Just when you thought that activist filmmaker James O'Keefe, partner Hannah Giles, and Andrew Breitbart at BigGovernment.com had run out of ammo to direct at ACORN, they have outdone themselves.
In September, BigGov aired videos showing O'Keefe and Giles, posing as a pimp and prostitute, asking for and getting cordial help in setting up their enterprise as a deliberately income-underrporting cash enterprise from ACORN representatives in Baltimore, Washington, New York City, San Bernardino, and San Diego. This help was provided even after Giles revealed her purported plans to import underage girls as part of the enterprise.
For a month, it has supposedly been the settled truth that a similar attempt by O'Keefe and Giles in Philadelphia had failed miserably, and that the pair were "thrown out" of ACORN's office there. ACORN CEO Bertha Lewis said so on CNN. The Philadelphia Daily News's David Gambacorta reported that "they were apparently shown the door." Others playing or parroting ACORN's assertions included the Philadelphia Inquirer, the Washington Post, NPR, and the New York Times.
The press should have suspected that another shoe might drop in Philly, as ACORN made similar assertions about the pair's visits in New York and San Diego after the Baltimore and Washington vids premiered that were quickly proven utterly false. But if there was any skepticism, it was well-hidden.
Now O'Keefe's and Giles latest video (direct YouTube here) blows ACORN's Philadelphia story to smithereens.
Posted by: Fred ||
10/23/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Well, I suspect Congress will do its best to ignore those smithereens and give ACORN five or six more chances to come up with a story that, although obviously hokey, does have some plausible deniability.
With the Treasury Department poised to formally announce limits on compensation for executives at bailed-out Wall Street firms, President Obama said on Thursday that massive pay packages for executives at bailed-out firms offend American values.
"It does offend our values when executives of big financial firms that are struggling pay themselves huge bonuses even as they rely on extraordinary assistance to stay afloat," the president said.
Mr. Obama lauded Treasury's decision to limit compensation for executives from firms that have not yet repaid the government. He said Kenneth Feinberg, the special master at Treasury tasked with handling executive pay, "was faced with the difficult task of striking the proper balance between standing up for taxpayers and returning a measure of stability to our financial system."
"Under these competing interests, I believe he's taken an important step forward today in curbing the influence of executive compensation on Wall Street while still allowing these companies to succeed and prosper," said Mr. Obama. "But more work needs to be done."
The president made the comments at the start of a signing ceremony for a veterans health care funding reform bill at the White House.
At a briefing before the president made his comments, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters that the White House did not have any involvement in Feinberg's decision. Mr. Obama stressed Thursday that Feinberg had made "an independent judgment."
Posted by: Fred ||
10/23/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
He who calls the tune gets to pay the piper. If the corporations want to pay whatever they want to whomever they want, they shouldn't have accepted aid from the feds.
#2
I'm firmly with Obama on this one. Bast@rds started handing out bonuses as soon as they got their bailout packages. WTF? Not used to the federal government keeping an eye on them I guess. They deserved this. They contributed in a big way to making everyone's life miserable, then they get to share in that misery. Poor babies have to sell a couple of their mansions to survive, I guess.
#4
Camel's nose under the tend. He'll need wage and price controls very soon. He can't have wages tied to hyper-inflation. To bust the USD and arrive at 'Zim' he must freeze wages. This is just a convenient trial baloon to gauge congressional reaction. Listen to what he dose, not what he says.
#5
Maybe I'm missing something here...but aren't these same oh-so-valuable employees the very ones that got these firms into trouble in the first place? With a 10% unemployment rate (ok, probably closer to 15%), surely barely competent executives could be found to replace these "wonder" boys and girls.
#7
If you hadn't bailed out these failed firms with money extorted from successful wealth creators then you wouldn't be in this mess.
The bond collapses that underpin corporate bankruptcy would be deflationary and thus allow the state to print money to repay depositors without inflation and who would have their money in sound organisations.
The state picked by far the worst option for the country, but the best one for their donors.
#10
The bonuses that everyone got so upset about at AIG were being paid as part of a contract. For a number of those employees it was their paycheck for the entire year
Then you pick their pockets?
Those who ran the parts of the companies that got them into trouble that should lose some compensation. Even the presidents, etc, who helped overlook risky practices to make a buck right now and the hell with the future should be paying.
Limiting executive pay is the most un-American thing that they can do. Giving the Feds the authority to do so, no matter how much money they have in it, will be going over the edge of a cliff that we cannot see the bottom.
Posted by: Jame Retief ||
10/23/2009 9:36 Comments ||
Top||
#11
"Limiting executive pay is the most un-American thing that they can do. "
Because as Thomas Jefferson wrote: "...certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and Unlimited Executive Pay."
#12
I am also appalled at the huge salaries those people get but Congress has no Constitutional right to limit salaries in the private sector. When those companies took the money there was no clause limiting salaries and now Congress is acting retroactivly to reduce those salaries. Blatently unconstitutional.
Posted by: Deacon Blues ||
10/23/2009 9:58 Comments ||
Top||
#14
From the article: The president also urged the Senate to pass legislation giving shareholders a say in executive pay packages[...]
Can't shareholders vote to do this themselves? It's not the idea that bothers me, it's the government (esp. this government) coming up with all sorts of new 'regulations' and 'mandates.'
#15
Congress takes Federal money (our money). They should be given a pay cut, their health care should be cut and no COLAs.. Somehow, Congress has to be required to live under what it passes--that'll straighten out some of this $hit. This elite class of arrogant leeches such as Bwawney Frank, Chris Dodd, Reid, Pelosi, Murtha, and any others that fit this description need to be jerked very hard.
#17
He'll need wage and price controls very soon. He can't have wages tied to hyper-inflation. There is no need for wage controls, since average wages have been stagnant (or shrinking) for years now, and workers are in no position to demand anything from employers. It is very unlikely wages will go up to match an increase in prices. Debts that are uncollectable decrease the money supply. So far the amount of money dumped into the economy by the Feds is far less than the amount destroyed by the housing bubble & derivative shenanigans, therefore little inflation (for the moment).
