They Don't Dislike Health Care, They Dislike Barack Obama

[QueEx]

<font size="5"><center>
They Don't Dislike Health Care,
They Dislike Barack Obama </font size></center>

Julianne Malveaux


Black Press USA
by Julianne Malveaux
NNPA Columnist

I am fascinated by the town hall meetings that are happening around the country and the ire, real or imagined, that is being heaped on members of Congress who are simply attempting to share information with their constituencies about ways our government hopes to help 50 million uninsured Americans get health insurance.

There are some Americans who honestly oppose a government role in providing health care, some who dishonestly (like Sarah Palin) have twisted provisions to end up with “death panels” that do not exist but frighten many people, and some who have no problem with health care, per se, but have jumped in on this one as a way of pouncing on a weakness the perceive in the Obama Administration.

They don’t dislike health care, they dislike President Barack Obama. They see blood in the water and so, like the sharks they are, they are going after it. Here’s the evidence – the discussion is shrill and uncivil. It is long on emotion and short on facts.

I hesitate to say that there is a racial element in this opposition because those who oppose national health insurance were pretty nasty when the Clintons were attempting to implement those policies (remember Harry and Louise?). Still, I never thought a debate about health insurance could turn so vituperative, and in sleepy August, too.

While politics is the art of compromise, President Obama and his team should hold the line on health insurance. It is an essential part of economic recovery ad economic vitality. How many people file bankruptcy because, uninsured, they have encountered health care bills for an unplanned illness?

How many allow small illnesses to become large ones because they can’t get to a doctor? We know there are 50 million uninsured adults and children. What kind of productivity drain exists because people don’t have the health insurance they need?

After being battered by the Astroturf organizations playing at real opposition, President Obama seems ready to step back and perhaps abandon the idea of giving Americans the option of government-run insurance.

This represents capitulation on a key point, preserves the so-called free market forces that Republicans want, and postpones the reckoning that must take place about health care until a future time when another leader (or perhaps this one in a second term) is able to deal with comprehensive reform.

On in seven of our GDP dollars are spent on health care, and it is inexcusable that so many Americans are pushed to the periphery of the system. Those of us with jobs that provide benefits clearly have the best health insurance options, while those who are gainfully self-employed have some options, but pay more dearly for insurance. Those who are separated from the labor market and those who work at low wages often do not have health insurance, or they simply can’t afford it. In some cases, premiums will take up to a third of a worker’s paycheck. That’s when people decide to take a chance and pray they won’t get sick.

While the government-run insurance option is not the central fact of the Obama plan, it is an important part of it. There are Democratic members of Congress who will not support health care without this feature. Why?

Because the private sector has heretofore been unwilling to insure the uninsured. Government is stepping in because the market hasn’t worked for everyone. But the free market advocates claim that government intervention isn’t fair to private companies. What? The same private companies that now leave people uninsured?

A compromise might be the notion of government supported health insurance cooperatives. This takes a step in the direction of those Republicans who want to preserve competition. From my perspective, the cooperatives could work, but they may also have flaws that distort the outcomes for the poorest Americans.

Further, a compromise right now signals that all people have to do is go to town meetings, clown and perform like banshees, in order to get their way. In discussions that have shed less light than heat, health insurance reform opponents have clearly signaled their antipathy to this President, but they have not offered clear objections to his health insurance plan. They have provided the basis for analysis, but not capitulation.

Julianne Malveaux is President of Bennett College for Women. She may be reached at presbennett@bennett.edu[/i].


[url]http://www.blackpressusa.com/Op-Ed/speaker.asp?SID=16&NewsID=19493[/url]

 

[actinanass]

only quethought would find something like this...

 

[QueEx]

only quethought would find something like this...

Throw a rock; and the one it hits, Squeals.

QueEx

 

[nittie]

AMA Issues Apology for Decades of Racism
By Anna Boyd
13:40, July 14th 2008

The American Medical Association, the US’ largest medical association on Thursday issued a formal apology for its historical antipathy toward African American doctors, including policies that effectively restricted membership to whites.

