Mainline Treachery

Women, like Gay-Americans and Jewish-Americans have been betrayed by their “leaders” and by their supposed mainline organizations.

The essential fact that must be remembered is that the mainline Women groups, the mainline Gay groups, and to a much lesser extent some mainline Jewish groups (Jewish Americans are betrayed more often by fake “leaders” like Robert Wexler. See HERE and HERE.) have stopped fighting for their constituencies in order to shill for Obama’s Dimocratic Party.

In fairness, or rather sad recognition of historical facts, these mainline groups have abandoned their constituencies long before Obama began to teach treachery on a national scale.

These mainline groups and their treacheries to their constituencies are easily understood by considering last Thursday’s Gay Fundraiser for Obama Dimocrats which raised more money for Obama Dimocrats that the previous year when Obama Dimocrats were at least serving worthless soon-to-be abandoned promises, not unfulfilled ones. Hillary supporters recall Kate Michelman and NARAL and their various treacheries: they abandoned a long time strong champion of their issues in order to support a “present” voting Obama.

African-Americans too have been abandoned by their mainline groups but strangely enough they have benefited by greed. By this we mean that African-Americans at the grass roots level have the same problem of abandonment by their mainline organizations, which are mostly moribund shills for Dimocrats (think NAACP), but because prominent black “leaders” (yes, very much like Al Sharpton) profit personally by shouting “racism” at the first signs of TV cameras the black grassroots get some benefit.

This “profit motive” does at least get African-Americans at the grassroots level to at least feel like their issues and voices are being heard. No matter how minor the alleged infraction the profit motive by profit motivated black leaders means that issues great and small will be addressed with ferocity (and at a profit to the “leaders” who can live sumptuously at the Carlyle Hotel.) The profit motive “leaders” profit from their advocacy and the grassroots have a go-to advocate to air grievances.

We are not recommending the profit motive model to be followed by Women, Gay, and Jewish, groups we are simply noting the odd arrangement. Women, Gay, and Jewish, group leaders are sufficiently satisfied with a slap in the back and invitations to donate money whereas the most prominent black leaders (certainly not all African-American leaders) want to see the green, the cash.

Gay-Americans are the first big bloc of Obama voters to begin, en masse, awakening to Obama’s treacheries but the Gay-American “leadership” is mostly content to be invited to events and be puffed and fluffed.

Women voters, slowly waking up at the grassroots level to Obama Dimocrat treacheries, are however the first big bloc of Obama voters to begin to organizationally regroup.

Amy Siskind of The New Agenda [note to Amy: it would help enormously if you had nothing to do with Huffington Post instead of cross posting your article in that swamp of Hillary hatred and it was not a coup d’etat by definition nor intent.] wrote of the latest happy developments at the moribund National Organization of Women:

Last weekend, a major coup d’etat occurred at NOW’s election conference in Indianapolis. [snip] When all was said and done, after 417 delegate votes had been cast and counted, the underdog slate headed by Terry O’Neill had taken over the reigns of NOW by a mere eight votes. This despite NOW’s established leadership endorsing, actively supporting, and utilizing hardball tactics (including the disqualification of LA Chapter delegates) in support of their hand-picked slate of candidates.

What went down in Indy? Ahead of the election conference itself, a group of long-time feminists who were upset with the direction that NOW had taken decided to organize a resistance. One such feminist, Dr. Lynette Long, pulled NOW’s old tax returns. Dr. Long’s research revealed that NOW’s membership, which reached 500,000 at its zenith, is currently closer to 60,000. Yet, the conference and election itself were mostly a symbolic gesture and the turning of a page. The damage to NOW has been done over decades.

Much praise is due to Hillary supporter Dr. Lynette Long. Dr. Long recognizes that this is not about silly labels (such as first, second, third wave, next wave, of feminism) but rather about getting back to basics and into fighting shape ready to fight for women without the need to be back-slapped at “special” events hosted by Obama Dimocrats.

During the primary campaign women and women groups were on the lookout for the “racism” which only appeared when utilized by Obama and his supporters, but women and women groups did NOTHING about the blatant sexism and misogyny which blared in full ugliness every day and every hour.

Women’s groups need to get back to basics and begin to represent women and forget about invitations to fancy events. Women’s groups need to get back to educating and fighting. Women’s groups must get back to business and make their case to women that the sexism and misogyny is so embedded in the culture that women instead of fighting together fight each other:

And the polls show the same — just 20% of those surveyed consider themselves “feminists,” and only 17% want their daughters to be.

A whole lot of folks will look back and try to decipher what has caused the downturn at NOW. Yet, the answer is quite simple: the organization stopped representing its constituents. Management became insular and lost touch with the folks, so the folks moved on with their busy lives. Management became like a clique with strict rites of passage including being liberal and pro-choice. As management increasingly focused on issues that divided their members, they didn’t hear the decades-long patter of 440,000 footsteps slowly walking away.

This is not dissimilar to what occurred on Wall Street. There too, management lost track of the basic tenets of customer focus and service. Management instead relied on excessive financial risk through esoteric financial tools which took management further and further away from their customer base. It was only a matter of time.

And just as Wall Street lifts itself from the ashes of ruin, now, so is the women’s movement. While Wall Street rises with the help of TARP, the Next Wave gets underway courtesy of the sexism in the 2008 election. Wall Street got aid from Henry Paulson — the Next Wave got invigoration from David Letterman. The CEO ranks of Wall Street were merged and reshuffled; a new slate of leadership has taken over NOW and a new national women’s group has been formed. Wall Street will be forever changed, as will the women’s movement.

And thank goodness — it’s about time. Because we’ve come a long way, baby, yes, but the 2008 election showed us that sexism is alive and thriving in this country. Women have made great strides, but just beneath the surface, where eyes cannot discern, the roots of sexism and misogyny have been left to grow unabated. The roots flourish in our media, our schools, our workplaces, even our political parties.



Too often we have seen women as their own worst enemies. The “divide and conquer” strategy has worked for the sexists and misogynists who repeatedly saw success when women attacked Hillary Clinton using the language of the most neanderthal of men (do you hear us, Elizabeth Edwards, and Kate Michelman, and Donna Brazile, and Nancy Pelosi?)

And in 2008 we reached a nadir. For Wall Street it was the collapse of Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers. For the women’s movement, it was the sexist treatment of Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin.

Governor Sarah Palin, like Senator Hillary Clinton, was savagely attacked with sexist and misogynistic language and tactics by both men and women. Obama supporters and women stated the attacks were justified because they did not like the views of Governor Palin nor the views of Senator Clinton. But those were weak excuses which did not hide the sexism and misogyny.

The National Organization of Women is the first women’s organization to begin to reform and get back to fighting trim. Other organizations need to overthrow the comfortable bureaucrats which are happy to go along in order to get along at fancy parties.

It’s time for a change.

Share

154 thoughts on “Mainline Treachery

  1. “Dr. Long recognizes that this is not about silly labels (such as first, second, third wave, next wave, of feminism) but rather about getting back to basics and into fighting shape ready to fight for women without the need to be back-slapped at “special” events hosted by Obama Dimocrats.”
    &&&&&&&&

    “Special events”. Good call. Obama preaches unity, but practices divide and conquer politics. Like Rove, he and Axelgrease divide their supporters into narrow segments, and try to reel them back into their good graces by throwing special bribes, and throwing “special events”. Barf.

    Obama working w/ Axelgrease on the boilerplate:

    “Dear (jilted former supporter): Please come back. I didn’t mean what I said. Sorry you had to call the police. Here are some flowers. Please show up at the White House to show that you are forgiving me. And you’ll get a souvenier and a cheapie lunch. I won’t be eating with you because we’re being taken to dinner by the lobbyists whom I just publicly chewed out, but who will be writing the bill that will affect . Thanks for believing in Hope and Change, and we hope you can leave some serious change in the coffers on your way out, because 2012 is just around the corner”. David, how’s that sound?

    Ax: “Just fine. You are the MAN”.

  2. Excellent, Admin!

    “…have stopped fighting for their constituencies in order to shill for Obama’s Dimocratic Party.”

    Definitely! The downward trend towards duplicity and criminal tendencies on behalf of obama is mind-boggling.

  3. “Governor Sarah Palin, like Senator Hillary Clinton, was savagely attacked with sexist and misogynistic language and tactics by both men and women.”

    —————————–

    What bothers me most is how some women have lost their integrity and show there true colors and all because they are in lust with their master.

  4. JanH, we can’t be too harsh with some of those women who attacked Hillary and Palin because, shockingly, they did not know better. By this we mean that in some instances some truly good people were unaware of the sexism and misogyny they were echoing – that is how entrenched the sexism and misogyny is.

    No one should mistake this analysis as “making excuses” for what was done and what happened. We do need to recognize however that so entrenched is the sexism and misogyny and such is the failure of mainline women’s groups to evaluate and spotlight the very veiled and the not veiled at all sexism and misogyny that many women and men did not have the wherewithal to see the sexism and misogyny for what is was – preferring to attribute their own sexism and misogyny as “analysis” and “critique” of the individual candidates.

    In the early days of feminism there was an analysis of language and how language was used to perpetuate sexism and misogyny. Some of the analysis was a bit silly (“history” vs. “herstory” has some validity but it really is clever wordplay. There are better examples of sexism and misogyny in language such as ubiquitous use of the word “bitch”) but a great deal of it was of value.

    In short, many women need to be educated on sexism and misogyny in order to see it when it comes from themselves.

    Added edit: None of the above applies to the vile Hopium addled addicts.

  5. Although the article linked to the sources, applause is due to AlegresCorner which published Dr. Lynette Long’s data.

    http://alegrescorner.soapblox.net/showDiary.do?diaryId=3168

    First, it is noteworthy that contrary to compensation standards at comparable non-profits, all three of NOW’s Vice-Presidents are paid the same amount regardless of education or experience. Second, the salaries of NOW’s officers are higher than the salaries of other comparable organizations even though NOW is experiencing serious financial difficulties due to the failure of the membership team to enroll new members. According to Charity Navigator (www.charitynavigator.org) the average CEO salary of a not-for-profit is 3% of the organization’s total revenue. Three percent of NOW’s 2007 revenue of $4,450,717 is $133,000. The salaries of NOW officers are high by any standard. Hillary Clinton as a United States Senator earned $165,000 in 2006, which was less than the president of NOW. Eleanor Smeal, President of the FMF, earned $142,000 in 2006, less than any of the NOW officers.

    There is also a current interview with Terry O’Neil at AlegresCornerl:

    http://alegrescorner.soapblox.net/showDiary.do?diaryId=3210

  6. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

    The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday shows that 31% of the nation’s voters now Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Thirty-three percent (33%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -2. That matches the lowest level yet recorded (see trends).

    Over the past two weeks, the Presidential Approval Index has stayed in a narrow range between +2 and -2. Fifty-seven percent (57%) of Democrats Strongly Approve while 60% of Republicans Strongly Disapprove.

    Fifty percent (50%) favor passage of the health care reform proposal being crafted by Obama and Congressional Democrats. Forty-five percent (45%) are opposed.

  7. OT…In the category that you can’t make this sh*t up…Olympia Snowe is against a “public option” in the health care bill because it would be unfair to the insurances companies and would lower costs..

    “In an Associated Press interview in Portland, Snowe said it would be unfair to include a government-run health insurance option that would take effect immediately.

    “If you establish a public option at the forefront that goes head-to-head and competes with the private health insurance market … the public option will have significant price advantages,” she said.

    ww.baltimoresun.com/news/sns-ap-us-obama-health-care-snowe,0,7253018.story

  8. That poll is music to my ears, Admin.

    SHV,

    LOL…too ridiculous to even comment on. The lunatics have been let out of the asylum big time.

  9. AMEN admin, NARAL is NEXT.

    Yes, the poll is encouraging, but we need to keep watching and informing the American people of what is really going on.

    Admin, you are doing one of the best jobs of that. Amen to that too.

  10. While we’re talking polls:

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/121307/More-Americans-See-Democratic-Party-Too-Liberal.aspx

    A Gallup Poll finds a statistically significant increase since last year in the percentage of Americans who describe the Democratic Party’s views as being “too liberal,” from 39% to 46%. This is the largest percentage saying so since November 1994, after the party’s losses in that year’s midterm elections.

    Most major demographic and attitudinal subgroups show at least a slight uptick since 2008 in perceptions that the Democratic Party is too liberal. The increasing perception of the Democrats as too far left comes as President Obama and the Democrats in Congress have expanded the government’s role in the economy to address the economic problems facing the country. Additionally, the government is working toward major healthcare reform legislation and strengthening environmental regulations.

    Notably, there has been no change over the past year in the percentage of Americans who say the Republican Party is “too conservative,” though the 43% who say the party leans too far to the right matches the historical high mark set last year.

    As a result, now slightly more Americans perceive the Democratic Party as being too liberal (46%) than view the GOP as being too conservative (43%).

    But the Democratic Party still compares favorably to the Republican Party from the standpoint that more Americans say the Democrats’ ideology is “about right” (42%) than say this about the Republicans’ ideology (34%). [snip]

    Political independents’ perceptions of the two major parties’ ideological orientation are important since both parties need to appeal to the political center in order to win elections. (The vast majority of partisan identifiers predictably view their chosen party’s views as being about right and the other party’s as being too extreme.)

    Currently, independents are more likely to view both parties as being too extreme in either direction than to believe they are about right. But more independents say the Democratic Party (38%) than the Republican Party (25%) is about right.