#18
The president also urged the Senate to pass legislation giving shareholders a say in executive pay packages[...] Can't shareholders vote to do this themselves? Corporate insiders have by and large usurped corporations like AIG and Goldman Sachs, and operate them strictly for the own aggrandizement. The average shareholder in rogue corporations like these is better termed a 'bagholder.'
#19
The bonuses that everyone got so upset about at AIG were being paid as part of a contract. For a number of those employees it was their paycheck for the entire year
AIG should have gone bankrupt, its employment contracts voided, its employees laid off, and its share value cut to zero. AIG employees and directors that engaged in fraud & other business crimes should have been indicted, tried and jailed. That used to be the American way for companies that do as poorly as AIG has done.
#21
Totally agree. The building has a leaky roof, so they replace the carpeting.
If there is a need for that service, another company will fill in the gap. Same with the banks et al; its against the natural order of things. But hey, let's keep the wooly mammoths in control because we can deal with them and know they play ball.
What seems to be missing, is that the government is responsible for enforcing values?
#22
The problem with AIG was that all the big boys (Goldman Sachs, Morgan, BoA, Citi,et.al.) had CDS's (AiG insurance). That was the 3 card monte Paulson played on Congress and America. In order to cover the risk and gamble the big banks made you had to bail out AIG so they could pay off the swaps. If AIG had gone under, the whole financial system would have been at far greater risk and may not have ever survived. Good news, bad news.
Posted by: Jack is Back! ||
10/23/2009 14:43 Comments ||
Top||
#23
Hoorah we now have a large zombie financial system.
#25
It does look like compensation got out of hand for these guys, but do you really want to mess it up with a government solution? Some changes that increase stockholder's power would go a long way toward correcting any abuses of power that the CEO's might come up with.
Posted by: Richard of Oregon ||
10/23/2009 15:32 Comments ||
Top||
#26
Am I the only one who finds what is most outrageous in all of this and other Obama actions is the sheer arrogance of the presumption of power. Starting with the whole cCommerce Clause and enumerated powers discussion this devolves down now to just brash assertions f asuthority absent any shred of legal authority. What basis in the Constitution can anyone assert for thses continuing expansions of Executive power through amazing rubber stamp legislation from a slavish Congress run by intellectual dwarves like Pelosi and Reid, or the more fundamental act of just declaring the power and publishing regulations. Are thier no freedoms left. People, the slope towards totalitarian soci@lism is no longer slippery, its a bobsled run!
#28
This is how Obamaland works. It's basically a protection racket. Once you take it, they own you. This is exactly how Obamacare will work. Once it passes, they own us. Literally.
Have a nice day.
Posted by: Rex Mundi ||
10/23/2009 18:40 Comments ||
Top||
#29
"Offends o9ur values" > wehell, so does an "UNOFFICIAL" US$14.0QUADRILYUHN GDP [WIkipedia. DebtClock.org, etc.]; as opposed to the "OFFICIAL" US$14.0TRILYUHN GDP one.
Lest we fergit, D *** NG IT, A MILYUHN-AND ZILYUHN-AND-SILYUHN DOLLAR BUDGETED FEDERAL-GOVT AGENCY, BUT NO ONE THOUGHT TO TEACH, ETC. YOUNG TEEN AGENT CODY BANKS HOW TO TALK TO A GIRL!
APPARENTLY, NO ONE THOUGHT TO GET GOOD ACCOUNTANTS, etc. EITHER .... OR SSSSSSSHHHHHH DID THEY!?
#30
To paraphrase TED TURNER > D *** NG IT, WHEN YOU ONLY HAVE AN EXTRA US$1000.0 TRILYUHN-OR-SO ["or so"] DOLLARS TO WORK WITH, YOU HAVE TO MAKE DO WITH LESS!
Sniff, sniff, you just have Have HAVE H-A-V-E HHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAVVVVVVVVEEEEEE......@ TO.
The Senate must soon increase the national debt limit to above $13 trillion -- and Democrats are looking for political cover.
Knowing they will face unyielding GOP attacks for voting to increase the eye-popping debt, Democrats are considering attaching a debt increase provision to a must-pass bill, possibly the Defense Department spending bill, according to Democratic and Republican sources.
Adding it to the defense bill would allow Democrats to argue that they voted for the measure to help troops in harm's way -- and downplay that their vote also expanded the limit for how much money the country can borrow.
The strategy has not yet been finalized, aides and senators said. The House already approved a debt limit increase of $925 billion -- above the $12.1 trillion ceiling Congress approved as part of the economic stimulus package last February -- but Democrats may seek to increase the limit further so they don't have to revisit the politically treacherous issue until after the 2010 midterm elections.
As of Tuesday, the debt stood at $11.95 trillion, staring at senators amid a roiling health care debate in which critics have seized on the potential costs of the overhaul. Unlike those of the House, the Senate's rules do not allow it to automatically increase the debt with its adoption of the annual budget resolution. That puts senators in a tough position politically. And if the Senate balks at the increase, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has warned that the slow economic recovery could collapse, as investors around the world would sharply lose confidence in America's abilities to meet its credit obligations. "This president inherited, in some ways, an economic fiasco," said conservative Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana. "It's not going to be a pleasant vote, but it may be necessary until we can get back on track."
Indeed, Democrats are quick to point out that President George W. Bush left President Barack Obama with a $10.6 trillion debt -- and that the debt limit was increased seven times in the Republican's eight years in the White House. But now Democrats are in charge of Congress and the White House; and the Treasury Department reported last week that the annual deficit for the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30 stood at a record $1.4 trillion, with that number likely to balloon under Obama's policies.
Posted by: Fred ||
10/23/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Democrats are quick to point out that President George W. Bush left President Barack Obama with a $10.6 trillion debt -- and that the debt limit was increased seven times in the Republican's eight years in the White House.
