Dems Afraid to Meet with Constituents

[ServeandProtect]

Like the vote or not, Rep. Shea-Porter was one of the few congresspeople to meet their constituents face to face after the Healthcare vote.

She did a series of town halls throughout the her district here, answering questions, standing up for her beliefs and for the the hard working men and women here in NH who are going to benefit form affordable, available health care.

 

[Tech_Esq]

It's true that the health care debate was extremely passionate and emotional, and rightfully so. However, what I saw (also a C-span junkie, by the way) were throngs of people who ONLY wanted to holler as loud as they could, in unison sometimes, carrying ugly signs and otherwise intimidating the speaker by extremely insulting and childish behavior. I also come from a state where town meetings are historically useful and functional occasions, not screamfests. I was embarrassed that this nation seems to have bred a bunch of yahoos when it comes to civic (and civil) procedure. And yes, I recall the anti-war demonstrators who were few compared to the spectacles we witnessed last summer.

A few notes on your comment:

Anti-war protesters - perhaps few but their actions were no less embarrassing than some of the people who attended town hall meetings.

"bred a bunch of yahoos" - I will note that in many counties this activity would have broken down into violence not screaming. With the exception of when the SEIU thugs showed up to "provide protection" there was no violence. (Shades of the Stones hiring the Hell's Angels).

Was there bad behavior. Yes, I think in some cases there was bad behavior. But, I must ask, have you ever sent your congress person a well thought out letter only to receive in response a form letter laying out why the Congress person is voting the opposite way on the issue. Have you ever receive 4 or 6 of them? I have. It kinda makes one feel like maybe the message isn't being received and maybe the Congress person is like that proverbial "Missouri mule" and doesn't pay attention until they've been hit across the head with a 2 x 4. That's the lens that I view the town halls with. Having ignored the people up until that point, the people felt it was time to get the attention of the mule headed representatives. So it really was never going to be about a "calm discussion of the issues."

You make some valid points. Yes, I have had generic replys to emails and handwritten/typewriten letters to my representatives in the past, and it is very frustrating. In fact, just a month ago, I emailed our newest member of the House regarding the signing of the PACK ACT, which bans cigarettes from being sent through the mail, and I got a generic response that would have been generated back before the bill was only a proposal!! I was royally pissed, and I fired off another email telling him so. It is their staffers who do that, and it's high time their "bosses" started checking what the help is up to. On the other hand, I have written to Senator Sanders (previously Congressman Sanders, and before that, Mayor Sanders) on numerous occasions and while it make take a little longer for a reply, he ALWAYS got back to me, PERSONALLY. Ah, but he's allegedly a so-called card-carrying "Socialist." Go figure.

Oh, and off topic a bit, it was Bernie Sanders who has injected the requirement in the financial reform bill to audit the Federal Reserve, finally. Rather surprising for a liberal, don't you think?

Just because you are socialist doesn't make you a bad person. It just makes you wrong on the issues. Responding to communication speaks to the person, not so much their politics. I'm sure Republicans send form letters too.

 

[MaggieMae]

It really depends on the court doesn't it?

If the court finds it in its heart to overturn 2 cases, about 35% of the Federal Government and what it does will disappear over night. In particular, if United States v. Darby Lumber Company and Wickard v. Filburn are overturned, it will be a new day.

The cases preliminary to a potential (at least partial) overturn of Darby are working their way through the courts now. We'll see what happens there. These are definitely the cases with the most potential for an overturn to happen in decades.

Wickard will be put to the test with the Health Care law and the states' opposition to it. Pendulums swing back and forth. I think we are seeing the high water mark of this direction of the swing. What I find interesting is the conservatives have never really push their agenda yet. Not in the same philosophical way the Social-Democrats have. It will be interesting to see if this last push to the left has given conservatives the energy to push their philosophical agenda finally or if they will be like to Tory party of England. Labour Lite.

The lawsuit(s) are a waste of time and money:

Wyden: Health Care Lawsuits Moot, States Can Opt Out Of Mandate

First Posted: 03-24-10 01:29 PM | Updated: 05-24-10 05:12 AM

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) has a message for all the attorneys general and Republican lawmakers who are threatening lawsuits and claiming that an individual mandate for insurance coverage is unconstitutional: You don't have to abide by it -- just set up your own plan.