    Independents are a little more likely to say the Republican Party is too conservative than to say the Democratic Party is too liberal, in a slight departure from the results among all Americans. [snip]

    The Democratic Party continues to hold the upper hand over the Republican Party in the current U.S. political environment by a variety of measures, including party identification and party favorable ratings. However, compared to last year, Americans are significantly more likely to see the Democratic Party as too liberal, and as a result, they are somewhat more likely to view the party as being too far left than to perceive the Republican Party as too far right. That may expose a bit of a vulnerability for the Democratic Party, and if perceptions of the Democratic Party as being too liberal continue to grow, the GOP may be able to win back some of the support it has lost in recent years. But that may be possible only if the Republicans are at the same time able to convince the public that they are not too far to the political right.

  11. Admin, I am seeing small hand written signs here saying there is going to be a tea party on the 4th of Jul. I assume this is happening all over the country. what do you know about it?

  12. Surely bambi is ready for prime time again? A weekly/Daily show to boost his sagging ratings? Maybe take the show on the road? God knows that an awol president, in this case, could/no would be a blessing in disguise.

  13. Todd Purdum has a mean spiritied, vile hit piece on Sarah Palin in the current Vanity Fair…same style he used on Bill Clinton at the end of the primaries when he used all those ‘anonymous sources’ that supposedly knew about things Bill was up to…well, now Purdum has turned his poison pen on Palin with similar ‘anonymous sources’…i noticed that this is being completely coodinated with MSNBC who had Purdum on to discuss (did not watch) and had the usual segments on all day to keep pushing the attacks on poor Palin, “suffering from post partum and obsessed with her ambition” as only the McCain insiders would know…

    MSNBC is completely obsessed with Sarah Palin…they are on a mission to embarrass and destroy her…

    …this is the same pattern MSNBC had for Hillary…they would pick up the coordinated story from VF or Newsweek and then push anti-Clinton stories from 6:00 AM – all day, every segment – through all nighttime programming…

    if Hillary ever breaks with Obama – they will pick up where they left off…

    what is the deal with Purdum, the scum? isn’t he married to Dee Dee Myers? what a creep!

  14. S,

    I don’t think they will have to pick up where they left off. There are still insidious pieces of garbage floating around the media about her. Cutesy attack articles and comments on Fox especially. Just this side of libelous.

  15. U.S. joins International Renewable Energy Agency

    (2009-06-30)
    (Reuters) –
    WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The United States joined the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) on Monday as part of the Obama administration’s commitment to developing a new energy policy, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said.

    IRENA was established in January to promote development of the renewable energy industry worldwide. To date, 135 nations have joined the global organization that will be headquartered in the United Arab Emirates.

    “Our government’s participation is an important element of the administration’s effort to support clean energy technologies and the development of low carbon economies to address global climate change,” Clinton said in a statement.

    Clinton added that the new agency would help ensure that global resources are put to maximum effect, especially in response to the needs of the developing world.

    publicbroadcasting.net/wamc/news.newsmain/article/0/0/1523857/US.News/U.S..joins.International.Renewable.Energy.Agency

  16. Franken: ‘So thrilled’ at Minn. Senate race win
    2 hours ago

    MINNEAPOLIS (AP) — Democrat Al Franken says he’s “so thrilled” to finally be celebrating a victory after nearly eight months of recounts and courtroom fights in Minnesota’s Senate race.

    Franken spoke in Minneapolis on Tuesday soon after Republican Norm Coleman conceded the election. Coleman’s concession came after the Minnesota Supreme Court said Franken should be certified as the winner.

    Franken says he’s “thrilled and honored by the faith Minnesotans have placed in me.” He says he can’t wait to get started, and believes he’ll be sworn in next week.

    Franken says he expects to sit on a few Senate committees, including Judiciary. That would put him in place to take part in Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor’s confirmation hearings.

    google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gpHjKPjLHmZ9PM4SqhdsVtFatFUgD9958DM80

  17. U.S. targets North Korea’s missile, nuclear activities

    Tue Jun 30, 2009

    WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The United States said on Tuesday it had cracked down on companies involved in North Korea’s suspected missile proliferation and in purchases of equipment that could be used in a nuclear weapons program.

    The Treasury and State Departments said they had targeted Iran’s Hong Kong Electronics and North Korea’s Namchongang Trading Corporation under an executive order that would freeze their U.S. assets and bar U.S. firms from dealing with them.

    The move appeared aimed at isolating the companies from the U.S. financial and commercial systems and, by extension, from other countries’ banks and corporations who may resist doing business with them out of fear of falling afoul of U.S. laws.

    It was immediately not clear whether either company actually has any U.S. assets that could be frozen.

    The steps are part of an effort to get tough with North Korea, which conducted its second nuclear test this year and which has ceased carrying out a 2005 agreement to abandon its nuclear programs in exchange for economic and diplomatic benefits. The U.S. Treasury said that it had targeted Hong Kong Electronics, which is located in Kish Island, Iran, because it had transferred millions of dollars of proliferation-related funds to North Korea from Iran.

    “North Korea uses front companies like Hong Kong Electronics and a range of other deceptive practices to obscure the true nature of its financial dealings, making it nearly impossible for responsible banks and governments to distinguish legitimate from illegitimate North Korean transactions,” Stuart Levey, undersecretary of the treasury for terrorism and financial intelligence, said in the statement.

    The State Department described Namchongang as a Pyongyang-based “nuclear-related company” and said it has been involved in the purchase of aluminum tubes and other equipment “specifically suitable for a uranium enrichment program since the late 1990s.”

    Uranium enrichment is a process that can produce fuel for nuclear power plants or for nuclear weapons.

    reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN3045605620090630

  18. if Hillary ever breaks with Obama – they will pick up where they left off
    ——————————————-
    She will have to break with Obama and the sooner that happens the better for her. When this thing goes down she needs to be far away so she does not go down with the ship.

    If she stays with him too long and does not speak out for what is right for America, she will be perceived as a lackey. She is not the same person she was in the primary, and people around the world are starting to wonder if she has any influence.

    Why is it that when they discuss Iran, they send in Rice not Hillary to speak for the Administration.

    Why is it that she lets him blindside her when she is giving a press conference on Hondurus, advocating a measured approach to Honduras he denounces it as a coup and she gets hit with that unanticipated question.

    Why is it when she takes MO to an event, MO makes a big point of calling her secretary Clilnton.

    At this point, I hope she believes in herself well enough to stand her ground and leave this corrupt admistration. A strategic retreat at this moment would be adviseable. They would condemn it now, but in the long run they would praise her action for leaving when she did, before it hit an iceberg.

    The Israel situation, like everything else in our foreign policy is in shambles thanks to Bambi. I heard they have decided to build new settlements and my reaction was that is what they should be doing at this point.

  19. huffingtonpost.com/mayhill-fowler/bill-clinton-purdhum-a-sl_b_104771.html

    sage words from Bill on Purdum…what is wrong with Dee Dee?

  20. The Obama Effect?
    It is far more likely that purely internal factors are at work in Iran.

    By Mona Charen

    It’s become almost a parlor game to watch Obamaphiles spin the president’s response to events in Iran. Uninfatuated observers have noticed that the president displayed a tepid and unsatisfying neutrality to events in the streets of Tehran following the sham election — just as he did last summer when the Russians staged an invasion of Georgia. His first instinct was to preserve his bona fides for negotiating with the mullahs — bona fides that he has been at pains to demonstrate over the past several months. Starting last January, President Obama put doubts about the nature of the regime in Tehran to one side and offered blandishments to the leadership of what he was careful to call “the Islamic Republic.” In his Cairo speech, the president begged forgiveness for the U.S. role in a 1953 coup. U.S. embassies worldwide were instructed to invite Iranian diplomats to July 4 parties. By so doing, President Obama granted legitimacy to the mullahs and suggested that the U.S. — under new enlightened leadership — was now a worthy interlocutor. At just that moment, the people of Iran told the world how thoroughly detestable and illegitimate the Islamofascist regime is. This surely must have been one of the worst cases of presidential timing in living memory.

    Yet Obama’s ardent supporters stand ready to interpret any world event as evidence of Obama’s messianic effect. Matthew Stannard, in the San Francisco Chronicle, noted that unnamed “analysts suggested that President Obama’s rhetoric of extending an open hand to old rivals, culminating in his widely watched speech to the Islamic world from Egypt on June 4, may have pushed reform-minded voters to the polls in Iran.” The New York Times asked, “Could there be something to all the talk of an Obama effect, after all? A stealth effect, perhaps?”

    Isn’t this a kind of arrogance? Isn’t it further the kind of arrogance — an overweening emphasis on the importance of the United States — that the Left usually attributes to conservatives?

    There is no more evidence that the revolt under way in Iran (if it succeeds, it will be called a revolution) is attributable to the “Obama effect” than there is that it is the result of a George W. Bush effect. How could Bush be involved? Well, you could make an argument that all of those purple fingers in neighboring Iraq aroused a certain longing for democracy among Iranians.

    But it is far more likely that purely internal factors are at work. David Frum, at NewMajority.com, catalogues the economic misery Ahmadinejad has delivered. The unemployment rate, already at 10.5 percent four years ago, has shot up to 17 percent. The inflation rate is 25 percent, destroying savings and driving down living standards. Despite Iran’s immense oil wealth and the rise in oil prices in recent years, the standard of living for the typical Iranian is no better now than it was in 1975. Because Iran has not built oil refineries, this oil-rich nation must import 40 percent of its gasoline. Moreover, the corruption of the clerical elite is widespread and universally detested.

    Michael Ledeen points to the galvanizing effect the presence of Mir-Hossein Mousavi’s wife, Zahra Rahnavard, has had on women in Iran. Rahnavard is the half of the couple with all the charisma — and the spirit. While Mousavi is a soft-spoken, even dull, former apparatchik, his wife is a noted artist and university professor known for her reformist views who directly called Ahmadinejad a liar and a disgrace during the presidential campaign. She is personally religious and wears a hijab, but she favors choice in these matters — a profoundly subversive idea in the Islamic Republic. Brave women have been out in force since before the election. They marched carrying pictures of Mousavi and displaying their green colors. When the regime declared Ahmadinejad the winner, young women poured into the streets along with men. CNN covered one young demonstrator explaining how the women collect rocks to give to the men to throw at the basij militia, as the women cannot throw as far. But they are on the front lines, body and soul, defying the basij militia and sometimes, as in the now iconic case of Neda Soltani, paying with their lives. Neda, a 19-year-old clad in blue jeans and sneakers, has become an instant martyr to a very great cause — the cause of freedom.

    President Obama needs to fall out of love with the image of himself as the ultimate mediator. Events have overtaken that strategy and revealed its hollowness.

    — Mona Charen is a nationally syndicated columnist. © 2009 Creators Syndicate, Inc.

  21. Wexler is a disgrace and I am ashamed that he represents my district. He personally got every Jewish condo commando out for Obama, including my Mom telling them Obama was Israel’s biggest friend….We Jews once again helped elect a man in Obama who surrounded himself most of his adult life with anti-semites from Chicago as well as powerful Arabs. Yet, I am willing to bet all the money I have that once again in 2012 he will get overwhelming Jewish(as well as gay and woman) support. It is entrenched in the system now and his capos run the country like Tammany Hall. I have never seen such propaganda being stated by Obama’s Jews like Wexler and being accepted as “the right” course by mainstream Jews.

  22. As for Purdham, we can only assume he is getting info and tacit approval from Myers. Another nobody Bill made a “somebody” who is also f—— him over.

  23. Fellow Hillary supporters:

    We need to march on Washington DC NOW! It’s going to have to be us. Glenn Beck and Senator Jim DeMint are telling people to get out in the streets and do civil disobedience. I don’t like how Glenn Beck last year called Hillary a b… but he has changed his tune somewhat and he said Hillary would’ve been the best president out of those who ran. We have to stop Obama’s cap and trade and healthcare bills. Glenn Beck told the conservatives today on his radio show that they complain but are lazy and do nothing. We have gone up against Obama and his thugs. We have to stop Obama now before we end up a communist country. Let’s do visibility on our street corners, marches, sit-ins, etc. Tell everyone to do this. Who’s with me?

  24. Our government’s participation is an important element of the administration’s effort to support clean energy technologies and the development of low carbon economies to address global climate change,” Clinton said in a statement
    ——————————–
    Not carbon, and not not not nuclear.

    Clean does not mean toxic waste. Clean means wind, water and solar. Those are the choices.

    Nuclear is toxic.

  25. LET’S MARCH TO THE CAPITOL TO THE SENATE FLOOR AND TO THE STREETS!

    Calling ALL Americans! Phone calls are NOT going to DO IT! We need to march to the Capitol and be there when these bills come up on the floor.
    We cannot let Cap & Trade PASS! We must be there and let them know NO TO CAP & TRADE!
    People EVERYWHERE in America—grab your signs and go out on the streets everywhere EVERYDAY!! Let’s make some NOISE. PEACEFUL CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE!!!

  26. Someone who is good should throw a drink in Purdhams face and ask him what he intends to do about it. His wife should be put on the spot and asked on camera whether she agrees with the character assassination he perpetrates against the family who hired her. To be clear that is what should happen. Whether or not it does I have no idea. One way or another however he needs to be held accountable for his unmitigated lies. And so should the scumbags who publish his crap. I do not think there would be any redress in a court of law thanks to New York Times vs Sullivan.

