(Bloomberg) -- New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo's campaign fund took tens of thousands of dollars from law firms representing clients his office investigated or accused of wrongdoing, state records show.
Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP, a New York law firm led by David Boies, gave Cuomo $35,000 this year, records show. The firm represents former American International Group Inc. Chief Executive Officer Maurice "Hank" Greenberg in a civil fraud case the attorney general is pursuing. Lawyers defending Dell Inc., Deutsche Bank AG and a former state political party chief in Cuomo cases also contributed to him, records show.
Cuomo's donation forms ask contributors to sign a statement saying they have no "matter" pending with him. That rule "does not extend to attorneys representing persons or entities with matters before the NYS Attorney General's office," the form states, mirroring predecessors' policies. The exception creates the appearance of impropriety, ethics experts said.
"If Cuomo doesn't want to accept contributions that have the appearance of being corrupting, then he would need to include those attorneys as well," said Allison Hayward, a former Federal Election Commission chief of staff and counsel who teaches legal ethics at George Mason University School of Law in Arlington, Virginia.
Middlemen, such as lawyers, are sometimes seen as a bigger threat to an official's integrity than their clients, because "they are working the political system for a profession, and the public sees them as insincere and manipulative," she said.
About $1 Million
Cuomo in 2006 and 2008 raised about $1 million from lawyers and lobbyists in the U.S., out of a total $18 million gathered in those years, according to FollowTheMoney.org, the Web site of the nonprofit National Institute on Money in State Politics, which analyzes campaign funding. For his fund "Andrew Cuomo 2010" he raised more than $10 million as of July, according to records at the New York State Board of Elections. By the next filing due mid-January, Cuomo, 51, plans to have $20 million in donations and plans to run for governor, said a person familiar with his plans.
By now, 'Andrew Cuomo 2010" has $16 million to challenge fellow Democrat, Governor David Paterson, said another person familiar with his plans.
Posted by: Fred ||
11/24/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
What's the problem? Isn't this the way the (Democrat) system is supposed to work?
Posted by: Rambler in Virginia ||
11/24/2009 6:55 Comments ||
Top||
#2
ACORN doesn't work cheap you know ...
Posted by: Steve White ||
11/24/2009 7:39 Comments ||
Top||
South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford faces ethics charges he broke state laws more than three dozen times by violating rules on airplane travel and campaign money, according to details of the allegations released Monday.
Good.
The civil charges, which carry a maximum $74,000 in fines, stem from a three-month investigation by the state ethics commission and could be pivotal in a push by some lawmakers to remove him from office. The state attorney general is deciding whether the governor would face any criminal charges.
The allegations include 18 instances in which Sanford is accused of improperly buying first- and business-class airline tickets, violating state law requiring lowest-cost travel; nine times of improperly using state-owned aircraft for travel to political and personal events, including a stop at a discount hair salon; and 10 times he improperly reimbursed himself with campaign cash.
Sanford's attorneys and spokesman did not immediately respond to messages left seeking comment.
The Republican governor has been under scrutiny since he vanished for five days over the summer, reappearing to tearfully admit to an extramarital affair with a woman in Argentina he later called his "soul mate."
A series of Associated Press investigations into his travel showed the governor had for years used state airplanes for political and personal trips, flown in pricey commercial airline seats despite a low-cost travel requirement and failed to disclose trips on planes owned by friends and donors.
The State of Columbia newspaper also questioned whether Sanford properly reimbursed himself from his campaign cash.
Each of the counts alleges Sanford used his office for personal financial gain and carries a maximum $2,000 fine if he is found guilty.
Posted by: Fred ||
11/24/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Anyone this devious and crooked should never hold public office. Lock him up!
On October 1st, 2009 California Attorney General Jerry Brown announced that an investigation had been opened into ACORN's activities in California, resulting from undercover videos showing employees seemingly offering to assist the undercover film makers with human smuggling, child prostitution and even tax advice to boot.
Although ACORN has denied any wrongdoing, some of the employees involved were terminated, and ACORN has publicly stated that they would fully cooperate with any investigations that followed.
Interestingly, the local head ACORN organizer in California, David Lagstein was caught on tape earlier this month speaking to an East County Democratic Club.
Mr. Lagstein stated: "...the attorney general is a political animal, but certainly every bit of the communication we have had with them has suggested that the fault will be found with the people that did the video and not the people with ACORN."
Continuing, Mr. Lagstein stated: "...we are fully cooperating, some of the investigators visited our office this morning and I think they really understand what's going on."
