of the Republicans that we want affordable health insurance for our Texas kids.
Robert Stephenson
Despite overwhelming support for CHIP in the Senate, Cornyn sided with President Bush and partisan Republicans, opposing legislation that will provide more federal money for Texas and help increase CHIP enrollment.
It's one more example of Republicans' failure to help Texas kids. Without health insurance, parents are forced to rely on emergency room visits, rather than doctor visits, to obtain care for their children.
Cornyn had a chance to turn things around and ensure all Texas kids have the opportunity for a happy and healthy childhood, but he chose to play partisan politics. Let's send a clear message to Cornyn, Bush and the rest of the Republicans that we want affordable health insurance for our Texas kids.
Robert Stephenson
It's been six years since Osama bin Laden orchestrated the devastating attack of Sept. 11, 2001, yet he still remains at large.
There are regular reports that Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaida followers are continuing to plan terror operations against American targets.
We now know that there was no link between 9/11 and the war in Iraq.
While we don't know why the Bush administration has been unable to find bin Laden, we do know that there is much to be done right here at home to ensure we keep Americans safe.
That's why Democrats were the first to advocate for the creation of a Department of Homeland Security.
Democrats were the first to suggest the formation of the 9/11 Commission to examine where American intelligence activities went wrong and what can be done to fix it.
Democrats have also been the strongest advocates of fully funding for first responders and homeland security, including the Transportation Security Administration, port security and chemical and nuclear plant security.
In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, we see that the Bush administration has failed to make us safer. Instead the administration has left us with questions about whether our government is prepared to deal with the aftermath of a large-scale incident.
Six years later, haven't we learned the lessons of 9/11?
Robert Stephenson
There are regular reports that Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaida followers are continuing to plan terror operations against American targets.
We now know that there was no link between 9/11 and the war in Iraq.
While we don't know why the Bush administration has been unable to find bin Laden, we do know that there is much to be done right here at home to ensure we keep Americans safe.
That's why Democrats were the first to advocate for the creation of a Department of Homeland Security.
Democrats were the first to suggest the formation of the 9/11 Commission to examine where American intelligence activities went wrong and what can be done to fix it.
Democrats have also been the strongest advocates of fully funding for first responders and homeland security, including the Transportation Security Administration, port security and chemical and nuclear plant security.
In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, we see that the Bush administration has failed to make us safer. Instead the administration has left us with questions about whether our government is prepared to deal with the aftermath of a large-scale incident.
Six years later, haven't we learned the lessons of 9/11?
Robert Stephenson
(What is this?) Senior American intelligence and defence officials believe that President George W Bush and his inner circle are taking steps to place America on the path to war with Iran, The Sunday Telegraph has learnt.
Pentagon planners have developed a list of up to 2,000 bombing targets in Iran, amid growing fears among serving officers that diplomatic efforts to slow Iran's nuclear weapons programme are doomed to fail.
Pentagon and CIA officers say they believe that the White House has begun a carefully calibrated programme of escalation that could lead to a military showdown with Iran.
Now it has emerged that Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of state, who has been pushing for a diplomatic solution, is prepared to settle her differences with Vice-President Dick Cheney and sanction military action.
In a chilling scenario of how war might come, a senior intelligence officer warned that public denunciation of Iranian meddling in Iraq - arming and training militants - would lead to cross border raids on Iranian training camps and bomb factories. Read More »
Pentagon planners have developed a list of up to 2,000 bombing targets in Iran, amid growing fears among serving officers that diplomatic efforts to slow Iran's nuclear weapons programme are doomed to fail.
Pentagon and CIA officers say they believe that the White House has begun a carefully calibrated programme of escalation that could lead to a military showdown with Iran.
Now it has emerged that Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of state, who has been pushing for a diplomatic solution, is prepared to settle her differences with Vice-President Dick Cheney and sanction military action.
In a chilling scenario of how war might come, a senior intelligence officer warned that public denunciation of Iranian meddling in Iraq - arming and training militants - would lead to cross border raids on Iranian training camps and bomb factories. Read More »
Posted by Michael Link on August 22, 2007 at 10:05 AM
Yes, this appears to be his message in a speech later today, in which he will defend his handling of the war in preparation of the September White House report by comparing it to the Vietnam War. It's an odd message for the White House, given the history. For that Josh Marshall has the details.
But even more, it's such a reversal from everything this administration has ever said about the subject. My favorite example, in April 2004 at a press conference:
Q Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, April is turning into the deadliest month in Iraq since the fall of Baghdad, and some people are comparing Iraq to Vietnam and talking about a quagmire. Polls show that support for your policy is declining and that fewer than half Americans now support it. What does that say to you and how do you answer the Vietnam comparison? Read More »
Yes, this appears to be his message in a speech later today, in which he will defend his handling of the war in preparation of the September White House report by comparing it to the Vietnam War. It's an odd message for the White House, given the history. For that Josh Marshall has the details.