  27. Admin: what I tried to post in the video above is the interview with Rassmussen about the Obama honeymoon being over. What it reverted to is the Ledeen video, again. Is there any way you can imbed the Rassmussen intervier?

  28. LET’S MARCH TO THE CAPITOL TO THE SENATE FLOOR AND TO THE STREETS!

    Calling ALL Americans! Phone calls are NOT going to DO IT! We need to march to the Capitol and be there when these bills come up on the floor.
    We cannot let Cap & Trade PASS! We must be there and let them know NO TO CAP & TRADE!
    People EVERYWHERE in America—grab your signs and go out on the streets everywhere EVERYDAY!! Let’s make some NOISE. PEACEFUL CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE!!!

  29. Wbboei, there is something wrong with the video. We’ll try to fix it but no guarantee we’ll succeed.

  30. Admin we had that same problem with yesterday’s video.

    However, I would rather have it embeded going off all the time, than not there.

    Good Night all.

  31. Jan–did you notice what Scott Rassmussen said. It is important. He puts far less emphasis on the general approval rating, and far more empahsis on the strongly disapprove vs strongly approved spread because those are the people who are the hold strong opinions and influence others. That critical spread which is ignored by corrupt big media tells us that bambis real approval rating (like real return discounting inflation) is now negative and dropping as more people learn about his benighted policies. Also that his future approval will depend upon the economy, and if GM is throwing off big profits a year from now (fat chance) then he is fine, but if it is not then his numbers will continue to decline. Finally, there is the disappointing news that the public has not yet connected the dots on his serial failures in the area of foreign policy. That needs to change. People need to see him for the blowhard coward he truly is, and the harm he is doing to the US.

  32. wwoebi,

    I hope I didn’t sound flippant in my answer. I was impressed by Rasmussen’s emphasis on the negatives and his sharp analysis. What I meant that I’m not at all surprised this is now coming out, given this toads’ actions.

  33. I understood your response Jan. I was just expounding on what he said because I think it if quite useful. I had a 1 hour and a 4 hour conversation with two close friends today both of whom idependently expressed doubt that the public will wake up. The are fixating on the wrong numbers as Rassumussen suggests. Also, both of them independently expressed reservations about the trap Hillary is in with the Yoyo in chief who is destroying our image on foreign policy. I believe her concept of smart power is being undermined by Obamas ego and his hatred of America. The reason I keep mentioning those things is because another friend of mine who has read everything about him has concluded. And if that is true, and Hillary is not in a position to talk sense into him then she has got to make a move. You cannot have a coherent foreign relations strategy with this man at the helm and his camp followers meaning Power, Jarret and Rice are unfit to serve the interests of this country. It is impossible. He is beyond redemption.

  34. wbboei, I hope you looked at the link I provided for you on the last thread. I listened to that interview with Bzezenski and realized these idiots really believe what we have been fearing that they did. We have a lot to fear with Obama at the helm and Hillary hog tied in the parking garage. Do you think the tear in her eye was that she knew this was going to happen?? They have got to be making her do and say the things she is saying!!
    WE haven’t heard from Bill since he went to Haiti, have we???

  35. “They are fixating on the wrong numbers as Rassumussen suggests”

    —————————–

    As are the media maggots in bambi’s corner.
    —————————

    confloyd,

    I watched that video earlier and couldn’t believe the garbage being spewed. Thanks for the link. Quite an eyeopener and not in a good way.

    As far as Hillary goes, I think in some ways she is following his direction, but in other ways she is making sure that everyone knows it is his policies. I pray that she will bail if necessary when the time comes.

  36. admin Says:
    June 30th, 2009 at 5:33 pm
    &&&&&&&&&&&

    I know this poll has factual numbers, but isn’t he, like, the most popular president EVER??? I mean, like duh, EVERYBODY LOVES him.

    Shure, me n my frends dont pay attenshun to politix, but, OBAMA ROCKS. Whoo hoo. Freedom.

    What was your question?

  37. wbboei, I hope she bails out soon also, I just hope she can and they are not holding something over her, even at that, if it gets bad enough she will. I think the reason they made SOS is to get her out of the Senate where she could voice her true feelings about all these bailouts, iran, NK, cap and trade and UHC.

  38. S Says:

    June 30th, 2009 at 7:11 pm
    Todd Purdum has a mean spiritied, vile hit piece on Sarah Palin in the current Vanity Fair…same style he used on Bill Clinton at the end of the primaries when he used all those ‘anonymous sources’ that supposedly knew about things Bill was up to…well, now Purdum has turned his poison pen on Palin with similar ‘anonymous sources’…

    MSNBC is completely obsessed with Sarah Palin…they are on a mission to embarrass and destroy her…
    $$$$

    I’ve noticed that the same liberal smarty pants op-ed writers who correctly ripped Bush, and who pushed Obama on the gullible masses, are now completely consumed with trying to further bury the already self-buried Republicans and neocons. They keep piling on even after the game is over. Gail Collins of the NYT cannot find ONE legitimate criticism of Obama, so she has to keep saying, “you won’t believe how crazy desperate the Repubs are now…”.

    Get off it already, bitch.

    Modo, to give her an F+, has done a little critical thinking. But SHE HAS RELEGATED HERSELF to the bleachers. Nobody has held a gun to her head and said, “Start writing cute fluff pieces about nothing in particular”. Nope, she thought of that all on her own.

    These writers were SO OUTRAGED at Bush for getting American soldiers killed, for torturing prisoners, for being incompetent in ways that endangered the economy and affected the working schleps. Where is your outrage now, now that YOUR CHOSEN ONE is rerunning the same sad Broadway play night after night.

    “Now playing, the 3,080th straight showing of ‘Go Fuck Yourself, America’. “

  39. rgb: these people are clinically insane. They should be chained to the wall in a dark corner of the main cell area of Bedlam where they can babble incoherently to eachother. I think they are all paranoid of losing their jobs, AND they know in their hearts Bambi will fail and when he does some of their readers may come looking for them. Even a dullard like Collins can figure that one out.

  40. In sum, it is the backlash they are worried about. And that is why I want Hillary to be somewhere safe when and if the situation gets fluid. There are any number of things that could touch it off. Biden alluded t them. Normally, I do not worry about this stuff, but given the sheer level of incompetence we see in bambi, the mountain of media lies, and the gravity of our problems there is real cause for concern.

  41. wbboei, I hope she bails out soon also, I just hope she can and they are not holding something over her, even at that, if it gets bad enough she will. I think the reason they made SOS is to get her out of the Senate where she could voice her true feelings about all these bailouts, iran, NK, cap and trade and UHC.
    ———————————-
    Yes–unless I am reading the thing wrong–which is always possible. Frankly, I hope I am reading the whole thing entirely wrong. But sadly, I do not think that is possible.

  42. MSNBC is completely obsessed with Sarah Palin…they are on a mission to embarrass and destroy her
    ——————————–
    We should tell people that MSNBC is the gestapo and if they can do that to Sarah, then the can do that to anyone. Someone needs to take Olberman in the backroom and only one of them come out.

  43. confloyed,

    I watched most of the Brzezinski interview. He was neither impressive nor able to flatulate wild prognostications under the observation of the well prepared Charlie Rose. Rose corrected him several times for placing erroneous labels on organizations (when he should have known better) during the interview having the disconcerting effect of shoving a hot poker up Brzezinski’s anal canal leaving him antsy and totally off his game.

    Rest assured the only place Brzezinski is headed is under the bus with other Obama supporters who have lost their luster er, relevancy, since the election.

  44. When I have spoken to the Cuban banker about Saul Alinsky–the community organizer who is supposedly–supposedly the intellectual godfather of Obama and ACORN to the extent there is any difference, twice he has told me that Alinskey is an intellectual lightweight, who stole most of his ideas from an Italian communist at the turn of the century named Antonio Gramsci whose writings are contained mostly in a series of essays entitled Prison Notebooks who was an intellectual heavyweight well worth reading if you have the intellectual give and take to see what the other side is saying.

    In his latest article, our friend Chris Hedges struggles with the tactical question of how to defeat the corporate state and think two steps ahead of corporate controlled media. In the closing pararaph of his essay, he mentions Gramsci which leads to his archives. There I found something which he wrote in 1916 from the working class perspective which tells us that we should boycott big media today. I will post Hedges essay in a minute but here is what Gramsci said on the subject.

  45. Antonio Gramsci 1916

    Newspapers and the Workers

    ——————————————————————————–

    Source: Avanti! (Piedmont Edition) December 22, 1916;
    Translated: by Mitchell Abidor;
    CopyLeft: Creative Commons (Attribute & ShareAlike) marxists.org 2008.

    ——————————————————————————–

    These are the days of subscription campaigns. The editors and administrators of bourgeois newspapers tidy up their display windows, paint some varnish on their shop signs and appeal for the attention of the passer-by (that is, the readers) to their wares. Their wares are newspapers of four or six pages that go out every day or evening in order to inject in the mind of the reader ways of feeling and judging the facts of current politics appropriate for the producers and sellers of the press.

    We would like to discuss, with the workers especially, the importance and seriousness of this apparently innocent act, which consists in choosing the newspaper you subscribe to. It is a choice full of snares and dangers which must be made consciously, applying criteria and after mature reflection.

    Above all, the worker must resolutely reject any solidarity with a bourgeois newspaper. And he must always, always, always remember that the bourgeois newspaper (whatever its hue) is an instrument of struggle motivated by ideas and interests that are contrary to his. Everything that is published is influenced by one idea: that of serving the dominant class, and which is ineluctably translated into a fact: that of combating the laboring class. And in fact, from the first to the last line the bourgeois newspaper smells of and reveals this preoccupation.

    But the beautiful – that is the ugly – thing is this: that instead of asking for money from the bourgeois class to support it in its pitiless work in its favor, the bourgeois newspapers manage to be paid by…the same laboring classes that they always combat. And the laboring class pays; punctually, generously.

    Hundreds of thousands of workers regularly and daily give their pennies to the bourgeois newspapers, thus assisting in creating their power. Why? If you were to ask this of the first worker you were to see on the tram or the street with a bourgeois paper spread before him you would hear: “Because I need to hear about what happening.” And it would never enter his head that the news and the ingredients with which it is cooked are exposed with an art that guides his ideas and influences his spirit in a given direction. And yet he knows that this newspaper is opportunist, and that one is for the rich, that the third, the fourth, the fifth is tied to political groups with interests diametrically opposed to his.

    And so every day this same worker is able to personally see that the bourgeois newspapers tell even the simplest of facts in a way that favors the bourgeois class and damns the working class and its politics. Has a strike broken out? The workers are always wrong as far as the bourgeois newspapers are concerned. Is there a demonstration? The demonstrators are always wrong, solely because they are workers they are always hotheads, rioters, hoodlums. The government passes a law? It’s always good, useful and just, even if it’s…not. And if there’s an electoral, political or administrative struggle? The best programs and candidates are always those of the bourgeois parties.

    And we’re aren’t even talking about all the facts that the bourgeois newspapers either keep quiet about, or travesty, or falsify in order to mislead, delude or maintain in ignorance the laboring public. Despite this, the culpable acquiescence of the worker to the bourgeois newspapers is limitless. We have to react against this and recall the worker to the correct evaluation of reality. We have to say and repeat that the pennies tossed there distractedly into the hands of the newsboy are projectiles granted to a bourgeois newspaper, which will hurl it, at the opportune moment, against the working masses.

    If the workers were to be persuaded of this most elementary of truths they would learn to boycott the bourgeois press with the same unity and discipline that the bourgeoisie boycott the newspapers of the workers, that is, the Socialist press. Don’t give financial assistance to the bourgeois press, which is your adversary. This is what should be our battle cry in this moment that is characterized by the subscription campaigns of all the bourgeois newspapers. Boycott them, boycott them, boycott them!

  46. In the above essay, substitute the word “middle class” for working class, and the game becomes crystal clear.

  47. Read it again if you like and think about how big media treats our Tea Parties.

    “The demonstrators are always wrong, solely because they are workers they are always hotheads, rioters, hoodlums.”

    Remember how CNN sent its reporter in to a tea party to pick out the most over the top person there and center their expose around that individual rather than the group at large and the merits of their cause.

    Well . . .

  48. Finally, think about why big media was so determined to destroy Hillary and Sarah–destroy is the right word. Why they used the most blatant forms of sexism against them–with the full support of supposed women like modo, collins, foughey, mitchell and others. Who did Hillary represent when she said she would review NAFTA to make sure it was working to the benefit of working people–the middle class or the elites? And why was Obama desperate to secretly distance himself from that statement? And what did the elites think when Sarah told them point blank that she was coming to Washington DC not to kiss the asses of the elites, but to represent the people? Gramsci anwers those questions to a fare thee well.

  49. The sexism big media deploys against women who represent the middle class, as opposed to the elites, is a tool to hold down the middle class. They know the middle class and lower classes are susceptible to it and will discourage them from following those leaders. The men is the media who use these tactics need to be kicked in the balls and the women who go along with it need to be hung in effigy. If I were running a Tea Party, I would do that and drive the point home when the CNN reporter shoved a microphone in front of my face. Big media would be drawn to the spectacle like a moth to a flame.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2OO4FPkeGfw&NR=1

  50. I think we understand that the HIGH approval of O personnelly is because the people that voted for him, cannot admit that he was the wrong choice, and more important, that they made a mistake. However, it is OK to disapproved of what he has done.