The Oregon Democrat isn't inviting opponents to defy the newly-enacted health care law. Instead, he's pointing out a provision in the bill that makes moot the argument over the legality of the individual mandate.

Speaking to the Huffington Post on Tuesday, Wyden discussed -- for one of the first times in public -- legislative language he authored which "allows a state to go out and do its own bill, including having no individual mandate."

It's called the "Empowering States to be Innovative" amendment. And it would, quite literally, give states the right to set up their own health care system -- with or without an individual mandate or, for that matter, with or without a public option -- provided that, as Wyden puts it, "they can meet the coverage requirements of the bill."

"Why don't you use the waiver provision to let you go set up your own plan?" the senator asked those who threaten health-care-related lawsuits. "Why would you just say you are going to sue everybody, when this bill gives you the authority and the legal counsel is on record as saying you can do it without an individual mandate?"

The provision actually was taken directly from Wyden's Healthy Americans Act -- the far-more innovative health care reform legislation he authored with Republican co-sponsors. In that bill there is also an individual mandate that would require Americans to purchase insurance coverage. But states that found the mandate objectionable could simply create and insert a new system in its place. All it would require is applying for a waiver from the Department of Health and Human Services, which has a 180-day window to confirm or deny such a waiver.

That language has been inserted, almost verbatim, into the bill Obama signed into law on Tuesday. And if there is any confusion about how much leverage it gives states to drop the mandate, Wyden cleared it up months ago during a hearing at the Senate Finance Committee.

"So let us review how the waiver language works now, because my reading of what we have in the bill now is, if a state can demonstrate that they can meet the criteria -- particularly on cost containment, improving the delivery system -- they can do it without an individual mandate," the senator said at the time. "And can I ask counsel, is that a correct reading of the Waiver Amendment that I offered the chairman has accepted at this point?"

The counsel replied: "Yes."

"The individual mandate has always been one of the most contentious aspects of health reform. I think every United States Senator believes that citizens should show some personal responsibility. That's something that is widely accepted. Unfortunately, an individual mandate can mean something different, and that's why the issue has been so contentious," Wyden said. "But counsel has now indicated -- and it was in line with what I thought we had drafted -- if you can meet the requirements of the waiver in the mark, you can do it without an individual mandate."

Wyden: Health Care Lawsuits Moot, States Can Opt Out Of Mandate

Nice of him to offer his opinion, but let's just go ahead with the court case for shits and giggles. I'm paying for it and I say "Let's go!"

Virginia is first in line. We filed suit before Obama's signature was dry. The other 14 states filing suit have to stand in line. Democrats don't care about wasting money so I don't get his point anyway.

I posted the entire thing so people would actually READ it. I suggest you do. All a state has to do is sign a waiver to opt out of the new health care bill if they can show they have a better way. So now these states intend to spend bundles of money on lawsuits? Said lawsuits will involve all sorts of "consultants" and such, in addition to their AG offices putting everything else on a back burner. Nice to know at least some states have that much cash on hand to play around with.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

profiles in courage, indeed.

"In New Hampshire, where open political meetings are deeply ingrained in the state’s traditions, Representative Carol Shea-Porter’s campaign Web site had this message for visitors: “No upcoming events scheduled. Please visit us again soon!”

Ms. Shea-Porter, a Democrat, attended a state convention of letter carriers on Saturday, but she did not hold a town-hall-style meeting during the Congressional recess. In 2006, when she was an underdog candidate for the House, she often showed up at the meetings of her Republican rival, Representative Jeb Bradley, to question him about Iraq."

Political Memo - To Avoid Voter Rage, Democrats Skip Town Halls - NYTimes.com

How many did her GOP counterpart hold during this same period?

Do you mean her anti-matter Congressional counterpart in an alternate Universe?

 

[Tech_Esq]

Of the 255 Democrats who make up the majority in the House, only a handful held town-hall-style forums as legislators spent last week at home in their districts.

For incumbents of both parties facing challenging re-election bids, few things receive more scrutiny than how, when and where they interact with voters. Many members of Congress err on the side of being visible, but not too visible, and make only a few public appearances while they are back in their districts.

“It’s dramatically different this break than it was in August of last year,” Mr. Kratovil said in an interview after he finished speaking about financial regulatory legislation. “At town halls, there was a group of people who were there to disrupt, purely politically driven, not there because they wanted to get answers or discuss the issues.”

