But, as so often when making an embarrasing mistake, it sounds like the couple is going to be pilloried for what they did. Typical kill the messenger, in my opinion. Was the President threatened by them or in serious danger from them? Nah. They acted properly in the context of the state dinner. They were polite, well dressed, and in accordance with those who attended. To throw the book at them for exposing a flaw is unfair. Rather, fix the flaw. Maybe not give them a medal..I am not so sure.

Well, let's see. We have adherence to the law versus Nevada's urge to have more clout. Hmmmm...I for one vote for the law. If people are not here legally, they should not be recognized. Counted, maybe, but not included in counts of legal people. Even if it means more resources from the government. To argue otherwise is to argue that the law only counts when it is not inconvient, and I don't think we want to go down that road.

Company plans and alleged income redistribution aside, Medicare Advantage is generally a huge advantage compared to regular Medicare programs for poorer seniors not qualified for Medicaid.

The reason basically is the largely unconscionable fees charged by for profit hospitals and most doctors. Medicare Advantage has arrangements with most hospitals and a reasonably large panel of doctors which result in reasonable copays for such services for the senior poor. Advantage programs overall quality of care might be somewhat less, but it is obvious that wealthier seniors tend to choose the more expensive regular options because they can.

It's a question of basic fairness to those caught in their late years who are not so poor as for Medicaid but cannot afford the better plans. Leave some form of such plans.

Strategic or not, the problem with Titus' no vote early on is that it simply helps fire the opposition to the health plan. Intent to join in supporting the plan when it comes to final vote is not useful if the plan does not come to final vote because the real nay-sayers triumph.

It would be a terrible mistake to reduce involvement of local law enforcement in helping control the tsunami of illegal immigrants into this country. The impact on unemployment, health care and schools, perhaps as well as crime, has been well documented. The Sheriff should resist all attempts by the pro-illegals lobbies to damp down enforcement of our laws.

That the Senator might survive this sleazy, smarmy mess is testimony to the hypocrisy of political leadership in this country, often of both parties. And, to the indifference of the public nowadays toward such shenanigans.

It is one thing to be forgiving of more routine human transgressions...who among us has not erred. But by not holding our leaders to a somewhat higher standard, usually because one political party or another fears they are going to get gored, results in us getting what we deserve.

In this case the Republicans, who have pontificated about this kind of lifestyle for decades are fearful. With Clinton, it was the Democrats. But at least they had not been so holier-than-thou about such messes.

Well, so much for a depressed economy among all these folks.

Nevada, many other states, and indeed the Federal Government have got to make up their minds. They have to go through the painful and politically charged process of deciding whether we have any moral obligation to take on the economic burdens of a neighboring country. Ones we did not cause, nor about which were we at fault, generally.

It/they have to decide if it is legitimate pressure and rhetoric to label those opposed to wholesale, unregulated border crossing as anti immigrant, or whether that is nonsense. America has always welcomed diverse cultures to be absorbed into our own, but generally it was in an orderly process, and was accepted as important for growth. It never would have been tolerated when inflows of immigrants would have disenfranchised unemployed citizens already here, or overwhelmed whatever social support systems were in place for citizens and welcome visitors.

The choice is not easy and political lines blur. Not every advocate of reform is liberal, not every proponent of effective borders is right wing. That law, whatever it is, should prevail, should be a non-partisan decision.

And there's the rub. Because dollars in large numbers rear their ugly head, and cloud thinking. Good luck to us.

For me, the problem is that in a complex bill, the "Devil is so often in the Details". There are so many components. Many states approval of such arrangements include means for gay couples to access the "public trough" for benefits that are otherwise reserved to hetero married couples. It is not clear to me whether Nevada's bill is simply another form of the same thing.

While I am unhesitatingly against difficulties for gay couples to see each other in the hospital for example, I am opposed to legislation that would allow access of the "trough" to couples who chose an alternative life style, or to single people for that matter. Thus, for me, the "trough" is decidedly accessible only to hetero married couples.

If I were a legislator, I would want to be crystal sure that benefits bestowed on gay couples by the pending legislation did not cross over into those I believe reserved to hetro married couples. Only then would I vote to override.

God forbid that larger hospitals might actually have to study structure and staffing to demonstrate they are providing adequate care to patients. It is as though the Governor is grasping for things to veto, hoping one or more may stick. Or, hospital ownership companies may be big contributors to reelection campaigns...
Status quo.