    It is kind of like family, and how those head doctors always say, you love your family, unconditionally, but you hate what they do.

    In the end though, even though you love someone, if you are personnelly are suffering, you remove that person from control.

    State taxes are going up significantly in 6 states: CA, NY, FL, AZ, NV & MASS. Billions of deficits predicted. I am sure that state services and people will be significantly restricted. I wonder how many unemployed that will result in.

  51. I think we understand that the HIGH approval of O personnelly is because the people that voted for him, cannot admit that he was the wrong choice, and more important, that they made a mistake
    —————————————————–
    Good morning NMF.

    Assuming that is correct, would these supporters vote for him next time if they like him personally, but do not like his policies?

    That is the question. I know it depends on how bad, who the alternative is, whether they can still blame bush–but forget about all that and just give me your thought if you can staight up–would they?

  52. Morning all:Feeling great but the coming holiday and the horrible rain storms are a real distraction for my blogging pleasure.
    Imust disagree with some that worry about Hillary and suggest that she should get out of SOS position in order to disconnect with the messiah.She is just where she feels safe and secure as well as the best place for her to keep the world united and free of the evil and destructive course that Telebama is taking the country.She is adored respected and wanted by our allies world wide to give her steady hand and mind to counter the mental defects that BO and MO have spread across this country that they call hope and change.Even the MSM realize her importance in overcoming the black race card diplomacy that he spews out daily with devisive and dubious crazy fervor.Many of his supporters now realize their mistake in being taken in by another Harvard Chicago and rev Wright trained Seal.

    By ABM90 Not to worry folks Hillary has her own schedule of political events and quitting is not one of them

  53. It is like there is an alcoholic in your family who is a really nice person, and you love them dearly, but you don’t continue to allow them to have a power position if it impacts on you, or your money.

    It will depend on how badly the economy is doing and the unemployment, and to be truthful with you, this is a very complex situation that I don’t think it has been fixed yet. Some states are in terrible financial situations. CA like the 11th largest economy is headed for a disaster. If CA fails, then it drags down the rest of the country. I know people there that have been out of work for a couple of years now, and just doing part time or odd jobs. There homes are being threatened for take over by the banks, or have been.

    If O had really been Smart, he would have let HRC deal with this mess for 8 years, and then taken it the next 8. She is equipped to handle this, and he is not. As stated on the blog before, he is not a detail person, short on executive experience, and his staff really is good at bullying and fraud, but are having a hard time running the country.

    My last thoughts are, if these polls are really bad leading up to the next election, the Dims will drop him like a hot potatoe. The Dims want power, and want to be in office. If the economy is bad, and polls, they will be looking for a new candidate.

  54. LET’S MARCH TO THE CAPITOL TO THE SENATE FLOOR AND TO THE STREETS!

    Calling ALL Americans! Phone calls are NOT going to DO IT! We need to march to the Capitol and be there when these bills come up on the floor.
    We cannot let Cap & Trade PASS! We must be there and let them know NO TO CAP & TRADE!
    People EVERYWHERE in America—grab your signs and go out on the streets everywhere EVERYDAY!! Let’s make some NOISE. PEACEFUL CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE!!!

    It’s going to have to be us Hillary supporters to stop Obama and Congress because conservatives/republicans are too lazy.

  55. “If she stays with him too long and does not speak out for what is right for America, she will be perceived as a lackey. She is not the same person she was in the primary, and people around the world are starting to wonder if she has any influence.”

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    I agree, Hillary is not the same person she was in the Primary; she’s much more aware of the possibility of being scapegoated by Obama than she ever was before. The difference is…. she is listening to Bill.

    I think Hillary will continue to speak out for what she believes is right whether it’s human rights or health care within the scope of her job as SOS. It would be seen as an attack on Obama if she stepped out of the realm of her position and diametrically opposed one of his positions publically. The media would take her down in a minute with a horrendous barrage of accusations I don’t even want to mention here.

    But opposition and confrontation are not her only weapons of defense. I continue to believe her elbow is giving her a chance to step away and view the situation at arms length and help her see clearly what is going on behind the scenes and adjust her actions accordingly.

    For one thing, Obama is giving Rice, Power and Jarrett higher profiles in UN activity. Bill as an envoy is connected to the UN and I doubt anything they are conspiring to do will get by him without him knowing about it. As a team, which Bill and Hillary are unbeatable… Hillary learned her lesson from the Primary and she is smart enough to use other avenues around her rather than just bailing out and walking away. You forget, she is as invested as we are in stopping the destruction of our country and I trust she will use her position (if she has to) to prevent it.

  56. wbboei Says:
    July 1st, 2009 at 6:52 am

    In his latest article, our friend Chris Hedges struggles with the tactical question of how to defeat the corporate state and think two steps ahead of corporate controlled media.
    &&&&&&&

    Might someone know the link for this article?

  57. I got this in an email this morning, and I thought it was funny. Kind of sums it up.

    Subject: I’m sorry I voted for McCain

    To all my Democrat friends – I’m sorry I voted for McCain!

    My Democrat friends told me if I voted for McCain, the nation’s Hope would deteriorate, and sure enough there has been a 20 point drop in the Consumer
    Confidence Index since the election.

    They told me if I voted for McCain, the US would become more deeply embroiled in the Middle East, and sure enough tens of thousands of additional troops are scheduled to be deployed into Afghanistan.

    They told me if I voted for McCain, that the economy would get worse and sure enough unemployment is approaching 10% and the new stimulus packages implemented recently have sent the stock market lower than at any time since 9-11.

    They told me if I voted for McCain, we would see more “crooks” in high ranking positions in Federal government and sure enough, several recent cabinet nominees and Senate appointments revealed resumes of bribery and tax fraud.

    Well, I ignored my Democrat friends in November and voted for McCain.

    And they were right…. All of their predictions have come true!

    It must be all MY fault!

  58. NewMexicoFan Says:
    July 1st, 2009 at 9:15 am

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    NMF- Obama’s and the Dem Party’s actions are deliberate. This is not incompetence as many might think. Obama’s mission is carry on what the Republicans and Bush has set up for him after his takeover; to break the Middle Class driving them into poverty where there will only remain 2 classes of people. The Rich and the Poor. This dynamic has been going on since 1998 when Clinton WON the election preventing BushI from continue his pet project for a New World Order. Clinton’s election forstalled that from happening.. and why they and the media have hated him ever since..

  59. Mrs. Smith 9:56

    I don’t doubt that all of their actions are deliberate. However, if the Dims think they can put anyone in there and make it work, they are wrong. There have been Dims in there in the past that have failed to get re elected, Carter. If they back a dead horse, then they will look loyal, but stupid.

    It is kind of how you see some of the women acting now, not standing behind their man. The aol feed had an article which indicated that women are beinging to think that portrayal of women to be inaccurate. Women stand on their own, and and if the man you are married to fails, he stands alone for his stupidity. (Sanford and Madoff wives). I think the actions of NOW are an indication that today’s women have had enough.

  60. NMF:

    I agree with you about the women standing on their own. That is the good thats come from all the misogyny and persecution we’ve had to put up with.

    There is no difference between the Dems and the Repbus anymore. We have ONE Party, the Part of Opportunists. They choose who will be elected not us- and it will continue that way in perpetuity unless there is a Revolution.

  61. Mrs. Smith 10:41

    Yes, it has brought a group of women together from both parties, who realize that we are a one issue group, and the group is larger than I thought with the election of the new group in NOW. Compromise on the treatment of women is not an option. We no longer stand by our MAN, we stand for ourselves and the right to be treated with respect, and to hold all positons in a democracy.

  62. h t t p ://webmail.aol.com/43661/aol/en-us/Suite.aspx

    Evidently twitter is experiencing some racial overtones.

  63. Obama will filter questions for Virginia town hall

    By: Julie Mason
    Examiner White House Correspondent
    July 1, 2009

    With Congress away on recess, President Barack Obama is stepping up his sales pitch for health care reform, tapping online social media in a new end run around the traditional news filter.

    At a town hall today in Annandale, Obama will answer questions from a live audience, and also from users of popular online communities including Facebook, Twitter and YouTube.

    “The president wanted to continue the conversation that we started last week with town halls,” said White House press secretary Robert Gibbs. It’s “a continuing conversation about how to move health care reform forward.”

    Although the format opens up the opportunity for questioning Obama to a potentially limitless online audience, the White House controls which questions are asked.

    The White House in April staged its first such “virtual” town hall on the economy and invited Internet users to post questions and vote on which ones the president should answer. One of the leading topics chosen by participants was whether the United States should legalize marijuana as a way to curb drug violence in Mexico.

    Obama laughed it off at the time, but the online voting feature is not part of the setup for Annandale. “This online town hall will be a little different than the last one,” the administration told users on its WhiteHouse.gov Web site post announcing the forum.

    On Tuesday, the White House Web site was directing visitors to its Facebook profile, which featured a streaming video discussion of health care by administration officials accompanied by live comments from Facebook users. “How can highly qualified and energetic citizens with great potential to help the administration in this area get a job to help you in the administration with this?” was one question. Others debated the president’s response to a coup in Honduras.

    The administration has made a priority of tapping new media to help push its policy agenda. It’s a gambit in keeping with the president’s wired, BlackBerry-generation image that also generates more attention for what would otherwise be a routine town hall event in a Washington suburb.

    The July 4 recess left few Republicans in town to go on cable television and issue rebuttals to the administration’s health care public relations efforts. Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele told Fox News that Obama lacks a clear health care mandate. “This is a train that the president and Democrats want to push out of the station very quickly,” Steele said. “And while there may be some 56 percent to 61 percent of the American people still supporting the president personally, they are increasingly more hesitant with the spending and certainly the direction the administration wants to go on health care.”

    Rep. Gerald Connolly, a Virginia Democrat who represents the area where Obama will hold his town hall Wednesday, told reporters on a conference call that “there is no question most Americans recognize there is a crisis in health care.”

    Obama’s health care push precedes his departure Sunday on an overseas trip to Rome, Moscow and Ghana.

    washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Obama-will-filter-questions-for-Virginia-town-hall-7906507-49550207.html

  64. Clinton urged Obama to talk tough on Iran

    Wednesday, 01 July 2009
    The Washington Times

    Shift was a ‘surprise’

    By Nicholas Kralev

    Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton urged President Obama for two days to toughen his language on Iran before he did so, and then was surprised when he condemned Iran’s crackdown on demonstrators last week, administration officials say.

    At his June 23 news conference, Mr. Obama said he was “appalled and outraged” by Iranian behavior and “strongly condemned” the violence against anti-government demonstrators. Up until then, Mr. Obama and other administration officials had taken a softer line, expressing “deep concern” about the situation and calling on Iran to “respect the dignity of its own people.”

    Behind the scenes, the officials, who spoke on the condition that they not be named because they were discussing internal deliberations, said Mrs. Clinton had been advocating the stronger U.S. response, but the president resisted. When he finally took her advice, the aides said, he did so without informing her first.

    This was the first known example of awkwardness between the two former rivals for the Democratic nomination for president since they made up following Mr. Obama’s election. The disagreement also gave some insight into the Obama administration’s foreign policy decision-making process five months into its term.

    The officials said they were familiar with the language Mr. Obama used in his news conference because it was sent to the State Department a day earlier, but that Mrs. Clinton did not know until he uttered the words that he would choose that moment to make them public. “It was a happy surprise,” one administration official said. “It was echoing the line the secretary had been pushing for a couple of days.”

    Another official said Mr. Obama apparently did not make the final decision to go ahead with the tougher stance until shortly before his remarks. “I don’t think he himself had decided to do it until he did it, but we knew full well it was headed that way, because the White House sent over the actual language he’d use if he chose to take that line for folks to review and weigh in on, which State did,” the second official said.

    The White House and the State Department declined to comment publicly on Mrs. Clinton’s “private advice” to Mr. Obama and their internal communications.

    Key congressional Republicans – most prominently Sen. John McCain of Arizona, who was Mr. Obama’s opponent in last year’s election – criticized the president for being too “timid” and failing to speak out early against the Iranian regime’s crackdown on protests following the disputed June 12 presidential election.

    Mr. Obama initially said he did not want to appear to be interfering in Iran’s internal affairs and provide ammunition to the regime, which tends to blame the United States and other Western countries for any unrest. In addition, he knew he would most likely have to deal with the current government as part of the West’s efforts to prevent Iran from producing a nuclear weapon, officials said.

    “On the one hand, he may have felt that the United States should naturally criticize the Iranian government’s violent crackdown on the protesters,” said Alireza Nader, an analyst at the Rand Corp. “On the other, he acknowledged that the U.S. was still willing to engage with Iran in the future. Strong U.S. criticism of the Iranian government could jeopardize future negotiations.”

    Mrs. Clinton agreed with the president, but she thought it was time to get tougher after the June 20 killing of a young woman, Neda Agha-Soltan, on a Tehran street, officials said. A video of the killing was widely viewed on the Internet. At the same time, they added, she was content to leave the decision to Mr. Obama, because she understood that he bore ultimate responsibility for any consequences.

    However, Mr. Obama’s sudden decision to toughen his language on Tehran had the effect of making the State Department look out of sync with the White House. Until about an hour before the presidential news conference, the State Department continued to follow a more cautious public line, using words like “deeply concerned” about the situation in Iran, but refusing to “condemn” the crackdown. Then came Mr. Obama’s surprise.