Mr. Kratovil said seeing voters in their workplace, or in casual settings like soccer fields, actually provided a broader sampling of public opinion than simply holding formal town-hall-style meetings, which often attract only political activists.

An examination of public schedules for dozens of members of Congress last week showed that more House Republicans held open meetings, including several in a series of forums called America Speaking Out, which is intended to help write the party’s agenda if it wins control of Congress in November.

Republicans have more to gain from townhall meetings. The party out of power does well to stir it up and make a jaded electorate an angry electorate. An angry voter is a motivated voter.

Democrats aren't holding town-hall meeting, but that doesn't preclude contact with constituents. On one hand, I can't blame them for basically saying "eh, fuck this I'm not dealing with those crazies and their nazi signs", and on the other hand I think they just need to change their diapers and realize this is the byproduct of an angsty and divided electorate that is unsettled by the economy.

I think they should have the meetings, and when confronted by the peeps who take their marching orders from Fox, just respond with a detailed answer in a calm and professional manner.

I bet those meetings last year were nothing compared to the early days of this country.

 

[Sheldon]

Of the 255 Democrats who make up the majority in the House, only a handful held town-hall-style forums as legislators spent last week at home in their districts.

“It’s dramatically different this break than it was in August of last year,” Mr. Kratovil said in an interview after he finished speaking about financial regulatory legislation. “At town halls, there was a group of people who were there to disrupt, purely politically driven, not there because they wanted to get answers or discuss the issues.”

Mr. Kratovil said seeing voters in their workplace, or in casual settings like soccer fields, actually provided a broader sampling of public opinion than simply holding formal town-hall-style meetings, which often attract only political activists.

An examination of public schedules for dozens of members of Congress last week showed that more House Republicans held open meetings, including several in a series of forums called America Speaking Out, which is intended to help write the party’s agenda if it wins control of Congress in November.

Republicans have more to gain from townhall meetings. The party out of power does well to stir it up and make a jaded electorate an angry electorate. An angry voter is a motivated voter.

Democrats aren't holding town-hall meeting, but that doesn't preclude contact with constituents. On one hand, I can't blame them for basically saying "eh, fuck this I'm not dealing with those crazies and their nazi signs", and on the other hand I think they just need to change their diapers and realize this is the byproduct of an angsty and divided electorate that is unsettled by the economy.

I think they should have the meetings, and when confronted by the peeps who take their marching orders from Fox, just respond with a detailed answer in a calm and professional manner.

I bet those meetings last year were nothing compared to the early days of this country.

could you elaborate? A crazy person doesn't know what it is that's crazy about them, you know.

 

[Tech_Esq]

The lawsuit(s) are a waste of time and money:

Wyden: Health Care Lawsuits Moot, States Can Opt Out Of Mandate

First Posted: 03-24-10 01:29 PM | Updated: 05-24-10 05:12 AM

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) has a message for all the attorneys general and Republican lawmakers who are threatening lawsuits and claiming that an individual mandate for insurance coverage is unconstitutional: You don't have to abide by it -- just set up your own plan.

The Oregon Democrat isn't inviting opponents to defy the newly-enacted health care law. Instead, he's pointing out a provision in the bill that makes moot the argument over the legality of the individual mandate.

Speaking to the Huffington Post on Tuesday, Wyden discussed -- for one of the first times in public -- legislative language he authored which "allows a state to go out and do its own bill, including having no individual mandate."

It's called the "Empowering States to be Innovative" amendment. And it would, quite literally, give states the right to set up their own health care system -- with or without an individual mandate or, for that matter, with or without a public option -- provided that, as Wyden puts it, "they can meet the coverage requirements of the bill."

"Why don't you use the waiver provision to let you go set up your own plan?" the senator asked those who threaten health-care-related lawsuits. "Why would you just say you are going to sue everybody, when this bill gives you the authority and the legal counsel is on record as saying you can do it without an individual mandate?"

The provision actually was taken directly from Wyden's Healthy Americans Act -- the far-more innovative health care reform legislation he authored with Republican co-sponsors. In that bill there is also an individual mandate that would require Americans to purchase insurance coverage. But states that found the mandate objectionable could simply create and insert a new system in its place. All it would require is applying for a waiver from the Department of Health and Human Services, which has a 180-day window to confirm or deny such a waiver.