These guys don't get it. It was wrong when Bush did it and it is wrong for BO. It took Bush 8 years and BO seems to be doing it much faster. Young people's [kids, grandkids and great grand kids] futures are being screwed badly.
WASHINGTON — Late last month, the senior White House adviser David Axelrod and Roger Ailes, chairman and chief executive of Fox News, met in an empty Palm steakhouse before it opened for the day, neutral ground secured for a secret tête-à -tête.
Mr. Ailes, who had reached out to Mr. Axelrod to address rising tensions between the network and the White House, told him that FoxÂ’s reporters were fair, if tough, and should be considered separate from the Fox commentators who were skewering President Obama nightly, according to people briefed on the meeting. Mr. Axelrod said it was the view of the White House that Fox News had blurred the line between news and anti-Obama advocacy.
What both men took to be the start of a frank but productive dialogue proved, in retrospect, more akin to the round of pre-Pearl Harbor peace talks between the United States and Japan.
By the following weekend, officials at the White House had decided that if anything, it was time to take the relationship to an even more confrontational level. The spur: Executives at other news organizations, including The New York Times, had publicly said that their newsrooms had not been fast enough in following stories that Fox News, to the administration’s chagrin, had been heavily covering through the summer and early fall — namely, past statements and affiliations of the White House adviser Van Jones that ultimately led to his resignation and questions surrounding the community activist group Acorn.
At the same time, Fox News had continued a stream of reports rankling White House officials and liberal groups that monitor its programming for bias.
Those reports included a critical segment on the schools safety official Kevin Jennings, with the on-screen headline “School Czar’s Past May Be Too Radical”; urgent news coverage of a video showing schoolchildren “singing the praises, quite literally, of the president,” which the Fox News contributor Tucker Carlson later called “pure Khmer Rouge stuff”; and the daily anti-Obama salvos from Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity.
There followed, beginning in earnest more than two weeks ago, an intensified volley of White House comments describing Fox as “not a news network.”
“It was an amalgam of stories covered, and our assessment of how others were dealing with those stories, that caused us to comment,” Mr. Axelrod said in describing the administration’s thinking.
The heated back-and-forth between the White House and Fox News has brought equal delight to FoxÂ’s conservative commentators, who revel in the fight, and liberal Democrats, who have long characterized the network as a purveyor of right-wing propaganda rather than fact-based journalism.
Speaking privately at the White House on Monday with a group of mostly liberal columnists and commentators, including Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann of MSNBC and Maureen Dowd, Frank Rich and Bob Herbert of The New York Times, Mr. Obama himself gave vent to sentiments about the network, according to people briefed on the conversation.
Then, in an interview with NBC News on Wednesday, the president went public. “What our advisers have simply said is that we are going to take media as it comes,” he said. “And if media is operating, basically, as a talk radio format, then that’s one thing. And if it’s operating as a news outlet, then that’s another.”
In a sign of discomfort with the White House stance, Fox’s television news competitors refused to go along with a Treasury Department effort on Tuesday to exclude Fox from a round of interviews with the executive-pay czar Kenneth R. Feinberg that was to be conducted with a “pool” camera crew shared by all the networks. That followed a pointed question at a White House briefing this week by Jake Tapper, an ABC News correspondent, about the administration’s treatment of “one of our sister organizations.”
White House officials continue to interact with Fox News correspondents whom they have complimented as professional, including Major Garrett and Wendell Goler.
But Michael Clemente, senior vice president for news and editorial programming at Fox, said the White House was conflating the network’s commentary with its news coverage. That, Mr. Clemente said, “would be like Fox News blaming the White House senior staff for the Washington Redskins’ losing record.”
“I think we’re doing the job we’re supposed to be doing,” he said, “and we do it as well as anyone.”
Mr. Clemente suggested that the fight was part of a larger White House strategy to marginalize critics. He cited a report in Politico about a strategy session in August at which officials discussed plans to move more aggressively against opponents.
White House officials acknowledged that Fox News did come up at that meeting, although not, they said, as a central topic. A number of issues had been added to the White House’s list of grievances by then, including the network’s heavy coverage of some of the more intensely anti-administration activity at town-hall-style meetings on health care and Mr. Beck’s remark that Mr. Obama “has a deep-seated hatred for white people.”
The first real shot from the White House, however, came when aides excluded “Fox News Sunday With Chris Wallace” — which they had previously treated as distinct from the network — from a round of presidential interviews with Sunday morning news programs in mid-September.
“We simply decided to stop abiding by the fiction, which is aided and abetted by the mainstream press, that Fox is a traditional news organization,” said Dan Pfeiffer, the deputy White House communications director. Later that week, White House officials said, they noticed a column by Clark Hoyt, the public editor of The Times, in which Jill Abramson, one of the paper’s two managing editors, described her newsroom’s “insufficient tuned-in-ness to the issues that are dominating Fox News and talk radio.” The Washington Post’s executive editor, Marcus Brauchli, had already expressed similar concerns about his newsroom.
White House officials said comments like those had focused them on a need to make their case that Fox had an ideological bent undercutting its legitimacy as a news organization.
Fox News Channel certainly seems to be enjoying a row it considers ratings candy, having devoted hours of news coverage and commentary to the fight.
But White House officials said they were happy to have at least started a public debate about Fox.
“This is a discussion that probably had to be had about their approach to things,” Mr. Axelrod said. “Our concern is other media not follow their lead.”
#1
Two things; “We simply decided to stop abiding by the fiction, which is aided and abetted by the mainstream press, that Fox is a traditional news organization” my emphasis on the word traditional which, I believe means "willing to go along with the White House's demands and guidelines" as the rest of the media is willing to do;
and the other is "started a public debate about Fox", how their ranting is being characterized as debate. I don't think the word means what you think it means.