    “The United States and the international community have been appalled and outraged by the threats, the beatings and imprisonments of the last few days,” he said. “I strongly condemn these unjust actions, and I join with the American people in mourning each and every innocent life that is lost.”

    The decision on Iran was very personal, officials said. Mr. Obama knew his senior aides’ views, but it was up to him to “pull the trigger.” “We have so few tools when we deal with Iran, and we don’t fully understand what’s going on, so all we’ve got is what the president says,” the first administration official said. “There isn’t a huge process behind it.” In general, the officials said, Mr. Obama has relied on the government bureaucracy to formulate language on foreign affairs.

    For example, before Mr. Obama’s meeting with German Chancellor Angela Merkel on Friday, everything he said was a “result of a long process involving meetings and briefing papers,” the official said. Even with North Korea, another country that has no diplomatic relations with the U.S., “we have a formalized mechanism in the six-party [nuclear] talks and more moving pieces.”

    Analysts said the Iran episode shows Mr. Obama’s nuanced thinking and in-depth analysis of foreign policy, although some warned that he risks being too cautious and appearing indecisive. “The demonstrators in Iran have revealed the extreme caution of Obama’s approach to the world, as if he is afraid of making a mistake, and his dislike of disruptions to an agenda he has already laid out,” Reginald Dale, director of the Transatlantic Media Network at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said in reference to the president’s offer of engagement, which so far has been spurned by Tehran.

    Kim R. Holmes, vice president of the Heritage Foundation, who was assistant secretary of state for international organizations in the George W. Bush administration, said: “The caution that we should not meddle was shown to be pointless after the Iranian leadership blamed the protests on America and Britain anyway.”

    Michael J. Green, former senior director for East Asian affairs on the National Security Council in the Bush White House, said Mr. Obama may be trying the learn from his predecessor’s mistakes. Mr. Bush tended to make decisions during meetings with his national security team, but the problem was that his aides “interpreted his directions differently,” especially during his first term, Mr. Green said.

    At the time, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell’s aides often said that he “felt good” about the outcome of a White House meeting, because Mr. Bush had taken his advice. Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld felt the same way, except that their advice was usually very different. “It seems that Obama is trying to avoid such confusion by laying out specifically what he wants,” Mr. Green said.

    As involved as Mrs. Clinton may have been in the process leading up to Mr. Obama’s decision on Iran, “the secretary of state usually doesn’t have the last say, because he or she is not there with the president all the time,” he said. “With all the modern technology, location still means power.”

    http://www.general-/clinton-urged-obama-to-talk-tough-on-iran-18223.html

  65. Mrs. Smith, What scared me most about what Brzezenski said was his ideology about foreign relations. Its just stupid to think we can talk nice to these dictators and tyrants and they will reciprocate.
    I believe in fighting fire with fire or speaking from a position of power. Maybe all these years I have really been a republican and did not know it. I really liked it when Hillary said during the primary that if Iran messes with Israel we would obliterate them. I think that how we need to handle these govt.
    These elites are just crazy. Did you notice that Brzezenski seemed light up when speaking about China?? He seemed to like that regime. I wonder what he thought about Tienamine square?

  66. Unfortunately, Hillary seems to be backing away from those appropriately hawkish statements.

  67. RGB: Sorry, I got distracted. Here is the article. Question: do you find it odd that Soledad O’Brien and Miles O’Brien would have to rehearse the Morning Show on CNN–the same way Barack Hussein Obama must always rely on a teleprompter. Why does the delivery of the news have to be so managed and rehearsed–like the script in a play? Answer: because the whole affair is scripted in such a way as to avoid the truth and deliver the narrative which the elites want delivered.
    ————————————————
    THE TRUTH WILL SET YOU FREE

    Posted on Jun 29, 2009

    AP photo / Bebeto Matthews
    CNN’s Soledad O’Brien, left, and Miles O’Brien rehearse with the network’s “news wall” in the background.

    By Chris Hedges

    The ability of the corporate state to pacify the country by extending credit and providing cheap manufactured goods to the masses is gone.

    The pernicious idea that democracy lies in the choice between competing brands and the freedom to accumulate vast sums of personal wealth at the expense of others has collapsed. The conflation of freedom with the free market has been exposed as a sham. The travails of the poor are rapidly becoming the travails of the middle class, especially as unemployment insurance runs out and people get a taste of the draconian welfare reform. And class warfare, once buried under the happy illusion that we were all going to enter an age of prosperity with unfettered capitalism, is returning with a vengeance.

    Our economic crisis—despite the corporate media circus around the death of Michael Jackson or Gov. Mark Sanford’s marital infidelity or the outfits of Sacha Baron Cohen’s latest incarnation, Brüno—barrels forward. And this crisis will lead to a period of profound political turmoil and change. Those who care about the plight of the working class and the poor must begin to mobilize quickly or we will lose our last opportunity to save our embattled democracy. The most important struggle will be to wrest the organs of communication from corporations that use mass media to demonize movements of social change. (snip)

    American culture—or cultures, for we once had distinct regional cultures—was systematically destroyed in the 20th century by corporations. These corporations used mass communication, as well as an understanding of the human subconscious, to turn consumption into an inner compulsion. Old values of thrift, regional identity that had its own iconography, aesthetic expression and history, diverse immigrant traditions, self-sufficiency, a press that was decentralized to provide citizens with a voice in their communities were all destroyed to create mass, corporate culture. New desires and habits were implanted by corporate advertisers to replace the old. Individual frustrations and discontents could be solved, corporate culture assured us, through the wonders of consumerism and cultural homogenization. American culture, or cultures, was replaced with junk culture and junk politics. And now, standing on the ash heap, we survey the ruins. The very slogans of advertising and mass culture have become the idiom of common expression, robbing us of the language to make sense of the destruction. We confuse the manufactured commodity culture with American culture.

    How do we recover what was lost? How do we reclaim the culture that was destroyed by corporations? How do we fight back now that the consumer culture has fallen into a state of decay? What can we do to reverse the cannibalization of government and the national economy by the corporations?

    All periods of profound change occur in a crisis. It was a crisis that brought us the New Deal, now largely dismantled by the corporate state. It was also a crisis that gave the world Adolf Hitler and Slobodan Milosevic. We can go in either direction. Events move at the speed of light when societies and cultural assumptions break down. There are powerful forces, which have no commitment to the open society, ready to seize the moment to snuff out the last vestiges of democratic egalitarianism. Our bankrupt liberalism, which naively believes that Barack Obama is the antidote to our permanent war economy and Wall Street fraud, will either rise from its coma or be rolled over by an organized corporate elite and their right-wing lap dogs. The corporate domination of the airwaves, of most print publications and an increasing number of Internet sites means we will have to search, and search quickly, for alternative forms of communication to thwart the rise of totalitarian capitalism.

    Stuart Ewen, whose books “Captains of Consciousness: Advertising and the Social Roots of the Consumer Culture” and “PR: A Social History of Spin” chronicle how corporate propaganda deformed American culture and pushed populism to the margins of American society, argues that we have a fleeting chance to save the country. I fervently hope he is right. He attacks the ideology of “objectivity and balance” that has corrupted news, saying that it falsely evokes the scales of justice. He describes the curriculum at most journalism schools as “poison.”

    “ ‘Balance and objectivity’ creates an idea where both sides are balanced,” he said when I spoke to him by phone. “In certain ways it mirrors the two-party system, the notion that if you are going to have a Democrat speak you need to have a Republican speak. It offers the phantom of objectivity. It creates the notion that the universe of discourse is limited to two positions. Issues become black or white. They are not seen as complex with a multitude of factors.”

    Ewen argues that the forces for social change—look at any lengthy and turgid human rights report—have forgotten that rhetoric is as important as fact. Corporate and government propaganda, aimed to sway emotions, rarely uses facts to sell its positions. And because progressives have lost the gift of rhetoric, which was once a staple of a university education, because they naively believe in the Enlightenment ideal that facts alone can move people toward justice, they are largely helpless.

    “Effective communication requires not simply an understanding of the facts, but how those facts will take place in the public mind,” Ewen said. “When Gustave Le Bon says it is not the facts in and of themselves which make a point but the way in which the facts take place, the way in which they come to attention, he is right.”

    The emergence of corporate and government public relations, which drew on the studies of mass psychology by Sigmund Freud and others after World War I, found its bible in Walter Lippmann’s book “Public Opinion,” a manual for the power elite’s shaping of popular sentiments. Lippmann argued that the key to leadership in the modern age would depend on the ability to manipulate “symbols which assemble emotions after they have been detached from their ideas.” The public mind could be mastered, he wrote, through an “intensification of feeling and a degradation of significance.”

    These corporate forces, schooled by Woodrow Wilson’s vast Committee for Public Information, which sold World War I to the public, learned how to skillfully mobilize and manipulate the emotional responses of the public. The control of the airwaves and domination through corporate advertising of most publications restricted news to reporting facts, to “objectivity and balance,” while the real power to persuade and dominate a public remained under corporate and governmental control.
    Ewen argues that pamphleteering, which played a major role in the 17th and 18th centuries in shaping the public mind, recognized that “the human mind is not left brain or right brain, that it is not divided by reason which is good and emotion which is bad.”

    He argues that the forces of social reform, those organs that support a search for truth and self-criticism, have mistakenly shunned emotion and rhetoric because they have been used so powerfully within modern society to disseminate lies and manipulate public opinion. But this refusal to appeal to emotion means “we gave up the ghost and accepted the idea that human beings are these divided selves, binary systems between emotion and reason, and that emotion gets you into trouble and reason is what leads you forward. This is not true.”
    The public is bombarded with carefully crafted images meant to confuse propaganda with ideology and knowledge with how we feel. Human rights and labor groups, investigative journalists, consumer watchdog organizations and advocacy agencies have, in the face of this manipulation, inundated the public sphere with reports and facts. But facts alone, Ewen says, make little difference. And as we search for alternative ways to communicate in a time of crisis we must also communicate in new forms. We must appeal to emotion as well as to reason. The power of this appeal to emotion is evidenced in the photographs of Jacob Riis, a New York journalist, who with a team of assistants at the end of the 19th century initiated urban-reform photography. His stark portraits of the filth and squalor of urban slums awakened the conscience of a nation. The photographer Lewis Hine, at the turn of the 20th century, and Walker Evans during the Great Depression did the same thing for the working class, along with writers such as Upton Sinclair and James Agee. It is a recovery of this style, one that turns the abstraction of fact into a human flesh and one that is not afraid of emotion and passion, which will permit us to counter the force of corporate propaganda.

    We may know that fossil fuels are destroying our ecosystem. We may be able to cite the statistics. But the oil and natural gas industry continues its flagrant rape of the planet. It is able to do this because of the money it uses to control legislation and a massive advertising campaign that paints the oil and natural gas industry as part of the solution. A group called EnergyTomorrow.org, for example, has been running a series of television ads. One ad features an attractive, middle-aged woman in a black pantsuit—an actor named Brooke Alexander who once worked as the host of “WorldBeat” on CNN and for Fox News. Alexander walks around a blue screen studio that becomes digital renditions of American life. She argues, before each image, that oil and natural gas are critical to providing not only energy needs but health care and jobs.

    “It is almost like they are taking the most optimistic visions of what the stimulus package could do and saying this is what the development of oil and natural gas will bring about,” Ewen said. “If you go to the Web site there is a lot of sophisticated stuff you can play around with. As each ad closes you see in the lower right-hand corner in very small letters API, the American Petroleum Institute, the lobbying group for ExxonMobil and all the other big oil companies. For the average viewer there is nothing in the ad to indicate this is being produced by the oil industry.”

    The modern world, as Kafka predicted, has become a world where the irrational has become rational, where lies become true. And facts alone will be powerless to thwart the mendacity spun out through billions of dollars in corporate advertising, lobbying and control of traditional sources of information. We will have to descend into the world of the forgotten, to write, photograph, paint, sing, act, blog, video and film with anger and honesty that have been blunted by the parameters of traditional journalism. The lines between artists, social activists and journalists have to be erased. These lines diminish the power of reform, justice and an understanding of the truth. And it is for this purpose that these lines are there.

    “As a writer part of what you are aiming for is to present things in ways that will resonate with people, which will give voice to feelings and concerns, feelings that may not be fully verbalized,” Ewen said. “You can’t do that simply by providing them with data. One of the major problems of the present is that those structures designed to promote a progressive agenda are antediluvian.”

    Corporate ideology, embodied in neoconservatism, has seeped into the attitudes of most self-described liberals. It champions unfettered capitalism and globalization as eternal. This is the classic tactic that power elites use to maintain themselves. The loss of historical memory, which “balanced and objective” journalism promotes, has only contributed to this fantasy. But the fantasy, despite the desperate raiding of taxpayer funds to keep the corporate system alive, is now coming undone. The lie is being exposed. And the corporate state is running scared.

    “It is very important for people like us to think about ways to present the issues, whether we are talking about the banking crisis, health care or housing and homelessness,” Ewen said. “We have to think about presenting these issues in ways that are two steps ahead of the media rather than two steps behind. That is not something we should view as an impossible task. It is a very possible task. There is evidence of how possible that task is, especially if you look at the development of the underground press in the 1960s. The underground press, which started cropping up all over the country, was not a marginal phenomenon. It leeched into the society. It developed an approach to news and communication that was 10 steps ahead of the mainstream media. The proof is that even as it declined, so many structures that were innovated by the underground press, things like The Whole Earth Catalogue, began to affect and inform the stylistic presentation of mainstream media.”

