[…The article contains the natural tested and proven to deliver result which you can apply to increase your penis size. You do not have to die in silence and frustration because you have a small penis because there are proven ways to enlarge it from …

[…There is no man under the sun that would be comfortable with a small penis. That is a statement that needs no researcher to verify its genuineness. There are so many physical flaws that most men come to terms with and accept as part of them like; b…

Ex-aide says Edwards fathered mistress' child

A man who once claimed he fathered the child of John Edwards' mistress now says in a book proposal that the former presidential candidate is the baby's father.

The New York Times reported Saturday that Edwards asked his campaign finance chairman to hide the paternity of Rielle Hunter's child. The claims are in a book proposal by former Edwards aide Andrew Young.

The newspaper reports Young wrote that Edwards told Hunter they would marry after Edwards' wife died. His wife, Elizabeth, has cancer.

Edwards has denied he fathered the child. He has acknowledged federal investigators are looking into his campaign funds.

Hunter's attorney and a spokeswoman for Edwards each declined comment Saturday. A lawyer for Young did not immediately return messages.

“John Edwards – - -U R the FATHER! – - as of my BOOK DEAL!!” :>) :>)

Neva-ending!! :>)

They could get jobs on Wall Street or as lobbyists with this kind of sneaky trick. There are plenty of business hotels to choose from so keep this horrible story in mind the next time you book.

Several hundred hotel workers and their supporters turned out yesterday for a raucous rally in front of the Hyatt Regency Boston for the 100 housekeepers who were fired by the hotel chain. Politicians called for businesses to boycott the Hyatt, and workers banged on drums, rattled detergent bottles filled with rocks, and chanted “Hyatt, shame on you’’ as they marched in front of the hotel with picket signs.

Hyatt Hotels Corp. laid off the entire housekeeping staffs at the Hyatt Regency Boston, Hyatt Regency Cambridge, and Hyatt Harborside Hotel after the morning shift had ended on Aug. 31, citing challenging economic conditions, and immediately replaced them with workers from an out-of-state staffing firm. The housekeepers had been training those very workers, from Georgia’s Hospitality Staffing Solutions, who they were told would be filling in for vacations.

http://www.americablog.com/2009/09/hyatt-hotel-…

To put today's two interviews in a bit of context, both Sen. Jay Rockefeller and Sen. Ron Wyden are members of the Finance Committee. Both of them are unhappy. And both of them matter. They matter enough that on Wednesday, the day Baucus's bill was released, they were both invited for private, highly-publicized meetings with the president.

Rockefeller chairs the Finance Committee's Health Care Subcommittee. That gives him solid procedural power over the outcome. But his long history of work on this issue, and his long relationships with other Democrats on the committee, also gives him a certain amount of influence. His announcement that he couldn't vote for Baucus's bill in its initial form made changes a sure thing rather than a long shot, and opened the door for other angry Democrats to stand against the legislation.

Wyden's influence comes by virtue of the Healthy Americans Act, his universal health-care proposal that attracted, at various points, 11 Senate Republicans as co-sponsors, and received the best CBO score of any bill thus far. Wyden's bill is also a particular favorite among the chattering class. “When Ron Wyden balks at a Democratic health-care reform proposal,” wrote Ruth Marcus on Wednesday, “people should definitely listen.” Wyden thus has both bipartisan and elite credibility. His presence on the bill signals something positive about the quality and thoughtfulness of the proposal. His absence does much the same.

Rockefeller and Wyden, in other words, aren't being courted just for their votes. Rather, their votes are needed to ensure other votes for the bill. There's a certain subset of liberal Democrats who look to Rockefeller for cues, and a certain subset of Democrats who admired Wyden's Healthy Americans Act and take his opinion very seriously. As neither of them was included in the Gang of Six process, neither is inclined to give the bill a free pass. And Baucus and the administration are now working pretty hard to win their support, which means that there's a real chance their concerns will be fixed, and their priorities included.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/

Well, the read I gave you both here and at Congress Matters on the Baucus health care draft has pretty much panned out as the DC conventional wisdom. And my reaction to the individual mandates is now being mirrored in the media. The bill as written is a bomb. Republicans won't vote for it, because they're in this to hand Dems a defeat, not to work out policy differences. And Democrats aren't much interested either, because Baucus locked them out of the room, by and large. Seriously, how do you come back to the 10 Senate Finance Dems who had no role in your “negotiations” and ask for them to rubber stamp the product when it either conflicts with their every stated position on health care, or simply excluded them from the process, or both? You're going to stand between 10 United States Senators and the spotlight, on the hottest issue in Washington, and then ask them for a favor? Good luck!

So what's going to happen? And how should Senate Finance Dems respond? Here's one take, from last Sunday, to mull over:

Here's a question I got via Twitter last night:

@KagroX assuming Baucus bill is as bad as Bob Reich says http://tinyurl.com/… how will Schumer, Rockefeller, Stabinow vote in Cttee?

And I answered:

@mitchellhirsch They will probably be asked to report it out and wait to see how it's merged with HELP.

And that's something to think about. I mean, the real answer is that I have no idea what they'll do. And I've heard whispers that there might be attempts to amend the draft to include a public option, of course.

But if it doesn't get included, what would Senators like Schumer, Rockefeller, Stabenow and Menendez do?

Well, I think they'd likely come under intense pressure to simply go along and allow the bill to be reported out of committee, despite their objections. If the leadership wants to keep the reconciliation option open, they'll be mindful of the fact that the budget resolution instructs Senate Finance (as well as the other four committees of jurisdiction) to report out legislation achieving $1 billion in budgetary savings, to be included in the reconciliation process. I'm not 100% sure, but I think that will require that the Finance Committee actually come up with something, even if it's just pro forma, or at least it will make things considerably more difficult if they don't.

So I think it's possible that Senators on the Finance Committee who support the public option will essentially be asked to put those concerns aside for the sake of moving the process forward, and that they'll agree to do that.

Should they? Or should they use that leverage to force more consideration of the public option?

Good question. And I suppose it's worth considering. Because if they hold things up, then I suppose it falls to Baucus and the more conservative Dems to decide whether they'll block their own bill and throw things into the chaos of reconciliation on the floor rather than in committee. Surely the conservative types will be using the logic of the process to try to put the liberals over a barrel, telling them that unless they give in, the process can't move forward, and since the bills will be merged anyway, what really matters is that outcome, not the Finance Committee vote. But the same logic applies in reverse, too. At least insofar as the committee and later merger outcomes are concerned.

The real question is what happens if the Committee makes no report and offers no bill? There are real answers about that, but they're archaic and confusing — even more so than questions about what happens during reconciliation under the normal process.

We'll have to look at that later, and decide who holds more leverage — conservatives or liberals — should reconciliation go forward without a bill from Finance.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/9/17/783373/…

When I quipped about Obama mixing honey with the poison of no public option….I did NOT expect this!

It may make the poison go down easier…