Some of you out there wanted to know where the President stands on the public option. Why hasn't he "drawn a line in the sand" when it comes to the public option.

Clearly this means you have no been paying attention to the White House Press Briefings...either that or it's because our wonderful media hasn't bothered to report on what it gets from these briefings and just make up their own shit.

The Press Briefings are usually where the administrations "draw the line in the sand" on major issues, so if Robert Gibbs says the President supports a public option, it's pretty much safe to bet that's where he stands...unless you're like amberglow over on OpenLeft and think everything is just a greast conspiracy and lie. Here is Gibbs this week, REPEATEDLY, drawing that "line in the sand;"

As the fight over healthcare reform continues to build, some interesting stuff arising; from secret centrist meetings, to heartstopping numbers at the cost of a potential healthcare plan,

As the fight over healthcare reform continues to build, some interesting stuff arising; from secret centrist meetings, to heartstopping numbers at the cost of a potential healthcare plan,

WTF?

WASHINGTON -- Americans are overwhelmingly opposed to closing the detention center for suspected terrorists at Guantanamo Bay and moving some of the detainees to prisons on U.S. soil, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds.
By more than 2-1, those surveyed say Guantanamo shouldn't be closed. By more than 3-1, they oppose moving some of the accused terrorists housed there to prisons in their own states.

The findings underscore the difficult task President Obama faces in convincing those at home that he should follow through on his campaign promise to close the prison in Cuba, especially in the absence of a plan of where the prisoners would go.

It is one of the few subjects on which most Americans side with the views of the Bush administration over its successor.

I'm struck by two votes the Senate took recently that the liberal blogsphere has been absolutely FREAKING out about.

The first vote was for an amendment to the Credit Cardholder's Bill of Rights, which not only passed the Senate 67-29, but later passed the House as well. To their credit, Democrats in the House did try to strip the amendment, but it passed anyway. The amendment, sponsored by Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, was to allow loaded guns into National Parks.

The other amendment, sponsored by Daniel Inouye of Hawaii, an amendment to the Iraq/Afghanistan supplemental that would bar any funding to be used to transport or release Gitmo prisoners into the United States.

The conservadems strike again, right?

In the wake of the torture, pictures, military tribunal fracas, yet more proof that the grand old "liberal media" is much more interested in conflict drama than, you know, reporting and yet more proof that we can't count on them to help protect the rule of law.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090517/ap_o n_an/us_democrats_security_analysis

This is disheartening, although to be honest not surprising.

A new national poll indicates that most Americans don't want to see an investigation of Bush administration officials who authorized harsh interrogation techniques on suspected terrorists, even though most people think such procedures were forms of torture.

Six in ten people questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Wednesday believe that some of the procedures, such as water boarding, were a form of torture, with 36 percent disagreeing.

But half the public approves of the Bush administration's decision to use of those techniques during the questioning of suspected terrorists, with 50 percent in approval and 46 percent opposed.

"Roughly one in five Americans believe those techniques were torture but nonetheless approve of the decision to use those procedures against suspected terrorists," says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. "That goes a long way toward explaining why a majority don't want to see former Bush officials investigated."

Fifty-seven percent of those questioned don't want Congress to investigate Bush officials who authorized those harsh interrogation procedures, with 42 percent calling for action by lawmakers. Fifty-five percent also don't want a similar investigation by an independent panel.

Yeah, you heard me right. I'm writing a diary to thank some of the biggest pains in the asses...Blue Dogs and Conservative Dems who have stood in our way before.

This thank you is specifically in reference to the Matthew Shepard Act. When looking at the roll call, I was surprised by some of the names in the Yea column. These Democrats were likely voting against the opinion of their conservative districts, but nevertheless saw the need to expand hate crimes legislation anyway. As we've seen with EFCA, sometimes Democrats seem to be inclined to vote for something when they know it won't be law, only to back off when we have a President willing to sign said legislation into law. In this case these historically conservative Dems and/or Dems in conservative districts voted for this knowing damn well President Obama supports it and will sign it into law.

Credit where credit is due