    “I am not a prophet,” Ewen said. “All I can do is look at historical precedence and figure out the extent we can learn from it. This is not about looking backwards. If you can’t see the past you can’t see the future. If you can’t see the relationship between the present and the past you can’t understand where the present might go. Who controls the past controls the present, who controls the present controls the future, as George Orwell said. This is a succinct explanation of the ways in which power functions.”

    “Read ‘The Gettysburg Address,’ ” Ewen said. “Read Frederick Douglass’ autobiography or his newspaper. Read ‘The Communist Manifesto.’ Read Darwin’s ‘Descent of Man.’ All of these things are filled with an understanding that communicating ideas and producing forms of public communication that empower people, rather than disempowering people, relies on an integrated understanding of who the public is and what it might be. We have a lot to learn from the history of rhetoric. We need to think about where we are going. We need to think about what 21st century pamphleteering might be. We need to think about the ways in which the rediscovery of rhetoric—not lying, but rhetoric in its more conventional sense—can affect what we do. We need to look at those historical antecedents where interventions happened that stepped ahead of the news. And to some extent this is happening. We have the freest and most open public sphere since the village square.”
    The battle ahead will be fought outside the journalistic mainstream, he said. The old forms of journalism are dying or have sold their soul to corporate manipulation and celebrity culture. We must now wed fact to rhetoric. We must appeal to reason and emotion. We must not be afraid to openly take sides, to speak, photograph or write on behalf of the disempowered. And, Ewen believes, we have a chance in the coming crisis to succeed.

    “Pessimism is never useful,” he said. “Realism is useful, understanding the forces that are at play. To quote Antonio Gramsci, ‘pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will.’ ”

  68. lol…I’ll try to post this again. Hope nobody has high blood pressure here…

    Originally published 04:45 a.m., July 1, 2009, updated 09:29 a.m., July 1, 2009

    Clinton urged Obama to talk tough on Iran

    Nicholas Kralev (Contact)

    Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton urged President Obama for two days to toughen his language on Iran before he did so, and then was surprised when he condemned Iran’s crackdown on demonstrators last week, administration officials say.

    At his June 23 news conference, Mr. Obama said he was “appalled and outraged” by Iranian behavior and “strongly condemned” the violence against anti-government demonstrators. Up until then, Mr. Obama and other administration officials had taken a softer line, expressing “deep concern” about the situation and calling on Iran to “respect the dignity of its own people.”

    Behind the scenes, the officials, who spoke on the condition that they not be named because they were discussing internal deliberations, said Mrs. Clinton had been advocating the stronger U.S. response, but the president resisted. When he finally took her advice, the aides said, he did so without informing her first.

    This was the first known example of awkwardness between the two former rivals for the Democratic nomination for president since they made up following Mr. Obama’s election. The disagreement also gave some insight into the Obama administration’s foreign policy decision-making process five months into its term.

    The officials said they were familiar with the language Mr. Obama used in his news conference because it was sent to the State Department a day earlier, but that Mrs. Clinton did not know until he uttered the words that he would choose that moment to make them public. “It was a happy surprise,” one administration official said. “It was echoing the line the secretary had been pushing for a couple of days.”

    Another official said Mr. Obama apparently did not make the final decision to go ahead with the tougher stance until shortly before his remarks.
    “I don’t think he himself had decided to do it until he did it, but we knew full well it was headed that way, because the White House sent over the actual language he’d use if he chose to take that line for folks to review and weigh in on, which State did,” the second official said.

    The White House and the State Department declined to comment publicly on Mrs. Clinton’s “private advice” to Mr. Obama and their internal communications.

    Key congressional Republicans – most prominently Sen. John McCain of Arizona, who was Mr. Obama’s opponent in last year’s election – criticized the president for being too “timid” and failing to speak out early against the Iranian regime’s crackdown on protests following the disputed June 12 presidential election.

    Mr. Obama initially said he did not want to appear to be interfering in Iran’s internal affairs and provide ammunition to the regime, which tends to blame the United States and other Western countries for any unrest. In addition, he knew he would most likely have to deal with the current government as part of the West’s efforts to prevent Iran from producing a nuclear weapon, officials said.

    “On the one hand, he may have felt that the United States should naturally criticize the Iranian government’s violent crackdown on the protesters,” said Alireza Nader, an analyst at the Rand Corp. “On the other, he acknowledged that the U.S. was still willing to engage with Iran in the future. Strong U.S. criticism of the Iranian government could jeopardize future negotiations.”

    Mrs. Clinton agreed with the president, but she thought it was time to get tougher after the June 20 killing of a young woman, Neda Agha-Soltan, on a Tehran street, officials said. A video of the killing was widely viewed on the Internet. At the same time, they added, she was content to leave the decision to Mr. Obama, because she understood that he bore ultimate responsibility for any consequences.

    However, Mr. Obama’s sudden decision to toughen his language on Tehran had the effect of making the State Department look out of sync with the White House. Until about an hour before the presidential news conference, the State Department continued to follow a more cautious public line, using words like “deeply concerned” about the situation in Iran, but refusing to “condemn” the crackdown. Then came Mr. Obama’s surprise.

    “The United States and the international community have been appalled and outraged by the threats, the beatings and imprisonments of the last few days,” he said. “I strongly condemn these unjust actions, and I join with the American people in mourning each and every innocent life that is lost.”

    The decision on Iran was very personal, officials said. Mr. Obama knew his senior aides’ views, but it was up to him to “pull the trigger.” “We have so few tools when we deal with Iran, and we don’t fully understand what’s going on, so all we’ve got is what the president says,” the first administration official said. “There isn’t a huge process behind it.”

    In general, the officials said, Mr. Obama has relied on the government bureaucracy to formulate language on foreign affairs. For example, before Mr. Obama’s meeting with German Chancellor Angela Merkel on Friday, everything he said was a “result of a long process involving meetings and briefing papers,” the official said. Even with North Korea, another country that has no diplomatic relations with the U.S., “we have a formalized mechanism in the six-party [nuclear] talks and more moving pieces.”

    Analysts said the Iran episode shows Mr. Obama’s nuanced thinking and in-depth analysis of foreign policy, although some warned that he risks being too cautious and appearing indecisive. “The demonstrators in Iran have revealed the extreme caution of Obama’s approach to the world, as if he is afraid of making a mistake, and his dislike of disruptions to an agenda he has already laid out,” Reginald Dale, director of the Transatlantic Media Network at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said in reference to the president’s offer of engagement, which so far has been spurned by Tehran.

    Kim R. Holmes, vice president of the Heritage Foundation, who was assistant secretary of state for international organizations in the George W. Bush administration, said: “The caution that we should not meddle was shown to be pointless after the Iranian leadership blamed the protests on America and Britain anyway.”

    Michael J. Green, former senior director for East Asian affairs on the National Security Council in the Bush White House, said Mr. Obama may be trying the learn from his predecessor’s mistakes. Mr. Bush tended to make decisions during meetings with his national security team, but the problem was that his aides “interpreted his directions differently,” especially during his first term, Mr. Green said.

    At the time, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell’s aides often said that he “felt good” about the outcome of a White House meeting, because Mr. Bush had taken his advice. Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld felt the same way, except that their advice was usually very different.

    “It seems that Obama is trying to avoid such confusion by laying out specifically what he wants,” Mr. Green said.

    As involved as Mrs. Clinton may have been in the process leading up to Mr. Obama’s decision on Iran, “the secretary of state usually doesn’t have the last say, because he or she is not there with the president all the time,” he said. “With all the modern technology, location still means power.”

    washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jul/01/clinton-urged-obama-to-talk-tougher-on-iran/print/

  69. @ Admin @ 6:26

    This verifies what I’ve been saying all along – historically, once all the hoopla and emotion dies down (whether from hopenchange on the left or from “moral majorities” on the right) MOST AMERICANS are practical centrists.

  70. Jan–that is what I am talking about. How can you run foreign policy with a dipshit like him as boss refusing to accept your advice, and as you try to cover him he turns around and blind sides you without notice. Your own organization follows your lead, but you are the last to know when the direction has changed. The boss can change direction as he pleases but when he sits atop a huge bureauracy he owes it to his sos to give her prior warning. Question: did he do it on the spot or did Power, Jarrett and Rice know about it before the fact. The man is a head case, and this is why I said what I did about getting out. I do not think she will do that but it is what she should do. I know this because I know organizational behavior, and I have been in this kind of situation myself. It will not change.

  71. We throw these terms around and they shed more heat than light. Liberals are good people. These are not liberals. These are left wing fascists, who use the power of the state to compel conformity to their cherished vision of what is right, while exempting themselves from the strictures they seek to impose of others. The question the MD at the townhall meeting asked Obama flushed out the quail–he wants us to have his health care plan with the limitations it imposes, but when it comes to his family, he wants the best health care in the world, well in excess of what he is demanding that the rest of us accept. If the Republicans do not make that into a commercial then they are guilty of political malpractice–and to hell with what the eunech Christ says.

  72. Crist. There was a prime misnister named christ in Churchills cabinet. He was in charge of the London subway system. Churchill asked him if it was okay to flood occupied Europe with counterfeit marks–since the Germans were lauching V-2 rockets on London every night. Christ told him that was an indecent proposal and he would have none of it. Churchill told Christ that when he (Churchill) died and went to the gates of heaven, and St Peter asked him Winston Spenser Churchill what have you to say for yourself he (Churchill) would say on earth I knew Mr Christ. Now get that damned busdriver out of here. Well . . . I feel the same way about the Repblican governor of Florida.

  73. wbboei, I’d love to see Hillary tell him to stuff it and resign. Seriously, I would. I think most of the country, other than the Obots, would respect her for it.

  74. I understand Calif. is broke and without a budget now. Arnold looks desparate(drudge). He is not going to able to pay police, highway patrol and etc., this is what the Obama administration has been waiting for=CHOAS. Apparently Pennsylvania is not far behind.
    They say the republicans won’t allow the govt to raise taxes in Calif.

  75. JanH Says:

    July 1st, 2009 at 11:05 am
    Obama will filter questions for Virginia town hall
    &&&&&&&&

    Say it ain’t so, Joe.

    Canned questions?

    Fake askers?

    “Tonight, the role of ‘Larry Smith, electrician from Ohio with a question on health care, will be played by character acter Sam Irwin. The questions have been written by the Harvard Debate Team and David Axelrod and David Plouffe. Steven Spielberg has been invited to direct the whole proceeding, and Twyla Tharp will handle the choreography.”

  76. These are left wing fascists
    ********
    Authoritarianism without a political philosophy is my working diagnosis….Obama has no political philosophy other than power and self-agrandizement. At least the European fascists had UHC.

  77. With Franken finally being declared victor in MN, the Dems now have the 60-seat majority. Obama could push for real change, and work with the Dems. But he won’t. He’ll say he still wants Repubs’ buy-in. So the bills will still be watered down. Which is just the way he’d prefer it.

    “Change-on-the-surface you can believe in”

  78. FUNNY MAN TO TIP THE BALANCE OF POWER? OBAMA TO FINALLY STOP WUSSING OUT?

    …don’t count on it.

    washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/30/AR2009063003593.html?hpid=topnews

    Franken Wins Senate Battle
    ====================
    Minn. Court Ruling Gives Democrats A 60-Seat Majority

    By Perry Bacon Jr.
    Washington Post Staff Writer
    Wednesday, July 1, 2009

    The Minnesota Supreme Court yesterday declared comedian-turned-politician Al Franken the winner of the state’s U.S. Senate race, ending an eight-month-long election saga and giving Democrats a 60-seat majority that theoretically would allow them to block GOP filibusters.

    In a unanimous ruling, the court rejected Republican Norm Coleman’s legal arguments that some absentee ballots had been improperly counted and that some localities had used inconsistent standards in counting votes. The ruling led Coleman to concede his Senate seat to Franken, who could be sworn in as soon as next week, when the Senate returns from a recess.

    “The Supreme Court has spoken. We have a United States senator,” Coleman said in a news conference outside his home in St. Paul. “It’s time to move forward.”

    Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R) signed the election certificate declaring Franken the winner yesterday evening.

    The Democrats now have their largest majority in the Senate since 1978, but their ability to prevent filibusters as they attempt to push President Obama’s agenda is likely to prove illusory. A pair of prominent Democrats, Sens. Edward M. Kennedy (Mass.) and Robert C. Byrd (W.Va.), have missed a raft of votes this year because of illness and, although Byrd was released from a Washington area hospital yesterday, it is unclear how often either will be present in the chamber.

    Efforts to maintain party unity are also hampered by the presence of a clutch of centrist Democrats, such as Sen. Mary Landrieu (La.), who have said they oppose the public option in health-care reform legislation that would seek to create a government program to compete with private insurers. A number of Senate Democrats representing states that rely heavily on manufacturing jobs have also expressed concern about the climate-change bill, another Obama priority, that passed the House last week.

    “The idea that you’ve got 60 reliable Democrats for votes for sweeping policy change simply doesn’t work; it’s not the reality of it,” said Norman J. Ornstein, a congressional expert at the American Enterprise Institute. “The larger challenge for [ Senate Majority Leader] Harry Reid or Barack Obama is managing expectations of people who are thinking: When you get 60 votes, you get do to whatever you want. And they most assuredly do not.”