#4
Man, the New York Times just compared a Democratic White House press shop with the Imperial Japanese, comparing their decision-making process with that which resulted in the comprehensive defeat of that state.
I'd say the bloom is thoroughly off the rose.
Posted by: Mitch H. ||
10/23/2009 16:56 Comments ||
Top||
#5
I think it's obvious the other networks realize that if they let Obama shut out Fox, it means a future white house can do the same to them.
#2
As of this posting, a little fact checking editing is needed in the Title - "..McDonnell in NY-23 House race". It's Hoffman. I think we can do better than the MSM.
But this endorsement by Palin is likely to hand the Democrats an easy win. With Hoffman not able to get the Republican nomination and deciding to run on a "Conservative" third party ticket, he is going to split the Republican vote. Unless he picks up overwhelming independent voter support, his candidacy is going to simply ensure a Democrat victory.
#4
The Republican candidate winning also ensures a democrat victory; she'll vote with the dems on all the important issues, such as whether to use the crisis du jour or the invented crisis du jour (i.e. Global Warming) to nationalize the economy.
The Republicans, if they want our vote, can try not nominating Democrat-in-all-but-name candidates.
This is a very conservative Republican district and has been Republican since the Civil War. The problem is the party insiders hand picked the wrong candidate. The Grass Roots are now speaking up.
Hoffman has passed the Republican candidate Scozzofava already and is closing in on the Democrat Owens. It is funny that even the Democrat is to the RIGHT of Scozzofava.
Scozzofava should withdraw if she really wants to do what is right for the party. She is already running third and would be a spoiler at best. If she drops out, Hoffman wins big.
Scozzofave is a DIABLO. Democrat In All But Label Only.
Having a pro abortion, NARAL-funded, pro card check, tax and spend voting record, stimulus bill backing, Daily Kos and ACORN endorsed candidate is hardly a win for the Republicans. She has already considered changing parties. And how reliable would her vote be? Do you really want another RINO in congress?
She would give Pelosi what Pelosi needs: another "Republican" (DIABLO) vote to cover her ass when they vote with her to pass bad laws. Soczzofava allows the Democrats to claim they are bipartisan and lay part of the failure on the Republicans with the aid of the complicit liberal press.
You are wrong as are those who hold a similar uninformed opinion. Including Newt Gingrich.
Posted by: M Defarge ||
10/23/2009 14:25 Comments ||
Top||
#7
If you're looking for a long term strategy, then 2010 is the goal to take out the good old boy country club Republican establishment [the low hanging fruit]. Learn the methods that work, learn the processes to apply, learn to effectively organize and mobilize, and learn to efficiently apply resources, establish your lines of credit/funding. 2012 then is the soci@list turn. Pelosi et al will still be transfixed upon the Trunks and won't be able to effectively counter.
#8
Proc - look what we are doing in Colorado with Ryan Fazier. CO-7 candidate. www.frazierforcolorado.com
We snuck him past the country clubbers.
Hey Pappy, here's a swabbie you'll want in government. A Navy Veteran, a Crypto guy at NSA for a while, family man. I've met him and talked with him and know him. This is a good man.
We now need money. We have to take on Soros and his money via NEA, SEIU and other tentacles. If I had more energy I'd be spending all my spare time working for Ryan instead of laying around here sleeping and being weak.
Spread the word. Drop a fiver or a 20 or more if you can. Every dollar counts.
The decline in Barack Obama's popularity since July has been the steepest of any president at the same stage of his first term for more than 50 years. Now I happen to think this is a pretty big deal and very newsworthy. The chances that it will even be mentioned on MSNBC, CNN, NYT, etc, are slim to none and slim left town a long time ago.
#1
I just wonder with the bad populatity, how long the dems can cover up the massive corruption that surrounds Obama and his Chicago crew. Someone will use it to score political points if his approval drops much lower.
#2
Most intelligent people would take these polls as a signal that maybe just maybe you are not headed in the right direction and make a correction--unless you have some other agenda--Or you are a dumb bunny and/or arrogant. Good football coaches make these corrections all the time in the second half of a football game. However, if you have an agenda that is radical left and you think that is where the country is going to go no matter what, you are not going to make these corrections. Well, thank God and the voters that the system tends to be self-correcting during mid-terms elections and four year elections. Unfortunately, these corrections don't seem to send the messages they need to send because elected politicians tend to start thinking mandate, the Constitution is for someone else, etc. Somehow, the country needs to go in a direction where there are some major corrections that rein in out-of-control Congress spending and an Executive branch that thinks of itself in terms of czars and 3rd world dictatorships.
#3
Then there are the Herm Edwards football coaches who states that they are going to lose and to get used to it...then wonder why the players have low motivation and no fans show up to the stadium.
#4
If you follow the presidential poll at Real Clear Politics, the president's approval has fallen 4% just this week.
I suspect this has to do with Obama's handling of Fox.
Obama and his minions don't seem to be able to handle any criticism, even from people who wish them well. He reminds me of the Tehran regime. Many of the people being arrested and tortured in Iran had a major role in bringing about the Islamic Revolution. But Tehran (like Obama) can't even tolerate cricism from insiders.
Posted by: Frozen Al ||
10/23/2009 11:37 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Why does the "O" get consistently higher poll numbers when the poll is taken by ABC,CNN, NYT,WaPo, etc.
1. They lie
2. They use trick questions
3. They have a vested interest in his success
4. They think we're dumb
5. They only poll members of the MSM Fringe Media
6. All of the above
Sensing that victory in the race for Virginia governor is slipping away, Democrats at the national level are laying the groundwork to blame a loss in a key swing state on a weak candidate who ran a poor campaign that failed to fully embrace President Obama until days before the election. Maybe that's why he's not farther behind.
Senior administration officials have expressed frustration with how Democrat R. Creigh Deeds has handled his campaign for governor, refusing early offers of strategic advice and failing to reach out to several key constituencies that helped Obama win Virginia in 2008, they say. It's not OUR fault!