Shockingly, we now learn that the ACORN office in National City (San Diego County) engaged in a massive document dump on the evening of October 9th, containing thousands upon thousands of sensitive documents, just days prior to the Attorney General's visit.
BigGovernment.com has learned that not only did this document dump occur, but the documents in question were irresponsibly and brazenly dumped in a public dumpster, without considering laws and regulations as to how sensitive information should be treated.
I am a local licensed private investigator. I took it upon myself to keep an eye on what the local ACORN office was up to, in light of the release of the undercover videos. I retrieved these documents from the public dumpster.
Documents shared with BigGovernment.com include information exposing not only the inner workings of ACORN in California, but also personal, sensitive information belonging to employees, members and clients of ACORN. ACORN and its few remaining defenders insist that the "good" ACORN provides outweighs the transgressions exposed in the recent undercover video sting. But, ACORN's massive dumping of these documents and the cavalier manner in which it betrayed the trust of its supporters betrays that talking point.
Posted by: Fred ||
11/24/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Barbara! I'd like to order one wheelbarrow full of buttered popcorn!
#2
Fox News has more on this. Those documents in the dumpster apparently had Social Security numbers, drivers license number, credit card numbers, etc. I heard on TV last night that ACORN wants it all back so they can shred it. Heh, heh, heh.
Posted by: Abu Uluque ||
11/24/2009 12:44 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Too late. Once you put it into a dumpster, anyone can take it. The police don't need a warrant to go through your trash.
Posted by: Rambler in Virginia ||
11/24/2009 19:18 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Coming right up, gorb. Would you like parmesan with that, too?
Thank goodness I tripled my popcorn order. ;-p
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
11/24/2009 19:36 Comments ||
Top||
#5
And there is a sequel in Oklahoma also, same song, second verse.....
#6
Pretty unimaginative and lazy co-ops. They should have paid a couple of homeless guys to cook the stuff in a 55 gallon barrel as a win-win, when their bosses told them make the documents disappear. So much for their future as Whitehouse staffers.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
11/24/2009 23:17 Comments ||
Top||
A former field director for the political advocacy organization ACORN was sentenced today in district court to up to three years of probation.
Christopher Edwards, who in August pleaded guilty to two counts of conspiracy to commit a crime of compensation for registration of voters, a gross misdemeanor, received a suspended jail sentence and a $500 fine. He has agreed to testify against ACORN and one of its former regional directors, Amy Busefink.
So it wasn't just because of his winsome smile.
The Nevada attorney general's office has accused ACORN and Busefink of operating an illegal bonus system. Tying money to or setting quotas for collecting voter registration cards is illegal under Nevada law.
"I take responsibility for what I did," Edwards told the court. "I'm sorry, I truly am."
Busefink and ACORN pleaded not guilty on Oct. 27. A trial date is set for April 19.
If convicted, Busefink likely would face probation or less than one year in jail. ACORN could see a $5,000 fine.
The attorney general's office said Edwards organized and operated a quota system called "blackjack" or "21+" through which the group paid canvassers based on the number of voter registration cards they collected each day. The canvassers were to gather at least 20 completed cards daily and anyone who turned in 21 or more would be given an extra $5.
Busefink, as a manager, is said to have approved the "blackjack" program. But ACORN officials have said Edwards acted alone in developing and carrying it out.
Posted by: Fred ||
11/24/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
"I take responsibility for what I did," Edwards told the court. "I'm sorry, I truly am."
#2
Mr. Edwards is cooperating with the prosecution and has agreed to testify against his former colleagues, armyguy. He truly is taking responsibility, regardless why.
A congressional investigation of the volunteer organization AmeriCorps contains charges that D.C. schools chief Michelle Rhee handled "damage control" after allegations of sexual misconduct against her now fiance, Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson, a former NBA star and a prominent ally of President Obama, The Washington Examiner has learned.
The charges are contained in a report prepared by Sen. Charles Grassley, the ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, and Rep. Darrell Issa, ranking Republican on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
The investigation began after the AmeriCorps inspector general, Gerald Walpin, received reports that Johnson had misused some of the $800,000 in federal AmeriCorps money provided to St. Hope, a non-profit school that Johnson headed for several years.
Walpin was looking into charges that AmeriCorps-paid volunteers ran personal errands for him, washed his car, and took part in political
activities. In the course of investigating those allegations, the congressional report says, Walpin's investigators were told that Johnson had made inappropriate advances toward three young women involved in the St. Hope program -- and that Johnson offered at least one of those young women money to keep quiet.