The apology is among a number of national initiatives to reduce racial disparities in medicine and to recruit more African American to become doctors and to join the Medical Association. According to 2006 data on AMA’s Web site, less than 2 percent of its members were black and fewer than 3 percent of the nation’s 1 million medical students and physicians were black, although blacks represent roughly 13 percent of the US population.

Also, the apology is the result of an analysis made by a panel of experts on the history of the racial divide in medicine. The report is due to be published in the July 16 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association.

This industry is racist and it kills thousands every year mostly Blacks and Latinos. Thats not counting people whose lives where ruined by meds and elective surgeries. National healthcare is not something that should be taken lightly or forced on the public.

 

[nittie]

AMA Issues Apology for Decades of Racism
By Anna Boyd
13:40, July 14th 2008

The American Medical Association, the US’ largest medical association on Thursday issued a formal apology for its historical antipathy toward African American doctors, including policies that effectively restricted membership to whites.

The apology is among a number of national initiatives to reduce racial disparities in medicine and to recruit more African American to become doctors and to join the Medical Association. According to 2006 data on AMA’s Web site, less than 2 percent of its members were black and fewer than 3 percent of the nation’s 1 million medical students and physicians were black, although blacks represent roughly 13 percent of the US population.

Also, the apology is the result of an analysis made by a panel of experts on the history of the racial divide in medicine. The report is due to be published in the July 16 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association.

This industry is racist and it kills thousands every year mostly Blacks and Latinos. Thats not counting people whose lives where ruined by meds and elective surgeries. National healthcare is not something that should be taken lightly or forced on the public.

 

[Gunner]

only quethought would find something like this...

Quethought is classic

She's the biggest liberal known to mankind

 

[muckraker10021]

The attack on President Obama's health care insurance reform has absolutley nothing to do with racism , nothing at all....really!!!

 

[actinanass]

The attack on President Obama's health care insurance reform has absolutley nothing to do with racism , nothing at all....really!!!

For me to say "there's no racial element in this debate" is like me saying "race wasn't the issue when Barack got elected". However, race isn't the primary issue with the Anti-Obama Care debate. You, Quethought, and others are trying to find an issue to deflect what's really going on. Whats really going on is that many *on every side* have really took notice about what the bill stands for. That is why ya'll are playing the "they are racist" card. Unlike Bush, Obama can not handle being the unpopular one. What people don't understand, the true racism will come at Barack when he have to work with Republicans. In fact, some traces of it is happening now with the talk of getting rid of the Public Option. Notice how Quethought is stuck on this non-issue.

BTW, didn't Barack get a lot of white folks to vote for him?

 

[thoughtone]

For me to say "there's no racial element in this debate" is like me saying "race wasn't the issue when Barack got elected". However, race isn't the primary issue with the Anti-Obama Care debate. You, Quethought, and others are trying to find an issue to deflect what's really going on. Whats really going on is that many *on every side* have really took notice about what the bill stands for. That is why ya'll are playing the "they are racist" card. Unlike Bush, Obama can not handle being the unpopular one. What people don't understand, the true racism will come at Barack when he have to work with Republicans. In fact, some traces of it is happening now with the talk of getting rid of the Public Option. Notice how Quethought is stuck on this non-issue.

BTW, didn't Barack get a lot of white folks to vote for him?

Whats really going on is that many *on every side* have really took notice about what the bill stands for.

Fucking liar! The vocal minority has gotten actinanassholes similar to yourself to act like fools.

BTW, didn't Barack get a lot of white folks to vote for him?

...and, your point?

 

[Ruff Ryder]

The people at these so-called town halls represent a small number but the media coverage makes it look bigger than it really is, people need to remember that it was not only the black vote that got Obama in the white house.

In America the media is a powerful weapon.


Just ask Rupert.

 

[thoughtone]

The people at these so-called town halls represent a small number but the media coverage makes it look bigger than it really is, people need to remember that it was not only the black vote that got Obama in the white house.

In America the media is a powerful weapon.


Just ask Rupert.

Of course! Obama won with the greatest majority in 20 years, yet CNN, Faux and the so called main stream media give platforms to Limbaugh, Gingrich Tom Delay and these fools are not even in the government. I rarely saw Ralph Nader and others criticizing Bush in the so called main stream media during his reign.