A senior administration official said Deeds badly erred on several fronts, including not paying homage to the One and doing a better job of coordinating with the White House. "I understood in the beginning why there was some reluctance to run all around the state with Barack Obama," said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity in order to speak candidly about the race. But he shoulda endored The One sooner.
"You don't do that in Virginia. But when you consider the African American turnout that they need, and then when you consider as well they've got a huge problem with surge voters, younger voters, we were just a natural for them." I left that in so you could puzzle over the meaning of that sentence.A "huge problem"?
A loss for Deeds in Virginia would likely be seen as a sign that Obama's popularity is weakening in critical areas of the country. But the unusual preelection criticism could be an attempt to shield Obama from that narrative by ensuring that Deeds is blamed personally for the loss. Could be?
Deeds advisers insist the notion that he has distanced himself from Obama isn't true. "We've enjoyed a tremendous relationship with the White House," said a campaign spokesman. "The campaign has worked very closely with them and the DNC and the [Democratic Governors Association] from the very beginning. They have given us just about everything the campaign asked for."
Posted by: Bobby ||
10/23/2009 06:01 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
So this is what "change we can believe in" done the Chicago way really looks like - Barack Obama and his White House capos muscling recalcitrant opponents and promising to crush those who don't get in line.
Obama has zeroed in on the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Fox News and doctors. There's nothing coincidental about this trio of targets, either: They are, respectively, the nation's most powerful business lobby, the television voice for Middle Americans worried about where Obama is taking the country, and the professional group with the greatest potential power to kill Obamacare.
How the muscle is applied differs in detail from case to case, but the common message is there for all - you get in line or you pay a steep price for crossing Obama.
Things were different earlier this year when Obama welcomed the chamber's support for his $787 economic stimulus package, and the $3 billion Cash for Clunkers debacle. Now the White House actively encourages an exodus of high-profile firms from the nation's most prominent voice for business, with the prospect of billions of dollars of "green industry" subsidies being a prominent lure.
The goal clearly is to discredit, then bleed the chamber of its lifeblood, membership dues. Thus, Obama's recent attack on the chamber for "spending millions" on "completely false" ads opposing his financial reform proposals came, Politico reported, "on the same day as his energy secretary, Steven Chu, said it was 'wonderful' that companies had left the chamber of climate issues.' "
The message for the doctors was no less subtle. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid convened a Capitol Hill meeting last week with "nearly a dozen doctors groups," according to the Hill. Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orzag attended just long enough to make clear the White House approved Reid's subsequent message for the doctors.
If the doctors would drop their demand for medical malpractice lawsuit reforms and support Obamacare, Reid would quickly move the $247 billion bill to spare them from scheduled cuts in Medicare reimbursement.
And if the doctors refuse?"Without the freeze, doctors would see their Medicare payments drop by 21 percent next year and by 40 percent by 2016," according to the Hill. Cuts of that magnitude would force many doctors to stop treating Medicare patients, and push others to retire early or stop practicing medicine entirely.
Large majorities of Americans are adamant about protecting their right to choose their doctors and most are outraged at the prospect of having government bureaucrats intervene in the process. But Obama knows that if the doctors say it's OK, opposition to government-run health care will begin to evaporate.
The attack on Fox News is the least likely of the three to succeed, but that may not matter. The White House can inflict serious economic pain on the chamber and the medical profession, but attacking Fox just drives the "fair and balanced" news network's ratings through the roof.
Keynoting the anti-Fox effort with Anita Dunn, an admirer of Chairman Mao - whose genocide total far exceeded those of Hitler and Stalin - was inept. Besides, singling out one news organization still brings back nasty memories of Tricky Dick and the White House enemies list for millions of older Americans.
Obama can't silence Fox, short of going the Hugo Chavez route (which is being tested, by the way, via the Federal Communications Commission). But he also knows that, if he can neutralize the chamber and the doctors, Fox could become just so much noise.
More likely, Obama and the boys are about to be reminded that mere mouse clicks can put Fox's Middle Americans right where they are needed most, on Capitol Hill. And thug politics can't stop them.
Posted by: Fred ||
10/23/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Coming very soon...gummit mandated compensation and wage controls for the evil medical profession.
#2
I never realized that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Fox, and the doctors were subversive organization. They need to be controlled. They are really dangerous. Wow.
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) is defending his endorsement of a socia!ist centrist Republican in New York after the pick landed him in hot water with conservative activists.
Last week, Gingrich became one of a small handful of conservatives who endorsed Assemblywoman Dede Scozzafava (R) in her bid to fill Army Secretary John McHugh's now-vacant House seat. As a result, conservative bloggers said Gingrich had eliminated himself from contention for the GOP's presidential nomination in 2012. "My endorsement of Dede Scozzafava in the special election for New York's 23rd congressional district is a means of regaining a conservative majority in America," Gingrich wrote in a statement on his website. "Although some of her values do not match my own, Scozzafava will help us in our efforts to win back Congress."
House GOP strategists are privately, but visibly, frustrated with Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman's candidacy. Recent public polls have showed Hoffman rising at Scozzafava's expense, raising fears that the Republican base will be split enough to hand the seat to attorney Bill Owens (D).
As a prelude to the 1994 elections, in which Gingrich's Contract with America helped propel Republicans to a majority in the House for the first time in 40 years, several centrist Republicans won elections in 1993, including Los Angeles Mayor Richard Riordan, New Jersey Gov. Christine Todd Whitman and New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani.
Now, Gingrich says, Republicans face a similar choice: Elect centrist Republicans, or hand a victory to Democrats -- a loss for the GOP that could have an impact on recruiting in advance of the 2010 elections.
"The choice in New York is a practical one: We can split the conservative vote and guarantee the election of a Democrat in a Republican seat in a substantial loss of opportunity. Or we can find a way to elect someone who has committed to vote for the Republican leader, has committed to vote against all tax increases, has committed to vote against cap-and-trade, and is a strong ally of the NRA," Gingrich wrote.