    In a statement, the White House said Obama looks “forward to working with Senator-Elect Franken to build a new foundation for growth and prosperity by lowering health care costs and investing in the kind of clean energy jobs and industries that will help America lead in the 21st century.”

    Franken, joined by wife Franni at a news conference in front of their home in Minneapolis, said, “I can’t wait to get started.” But he played down the importance of his becoming the 60th Democrat in the chamber.

    “Sixty is a magic number, but it isn’t,” Franken said, “because we know that we have senators who — Republicans who are going to vote with the Democrats, with a majority of Democrats on certain votes, and Democrats that are going to vote with majority Republicans on others. So it’s not quite a magic number as some people may say. But I hope we do get President Obama’s agenda through.”

    Although he will be a backbencher in his caucus, he will be thrust almost immediately into one of the summer’s highest-profile pieces of political theater, the confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor. Democrats have been holding a seat on the Judiciary Committee for the Harvard-educated Franken, who will also serve on the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, a prime perch in the health-care debate.

    The longtime Democratic activist is likely to be a reliable vote for the party on nearly every issue and has largely praised Obama’s performance thus far. But beyond the Sotomayor hearings, Franken has indicated that he will attempt to keep a low profile in Washington. In an interview this year, he said he would seek to replicate the model of former senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), who generally eschewed major speeches in her first few years on Capitol Hill to focus on learning the internal dynamics of the Senate and tried to avoid upstaging her colleagues.

    [snip… go to above url for second page]

  79. My gut feeling is BO wants the entire country plunged into the type of chaos confronting CA and NY.
    In my state, tax receipts are down 35% more than expected, there’s a 3 billion shortfall, the NYS Senate hasn’t met for 2 weeks causing the city Board of Education to be resurrected, no laws are being passed, no legislalation being considered, no bills being paid and the clowns in Albany are fighting over control of the podium, locking the other party out of chambers and refusing to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance.

    In CA, well, you all know about the 24 billion shortfall there. And BO fiddles while the country burns.

    Never waste a good crisis and stoke chaos whenever possible. That’s the BO mantra.

  80. Senators lock themselves into the chamber so they can be first to take control of the podium.

    That’s what’s going on in my state.

    The states are in meltdown mode. Peter Vallone walked out of a NYC meeting when the group tried to hold a moment of silence for MJ mimicing the House of Rep.

    I am embarrassed to be a New Yorker and getting close to ashamed of the country.

    In the meantime, am I the only one who thnks MJ aranging for invitro of white kids is weird?

  81. JanH Says:
    July 1st, 2009 at 11:13 am

    Clinton urged Obama to talk tough on Iran

    Wednesday, 01 July 2009
    The Washington Times

    “Kim R. Holmes, vice president of the Heritage Foundation, who was assistant secretary of state for international organizations in the George W. Bush administration, said: “The caution that we should not meddle was shown to be pointless after the Iranian leadership blamed the protests on America and Britain anyway.”

    “As involved as Mrs. Clinton may have been in the process leading up to Mr. Obama’s decision on Iran, “the secretary of state usually doesn’t have the last say, because he or she is not there with the president all the time,” he said. “With all the modern technology, location still means power.”

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    The latter statement tells me that Rice and Power were dissing Hillary’s assessment of the Iran protest and advising Obama to be overly cautious avoiding what could be a trap set by Hillary. I would say, Power was the most vocal telling Obama to be suspicious of Hillary’s advise, saying Hillary’s advise would debit any sort of confidence capital Obama accrued with Ahmadinejad.

    So glad Power’s advise got smacked down publicly for her transparent jealousy and envy at Hillary’s position.

    Power is dangerous. She is such a Hater and so blinded by it, She cannot be trusted to make an objective call on a foreign policy situation because of her unfounded Hatred and Jealousy of Hillary. To me, she is scarier to be around than Brezinski…because she has Obama’s ear and constant attention. I would also add, Michelle doesnt like how handy Power is to her husband and the amount of time Obama spends with Power… because, oh-oh…

  82. In CA, well, you all know about the 24 billion shortfall there. And BO fiddles while the country burns.
    ************
    And TARP has already lost $159 billion and how may jobs did TARP create??

    ww.noquarterusa.net/blog/2009/07/01/the-tarp-has-a-159-billion-loss/#more-27101

    How much better to have used some of that money to help States so that they don’t have to lay off public safety personal, teachers etc.

  83. ANOTHER VIEW ON THE 60-DEM SENATE:

    realclearpolitics.com/horseraceblog/2009/07/what_does_60_votes_mean.html

    What Does 60 Votes Mean?
    ====================

    July 01, 2009
    By Jay Cost

    With Al Franken now installed as Minnesota’s second senator – a lot has been made about the Democrats having a “filibuster-proof” majority. Perhaps too much.

    A filibuster-proof majority is great for the party that has it, but it has its limits. On purely party-line votes, perhaps procedural stuff, it should make a difference. But, on the really big stuff, what will matter is the preferences of the individual legislators.

    The bonds of partisanship are relatively weak in the United States Congress, and especially weak in the Senate. This limits the power that the party in the chamber has over its members. Consider:

    -Candidates who declare for the Senate do so of their own volition. They might receive encouragement from the party – but it’s essentially up to them.

    -Candidates put together their own campaign organizations, fundraising apparatus, staff, and so on. This outfit is responsible to the candidate and the candidate alone.

    -At most, the party plays only a role of facilitator – and even then, that role is typically very modest.

    -Candidates who win election to the Senate develop their own electoral connections to interest groups, well connected players, and key constituents – thereby making them even more independent when time comes for reelection.

    -Typically, party leaders are tolerant of defecting members, especially in the Senate. Arlen Specter is a great example. He was probably one of the most unreliable Republican votes in the Senate, but this never stopped him from (a) receiving a great deal of financial support from his fellow members come election time or (b) advancing to the chairmanship of the Judiciary Committee when it was his turn.

    The implication of all this is that senators stand alone when they face the voters. The party did not get them into office, and it cannot keep them there. So, we should not expect Harry Reid and the other caucus leaders to have the ability to induce members to vote against their own preferences – at least not on the big stuff that captures public attention. This is not to say that the caucus party does not have power. It does. We just need to understand that this power is limited.

    So what does 60 votes mean? Franken should be one of the most liberal members of the Senate. This helps move the chamber to the left. Additionally, when all Democratic senators are unified against all Republican senators on a particular issue – 60 votes means there is nothing the GOP can do. However, considering the moderates in both caucuses – Collins, Landrieu, Nelson, Snowe, Specter, etc. – I think the number of such cases will be relatively small. That’s why I suggested procedural stuff that favors one party over the other. On climate change or health care – if they cannot write a bill that pleases Nelson and Landrieu, they’ll have 58 votes, not 60. Don’t expect them to toe the line, if toeing the line means voting against their constituents and putting their reelection at risk.

    My intuition is that this is why Obama hypocritically put budget reconciliation on the table in the Spring. He wasn’t simply worried about Republicans filibustering legislation he supported. Considering that at the time the GOP coalition included Collins, Snowe, and Specter – all of whom are quite moderate (and who joined up on the stimulus bill) – what were the chances that the President could not get at least one of these votes while still getting all of the Democrats? I’d say fairly slim, at least on the big stuff. My feeling is that budget reconciliation was put on the table to get around the effective veto of this moderate, bipartisan bloc, which used to sit in the middle of the entire chamber, but now with two big Democratic wins sits closer to the “filibuster pivot.”

  84. SHV Says:

    July 1st, 2009 at 3:48 pm
    In CA, well, you all know about the 24 billion shortfall there. And BO fiddles while the country burns.
    ************
    And TARP has already lost $159 billion and how may jobs did TARP create??
    &&&&&&

    Isn’t it more important to ask, “How many jobs has TARP **saved**”??? That’s what the *current president* said is important.

    Important because there is no way in hell to record, quantify or measure a “saved job”.

    Important because Obama’s original claim that the stimulus will create xxx,000 jobs vaporized….vaporized after the stimulus bill passed and its affects started having the exact opposite results of what was desired.

  85. “And TARP has already lost $159 billion and how may jobs did TARP create??”

    As far as I know… zero! And there is no way to predict how many jobs have been SAVED… what a laff!

    After unemployment runs out- names are removed from the rolls and no longer calculated in the total of unemployed. Unemployment is running, imo-at about 13% to 14%, but could be too conservative a figure seeing the down turn began 3 yrs ago.

  86. Mrs Smith,

    More on Rice.
    There’s a clip at hotair of her saying this.

    Video: U.S. ambassador to UN won’t say Iranian regime is illegitimate
    posted at 4:05 pm on July 1, 2009

    Why won’t she say it? Because, and I quote, “The political situation in Iran is for the Iranians to work out internally.” Now, based on that statement alone, what’s the painfully obvious follow-up question? Right: Why that principle doesn’t also apply to Honduras. Reliable O-bot Andrea Mitchell never asks, of course, choosing to toss a softball instead about America’s defense of Zelaya to which Rice replies, amazingly, “A coup is a coup.” Well, no — the whole point of the double standard between Honduras and Iran is that a coup isn’t a coup when acknowledging it would force Obama into a confrontation he doesn’t want. In fact, Iran’s rigging of the election was a vastly more egregious coup than what went down in Honduras given the unified legislative, judicial, and military support for ousting Zelaya. The fact that she can sit here and make two statements like that with a straight face in the span of minutes is proof either of amazing cognitive dissonance or a willingness to lie bordering on the Orwellian. And based on the leaks coming out of the State Department about Hillary begging Obama to get tougher with Iran, it sounds like not everyone in the administration’s real happy about it.

    Incidentally, amid possible photographic evidence of what a fraud the election was and Basij threats to have Mousavi arrested and prosecuted, not only Mousavi himself but fellow candidate Mehdi Karroubi are openly calling Ahmadinejad’s government “illegitimate”. Like it or not, The One’s going to end up having to pick a side here and siding with the regime simply isn’t viable politically. The only question is when he’ll throw in with Mousavi. Tick tock.

  87. LIAR, LIAR, HEALTH-CARE ON FIRE

    forbes.com/2009/06/30/obama-health-care-reform-opinions-columnists-public-option-medicare.html

    Obama’s Top Five Health Care Lies
    ========================
    TonySopranoCare.

    Shikha Dalmia, 07.01.09, 12:01 AM EDT

    President Barack Obama walked into the Oval Office with a veritable halo over his head. In the eyes of his backers, he could say or do no wrong because he had evidently descended directly from heaven to return celestial order to our fallen world. Oprah declared his tongue to be “dipped in the unvarnished truth.” Newsweek editor Evan Thomas averred that Obama “stands above the country and above the world as a sort of a God.”

    But when it comes to health care reform, with every passing day, Obama seems less God and more demagogue, uttering not transcendental truths, but bald-faced lies. Here are the top five lies that His Awesomeness has told–the first two for no reason other than to get elected and the next three to sell socialized medicine to a wary nation.

    Lie One: No one will be compelled to buy coverage.

    During the campaign, Obama insisted that he would not resort to an individual mandate to achieve universal coverage. In fact, he repeatedly ripped Hillary Clinton’s plan for proposing one. “To force people to buy coverage,” he insisted, “you’ve got to have a very harsh penalty.” What will this penalty be, he demanded? “Are you going to garnish their wages?” he asked Hillary in one debate.

    Yet now, Obama is behaving as if he said never a hostile word about the mandate. Earlier this month, in a letter to Sens. Max Baucus, D-Mont., and Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., he blithely declared that he was all for “making every American responsible for having health insurance coverage, and making employers share in the cost.”

    But just like Hillary, he is refusing to say precisely what he will do to those who want to forgo insurance. There is a name for such a health care approach: It is called TonySopranoCare.

    Lie Two: No new taxes on employer benefits.

    Obama took his Republican rival, Sen. John McCain, to the mat for suggesting that it might be better to remove the existing health care tax break that individuals get on their employer-sponsored coverage, but return the vast bulk–if not all–of the resulting revenues in the form of health care tax credits. This would theoretically have made coverage both more affordable and portable for everyone. Obama, however, would have none of it, portraying this idea simply as the removal of a tax break. “For the first time in history, he wants to tax your health benefits,” he thundered. “Apparently, Sen. McCain doesn’t think it’s enough that your health premiums have doubled. He thinks you should have to pay taxes on them too.”

    Yet now Obama is signaling his willingness to go along with a far worse scheme to tax employer-sponsored benefits to fund the $1.6 trillion or so it will cost to provide universal coverage. Contrary to Obama’s allegations, McCain’s plan did not ultimately entail a net tax increase because he intended to return to individuals whatever money was raised by scrapping the tax deduction. Not so with Obama. He apparently told Sen. Baucus that he would consider the senator’s plan for rolling back the tax exclusion that expensive, Cadillac-style employer-sponsored plans enjoy, in order to pay for universal coverage. But, unlike McCain, he has said nothing about putting offsetting deductions or credits in the hands of individuals.

    In other words, Obama might well end up doing what McCain never set out to do: Impose a net tax increase on health benefits for the first time in history.

    Lie Three: Government can control rising health care costs better than the private sector.