That language has been inserted, almost verbatim, into the bill Obama signed into law on Tuesday. And if there is any confusion about how much leverage it gives states to drop the mandate, Wyden cleared it up months ago during a hearing at the Senate Finance Committee.

"So let us review how the waiver language works now, because my reading of what we have in the bill now is, if a state can demonstrate that they can meet the criteria -- particularly on cost containment, improving the delivery system -- they can do it without an individual mandate," the senator said at the time. "And can I ask counsel, is that a correct reading of the Waiver Amendment that I offered the chairman has accepted at this point?"

The counsel replied: "Yes."

"The individual mandate has always been one of the most contentious aspects of health reform. I think every United States Senator believes that citizens should show some personal responsibility. That's something that is widely accepted. Unfortunately, an individual mandate can mean something different, and that's why the issue has been so contentious," Wyden said. "But counsel has now indicated -- and it was in line with what I thought we had drafted -- if you can meet the requirements of the waiver in the mark, you can do it without an individual mandate."

Wyden: Health Care Lawsuits Moot, States Can Opt Out Of Mandate

Nice of him to offer his opinion, but let's just go ahead with the court case for shits and giggles. I'm paying for it and I say "Let's go!"

Virginia is first in line. We filed suit before Obama's signature was dry. The other 14 states filing suit have to stand in line. Democrats don't care about wasting money so I don't get his point anyway.

I posted the entire thing so people would actually READ it. I suggest you do. All a state has to do is sign a waiver to opt out of the new health care bill if they can show they have a better way. So now these states intend to spend bundles of money on lawsuits? Said lawsuits will involve all sorts of "consultants" and such, in addition to their AG offices putting everything else on a back burner. Nice to know at least some states have that much cash on hand to play around with.

I read the relevant part where he said "Here's how it would work..." It's a sham. That's why there needs to be a suit. If you wiki (for the short answer) the Wickard decision, you will see why it's relevant to the case. Without Wickard, Congress has NO POWER to do this period. Never mind the individual mandate. It is only by a corruption of the Commerce clause brought on by Roosevelt threat to pack the Supreme Court that crap like this can even pretend to be facially legal.

So, I'll take my crack at trying to get Wickard overturned in whole or in part. Wyden can do what he does, but it wouldn't be the first time the courts interpret the law differently than the person who wrote it.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Republicans have more to gain from townhall meetings. The party out of power does well to stir it up and make a jaded electorate an angry electorate. An angry voter is a motivated voter.

Democrats aren't holding town-hall meeting, but that doesn't preclude contact with constituents. On one hand, I can't blame them for basically saying "eh, fuck this I'm not dealing with those crazies and their nazi signs", and on the other hand I think they just need to change their diapers and realize this is the byproduct of an angsty and divided electorate that is unsettled by the economy.

I think they should have the meetings, and when confronted by the peeps who take their marching orders from Fox, just respond with a detailed answer in a calm and professional manner.

I bet those meetings last year were nothing compared to the early days of this country.

could you elaborate? A crazy person doesn't know what it is that's crazy about them, you know.

You were doing fine until you started talking about "marching orders from Fox news" just makes you sound like a lunatic.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

profiles in courage, indeed.

"In New Hampshire, where open political meetings are deeply ingrained in the state’s traditions, Representative Carol Shea-Porter’s campaign Web site had this message for visitors: “No upcoming events scheduled. Please visit us again soon!”

Ms. Shea-Porter, a Democrat, attended a state convention of letter carriers on Saturday, but she did not hold a town-hall-style meeting during the Congressional recess. In 2006, when she was an underdog candidate for the House, she often showed up at the meetings of her Republican rival, Representative Jeb Bradley, to question him about Iraq."

Political Memo - To Avoid Voter Rage, Democrats Skip Town Halls - NYTimes.com

And that's a NY Times article!

Note to members of Congress: Listen to your constituents next time.

Note to dummies: The New York Times is "liberal" on its opinion pages, period.

Pinch has been telling himself the same lie for years and the dwindling readership shows the folly of such blind Liberal hackery. But please, don't listen to me.

 

[Sheldon]

could you elaborate? A crazy person doesn't know what it is that's crazy about them, you know.

You were doing fine until you started talking about "marching orders from Fox news" just makes you sound like a lunatic.

Ah, okay. Fair enough. I was under the impression that Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity had told people to crash town hall meetings and shout-down the pols, but maybe that was just a rumor.