Johnson's office did not respond to calls for comment Friday morning.
At the time, Rhee was on the board of St. Hope. A former St. Hope employee who reported one of the allegations of inappropriate sexual conduct by Johnson told Walpin's investigators that Rhee "learned of the allegations and played the role of a fixer, doing 'damage control,'" the congressional report says.
The employee told investigators that Rhee told her that "she was making this her number one priority, and she would take care of the situation." A short time later, the employee learned that the girl who had complained about Johnson had received a visit from Johnson's personal attorney.
The congressional report quotes the girl as saying the attorney "basically asked me to keep quiet," and Johnson offered her $1,000 a month for the duration of her time with St. Hope. Once investigators learned about that, the report says, they had "reasonable suspicions about potential hush money payments and witness tampering at a federally funded entity."
Rhee did not respond to calls for comment Friday.
Posted by: Fred ||
11/24/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Seems like all OBUMBLESbuddies are a bunch of lowlife dirtbags.
The prostitute at the center of Premier Silvio Berlusconi's sex scandal claims in a new book that she slept with him on the understanding he would help her set up a countryside inn but she got "nothing" in return.
Other than sex with a 73 year old man, you mean ...
In "Gradisca, Presidente," (At Your Pleasure, Premier), D'Addario elaborates on her earlier accounts of the night she spent with Berlusconi in his Rome residence. The conservative leader has said he has never paid for sex and is the victim of someone seeking to create a scandal.
D'Addario says she gave Berlusconi her body hoping he would help her open a countryside inn in southern Italy, where she was raised. In the book she documents how her efforts to open the hotel had been stymied over the years by Italy's bureaucracy.
The 73-year-old media mogul's wife, Veronica Lario, said last spring she is divorcing Berlusconi for what she called his infatuation with attractive young women.
"(Berlusconi) didn't pay me. It wasn't money he had to give me, he promised me something else," D'Addario writes in the book. "I gave him my body, he (gave me) nothing." He probably didn't help because even he couldn't navigate through the Italian bureaucracy.
#3
I remember some vice-director grand poobah government guy in China telling me that even his agency probably couldn't get the required permit, even if he wanted to. We ended up skirting the law, same as everyone else.
The flap over breast cancer screening has provided a fascinating insight into the political future of ObamaCare. Specifically, the political left supports such medical rationing even as it disavows that any such thing is happening.
No sooner had the Health and Human Services Department's U.S. Preventative Services Task Force recommended against mammography for women under 50 than Secretary Kathleen Sebelius rushed to say don't worry. The decision had "caused a great deal of confusion and worry among women," she said, promising that no policies would change. New Jersey's Frank Pallone vowed to hold hearings, and Senator Dick Durbin leveled the gravest charge Democrats can make: The task force was "appointed by President Bush."
The political duck-and-cover was also on display in that vanguard of ObamaCare known as the New York Times, which ran at least four much-ado-about-nothing items even as it endorsed the reduced screening. On the same day as an editorial and op-ed, a front-page "news analysis" lectured that what the public really needs is "a transformational shift in thinking" about the "evidence-based" medical future that the mammogram decision portends. Yes, and no doubt the Times will tell us what "evidence" to follow.
Even more revealing was Princeton's Uwe Reinhardt, a leading liberal health-care economist, writing on the New York Times Economix blog. Mr. Reinhardt sees the task force's handiwork as an exemplar of "rational decision-making" that had nothing to do with cost analysis, even as he claimed that rationing based on cost is inevitable.
You have to admire Mr. Reinhardt's partisan dexterity. He knows that no government task force is ever going to justify a treatment denial with an overt claim to costs. Instead, the task force found a sneaky way to use clinical data to take costs into account without admitting it. It cites all sorts of harm associated with the problem of "overdiagnosis"i.e., too many costly procedures. This is a reference to mammograms that lead to further tests and treatments that in hindsight are unnecessary.
The HHS task force concludes that this harm outweighs the benefits of saving lives through early detection, yet this makes little sense unless financial costs are a priority. For instance, the panel cites patient anxiety from false positives, yet the literature also shows overwhelmingly that women would rather risk a scare than allow a cancer to progressespecially considering that about 75% of all breast cancers develop in women who do not have special risk factors.