But even more, it's such a reversal from everything this administration has ever said about the subject. My favorite example, in April 2004 at a press conference:
Q Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, April is turning into the deadliest month in Iraq since the fall of Baghdad, and some people are comparing Iraq to Vietnam and talking about a quagmire. Polls show that support for your policy is declining and that fewer than half Americans now support it. What does that say to you and how do you answer the Vietnam comparison? Read More »
by JDWolverton
Sat Aug 18, 2007 at 11:48:28 AM PDT
Every once in a while I try to talk sense to my wing nut brother....I try anyway.
Last weekend, we were driving up to one of the theme parks in Orlando, about a 3 hour drive. We always have a good time together ...politics aside, but the prospect of a 3 hour drive with a my wing nut brother and his wife is ...uh, well delicate is a good description. I usually soft pedal the politics in favor of family harmony....which is tough for me to do these days.
The subject turned to health care. Due to a series of unfortunate events my sister-in-law lost her insurance at her work and my brother couldn't add her to his policy at his work because of another series of mishaps. Then she finds out she's uninsurable because she had a curable cancer 7 years ago. If by some chance she does find a private policy they can actually afford, she still has a pre-existing condition that won't be covered.
It is a horrible situation to be in and I sympathized with them. Then I mentioned that a single-payer system would eliminate this problem and...
WOW!
I flipped the wing nut switch!
JDWolverton's diary :: ::
Despite the obvious, they repeated the Republican Health Care talking points verbatim. The conversation went somethink like this....
We (Meaning the US) Have The Best Health Care In The World.
I looked over at my husband...he was concentrating on the multiple predicaments facing Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows.
So, I took a deep breath......
...but we don't have the best health care in the world. The US is ranked last by the Common Wealth Fund's report released this spring and The World Health Organization ranks us 37th in the world.
The U.S. health system spends a higher portion of its gross domestic product than any other country but ranks 37 out of 191 countries according to its performance, the report finds.
The really remarkable thing brought out by SICKO! was that Cuba is ranked 39th in the world just a couple slots behind the US and they spend only about $235 per person per year while the US spends about $7,900 per person. We don't get good value for what we spend.
I dearly love my brother and his wife and know them well, so I wasn't too surprised when my sister-n-law said: "I don't believe that. That has to be wrong." I shrugged and said that I didn't see what ax the WHO has to grind and the Common Wealth Fund's reports are peer reviewed prior to publication. They were uncertain, but unconvinced and I let it go. (We still had a couple more hours on the road and didn't want to push it.
Then my brother pitches:
Socialized Medicine Would Be a Mistake
We aren't talking about socialized medicine, we're talking about socialized insurance. Physicians will still be privately employed. Single-payer just means socialized insurance. The providers will still be able to choose who they work for, when their office hours are and where they work; which will only be affected by market forces. In fact the US already pays for about 50% of the health care delivered in the US through the various government plans or through the health insurance offered to government workers. It seems to me that the only people not covered by a government plan are the people paying for it. Read More »
Sat Aug 18, 2007 at 11:48:28 AM PDT
Every once in a while I try to talk sense to my wing nut brother....I try anyway.
Last weekend, we were driving up to one of the theme parks in Orlando, about a 3 hour drive. We always have a good time together ...politics aside, but the prospect of a 3 hour drive with a my wing nut brother and his wife is ...uh, well delicate is a good description. I usually soft pedal the politics in favor of family harmony....which is tough for me to do these days.
The subject turned to health care. Due to a series of unfortunate events my sister-in-law lost her insurance at her work and my brother couldn't add her to his policy at his work because of another series of mishaps. Then she finds out she's uninsurable because she had a curable cancer 7 years ago. If by some chance she does find a private policy they can actually afford, she still has a pre-existing condition that won't be covered.
It is a horrible situation to be in and I sympathized with them. Then I mentioned that a single-payer system would eliminate this problem and...
WOW!
I flipped the wing nut switch!
JDWolverton's diary :: ::
Despite the obvious, they repeated the Republican Health Care talking points verbatim. The conversation went somethink like this....
We (Meaning the US) Have The Best Health Care In The World.
I looked over at my husband...he was concentrating on the multiple predicaments facing Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows.
So, I took a deep breath......
...but we don't have the best health care in the world. The US is ranked last by the Common Wealth Fund's report released this spring and The World Health Organization ranks us 37th in the world.
The U.S. health system spends a higher portion of its gross domestic product than any other country but ranks 37 out of 191 countries according to its performance, the report finds.
