I think you are about to get your wish. As far as history lessons go, I am guessing that William Kristol had it right in the 90s when he tried to lead the Republican Party to midterm election victory by defeating Clinton’s health care reform. I also think he is right today, that stopping the current attempt at health care reform is a must for the Republican Party. I think he was right when he warned that passing legislation like this would, “revive the reputation of the party that spends and regulates, the Democrats, as the generous protector of middle-class interests.” Certainly, passage of Social Security in the 30s and Medicare in the 60s did NOT hurt the democrats.

Thanks for the history lesson, (I always enjoy learning new things), but my words remain unchanged. I sincerely hope the Democrats do pass their plan without the consent of the American people. It would only serve to reveal the current agendas of the progressives who have hijacked the Democratic Party, and their complete and blatant contempt for the common American person, and the American way of life.
(Yes, I do not really think the current heavy-weights in the Democratic Party fully represent the Dems at all. The people we have now making headlines are uber-liberals, not your normal, everyday Democrats.)

There is no “Nuclear Option” here. This is just the Republican frame of the day, to make the congressional budgetary reconciliation process sound like an extreme measure. Budget Reconciliation is fairly common. President Bush and his Republican controlled congress used budget reconciliation to pass the Bush Tax cuts a few years back. Budget reconciliation follows the clear rules of the senate, and has been used 21 times since 1974.
The phrase “Nuclear Option” was coined by Republican Bill Frist in 2005. At the time, Senator Frist was proposing to change the rules of the senate, taking away the filibuster so that he could get some appointees confirmed. He later attempted to change the name to “Constitutional Option”, so that it would not sound so extreme.

Your point about the difference between using quotes and not using quotes is a good one.

Here are some nice links: http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp http://www.spj.org/ethics.asp

The Dems have threatened and postured but they won’t squeeze this trigger. Why not? What are they afraid of happening? You already passed a 787 Billion, yes with a “B”, dollar Stimulus Package, without so much as a friendly, “So America, what do you think?”, so go ahead and cram this one down our throats.

In 2010, Congress will be getting an enema, which is appropriate, as they have done nothing but use our Constitution like toilet paper since Obama took power.

Long Live the Republic.

According to your observations, the AP article titled “Obama to the World: America can’t fix everything” would suggest that President Obama actually said “America can’t fix everything”, which is not the case, but it is the message that he delivered. Notice, there are no quotation marks? The same principle applies to my header that you are critiquing.

If you want to continue this argument, then I suggest you take it up with the Associated Press first. Now, I am not claiming to follow all their standards at all, because I am not. But let’s put it this way:

PJ to Chet: The AP is wrong

I am happy to debate the actual issues at hand, but picking apart the headline is a little petty, especially when you have not done your research first.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_OBAMA?SITE=WVEC&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Later