In any event, the distinction between cost effectiveness and clinical effectiveness will be moot if ObamaCare passes. The House bill gives the HHS task force the mandate to review "the benefits, effectiveness, appropriateness, and costs of clinical preventive services" in making its de facto insurance coverage rulings. As Mr. Reinhardt notes, "at some point soon the rising cost of American health care actually will force Americans to bring monetary costs into the analysis as well."
What's really going on here is that the left knows its designs will require political rationing of care, but it doesn't want the public to figure this out until ObamaCare passes. Then it will begin the campaign to instruct the rest of us that we must follow the guidance of Princeton professors about what medical care we can receive. Americans will simply have to accept that the price of government-run health care in the name of redistributive justice is that patients and their doctors must bow to the superior wisdom of HHS task forces.
Just don't admit it until after the White House signing ceremony.
#2
This calls for congressional hearings with female Hollywood starlets, with low, low scoop necked dresses, breast implants on parade, leaning over to testify about the horrors of breast cancer. The old boys in congress will rise to the occasion for those hearings. They always have.
#3
Thing is, the recommendations have a sound scientific basis. While we're all concerned about breast cancer, the screening in the 40 - 50 year old group (absent a high risk factor such as a family history) tends to create as many problems as it solves. The rationale for limiting mammograms is a reasonable one, and in an ideal world the argument would be over the science and medicine.
Of course, we don't live in an ideal world, and anything that has to do with ta-ta's is immediately politicized and objectified (criminy I can't believe I'm writing that, I sound like a wimmins studies major).
Posted by: Steve White ||
11/24/2009 16:00 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Thing is, the recommendations have a sound scientific basis. While we're all concerned about breast cancer, the screening in the 40 - 50 year old group (absent a high risk factor such as a family history) tends to create as many problems as it solves. The rationale for limiting mammograms is a reasonable one, and in an ideal world the argument would be over the science and medicine.
Let me guess, Steve, you believe global warming also?
#7
I believe to truly access the risk, first one must rank order the boobies by size and firmness. I have the grant application and order for a box of latex gloves ready to go.
Posted by: ed ||
11/24/2009 17:14 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Thing is, the recommendations have a sound scientific basis.
For which insurance companies who use such reasoning are pilloried daily by the posturing likes of Pelosi et al and labeled as Evil. Poster child after poster child is put before the public without regard to case or exception to make policy upon for decades. One set of rules for me, another set of rules for thee.
Ingraham once was engaged to conservative author and fellow Dartmouth alumnus Dinesh D'Souza and has dated former New Jersey Democratic Senator Robert Torricelli, as well as briefly dating MSNBC host Keith Olbermann. (WTF?)
In April 2005, she announced that she was engaged to businessman James V. Reyes, with a wedding planned in May or June 2005. On April 26, 2005, she announced that she had undergone breast cancer surgery. On May 11, 2005, Ingraham told listeners that her engagement to Reyes was canceled, citing issues regarding her diagnosis with breast cancer. Despite the breakup, she maintained that the two remain good friends and had told listeners, in 2006, that she was in good health
#12
There is a point that no one is addressing, however. Why is it that here in the bad ol' USA, where we supposedly have incredibly awful health care, your survival rate for cancer is so much better than in enlightened Europe? For breast cancer, there's a 15% greater survival rate (75% to 90%) and for prostate cancer it's even better (50% to almost 95%).
If it is not due to more screening tests, done at at a younger age, then why are we barbarians doing so much better than....well, our betters?
Also, is it not true in the case of breast cancer that the younger you are when you get it, the more aggressive it tends to be? Wouldn't that argue for earlier testing?
#13
In other news......Obama administraction, JAMA, ACORN, and AARP make joint announcement that there is no scientific connection between cigarette smoking and lung cancer.
#14
Americans will simply have to accept that the price of government-run health care in the name of redistributive justice
The problem will be not enough rationing of healthcare under a government run system.
Or more precisely too many things that should be rationed or limited for medical reasons won't be, and too much that should be more freely available won't be.
This is because governments always pander to emotional poll driven special interests, rather than act on rational evidence.
#15
pretty obviously the rationing has begun. Perhaps our good friend IG Gerald Walpin can explain how depoliticized opinions work under this most transparent, scientific admin *spit*
Posted by: Frank G ||
11/24/2009 21:23 Comments ||
Top||
#16
"government-run health care in the name of redistributive justice"
Pardon my phrench, Fred et al., but FUCK THAT!