 

[fyrenza]

So, what you are saying is that the GOP has been COMPLETELY erradicated from NH?

No, just wondering who the Counterpart could be, that would be expected to DO any Town Hall type events regarding these same issues.

You know, like I would EXPECT my elected official to be there,

but I wouldn't hold it Against someone that was thinking about running for that office, if They didn't show.

I think it was probably a miscommunication, and so I asked WHO that Counterpart might be, since one ONE guy gets to win the election and BE the actual spokesperson.

Who were you thinking should have shown up? And why would you have Expected them to do so?

 

[sitarro]

Like the vote or not, Rep. Shea-Porter was one of the few congresspeople to meet their constituents face to face after the Healthcare vote.

She did a series of town halls throughout the her district here, answering questions, standing up for her beliefs and for the the hard working men and women here in NH who are going to benefit form affordable, available health care.

Affordable, available health care? Where are they going to get that?

 

[Tech_Esq]

could you elaborate? A crazy person doesn't know what it is that's crazy about them, you know.

You were doing fine until you started talking about "marching orders from Fox news" just makes you sound like a lunatic.

Ah, okay. Fair enough. I was under the impression that Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity had told people to crash town hall meetings and shout-down the pols, but maybe that was just a rumor.

Post hoc ergo proctor hoc fallacy. See what I mean?

 

[Valerie]

Like the vote or not, Rep. Shea-Porter was one of the few congresspeople to meet their constituents face to face after the Healthcare vote.

She did a series of town halls throughout the her district here, answering questions, standing up for her beliefs and for the the hard working men and women here in NH who are going to benefit form affordable, available health care.

True, she absolutely did face her constituents very recently.

April 07, 2010

ALTON — An openly hostile crowd greeted U.S. Rep. Carol Shea-Porter at Town Hall last week as she made a promised return to Alton to host a public forum on the healthcare reform bill recently passed by Congress.

With area residents filling every available seat in the room and latecomers crowding onto the stage and spilling out into the hallway, Shea-Porter was met with polite applause and a few scattered boos as she stepped up to the microphone.

Explaining that she did not initially intend to make healthcare reform the focus of her current "town hall" tour throughout the First Congressional District because she did not expect the bill to pass before the tour began, Shea-Porter said she voted in favor of the historic bill because there were a number of provisions included in it that she liked.
Rep. Carol Shea-Porter faces hostile crowd in Alton

 

[CrusaderFrank]

It's true that the health care debate was extremely passionate and emotional, and rightfully so. However, what I saw (also a C-span junkie, by the way) were throngs of people who ONLY wanted to holler as loud as they could, in unison sometimes, carrying ugly signs and otherwise intimidating the speaker by extremely insulting and childish behavior. I also come from a state where town meetings are historically useful and functional occasions, not screamfests. I was embarrassed that this nation seems to have bred a bunch of yahoos when it comes to civic (and civil) procedure. And yes, I recall the anti-war demonstrators who were few compared to the spectacles we witnessed last summer.

Wah wah wahhh too fucking bad. If the Congresscritters don't like the voice of the People then they picked the wrong profession

So, are you trying to say that the point of town halls should be to simply let people vent and NOT provide answers?

The point is to listen to your constituents. ObamaCare was as popular as the Plague when it was being discussed and now that its passed many constitutents, including the elderly, who were lied to about it, might have a thing or two to say.

I don't know what country you live in, but when you fuck the Americans people over by passing awful legislation, expect to hear it!

In any event this is all moot, the Democrats only listen to their leadership and don't give a fuck what the People think.

Without Gerrymandering Dems would lose 100-125 seats in 2010, the way it is they may only lose 40-50

 

[ServeandProtect]

They'll get it from the Health Care Reform Shea-Porter supported that:

- ends rescissions. Effective immediately, you can't lose your insurance because you get sick
- entitles small businesses to a tax credit for 2009 and 2010, which could be up to 50% of what they pay for employees’ health insurance.
- closes the “donut hole” for Medicare patients, making prescription medications more affordable for seniors.
- ending the exclusion of children under age 19 for pre-existing conditions
- eliminates annual and lifetime caps on coverage
- allows adults with pre-existing conditions may buy into a national high-risk pool until the exchanges come online. While these will not be cheap, they’re still better than total exclusion and get some benefit from a wider pool of insureds.
- authorizes early funding of community health centers in all 50 states. Community health centers provide primary, dental and vision services to people in the community, based on a sliding scale for payment according to ability to pay.​

Like the vote or not, Rep. Shea-Porter was one of the few congresspeople to meet their constituents face to face after the Healthcare vote.