 

[Lamarr]

Of course! Obama won with the greatest majority in 20 years, yet CNN, Faux and the so called main stream media give platforms to Limbaugh, Gingrich Tom Delay and these fools are not even in the government. I rarely saw Ralph Nader and others criticizing Bush in the so called main stream media during his reign.

so just admit the media is manipulating your ideas then we can focus on who has the 23.7 Trillion.

They are using 'race' to keep your eyes off the $$$. Why is no one talking about this?

 

[thoughtone]

so just admit the media is manipulating your ideas then we can focus on who has the 23.7 Trillion.

They are using 'race' to keep your eyes off the $$$. Why is no one talking about this?

Better idea, let's focus on how we had a balanced budget in 2000 and were on the way to paying down the debt for the first time in 20 years to economic chaos today.

Freedom for the corporations, tyranny for the people.

 

[Lamarr]

Better idea, let's focus on how we had a balanced budget in 2000 and were on the way to paying down the debt for the first time in 20 years to economic chaos today.

Freedom for the corporations, tyranny for the people.

that idea is moot!

1) that was 9 yrs ago - you need to address what is goin on now!
2) I keep tellin you, Clinton's balanced budgets is a myth because each year of his presidency, the National debt grew.
3) There would not be any economic chaos if the govt wasn't spending so much $$$

Where's the 23 Trill?

 

[thoughtone]

that idea is moot!

1) that was 9 yrs ago - you need to address what is goin on now!
2) I keep tellin you, Clinton's balanced budgets is a myth because each year of his presidency, the National debt grew.
3) There would not be any economic chaos if the govt wasn't spending so much $$$

Where's the 23 Trill?

If your argument is for HR 1207 and S 604, you know I've been on board since the start. My congressman, Hank Johnson was an early sponsor. However go back over the threads and read the data I posted about the debt. We've been their before.

How could the debt go from under 5 trillion and slowing in 2000 to over 10 trillion in 2008 and rising fast?

 

[actinanass]

Fucking liar! The vocal minority has gotten actinanassholes similar to yourself to act like fools.



...and, your point?

Can you answer something for me?

Why did Obama wanted to pass the health care bill before the congress recess?

The people at these so-called town halls represent a small number but the media coverage makes it look bigger than it really is, people need to remember that it was not only the black vote that got Obama in the white house.

In America the media is a powerful weapon.


Just ask Rupert.

Just like how the media say "We're getting out of the recession"?

Remember how the media told everyone that the economy was bad during 2005, when the stock market was having record numbers, and unemployment was around 5 percent?

Of course! Obama won with the greatest majority in 20 years, yet CNN, Faux and the so called main stream media give platforms to Limbaugh, Gingrich Tom Delay and these fools are not even in the government. I rarely saw Ralph Nader and others criticizing Bush in the so called main stream media during his reign.

Oh yea, it was ok when Olbermann was dissing Bush everyday, all day right?

Really, Nader didn't diss Bush? I guess when former lame duck presidents *your favorite President Carter.....right?* come out the wood works about current president's policy, its ok right? How about Reid saying that the Iraq war was a lost cause, while TROOPS were still in the field? I guess that wasn't criticizing Bush, or our military *something you probably secretly despise...like all your other leftwingnut friends do...*? Please, thoughtque, spare me with the Tampax Tampon left wing whining rhetoric. Obama is going to get criticize. EVERY PRESIDENT GETS CRITICIZE. Live with it!!

 

[Lamarr]

How could the debt go from under 5 trillion and slowing in 2000 to over 10 trillion in 2008 and rising fast?

E-Z $$$ & E-Z credit offered by the Fed Res. The people & Corporations who benefited were the ones who got to use the money first (Goldman, Halliburton, GE, AIG, you know......all the people who gave to Pres. Obama's campaign )

 

[thoughtone]

E-Z $$$ & E-Z credit offered by the Fed Res. The people & Corporations who benefited were the ones who got to use the money first (Goldman, Halliburton, GE, AIG, you know......all the people who gave to Pres. Obama's campaign )

You say in one thread that government is the problem then you say the Fed is the problem. Make up you mind, or can you?