You leftist clowns want to redistribute something, redistribute your own goddam money - and leave other people's money alone. >:-(
Morons.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
11/24/2009 21:37 Comments ||
Top||
#17
DoDo -- the plural of anecdote is not 'data'.
Some very good people looked at this issue. When looking at populations of people, we docs are still charged to do no harm. I understand the emotional overlay that comes with breast cancer, but the data are equivocal, at best, on the use of routine screening mammography for women under age 50.
We also overuse PSA tests to screen for prostate cancer. We've finally put a stake into the heart of routine chest x-rays to screen for lung cancer -- that took about four decades. And don't get me started on the lack of value of an annual physical exam for people under 50.
There are a number of screening tests that were sold to the public. On closer inspection, they cost as much as they save, and they expose a fair number of people to risks that they shouldn't be exposed to.
That's the argument. If only we could get past the ta-tas.
Posted by: Steve White ||
11/24/2009 21:44 Comments ||
Top||
#18
Steve, I think most people would probably go with whatever the prevailing view is of the medical community at large.
My hope is that mamography or an equivalent detection process will be improved over time allowing for earlier detection ... that will be adopted by the medical community ... without the bureaucratic gate-keepers who don't have the expertise to evaluate the validity of medical studies.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
11/24/2009 23:09 Comments ||
Top||
Not that it matters politically because obviously she's a female Republican dunce and he's obviously a male Democrat genius.
But Sarah Palin's poll numbers are strengthening.
And Barack Obama's are sliding.
Guess what? They're about to meet in the 40's.
Depending, of course, on which recent set of numbers you peruse and how the questions are phrased, 307 days into his allotted 1,461 the 44th president's approval rating among Americans has slid to 49% or 48%, showing no popularity bounce from his many happy trips, foreign and domestic.
Riding the wave of immense publicity and symbiotic media interest over her new book, "Going Rogue," and the accompanying promotional tour, Palin's favorable ratings are now at 43%, according to ABC. That's up from 40% in July.
One poll even gives her a 47% favorable.
Most recent media attention has focused on the 60% who say she's unqualified to become president. Her unfavorable rating is 52%, down from 53%, which still doesn't ignite a lot of optimism for Palin-lovers.
On the other hand, 35 months before the 2008 election, that Illinois state senator was such a nobody that no one even thought to ask such a question about him. Things seem to change much more quickly these days.
Posted by: Fred ||
11/24/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#4
Watching the evolution of the news media in 2000, 2004, 2008, I can't wait to see what the Party Line Media (domestic and foreign) have in store for a 2012 Palin-Obama election. I think even the North Koreans will be shocked by it all.
Posted by: ed ||
11/24/2009 9:32 Comments ||
Top||
Just hours after Sen. Charles Grassley and Rep. Darrell Issa released a report Friday on their investigation into the abrupt firing of AmeriCorps inspector general Gerald Walpin, the Obama White House gave the lawmakers a trove of new, previously-withheld documents on the affair. It was a twist on the now-familiar White House late-Friday release of bad news; this time, the new evidence was put out not only at the start of a weekend but also hours too late for inclusion in the report.
The new documents support the Republican investigators' conclusion that the White House's explanation for Walpin's dismissal -- that it came after the board of the Corporation for National and Community Service, which oversees AmeriCorps, unanimously decided that Walpin must go -- was in fact a public story cobbled together after Walpin was fired, not before.
Walpin was axed on the evening of June 10, when he received a call from Norman Eisen, the special counsel to the president for ethics and government reform, who told Walpin he had one hour either to resign or be fired. The next day, congressional Republicans, led by Grassley, objected, charging that Walpin's dismissal violated a recently-passed law requiring the president to give Congress 30 days' notice before dismissing an inspector general.
Pressed for the reason Walpin was fired, Eisen told House and Senate aides that the White House conducted an "extensive review" of complaints about Walpin's performance before deciding to dismiss him. According to the new report, Eisen told Congress that "his investigation into the merits of removing Gerald Walpin involved contacting members of the Corporation for National and Community Service [CNCS] board to confirm the existence of a 'consensus' in favor of removal." But Republican investigators later discovered that during that "extensive review," the White House did not even seek the views of the corporation's board -- the very people whose "consensus" purportedly led to Walpin's firing.
