It’s not Camelot. It’s not even Camelittle. It’s full of rot… CamelRot.
We’ve called for a Special Prosecutor to investigate Barack Obama and the entanglements/potential crimes of his government funded transition team. Today, the Obama transition team’s lawyer exonerated the Obama transition team. The honesty of the Obama team can be measured by its level of transparency. Until today the team said not a word about the fact that Obama was interviewed, or was it deposed, by Patrick Fitzgerald last week. Zero transparency = zero trust.
It also appears another Special Prosecutor is needed to investigate what exactly George W. is responsible for doing and what congressional Democrats are responsible for doing. It appears that Dimocrats have some ‘splaining to do.
Our political system is in a state of severe rot. Republicans can’t be trusted. The Naderites are irresponsible and have taken over the Democratic Party. And what used to be the Democratic Party is, after primary season, more like a bad nursery rhyme :
There was a crooked man,
And he walked a crooked mile,
He found a crooked sixpence
Upon a crooked stile;
He bought a crooked cat,
Which* caught a crooked mouse,
And they all lived together
In a crooked little house.
* * *
First up, Caroline Kennedy:
The embarrassment called Hendrik Hertzberg misses the point on Caroline Kennedy. Hertzberg dismisses the “dynasty” argument (during the primaries this was a main argument in the Hillary Haters catechism), there is contempt for the “experience” argument, there is zero curiosity about her positions – Hertzberg assumes Caroline is to the right of Uncle Teddy and to the left of Barack Obama.
Hertzberg’ and other “appoint Caroline” cadres appear to be concerned about Caroline. We’re concerned about the people of New York State. Caroline is and will be a shill for Obama. The people of New York need someone who will represent them and fight the untrustworthy Obama if need be. Has Caroline ever “fought” for anything? Has Caroline every “fought” for anyone outside of her family interests?
We do know that Caroline has raised money for her pet projects as they enter her mind. But has she ever had to butt heads with anyone to get something done? Would Caroline call out Obama or her own party if their actions would harm New Yorkers?
It’s the people of New York that matter not the fate of Caroline Kennedy.
A Kennedy. Camelot. Ah! The greatness of it all? Not.[snip]
Paterson has taken a tack much unexpected by challenging all to tighten belts, cut spending, pay more fees to the state and get rid of waste after Wall Street’s collapse and the subsequent free fall in tax collections from the financial services business.
Paterson could have a tough time. Voters don’t like losing money, they hate losing services, and all the earnest explanations about fighting the good fight together won’t put better food on the table or pay the bills.
He needs someone who can help him win, and he needs someone who can win. He and the senator he chooses will both face the voters together. With that in mind, is Caroline Kennedy the correct choice?
On the issues of the day, Kennedy has been mighty silent. Financial cretins stealing for fun, profit and because they can? Not a word.
The wars? Syllable-less. Millions of humans evaporated in Africa’s inner madness? Quiet and silent.
The auto bailout? Nada. The printing of a trillion soon-to-be inflated dollars that will further sap our savings? On such matters, Kennedy remains absolutely silent.
What about the destruction of the economy of western New York?
Does she know that there is a deeply pained world beyond the Westchester County border just a bit north of New York City that benefited little from some fairy-tale place called Camelot and less from well-orchestrated and timed public relations campaigns afforded only by the rich?
Why should Caroline Kennedy be named a U.S. senator? Is it because merit no longer matters?
Hillary Clinton campaigned for months with Chuck Schumer in upstate New York, then spent at least a year in her “listening tour” of upstate New York before asking voters for a vote. When Hillary Clinton runs for office the yells start for “disclosure”. After the data is disclosed, the Hillary Haters grimace and wait for the next opportunity to yell “disclosure”. Of course for the Dimocrats and the Republicans “disclosure” is restricted to the Clintons.