The really remarkable thing brought out by SICKO! was that Cuba is ranked 39th in the world just a couple slots behind the US and they spend only about $235 per person per year while the US spends about $7,900 per person. We don't get good value for what we spend.
I dearly love my brother and his wife and know them well, so I wasn't too surprised when my sister-n-law said: "I don't believe that. That has to be wrong." I shrugged and said that I didn't see what ax the WHO has to grind and the Common Wealth Fund's reports are peer reviewed prior to publication. They were uncertain, but unconvinced and I let it go. (We still had a couple more hours on the road and didn't want to push it.
Then my brother pitches:
Socialized Medicine Would Be a Mistake
We aren't talking about socialized medicine, we're talking about socialized insurance. Physicians will still be privately employed. Single-payer just means socialized insurance. The providers will still be able to choose who they work for, when their office hours are and where they work; which will only be affected by market forces. In fact the US already pays for about 50% of the health care delivered in the US through the various government plans or through the health insurance offered to government workers. It seems to me that the only people not covered by a government plan are the people paying for it. Read More »
By: Scarecrow
In case you were wondering what the White House tried to sneak out with the trash last Friday, now we know. The Bush Administration quietly announced new rules that will have the effect of denying health care to many children that states are seeking to cover under the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). Even worse the new rules are so onerous they could even force states to stop providing care to some children already covered by SCHIP.
And what's the reason for this callous action? It seems the Administration is worried that state efforts to expand the reach of this successful program to include more children who are currently uninsured may result in fewer families seeking private insurance plans, because the SCHIP program would be less costly and works better and has fewer hassles than dealing with insurance companies. In other words, the Administration wants to deny SCHIP health coverage to possibly millions of low-to-medium income children solely to shield the private insurance companies from competition and to protect their profits.
Today's New York Times has the story:
The Bush administration, continuing its fight to stop states from expanding the popular Children's Health Insurance Program, has adopted new standards that would make it much more difficult for New York, California and others to extend coverage to children in middle-income families.
Administration officials outlined the new standards in a letter sent to state health officials on Friday evening, in the middle of a month-long Congressional recess. In interviews, they said the changes were aimed at returning the Children's Health Insurance Program to its original focus on low-income children and to make sure the program did not become a substitute for private health coverage.
SCHIP has been highly successful in extending health coverage to millions of low income children, but there are still several million children with no coverage at all. The Democratic Congress has been developing legislation to expand the coverage to most of these kids, but Bush has threatend to veto the bills.
In the meantime, recognizing that SCHIP works, both Republican and Democratic Governors have expanded eligibility rules, so that families with incomes higher that the US poverty level of $20,600 per year could qualify. But the Bush Administration now seeks to impose strict limits on the states' ability to expand eligibility, forcing the states to meet impossible hurdles before they can cover more children. Under the new rules, states would have to: Read More »
In case you were wondering what the White House tried to sneak out with the trash last Friday, now we know. The Bush Administration quietly announced new rules that will have the effect of denying health care to many children that states are seeking to cover under the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). Even worse the new rules are so onerous they could even force states to stop providing care to some children already covered by SCHIP.
And what's the reason for this callous action? It seems the Administration is worried that state efforts to expand the reach of this successful program to include more children who are currently uninsured may result in fewer families seeking private insurance plans, because the SCHIP program would be less costly and works better and has fewer hassles than dealing with insurance companies. In other words, the Administration wants to deny SCHIP health coverage to possibly millions of low-to-medium income children solely to shield the private insurance companies from competition and to protect their profits.
Today's New York Times has the story:
The Bush administration, continuing its fight to stop states from expanding the popular Children's Health Insurance Program, has adopted new standards that would make it much more difficult for New York, California and others to extend coverage to children in middle-income families.
Administration officials outlined the new standards in a letter sent to state health officials on Friday evening, in the middle of a month-long Congressional recess. In interviews, they said the changes were aimed at returning the Children's Health Insurance Program to its original focus on low-income children and to make sure the program did not become a substitute for private health coverage.
SCHIP has been highly successful in extending health coverage to millions of low income children, but there are still several million children with no coverage at all. The Democratic Congress has been developing legislation to expand the coverage to most of these kids, but Bush has threatend to veto the bills.
In the meantime, recognizing that SCHIP works, both Republican and Democratic Governors have expanded eligibility rules, so that families with incomes higher that the US poverty level of $20,600 per year could qualify. But the Bush Administration now seeks to impose strict limits on the states' ability to expand eligibility, forcing the states to meet impossible hurdles before they can cover more children. Under the new rules, states would have to: Read More »
Posts By Month
Posts
Action Center
With the TDP's new organizing tools, you can make your own TDP homepage, write letters to the editor, find an event near you, join a Democratic group, or create one of your own.