Other than board chairman Alan Solomont, the Democratic mega-donor and Obama supporter who originally told the White House of his dissatisfaction with Walpin, "no member of the CNCS board had any substantive input about whether the removal of Gerald Walpin was appropriate," according to the report. Only one other board member, vice-chairman Stephen Goldsmith, was even called by the White House, and that was on June 10, a few hours before Walpin was fired. According to the report, Goldsmith told investigators that "the White House had already decided to remove Walpin and wanted to confirm [Goldsmith's] support for the action."
The new documents show the White House scrambling, in the days after the controversy erupted, to put together a public explanation for the firing. On June 11, less than 24 hours after Walpin received the call from Eisen, the board held a conference call. The next day, Ranit Schmelzer, who is part of the corporation's press office, sent an email to board members giving them talking points to use if contacted by reporters seeking information about the matter.
"Indicate that you support the president's decision to remove IG Walpin," was Schmelzer's first instruction to the board. Then: "If asked why he was removed, indicate that the president lost confidence in Mr. Walpin." And then: "If the reporter continues to press, say that you can't get into details on a personnel matter, but you understand there were some performance-based issues." Finally, Schmelzer advised the board to avoid "getting into any specifics about IG Walpin's performance-based issues. The WH has stayed away from this and has counseled us to do the same."
The next day, June 13, after having instructed board members that the correct answer was to express support for the firing, the White House, for the first time, solicited the members' actual views on the matter. In an email to the board headlined "Time-sensitive request from White House Counsel re IG matter," corporation general counsel Frank Trinity wrote, "I was just contacted by Elana Tyrangiel, Associate Counsel to the President, seeking your assistance in responding to questions from members of Congress about President Obama's removal of Gerald Walpin as inspector general. Specifically, the White House Counsel's office would like to compile statements from board members and CNCS staff who were present at the inspector general's presentation to the board immediately before the public board meeting last month." Trinity said each member would receive a call from White House lawyer Tyrangiel, who "will prepare statements for your review for accuracy."
The mention of Walpin's "presentation to the board" was a reference to a May 20 board meeting that played a key part in the White House's evolving explanations for Walpin's firing. After initially explaining that President Obama no longer had the "fullest confidence" in Walpin, the White House later changed its story to say that Walpin, who was 77 years old at the time, had become "confused, disoriented [and] unable to answer questions" at the May 20 meeting. Later, the White House cited other "performance-based" issues. But Republican investigators concluded that the key motive behind the firing was unhappiness with Walpin's aggressive investigation of misuse of AmeriCorps funds by Kevin Johnson, the mayor of Sacramento, California who is a prominent political ally of President Obama.
Through it all, the White House and top management of the corporation struggled to keep the story straight. By June 18, a week after the firing, with news coverage dying down -- it had never been very intense in the first place -- they felt they had succeeded. "I understand how much work you are doing to prevent and control damage from the IG matter," Solomont wrote in an email to Eric Tanenblatt, a board member who had talked to the press. "I want you to know how much I personally appreciate all your efforts."
Posted by: Fred ||
11/24/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I don't see what all the fuss is about. Democrats are allowed to fire whomsoever they desire, Republicans are not. Noobama is a Democrat, so no harm, no foul.
"Those who live in hope die in shit." [Chuck Knox, ex-Coach L.A. Rams]
Posted by: Jack is Back! ||
11/24/2009 8:36 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Mr. Walpin should be grateful. Most firings from People of Obama's persuasion is immediately followed by "squad". That or a long supervised camping trip to the Artic Circle.
Posted by: ed ||
11/24/2009 9:16 Comments ||
Top||
Detroit News columnist Daniel Hewes has this eye-popping story:
Nestled between this week's state tax credits for auto suppliers, a furniture maker and a few high-tech companies is this gem: A $2 million credit to a for-profit affiliate of the Service Employees International Union to build a "Member Action Center."
The "shared organization" would "provide administrative services for the SEIU and other local labor organizations," says the Michigan Economic Development Corp. Despite cost disadvantages here over rival sites, the project would invest $3 million and create 224 new jobs -- in Redford Township.
That, by sheer coincidence, is the home of House Speaker Andy Dillon. He's the Democrat pushing a one-health-care-plan-for-all-state-employees that parts of the SEIU (among the most politically active unions in the nation right now) and other public-employee unions steadfastly oppose.
Which means the SEIU's new center and the hundreds of employees (theoretically) working there would become constituents of a speaker pushing the kind of reform that organized labor is working the Capitol to kill, not withstanding Michigan's "lost decade."