If she were applying to be, say, an undersecretary of education in Barack Obama’s new administration, Caroline Kennedy would have to fill out a 63-item confidential questionnaire disclosing potentially embarrassing text messages and diary entries, the immigration status of her household staff, even copies of every résumé she used in the last 10 years.
If she were running for election to the Senate, Kennedy would have to file a 10-part, publicly available report disclosing her financial assets, credit card debts, mortgages, book deals and the sources of any payments greater than $5,000 in the last three years.
But Kennedy, who has asked Governor David Paterson to appoint her to succeed Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton — and who helped oversee the vetting process for Obama’s possible running mates — is declining to provide a variety of basic data, including companies she has a stake in and whether she has ever been charged with a crime.
Disclosure? Let them eat cake. Caroline Kennedy sends her regrets:
Kennedy declined on Monday to reply to those and other questions posed by The New York Times about any potential ethical, legal and financial entanglements. Through a spokesman, she said she would not disclose that kind of information unless and until she becomes a senator. [snip]
“Precisely because there is no campaign or election, she should be more willing to disclose and subject herself to a greater level of public scrutiny than is required,” said Dick Dadey, executive director of Citizens Union, a nonpartisan watchdog group. He noted that other major contenders for the Senate seat — officeholders like the attorney general, Andrew Cuomo, and Representative Kirsten Gillibrand — have mounted runs for office and filed public disclosures before. [snip]
Kennedy also avoided disclosing any information about her finances while working as chief fund-raiser for the New York City Department of Education. She took the three-day-a-week job — director of the Office of Strategic Partnerships — in October 2002 at $1 a year, intending at the time to step up to a $90,000-a-year salary, but she later decided to forgo the salary. Taking it would have required her to file disclosures with the city’s Conflicts of Interests Board, officials said.
Since then, Kennedy has been a vice chairwoman of the Fund for Public Schools, the nonprofit arm of the strategic partnerships office. A 2006 state law required that the board members of all nonprofits “affiliated, sponsored by or created by” a city government submit detailed disclosure forms. But on Dec. 10, the city told an Assembly committee that the Fund for Public Schools would be exempt from the law, reasoning that the Department of Education is, legally speaking, a school district, not a city agency — even though the mayor has control over the schools.
The upshot: Kennedy, for now, is not subject to those disclosure rules, either.
The financial world is getting special favors from congress but Caroline Kennedy has been successful in keeping her financial transactions secret from the public she proclaims she wants to represent.
Not much is known about what she would fight for. Not much is known about what she has done.
During the two years Caroline Kennedy worked as a fundraiser and goodwill ambassador for New York City’s schools chancellor, Joel Klein, co-workers would frequently drift by her workspace for a glimpse of the department’s most famous $1-a-year employee.
As often as not, they were greeted by an empty chair. [snip]
A passionate commitment to public education is one of Kennedy’s three main selling points in her bid to win appointment to Hillary Rodham Clinton’s soon-to-be-vacated Senate seat, along with her platinum pedigree and a reputation for above-the-fray rectitude.
Yet because she has taken so few public positions, her education record – or what passes for it – has become just about the only public policy issue on which the 51-year-old political rookie can be judged.
The problem is, she hardly left a vapor trail.
Caroline Kennedy “sat out the epic legal battle to secure billions in state funding for low-income students” and hardly left a vapor trail. How can she be expected to fight for New Yorkers? If Obama and the Dimocrats want to hurt New York with their policies the Caroline history is that she would be their shill – not a fighter for the people of New York State.
After spending a few hours a day for two years Caroline Kennedy had a book to sell so she went on a book tour.
When she left, The New York Times wrote: “For months after she started, even some high-level education officials said they were not quite sure what she did. In an interview about eight months into her tenure, she would not say how often she worked at the department headquarters or how many hours she spent on the job, saying only, ‘I put in as much time as I can.'”
Like Obama’s “community organizing”, Caroline Kennedy was given credit for the work of others.