Posted by: Fred ||
10/23/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[14 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
This is why the Trunks will go the way of the Whigs. And take McCain with you when you go.
#4
Gingrich had no choice. Hoffman isn't running on the Republican party ticket. Gingrich has a political obligation to support the Republican candidate. Hoffman, by running on what he calls the "Conservative Party" ticket, is simply going to split the Republican votes in the district and hand the Democrats an easy victory.
#5
And watch what happens. The Democrat will get less than 50% of the votes but more than either the Republican or the "Conservative" candidate and win the election. That will move the US House even more to the left. And will conservatives take note that their rhetoric of "if a 'true' conservative runs, they would win big" fails? Nope.
If you can't get a conservative candidate elected in the party primary, then running a "conservative" candidate on a third party ticket only helps the Democrats unless that third party has overwhelming Independent voter support.
#6
It works the other way too - if the Dems and Libs choose different candidates and the Pubs and Conservatives collaborate, the Republiservative wins. It can happen, and has. If Scozzafava withdrew and backed Hoffman (who would caucus with the Republicans), the Dems might well lose this particular race even if they were united with the Liberals.
#7
Crosspatch, bullshit bullshit and FUD bullshit. I've seen you posting it in both threads. I'm going to stomp on it here.
Sit down son and I'll educate you.
First, why the scare quotes on Conservative Party? You genuinely that fricken ignorant? Its a party the William F Buckley founded to put conservative candidates forward against the liberal Rockefeller Republicans -- and they put their guy in the US Senate. It is a politically important element and party in NY politics.
Second, have you looked at the GOP candidate? Pro Choice, Margaret Sanger Award Winner, supported Obama's porkulus, has a long record of supporting taxes and spending in the state assembly, advocate of bigger government, advocate of card check (her husband is the biggest union organizer in the district). She is endorsed by Daily Kos, Planned Parenthood, NARAL, NEA, local unions and an assortment of ACORN front groups. Do you honestly thing that she would be any different from the dem that is to her right? Are you naive and stupid enough to believe that she wouldn't vote with Pelosi on a great number of important things?
Furthermore, Dede Scozzafava is or was until recently the Chief Operating Officer of her brother’s company. Her company’s key subsidiaries have accumulated hundreds of thousands of dollars in state and federal tax liens. As of July 13, 2009 three of Dede’s businesses have $192,000 in outstanding liens for unpaid taxes. And this just came to light as well: Dede Scozzafava’s campaign has paid $3750.00 in disclosed expenses to Pearl Han Productions, LLC for “Strategic Consulting,”. Turns out its a shell company owned by her sister in law, in FLORIDA that was coincidentally started right after she got the nomination from the party insiders. In other words, she's funneling money to her relatives via the campaign. They put Abramoff in jail for that.
And finally, looking at the latest polls, Scozzafave is the one splitting the vote - she is THIRD, behind both the others. Hoffman is closing in on the Dem and has passed the chosen pol the GOP put there.
This is clearly NOT Ross Perot. Ignorant fools like you and lap dogs like Gingich are whats wrong with the GOP.
Its Scozzafava that's the spoiler not Hoffman.
SO... Conservative party is important., Hoffman is not Perot, he's ahead of the GOP party hack, and the GOP party hack is a far left RINO, who is apparently a tx cheat and may be dirty.
Do you now understand just how wrong you are?
If that's not enough to convince you go look at Redstate, Malkin, National Review, Washington Times, Washington Examiner, etc.
They are all much better informed than you, and have called for Scozzafava to withdraw.
And now I'll pull the "Big Tent" argument before you misuse it the way Gingrich screwed up by selectively quoting Reagan out of context. Yes, The GOP needs the big tent, but we also need a common core set of principles as the long poles in that tent. And there is no way such arrogance as demonstrated by state and national GOP organizations can justify this other than raw power and abuse of the base. As Reagan said: A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency, or simply to swell its numbers.
Newt's 1994 self would smack the current insider kiss ass he has become upside the head for becoming such a joke (making ads with Pelosi on Global Warming, palling around with Sharpton, etc).
Gingrich has become the epitome of the ethical failure, the power over principles beltway-manhattan cocktail party elites in the GOP leadership, as has Pete Session in the NRCC and that self-belclowning fool Steele who runs the RNC.
Newt and this episode are why I have asked for my NRCC donations BACK. I'll send them to individual candidates. I no longer trust the DC insiders after they pumped 6 figures of dollars for Scozzafava to run attack ads against HOFFMAN (and not the Dem!).
In sum: stop with the bullshit, you have no excuse anymore.
#8
And I'm done, that took all I had left in the tank tonight. I've been fighting this same political BS for years, and just don't have the energy to continue to summon the fire just this one. Once I'm recovering from my current condition, God willing, I hope to get more active again.
#10
Do you support the 'practical choice' and let your RINO congresscritter become the administration partisan patsy?
Or do you endorse a principled candidate and risk the opponent Dem winning a split vote? A result that won't make a whit of difference to the congressional balance and will be re-fought next year.
Next year, similar principled candidates may appear in a variety of districts. What is that going to do to your 'practical choices'?
(CNSNews.com) -- Chai R. Feldblum, nominated by President Barack Obama to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), has argued that homosexual sex is "morally good" and that government should foster all types of domestic partnerships, including "non-sexual" ones.
At a UCLA law school symposium in 2004, Feldblum said that homosexual activists need to do more than just pursue equality for same-sex relationships because advancing the homosexual agenda also "requires a statement that gay sex is morally good."
"Now, you may think that might be a little crazy to go out there and say, 'Gay sex is good.' But think about it for a second. Society definitely believes that heterosexual sex is good, right? Heterosexual sex within a certain framework--marriage--I mean you can't get more dewy-eyed and romantic in this society about how wonderful that is," Feldblum told the University of California at Los Angeles audience.