This was all done by the Michigan Economic Development Corp.'s Michigan Economic Growth Authority board -- which as Hewes notes, is composed almost entirely of gubernatorial appointees. Naturally, the Michigan Economic Development Corp. appears to be in bed with the SEIU:
A link from the MEDC site to the SEIU Michigan Council urges members to write their legislators to "set the record straight on state employee benefits" and touts a friendly study by Charles Ballard, a Michigan State professor with close ties to the Granholm administration [Michigan's Democratic governor].
And in case you need more evidence that this move is politically suspect:
When, I asked a ranking official inside the office of Gov. Jennifer Granholm, is the last time the MEDC offered a state tax credit to a labor union or to an affiliate of one? The response: "I don't think we've ever done that."
Posted by: Fred ||
11/24/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
High-growth employment sectors since March 2009:
-- public employee labor unions (SEIUm, NEA, Calif prison employees etc)
-- crony bankers (Govt Sachs etc)
-- DC-area lobbyists (nb 4-5% unemployment rate in metro area; salaries soaring; real estate prices strong)
#2
I dunno, given that MI's unemployment rate is the highest in the country, my little sister is happier than a pig in sh!t to FINALLY have landed a 25 hour a week job @ min wage. so this influx of $$ will buy a lot of votes. When you are hungry, you worry less about who gave the money.
Every election cycle, on a list of "vulnerable incumbents," the name of Rep. Dennis Moore always comes up. The Kansas Democrat represents the small 3rd District, centered around Kansas City in the eastern part of the state. Aside from Lawrence, which includes the University of Kansas (the most liberal part of the state), the district is reliably Republican. For a dozen years, until her retirement in 1996, the seat was held by Jan Meyers (R).
But the ideological war that some Republicans find themselves in was in full bloom in Kansas in the mid-1990s. Vince Snowbarger, a strong conservative who replaced Meyers in '96, had battled with more moderate members of his own party en route to Washington. Moore took advantage of that divide in 1998, ousting Snowbarger and subsequently beating back strong Republican candidates.
(Another Kansas Democrat, Kathleen Sebelius -- now the Secretary of Health and Human Services -- also benefited from the GOP family feud by winning the first of two gubernatorial campaigns in 2002.)
In his last three races, Moore finished with at least 55 percent of the vote, a sign that some took to mean that Moore was settling in.
So while Moore continued to find his name on the list of potential vulnerables, sources in Kansas say that was not based in reality ... that Moore did his homework and was solid with constituent service. They said the only way the GOP could win the seat is if Moore retired.
And that's what's going to happen today. The move by Moore, after six terms, is thought to be a body blow to the Democrats' chances of holding onto the seat. The Kansas City Star's Steve Kraske says his retirement is "likely to open a political gold rush of potential successors." He lists several Republicans who are ready to jump in the race, including Nick Jordan, who got 40 percent of the vote against Moore last year.
Republicans say "they believed Moore ... was in trouble because of his support for many of President Barack Obama's initiatives, including the stimulus package and health care reform." Democrats say that his willingness to break from party orthodoxy, such as his votes on free trade, is what helped keep him in Congress.
Posted by: Fred ||
11/24/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Don't bet on it. Sam Brownback's far-right drones have seized control of the GOP apparatus in KS, in a manner pretty much akin to what elected that whackjob Governor who so recently did the state a favor and moved on to DC as part of Obama's parade of fools.
Posted by: Bob Chavinter7463 ||
11/24/2009 2:42 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Dennis Moore, Dennis Moore,
Galloping through the sward,
Dennis Moore, Dennis Moore,
And his horse Concorde.
He steals from the rich and
Gives to the poor.
Mr Moore, Mr Moore, Mr Moore.
Posted by: John Cleese ||
11/24/2009 7:15 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Dennis Moore, Dennis Moore!
I thought it was Dinty Moore?
Posted by: Jack is Back! ||
11/24/2009 8:39 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Hey Bob, speaking as a Kansan you don't know jack.
The interesting race is for Brownbacks seat in the Senate which unfortunatly has two good representatives (Moran and Tiahrt) running against each other. One of their seats will be up for grabs with the republican early support going to Huelskamp who fits Bobs description. He is a Bible thumper from western Kansas and will get beat by a urban centrist either rep. or dem.
Sen. Joseph Lieberman, speaking in that trademark sonorous baritone, utters a simple statement that translates into real trouble for Democratic leaders: "I'm going to be stubborn on this."