 

[actinanass]

You say in one thread that government is the problem then you say the Fed is the problem. Make up you mind, or can you?

libertarians can't....

No offense Lamarr.

Think about it like this Lamarr. You rather be a free thinking person, then a progressive political tampon like some on here...right?

 

[thoughtone]

libertarians can't....

No offense Lamarr.

Think about it like this Lamarr. You rather be a free thinking person, then a progressive political tampon like some on here...right?

Free thinking as to what the GOP funnels to you.

And you’re a journalism major?

 

[actinanass]

Free thinking as to what the GOP funnels to you.

And you’re a journalism major?

I was a journalism major.

Right now, I think it's all bullshit personally.

 

[thoughtone]

I was a journalism major.

Right now, I think it's all bullshit personally.

I figured that out from your first post.

 

[Lamarr]

You say in one thread that government is the problem then you say the Fed is the problem. Make up you mind, or can you?

Stop nit-pickin. the Fed is the 'fiscal agent' for the US govt, a central bank. The govt is broke, so you must realize the enormous influence these "bankers" have on domestic, fiscal & foreign policy. How else could they come up with NAFTA, FISA, TARP & Cash 4 Clunkers? Once you recognize the connection between the Fed & the govt, you'll recognize the fallacies of your question / observation!

I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs. - Thomas Jefferson

 

[Lamarr]

libertarians can't....

No offense Lamarr.

Think about it like this Lamarr. You rather be a free thinking person, then a progressive political tampon like some on here...right?

no offense taken, I've heard that before.

We need more 'free thinkers', neither Rahm nor Rove tell me how to think, which I'm very proud of. My personal beliefs are MLK's message of peace, non-violence mixed with Ron Paul's "economic sanity", and a general understanding of history. And my message is consistent, regardless of the "appearance" that my influences are on opposite ends of the spectrum!

 

[thoughtone]

Stop nit-pickin. the Fed is the 'fiscal agent' for the US govt, a central bank. The govt is broke, so you must realize the enormous influence these "bankers" have on domestic, fiscal & foreign policy. How else could they come up with NAFTA, FISA, TARP & Cash 4 Clunkers? Once you recognize the connection between the Fed & the govt, you'll recognize the fallacies of your question / observation!

I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs. - Thomas Jefferson

Stop nit-pickin

What? The Fed is a private organization chartered by congress, supported by the Central Banks which get their marching orders from the multinational banks which the Fed lobby's the government for. You can't get more corporate, capitalistic than this. That is why multinational banks continually have their top executives come and go as the Fed chairman, which continually represent multinational corporations that have opposing interests of the people verse the corporations. Nitpicking? This is exactly the Feds purpose and stands for.

I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies.

If you stop being disingenuous by claiming government is the main issue and then turn around and claim banks are the issue, in which banks are the classic prototypical capitalist business example and then denying it, we can never resolve the problem of the corporate interests verse the interests of the people. They are two distinct things.

I'll post it again.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/C6eCzgBXjM4&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/C6eCzgBXjM4&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/9JfTdo2hAus&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/9JfTdo2hAus&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>​

 

[Lamarr]

What? The Fed is a private organization chartered by congress, supported by the Central Banks which get their marching orders from the multinational banks which the Fed lobby's the government for. You can't get more corporate, capitalistic than this.

oh boy!!! The Fed Res is the Central Bank for the US govt. They collude with other central banks around the world. They use Corporations are a mechanisms to advance "globalism". The Fed takes 'marching orders' from no one, as they issue the currency for the country. As a matter of fact, they give the marching orders to the Pres & Congress to further their agenda! NAFTA, TARP sure don't benefit the people, but the Pres & Congress do it anyway. open your eyes dawg!