She did a series of town halls throughout the her district here, answering questions, standing up for her beliefs and for the the hard working men and women here in NH who are going to benefit form affordable, available health care.

Affordable, available health care? Where are they going to get that?

 

[Care4all]

I would venture that people/citizens have been trying ''to bring our country back to where it was'', since July 5th, 1776.

It is a normal thing to wish for times that you think are better times or to think the grass is greener on the other side of the fence....sometimes it really looks that way, until you get close up.

Our founding fathers were not perfect either....they were the ELITISTS of their day, the ones both sides seem to give ridicule in today's times...

All I am saying is that we are NOT a perfect country....we have made some grave mistakes...we have killed over 600,000 citizens in a war against ourselves...some of our ancestors have done wrong in the past... to the Native Americans and to the African American slaves just as a couple of the biggies...

yet, we as a Nation, have changed the World, from our very inception, for the Good, in so many ways.

I was watching the History Channels Documentary on 'The Presidents'' a little while ago....and by the time I was done watching the series on it, I was actually smiling....

While watching it, I was just horrified...I could NOT believe the kind of downright dirty, and I mean below the worms in the ground downright dirty and scummy politics was back then....! (learned none of this in school that i could remember)

Even with differences that our own founding fathers had amongst eachother....! By the time the series ended, I actually came to believe that what I had thought was the most horrible, nasty and scummy politics of the last 20 years or so, clinton, bush, obama...it actually is not that bad today, compared to back then.

The World is not ending, partisanship is not beyond what it has been nor beyond some kind of reconciliation in my humble opinion.

We just need to get back to debating the real issues...and I mean the old fashion debate where you are respectfully trying to convince those that think the opposite of you, to change their mind and agree with you....or, for them, through honest debate and support, convince you to change your mind on the issue.....

Not much of this kind of true debate, takes place here...but sometimes it does!

you can't mend a broken relationship without communicating ya know?

and based on that, I do believe representatives meeting with their OWN, emphasis on their own, constituents is a part of their job...meeting with those who are both friend or foe.... and I believe the "foes" should be prepared to debate their stance and also LISTEN to any solutions, if there are any or to listen to the representative's stance....in a RESPECTFUL manner.

 

[del]

....but accusing the Dem of not holding town halls, knowing full well that ther GOP senator has held none IS doing the right thing? Help me understand this logic, del?

i'm not accusing anyone of anything. i posted a link from the uber right wing new york times that reported, assuming the reporter is telling the truth, facts. i offered my opinion on those facts and solicited other opinions.

i have no knowledge of gregg's current activities with his constituents, but in the past he has always been pretty accessible. as i said previously, the other guy did it to is a very weak excuse, especially if you don't know for certain that the other guy did, in fact, do it too.

I can only assume you are not seeing your inherent hypocrisy by pointing out something about one side, while not giving a shit about what the other side is doing. VERY unlike you del, but this makes twice in two weeks...

i assure you that if there was some mention of judd gregg's refusal to meet with his constituents, i would have pointed it out. unfortunately, the right wingnuts at the nyt appear to be covering it up. i'll write a letter to the editor.

the only people i know who are not currently guilty of hypocrisy in some form are dead. being thought one twice in two weeks is pretty good for someone on the sunny side of the grass, IMO.

 

[boedicca]

A group of citizens tried to meet with Rep McEnerny last week. His staff set up the constituent meet and greet in a tiny room which would only hold 20 people at a time. Whenever anyone asked a difficult question, the staff responded that the time was up and tried to escort the questioner out of the room. Despite this, a few folks from the tea party movement were able to make their points about his support of various Obama bills. The coward wouldn't respond, but he couldn't help but hear the concerns.

 

[WillowTree]

civil and civic? maybe they were screaming because the yahoos they were trying to reach appeared to be stone deaf. Poll after poll after poll said Americans overwhelmingly were against this bill. Emails, and phone calls, and letters in the millions were sent. Still deafness. Back room special deals for special people were made in the utmost secrecy after being promised transparancey , and finally a 51 majority partisan vote.. and she wants civility.. how funny. we want a republican democracy not a dictatorship.