Stubborn, he means, in opposing any health-care overhaul that includes a "public option," or government-run health-insurance plan, as the current bill does. His opposition is strong enough that Mr. Lieberman says he won't vote to let a bill come to a final vote if a public option is included.
Probe for a catch or caveat in that opposition, and none is visible. Can he support a public option if states could opt out of the plan, as the current bill provides? "The answer is no," he says in an interview from his Senate office. "I feel very strongly about this." How about a trigger, a mechanism for including a public option along with a provision saying it won't be used unless private insurance plans aren't spreading coverage far and fast enough? No again.
So any version of a public option will compel Mr. Lieberman to vote against bringing a bill to a final vote? "Correct," he says.
This is, of course, more than just one senator objecting to one part of health legislation. This is the former Democratic vice presidential nominee, now an independent, Joe Lieberman, still counted on to be the 60th vote Democrats will need to force a final vote on health legislation. In opposing a public option, he is opposing the element some Democratic liberals have come to consider the cornerstone of a health-care bill.
Maybe the Lieberman stance is posturing, or a maneuver to force a watering down of the public option into something he and like-minded Democratic conservatives can swallow. In any case, as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid tries to solve the Rubik's Cube that is health legislation, Mr. Lieberman just might represent the hardest piece to flip into place.
In spite of that, Mr. Lieberman insists he wants a bill. He voted with Democrats over the weekend on a procedural motion to let debate begin on a version that definitely includes a public option, albeit one states could choose not to join. "I want to get to the health-care debate, and I want to be part of creating, working on and passing health-care reform," he says. "I've been working on it for years, so that's my goal. But I'm not going to vote for anything and everything called health-care reform."
He says he wants the government to help uninsured Americans get coverage, as the bill envisions, and likes the provisions designed to bring down overall health costs. And he favors the consumer protections it would impose on private insurers, including one that bans insurance companies from denying coverage to those with pre-existing health conditions.
But none of that trumps his opposition to a public option, Mr. Lieberman says. And he insists his objection isn't based on the oft-expressed conservative fear that a public option would lead to a government takeover of health care. He says he doubts this or any subsequent Congress would allow that.
Rather, his objection is based on fiscal risk: "Once the government creates an insurance company or plan, the government or the taxpayers are liable for any deficit that government plan runs, really without limit," he says. "With our debt heading over $21 trillion within the next 10 years...we've got to start saying no to some things like this."
Mr. Lieberman also notes that the public option wasn't a big feature of past health-overhaul plans or the campaign debate of 2008. So he says he finds it odd that it now has become a central demand -- which it has, he suspects, because some Democrats wanted a full-bore, single-payer, government-run health plan, and were offered a public option as a consolation.
Posted by: Steve White ||
11/24/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
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.
(Bloomberg) -- New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo's campaign fund took tens of thousands of dollars from law firms representing clients his office investigated or accused of wrongdoing, state records show.
South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford faces ethics charges he broke state laws more than three dozen times by violating rules on airplane travel and campaign money, according to details of the allegations released Monday.
On October 1st, 2009 California Attorney General Jerry Brown announced that an investigation had been opened into ACORN's activities in California, resulting from undercover videos showing employees seemingly offering to assist the undercover film makers with human smuggling, child prostitution and even tax advice to boot.
A former field director for the political advocacy organization ACORN was sentenced today in district court to up to three years of probation.
A congressional investigation of the volunteer organization AmeriCorps contains charges that D.C. schools chief Michelle Rhee handled "damage control" after allegations of sexual misconduct against her now fiance, Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson, a former NBA star and a prominent ally of President Obama, The Washington Examiner has learned.
The flap over breast cancer screening has provided a fascinating insight into the political future of ObamaCare. Specifically, the political left supports such medical rationing even as it disavows that any such thing is happening. 
Not that it matters politically because obviously she's a female Republican dunce and he's obviously a male Democrat genius.
Just hours after Sen. Charles Grassley and Rep. Darrell Issa released a report Friday on their investigation into the abrupt firing of AmeriCorps inspector general Gerald Walpin, the Obama White House gave the lawmakers a trove of new, previously-withheld documents on the affair. It was a twist on the now-familiar White House late-Friday release of bad news; this time, the new evidence was put out not only at the start of a weekend but also hours too late for inclusion in the report.
Detroit News columnist Daniel Hewes has this eye-popping story:
Sen. Joseph Lieberman, speaking in that trademark sonorous baritone, utters a simple statement that translates into real trouble for Democratic leaders: "I'm going to be stubborn on this."