The capitalistic claim: The Fed is the exact opposite, they are "central economic planners", meaning the Fed sets the interest rates, where "true" capitalists say the "market" should set the rates! That is the debate: should Central planners set the rates or the "invisible hand" of the market set them. As you've seen Greenspan & Bernanke have created bubble after bubble, leading to a false sense of market stability. We've never experienced a 'true' free market due to the actions of the Fed Res. These cats you see on TV advocating the "free market" without mentioning the Fed are straight-up bullshittin you. Phil Gramm, Al Gore come to mind. They, personally, found a way to benefit from the Fed & the "globalist" agenda set forth by the Central Banks of the world.

Thats a little insight into why I feel the 'healthcare' debate is a set-up. It's not about healthcare, it's about Insurance & Control

 

[thoughtone]

oh boy!!! The Fed Res is the Central Bank for the US govt. They collude with other central banks around the world. They use Corporations are a mechanisms to advance "globalism". The Fed takes 'marching orders' from no one, as they issue the currency for the country. As a matter of fact, they give the marching orders to the Pres & Congress to further their agenda! NAFTA, TARP sure don't benefit the people, but the Pres & Congress do it anyway. open your eyes dawg!

The capitalistic claim: The Fed is the exact opposite, they are "central economic planners", meaning the Fed sets the interest rates, where "true" capitalists say the "market" should set the rates! That is the debate: should Central planners set the rates or the "invisible hand" of the market set them. As you've seen Greenspan & Bernanke have created bubble after bubble, leading to a false sense of market stability. We've never experienced a 'true' free market due to the actions of the Fed Res. These cats you see on TV advocating the "free market" without mentioning the Fed are straight-up bullshittin you. Phil Gramm, Al Gore come to mind. They, personally, found a way to benefit from the Fed & the "globalist" agenda set forth by the Central Banks of the world.

Thats a little insight into why I feel the 'healthcare' debate is a set-up. It's not about healthcare, it's about Insurance & Control

The Fed takes 'marching orders' from no one

Man, you are out of your mind. Do I have to post the ties the Fed's members have to the investment and multinational banks. Have you read the Goldman post? You keep repeating yourself invoking Al Gore's name and then sneaking in some republican conservatives. Gore is a founding member of the DLC, the main corporatist wing of the Democratic Party. Ah, I believe I first mentioned globalism in relation to the Fed, which proves my point that its corporations not the government that is running things!

 

[Lamarr]

Man, you are out of your mind. Do I have to post the ties the Fed's members have to the investment and multinational banks. Have you read the Goldman post? You keep repeating yourself invoking Al Gore's name and then sneaking in some republican conservatives. Gore is a founding member of the DLC, the main corporatist wing of the Democratic Party. Ah, I believe I first mentioned globalism in relation to the Fed, which proves my point that its corporations not the government that is running things!

Let me try another approach: You tell me the relationship between the Fed Res and Goldman, B of A, Citi, JP Morgan Chase? Check this out first

What is the DLC?

On the issue of "Globalism" is where we have common ground, we both agree it aint helpin the working class, or any 'working class' around the world. My attempt is to get you to see that the Fed is the driving force behind this movement, so far, It appears that you disagree

 

[thoughtone]

Let me try another approach: You tell me the relationship between the Fed Res and Goldman, B of A, Citi, JP Morgan Chase? Check this out first

What is the DLC?

On the issue of "Globalism" is where we have common ground, we both agree it aint helpin the working class, or any 'working class' around the world. My attempt is to get you to see that the Fed is the driving force behind this movement, so far, It appears that you disagree

Actually, I do agree. The Fed is the tool that lobbies the government for the multinational corporations. What you fail to see is that the corporations are the power behind the thrown of the government. Why is the government broken while the income gap between the top 1% and everyone else increased dramatically as it has been since the 1920s.

The DLC is the Democratic Leadership Council. In short, the Blue Dogs of the US Senate. It was formed in the mid 1980s by the so called moderate and conservative Democratic Senators as, what they felt a counterbalance to the liberal Democratic Senators. Al Gore. Harold Ford., Joe Lieberman among others are members. Ironically it is around this time, the distinction between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party began to blur to today’s almost indiscernibility. Harry Truman said, “Given a democrat that acts like a republican and a republican, the people will choose the republic every time. This is why the democrats have only had three, two term presidents since WWII. The Democrats have become, like the republicans, the party of the corporatists.