Certainly people settling down in long-term relationships is better for the community than the same people running around screwing everything that does or does not move. That's why Common Law marriage was invented for those not formally sanctioned, for whatever reason, by Church or State. Homosexuals have historically accomplished the same thing by putting both names on a lease or mortgage and calling themselves roommates, thus accomplishing immediately what used to take their heterosexual peers seven years.
The statements were part of a panel discussion titled, "Election 2004: The Gay Vote, Gay Marriage, and the Prospect for Gay Rights Legislation."
Feldblum explained that Americans have a high regard for sex within marriage because they see it as a cornerstone of a healthy society.
"Then if you're not being cynical, for the moment, I think that does reflect a correct understanding that sex is often a basic building block for intimacy," she said, "and that intimacy and connections within couples and within families are integral building blocks for a healthy society."
Posted by: Fred ||
10/23/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Time for another well-vetted Czar appointment I guess.
(CNSNews.com) -- Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) would not say what part of the Constitution grants Congress the power to force every American to buy health insurance--as all of the health care overhaul bills currently do.
Leahy, whose committee is responsible for vetting Supreme Court nominees, was asked by CNSNews.com where in the Constitution Congress is specifically granted the authority to require that every American purchase health insurance. Leahy answered by saying that "nobody questions" Congress' authority for such an action.
CNSNews.com: "Where, in your opinion, does the Constitution give specific authority for Congress to give an individual mandate for health insurance?"
Sen. Leahy: "We have plenty of authority. Are you saying there is no authority?"
CNSNews.com: "I'm asking--"
Sen. Leahy: "Why would you say there is no authority? I mean, there's no question there's authority. Nobody questions that."
When CNSNews.com again attempted to ask which provision of the Constitution gives Congress the authority to force Americans to purchase health insurance, Leahy compared the mandate to the government's ability to set speed limits on interstate highways--before turning and walking away.
CNSNews.com: "But where, I mean, which--"
Sen. Leahy: "Where do we have the authority to set speed limits on an interstate highway?
CNSNews.com: "The states do that."
Sen. Leahy: "No. The federal government does that on federal highways."
Prior to 1995, the federal government mandated a speed limit of 55 miles an hour on all four-lane highways. The limit was repealed in 1995 and the authority to set speed limits reverted back to the states.
Technically, the law that established the 55 mile-an-hour limit--the Emergency Highway Energy Conservation Act of 1974--withheld federal highway funds from states that did not comply with it. The law rested on the Commerce Clause, which give Congress the authority to regulate interstate commerce, and Congress' authority to dole out federal tax revenue. Someone who does not buy health insurance, critics have argued, is not by that ommission engaged in interstate commerce and thus there is no act of interstate commerce for Congress to regulate in this situation.
All versions of the health care bill currently being considered in Congress mandate that individuals buy heatlh insurance. Americans who don't would be subject to a financial penalty.
Attorney David Rivkin Jr., who worked in the Justice Department under both Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, said that Sen. Leahy's response about the constitutional authority to mandate the purchase of health insurance "is wrong."
"None of Congress' enumerated powers support an individual purchase mandate," said Rivkin. "We have made this case in considerable detail in our recent articles in The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal. Indeed, the Congressional Research Service, an entity that is usually deferential to Congress' prerogatives and prone to take an expansive view of congressional powers, when asked by the Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus about the constitutionality of individual purchase mandates could only say that this is a 'novel question.'"
Posted by: Fred ||
10/23/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[10 views]
Top|| File under:
#3
Constitution Badges? We ain't got no Constitution badges. We don't need no Constitution badges. I don't have to show you any stinking Constitution badges. - Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) Gold Hat
#4
It'll be exactly where the Obamations hand-picked Supreme Court & suckups say it is. Right next to that "abortion is peachy keen & Kelo has no right to property" clause.
Doug Hoffman didn't have a chance to make his case to Republican voters in a primary in New York's 23rd Congressional District. That's because the local GOP establishment chose its candidate behind closed doors, in a formerly smoke-filled room. The Republican grass roots never had a chance to choose among qualified candidates.
And the National Republican Congressional Committee compounded this error by jumping into the contest with both left feet.
That matters. Hoffman is a genuine Reagan conservative in a district that generally votes in that direction. Now, some smart people argue that in some districts, only a moderate Republican can get elected. That's what coalitions are all about. We cannot get all we want all the time. Even the Gipper would campaign for some Republicans I was less than thrilled about. He understood the importance of building a majority in Congress.
That's not the situation that faces us in New York 23, however. There, the GOP establishment's nominee for Congress, Dede Scozzafava, is pro-choice and anti-marriage; she supported the failing Obama stimulus, and she has waffled on whether she would back Big Labor's demand for "card check." Card check, very simply, would extinguish the rights of labor to a secret ballot. It would empower union bosses to muscle workers into their corner -- not only on the job. Big Labor wants those extra union dues so it can swing elections for liberals. Any Republican who doesn't understand this is not paying attention. The party would become as extinct at the woolly mammoth.
Posted by: Fred ||
10/23/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
A day after key White House officials declared the Fox News Channel wasn't a news organization, President Obama met with MSNBC personalities Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow.
Talk about your delicious hypocrisy.
Fittingly, the news was broken by FNC's Bret Baier during Tuesday's "Special Report" :
BRET BAIER, HOST: And finally, during this morning's off-camera White House briefing with reporters, ABC's Jake Tapper asked Press Secretary Robert Gibbs about the ongoing White House attacks on FOX News Channel.
After being asked about the charge that FOX isn't a real news organization, Gibbs answered, quote "We render opinion based on some of their coverage and the fairness of that coverage."
Tapper: "That's a sweeping declaration that they're not a news organization. How are they different from say, ABC, MSNBC, Univision?"
Gibbs: "You and I should watch around 9:00 tonight or 5:00 this afternoon."