When Klein, speaking to the Times, credited Kennedy with securing $51 million from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation for small schools, Wayne Barrett of the Village Voice tracked down officials who claimed the grant was actually set up by Klein deputy Michele Cahill.
Tom Vander Ark, former education director for the Gates Foundation, told Barrett that Kennedy “didn’t have anything to do” with obtaining the $51 million.
If opinions differ on Kennedy’s role as an administrator, her positions on several major education issues have proven even harder to nail down.
Maybe if Caroline Kennedy voted more often she would be up to date on the issues when it mattered to the people of New York. The gaps in voting (1989, 1993, 1994, 1997, 2002, 2005) remind us of “present” Obama and his excuses and chicanery (not to mention the “mistaken” votes).
Governor David Paterson must make a serious Senate, not social calendar, appointment. There are other, actually qualified and vetted, candidates.
* * *
What did the Dimocrats know and when did they know it? We’ve spent months berating George W. while the Dimocrats hid their own rot and complicity.
CHRIS WALLACE: Let’s drill down into some of the specific measures that you pushed — first of all, the warrantless surveillance on a massive scale, without telling the appropriate court, without seeking legislation from Congress. Why not, in the aftermath of 9/11 and the spirit of national unity, get approval, support, bring in the other branches of government?
CHENEY: Well, let me tell you a story about the terror surveillance program. We did brief the Congress. . . . We brought in the chairman and the ranking member, House and Senate, and briefed them a number of times up until — this was — be from late ’01 up until ’04 when there was additional controversy concerning the program.
At that point, we brought in what I describe as the big nine — not only the intel people but also the speaker, the majority and minority leaders of the House and Senate, and brought them into the situation room in the basement of the White House.
I presided over the meeting. We briefed them on the program, and what we’d achieved, and how it worked, and asked them, “Should we continue the program?” They were unanimous, Republican and Democrat alike. All agreed — absolutely essential to continue the program.
I then said, “Do we need to come to the Congress and get additional legislative authorization to continue what we’re doing?” They said, “Absolutely not. Don’t do it, because it will reveal to the enemy how it is we’re reading their mail.”
That happened. We did consult. We did keep them involved. We ultimately ended up having to go to the Congress after the New York Times decided they were going to make the judge to review all of — or make all of this available, obviously, when they reacted to a specific leak.
But it was a program that we briefed on repeatedly. We did these briefings in my office. I presided over them. We went to the key people in the House and Senate intel committees and ultimately the entirely leadership and sought their advice and counsel, and they agreed we should not come back to the Congress.
If Cheney is telling the truth, a big if, then the Dimocrats are complicit in the Bush rot.
Maybe that is why Obama is keeping the George W. Bush war team.
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, who has been named to the same Cabinet post in the incoming administration of President-elect Barack Obama, is asking experienced members of the Bush war team to stick around to smooth the transition in the Pentagon.
Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates has asked most Bush administration political appointees except those targeted for dismissal to stay on in the Pentagon until replaced by the Obama administration in the coming months.
“I have received authorization from the president-elect’s transition team to extend a number of Department of Defense political appointees an invitation to voluntarily remain in their current positions until replaced,” Mr. Gates said in an Dec. 19 e-mail to political appointees.
If the George W. hold-overs are not troubling enough, the Dimocratic rot is.
The Dimocrat rot includes Nancy Pelosi, Jane Harman, Jay Rockefeller and Tom Daschle. Obama, Pelosi, Harman and Rockefeller all voted for the FISA bill Obama had promised to filibuster.
The passage of the FISA bill with its telecom immunity provision means Pelosi, Harman, and Rockefeller will not undergo investigation. We need a Special Prosecutor to get rid of the Republican and Dimocratic rot.
Special Prosecutors need to investigate the fact that there is a crooked man who is about bring his crooked friends to Washington. Chicago and Washington are about to be renamed CamelRot.