 

[Lamarr]

Actually, I do agree. The Fed is the tool that lobbies the government for the multinational corporations. What you fail to see is that the corporations are the power behind the thrown of the government. Why is the government broken while the income gap between the top 1% and everyone else increased dramatically as it has been since the 1920s.

cool, now we're getting somewhere. When examing the relationships between the Fed, the Govt & Corps, some issues must be realized. 1) The Fed Res issues the currency 2) the govt is 12 Trill in debt. Answer me this, Who is in the position of influence? If you answered the Fed, congratulations! If I'm a Central Banker, my job is to get you in debt & keep you there, right? You're forever paying me interest, right? It's just a matter of time before Bankers start influencing policy. I, and a couple others, have already stated that Barack will be known as the first "banker's" President.

The Corps benefited because they had access to the EZ $$$ & credit to leverage their operations, whether it be in the market or overseas expansion. That trend began around 1995 and excellerated under Dubya bigtime! Like I've said all along, the group that benefits is the group who gets to use the $$$ first.

The DLC is the Democratic Leadership Council. In short, the Blue Dogs of the US Senate. It was formed in the mid 1980s by the so called moderate and conservative Democratic Senators as, what they felt a counterbalance to the liberal Democratic Senators. Al Gore. Harold Ford., Joe Lieberman among others are members. Ironically it is around this time, the distinction between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party began to blur to today’s almost indiscernibility. Harry Truman said, “Given a democrat that acts like a republican and a republican, the people will choose the republic every time. This is why the democrats have only had three, two term presidents since WWII. The Democrats have become, like the republicans, the party of the corporatists.

I have some thoughts but thats another thread! Start a "Thought" blog

 

[actinanass]

cool, now we're getting somewhere. When examing the relationships between the Fed, the Govt & Corps, some issues must be realized. 1) The Fed Res issues the currency 2) the govt is 12 Trill in debt. Answer me this, Who is in the position of influence? If you answered the Fed, congratulations! If I'm a Central Banker, my job is to get you in debt & keep you there, right? You're forever paying me interest, right? It's just a matter of time before Bankers start influencing policy. I, and a couple others, have already stated that Barack will be known as the first "banker's" President.

The Corps benefited because they had access to the EZ $$$ & credit to leverage their operations, whether it be in the market or overseas expansion. That trend began around 1995 and excellerated under Dubya bigtime! Like I've said all along, the group that benefits is the group who gets to use the $$$ first.




I have some thoughts but thats another thread! Start a "Thought" blog

Notice he just voted that TOOL for fed chairman again.

Hell, bring back Greenspan!!!

 

[Lamarr]

Notice he just voted that TOOL for fed chairman again.

Hell, bring back Greenspan!!!

yep! I'm not gonna blame the crisis on Ben, however, I'd like to see more people hold him accountable for his actions regarding "Transparency". It was one of the central themes of Barack candidacy, right? Or is it, All issues will be open for the public to see & debate, except monetary policy!

 

[thoughtone]

yep! I'm not gonna blame the crisis on Ben, however, I'd like to see more people hold him accountable for his actions regarding "Transparency". It was one of the central themes of Barack candidacy, right? Or is it, All issues will be open for the public to see & debate, except monetary policy!

Yes, I'm disappointed in this lack of total transparency.

 

[Lamarr]

Yes, I'm disappointed in this lack of total transparency.

I'm glad to see it expands across the political spectrum. Can it be a rallying point for all Americans without the other distractions that divide us?

 

[actinanass]

Yes, I'm disappointed in this lack of total transparency.

yep! I'm not gonna blame the crisis on Ben, however, I'd like to see more people hold him accountable for his actions regarding "Transparency". It was one of the central themes of Barack candidacy, right? Or is it, All issues will be open for the public to see & debate, except monetary policy!

I'm glad to see it expands across the political spectrum. Can it be a rallying point for all Americans without the other distractions that divide us?

see we can all agree on something.

Personally, I think Ben was a congress appeasement pick for Bush. This is one of the things I wish Bush had never did.