Tapper: "I'm not talking about the opinion programs or issues you have with certain reports. I'm talking about saying that thousands of individuals who work for a media organization do not work for a news organization. Why is that appropriate for the White House to say?"
Gibbs: "That is our opinion."
Well, the White House's strong opinions about our opinion shows - - Glenn Beck runs at 5:00 p.m. and Sean Hannity at 9:00 p.m. -- apparently do not extend to similar shows on other networks.
A White House official confirms to us that the audience for Monday's off the record briefing with President Obama included MSNBC personalities Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow.
Hmmm. So the White House thinks Fox isn't a news organization because it has a perspective, and specifically points fingers at Beck and Hannity.
What does the Adminstration think Olbermann and Maddow have?
I guess it's not a problem for a new organization and its members to have a perspective so long as it's one the White House shares.
Posted by: Fred ||
10/23/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The communist party has only accepted press they control all through history.
#6
It would be nice to ask Maddow and Olbermann what strategy they worked out with the President. Good possibility that their rsponses would either be a fumble or an attack on their perceived opposition. Either way would be entertaining and informative.
Posted by: Richard of Oregon ||
10/23/2009 15:23 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Keeping your friends close and your enemies at arms length.
BERGENFIELD -- The former northern New Jersey political boss Joseph Ferriero was found guilty by a federal jury this afternoon, according to a report in The Record.
During the third day of deliberations, Ferriero was found guilty of one count of conspiracy to defraud and two counts of mail fraud, according to the report, but was acquitted on five other mail fraud counts.
Prosecutors had argued that Ferriero and Dennis Oury, who was borough attorney for Bergenfield, had conspired to defraud the town by hiding their co-ownership of a consulting business. The consulting firm had sought contracts from towns in the county.
Ferriero was head of the county's Democratic organization from 1998 to 2008; Oury was borough attorney for Bergenfield.
Oury had pleaded guilty and testified against Ferriero.
Posted by: Steve White ||
10/23/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
Former President Clinton and one-time gubernatorial candidate Terry McAuliffe on Tuesday tried to reignite the energy of Creigh Deeds' primary win, when Democrats were riding high after the rural state senator's come-from-behind victory in June.
The gubernatorial nomination fight saw Deeds dispatch both McAuliffe and Del. Brian Moran, taking nearly 50 percent of the vote in June. A poll taken directly after the primary was the only one in the governor's race to show Deeds ahead of Republican nominee Bob McDonnell, who is entering the last two weeks of the race with a comfortable lead.
McAuliffe, speaking before a crowd at his former Tysons Corner campaign office, said Deeds is poised to mount the "greatest comeback in the history of America politics."
The former Democratic National Committee chairman and Clinton fundraiser was widely viewed as the favorite over Deeds and Moran going into the primary.
"From a man who knows from experience, don't pay any attention to the polls," McAuliffe said. "Only one poll matters and that is on the evening of November 3 when Creigh Deeds is elected the next governor."
Clinton said he was at the event for three reasons: Because he tried to help McAuliffe beat Deeds, and failed; because he respects candidates "who win and win fair and square;" and because "I'm a lifelong Democrat and I like this guy."
Deeds himself made frequent mention of his recent Washington Post endorsement, based largely on a transportation proposal that might include a tax increase. The newspaper's backing during the gubernatorial primary was considered integral to his 11th-hour comeback.
Since Deeds won his party's nod, his campaign has been struck by sinking poll numbers and several setbacks. His attack on McDonnell's social record appeared to be gaining traction last month, but the Republican shortly after regained his substantial lead. Democratic leaders -- including Gov. Tim Kaine -- have openly urged Deeds to make a more assertive case for his own candidacy.
Posted by: Fred ||
10/23/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Keep talking, Terry - all Southerners just love a carpetbagger....
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
10/23/2009 0:41 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Virginia down to about Fredericksburg or so isn't in the South ...
Posted by: Steve White ||
10/23/2009 0:46 Comments ||
Top||
#3
No sh*t, Steve. :-(
Terry hasn't got the guts to come down here and try that crap. Wonder how much the DNC had to pay him to show up and run his mouth? Wonder what it would take to make him SHUT UP?
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
10/23/2009 0:51 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Where ya at, Barbara? My people were from Chatham.
Gregory Kane: "Maybe I'm funny this way, but there's something that bugs me about a guy having sex with a woman, having himself a good time and then, when pregnancy is the result, sticking us with the bill for the abortion."
Posted by: Fred ||
10/23/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[8 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Beat's "sticking us" with, best case, 18 years of support for the little bastard. Worst case...
#2
Grom: There are no Bastard children. There are plenty of bastard parents.
And these are children we're talking about, human beings, the generation that's going to be looking after us when we start to creak. Or maybe treating us with the same callousness and disregard that our generation has had toward them,rejecting personal responsibility for their parents and causing some 50 million of them to be aborted.
#4
Glen Beck hinted last night about Anita Dunn's husband getting a new, WH position. Could this be it, further cementing the public perception of what Zero is by who he puts around himself?
I wonder if Beck was firing a shot across their bow implying that he was prepared to open the spigots about Mr. Dunn?
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
Just when you thought that activist filmmaker James O'Keefe, partner Hannah Giles, and Andrew Breitbart at BigGovernment.com had run out of ammo to direct at ACORN, they have outdone themselves.
Sensing that victory in the race for Virginia governor is slipping away, Democrats at the national level are laying the groundwork to blame a loss in a key swing state on a weak candidate who ran a poor campaign that failed to fully embrace President Obama until days before the election. 
Former President Clinton and one-time gubernatorial candidate Terry McAuliffe on Tuesday tried to reignite the energy of Creigh Deeds' primary win, when Democrats were riding high after the rural state senator's come-from-behind victory in June.
Gregory Kane: "Maybe I'm funny this way, but there's something that bugs me about a guy having sex with a woman, having himself a good time and then, when pregnancy is the result, sticking us with the bill for the abortion."