    Ignoring the reality that Medicare–the government-funded program for the elderly–has put the country on the path to fiscal ruin, Obama wants to model a government insurance plan–the so-called “public option”–after Medicare in order to control the country’s rising health care costs. Why? Because, he repeatedly claims, Medicare has far lower administrative costs and overhead than private plans–to wit, 3% for Medicare compared to 10% to 20% for private plans. Hence, he says, subjecting private plans to competition against an entity delivering such superior efficiency will release health care dollars for universal coverage.

    But lower administrative costs do not necessarily mean greater efficiency. Indeed, the Congressional Budget Office analysis last year chastised Medicare’s lax attitude on this front. “The traditional fee-for-service Medicare program does relatively little to manage benefits, which tends to reduce its administrative costs but may raise its overall spending relative to a more tightly managed approach,” it noted on page 93.

    In short, extending the Medicare model will further ruin–not improve–even the functioning aspects of private plans.

    Lie Four: A public plan won’t be a Trojan horse for a single-payer monopoly.

    Obama has repeatedly claimed that forcing private plans to compete with a public plan will simply “keep them honest” and give patients more options–not lead to a full-blown, Canadian-style, single-payer monopoly. As I argued in my previous column, this is wishful thinking given that government programs such as Medicare have a history of controlling costs by underpaying providers, who make up the losses by charging private plans more. Any public plan modeled after Medicare will greatly increase this forced subsidy, eventually driving private plans out of business, even if that weren’t Obama’s intention.

    But, as it turns out, it very much is his intention. Before he decided to run for office–and even during the initial days of his campaign–Obama repeatedly said that he was in favor of a single-payer system. What’s more, University of California, Berkeley Professor Jacob Hacker, who is a key influence on the Obama administration, is on tape explicitly boasting that a public plan is a means for creating a single-payer system. “It’s not a Trojan horse,” he quips, “it’s just right there.”

    But even if Obama wanted to, it is simply impossible to design a public plan that could compete with private insurers on a level playing field and without “feeding off the public trough” as Obama claims.

    At the very least, such a plan would always carry an implicit government guarantee that, should it go bust, no one in the plan would lose coverage. This guarantee would artificially lower the plan’s capital reserve requirements, giving it an unfair edge over private plans. What’s more, it is simply not plausible to expect that the plan wouldn’t receive any start-up subsidies or use the government’s muscle to negotiate lower rates with providers. If it eschewed all these things, there would be no reason for it to exist–because it would be just like any other private plan.

    Lie Five: Patients don’t have to fear rationing.

    Obama has been insisting, including during his ABC Town Hall event last week, that the rationing patients would face under a government-run system wouldn’t be any more draconian than what they currently confront under private plans. This is complete nonsense.

    The left has been trying to address fears of rationing by trotting out an old and tired trope, namely, that rationing is an inescapable fact of life because every system rations whether by price or fiat. But there is a big difference between the two. If I can’t afford caviar and champagne every night, any rationing involved is metaphoric, not real. Genuine rationing occurs when someone else controls access–how much of a particular good I can consume.

    By that token, Obama’s stimulus bill has set in motion rationing on a scale unimaginable in the land of the free. Indeed, the bill commits over $1 billion to conduct comparative effectiveness research that will evaluate the relative merits of various treatments. That in itself wouldn’t be so objectionable–if it weren’t for the fact that a board will then “direct financing” toward approved, standardized treatments. In short, doctors will find it much harder to prescribe newer or non-standard treatments not yet deemed effective by health care bureaucrats. This is exactly along the lines of the British system, where breast cancer patients were denied Herceptin, a new miracle drug, until enraged women fought back. Even the much-vilified managed care plans would appear to be a paragon of generosity in comparison with this.

    Obama has repeatedly asked for honesty in the health care debate. It is high time he started showing some.

  88. ABC: The All Barack Channel Canada Free Press. Don’t know if this has been posted before…

    “Barack Obama is engaging in a bald-faced campaign of lies”

    h t t p://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/12484

  89. wbboei Says:

    July 1st, 2009 at 1:23 pm

    —————————–

    Excellent analysis. I totally agree. And as far as these so-called surprises go, I am of two thoughts here.

    1/ The pressure was on and he flubbed out the words without any forethought.

    2/ A deliberate slap in the face to Hillary…at least he thinks so…lol…childish game playing…and the end result is that he did what she wanted.

    All in all I think she was hugely vindicated here if she was indeed advising him to play hardball. The media was crucifying him…at least the honest media and international news networks. His procrastination over anything that spells “serious” is now a joke. The list is adding up of his “precious” refusals to protect America against the bad guys.

  90. What the bystander president is allowing to happen in California and other Republican states is criminal. He is doing it for one reason only, so that he can ride in on his mighty mule…er…ass and save the day. He wants to show that only by voting for a democratic government will people be saved.

    I’m hearing celestial choirs now. Angels are circling overhead…oops I think those are the terrorists.

  91. JanH, I am also wondering if Obama is trying to install a democrat in the governor spot in South Carolina?? It sure seems motivated in that direction. The governor now has said he has had many liasons with other women, so he must be being threatened, so he comes out with a new little truth everyday.
    It must be hard on Bambi and his minions to blackmail so many people at the same time. I can’t imagine the stress involved with trying to blackmail so many at the same time!! I guess he has a blackmail czar for that position!!

  92. “I guess he has a blackmail czar for that position!!”

    ———————

    I wouldn’t be at all surprised. Given the Chicago criminal network he put into place when he crashed the White House, with the exception of Hillary, I am sure they have a huge hit list.

  93. Wednesday, July 01, 2009

    Who Gets Paid What in the Obama White House

    Holly Bailey

    How much does Jon Favreau get paid to write President Obama’s speeches? According to a list of salaries released today by the White House, Obama’s chief speechwriter makes $172,200 a year—the top salary possible in the West Wing. Favreau, who is paid on par with what President Bush’s chief speechwriter was paid in 2008, earns the same salary as 19 other top administration officials, including Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, advisers David Axelrod and Valerie Jarrett, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, National Security Adviser Jim Jones and economic adviser Larry Summers. The list, which is provided to Congress annually by the White House, includes staffers in the Executive Office of the President, including the first lady’s office and the Domestic Policy Council. (Vice President Biden’s staff salaries are typically disclosed in a separate report to the Senate.) Among the highlights: Social Secretary Desiree Rogers, who makes $113,000; Stephanie Cutter, who is leading the Sonia Sotomayor’s Supreme Court confirmation process, is paid $153,200; Tom Donilon, Jones’s deputy, earns $172,200; and Reggie Love, Obama’s body guy, makes $102,000 a year. One thing is clear: None of these folks should be expecting a raise. Earlier this year, Obama put a salary freeze on White House staffers earning more than $100,000 a year. (That means you’ve still got a chance, Tommy Vietor!) For the record, Obama’s salary is $400,000 a year.

    blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thegaggle/archive/2009/07/01/who-gets-paid-what-in-the-obama-white-house.aspx

    ————————–

    If you go to the site, there is a link in the article that takes you to a 29 page complete listing of all the salaries.

  94. July 1, 2009

    WH disputes transparency at townhall

    The White House disputes the notion that the President’s health care town hall Wednesday is anything but open and transparent.”I think will be a representative sample of the issues in this debate that we’re dealing with,” explained Press Secretary Robert Gibbs in response to concern that the event would be tightly controlled.

    Over the weekend, the White House website solicited Americans to submit questions for the town hall via social networking sites like Facebook, Twitter and YouTube. According to the site, hundreds of entries were received.

    Press Secretary Gibbs denied that the questions would be staged, but acknowledged that members of the White House’s New Media office would be “shuffling through questions.” And a White House website entry dated July 1st reads: “Today’s the day where the President will get to answer some of the best submissions.”

    “Even if there’s a tough question, it’s a — it’s a question coming from somebody who was invited or who was screened or the question was screened,” argued a reporter.

    Gibbs wasn’t convinced. “How about you can ask me that question tomorrow based on what questions were asked rather than preselecting your question based on something that may or may not come through?” he replied.

    President Obama’s town hall meeting in Annandale was designed to be a conversation with the public about the Administration’s proposed health care reforms. The town hall format is something the President has consistently relied on – both during the campaign last year and through the first few months of his presidency.

    Mr. Obama has another town hall scheduled for July 14th in Michigan.

    whitehouse.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/07/01/wh-disputes-transparency-at-townhall/

  95. Mousavi pledges new rights group in Iran

    TEHRAN (AFP) — Iranian presidential election runner up Mir Hossein Mousavi on Wednesday renewed a demand for a complete re-run of the vote and pledged to help set up a new group to defend citizen’s rights.

    Another defeated candidate, Mehdi Karroubi, saw his reformist newspaper Etemad Melli shut down after he denounced the re-election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as invalid and the new government as not legitimate.

    The 12-member Guardians Council election watchdog had warned the defeated candidates that it will brook no more challenges to the results following a recount of 10 percent of ballot boxes from the June 12 poll.

    Mousavi, Ahmadinejad’s closest rival who won 34 percent of the vote compared to 63 percent for the incumbent, remained defiant, saying: “The majority of the society to which I belong will not recognise the legitimacy of the (future) government.

    “Our historic duty is to continue the protests to defend the rights of the people… and prevent the blood spilled by hundreds of thousands of martyrs from leading to a police state,” he said in a posting on his website.

    Mousavi said a group of politicians including himself have decided to create “a legal political body to defend citizen’s rights and votes that were crushed in the election, to publish documents about the frauds and irregularities and to start legal action.”

    Iran’s police chief Esmaeil Ahmadi-Moghaddam said that 20 people were killed and more than 1,000 arrested in the wave of protests over the disputed presidential vote. “No policeman was killed in the Tehran riots but 20 rioters were killed,” he said, confirming earlier reports. “Police arrested 1,032 people in the recent riots. Many have been released and the rest are being prosecuted in Tehran’s public and revolutionary courts,” he was quoted as saying by the Fars news agency.

    The Paris-based International Federation for Human Rights has said that more than 2,000 people are in custody in Iran and hundreds more missing, while rights group Amnesty said it is concerned that several detained opposition leaders may face torture. Human Rights Watch said harsh interrogation conditions and inadequate medical care are threatening the life of detained reformist Saeed Hajjarian, a former presidential adviser and Tehran city councillor.

    Police chief Ahmadi-Moghaddam said the death of Neda Agha-Soltan, who became a symbol of post-election street rallies in Iran, was a “prearranged scenario,” state owned English-language Press TV reported. He accused Arash Hejazi, a doctor who says he tried to save Neda’s life in her final moments, of fanning the flames of the western media hype, the TV station said on its website.

    White House spokesman Robert Gibbs dismissed Ahmadi-Moghaddam’s allegation as “misinformation.” “I think the notion that the death of an innocent woman would be staged is — even with them, it’s shocking,” Gibbs said.

    Ahmadinejad on Wednesday cancelled a trip to Libya, where he was due to have addressed a summit of African leaders in the seaside town of Sirte at the invitation of Libyan leader Moamer Kadhafi. Pressure of work was blamed for the cancellation and it was impossible to know whether Ahmadinejad’s pullout was connected with the wave of opposition which has swept Iran since the election, triggering the worst crisis since the Islamic revolution in 1979.

    Foreign media remain banned from reporting from Iranian streets under restrictions imposed in the violent election aftermath.

    Mousavi called for a guarantee of freedom of assembly, a free press, the lifting of bans on independent newspapers and websites and for the possibility to have “an independent television network.” The former prime minister also demanded the release of people arrested for “political reasons” and an end to “telephone tapping”.

    Etemad Melli said its publication was suspended on Wednesday as a direct result of Karroubi’s latest statement.
    “Last night, after Karroubi’s statement was released, representatives of the Tehran prosecutor and the culture ministry prevented the publication of Etemad Melli newspaper,” his party of the same name said on its website.
    “They wanted the statement censored and not published — so the newspaper will not be published today,” it said.

    Among people still held by the Iranian authorities is one local staff member from the British embassy out of nine who were detained on allegations of stoking the unrest, Press TV reported.
    A British Foreign Office spokeswoman said: “The latest situation is two of our staff have been released over the last two days. We are also seeking confirmation that a further member of staff has been released today. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown said the arrest of the nine embassy employees “is unjustified and it is unacceptable and some people in Iran are trying to seek to use Britain as an explanation for the legitimate Iranian voices calling for greater openness and democracy.”

    EU countries are considering a proposal from Britain for a temporary recall of all of their ambassadors from Iran in protest at the detention of the British embassy employees by Tehran, a European diplomatic source said.

    In a sign of life in Iran returning to normal, the text messaging network was restored on Wednesday after being cut off since June 12.

    google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gSzgWLiu_yF7STT9hp9BnIdiA-Ew

  96. But there is a big difference between the two. If I can’t afford caviar and champagne every night, any rationing involved is metaphoric, not real. Genuine rationing occurs when someone else controls access–how much of a particular good I can consume.
    ****************
    I think the Obama/Dem health reform is a scam. That said, the above statement is enough to discredit every other opinion in that piece. As a physician who practiced for close to 40 years, the “caviar and champagne” statement is pure wing-nut, pro-corporation, convince the middle class to screw themselves, bullshit. Anyone on this blog who is struggling with the economic impact of the current health care “system” knows that it is bullshit. Having been around “rich” right wingers; they laugh at the middle class who vote against their economic self interest and keeping the Insurance Industry in charge of your health care is right at the top of the list.

  97. basil9 Says:

    July 1st, 2009 at 3:12 pm

    In the meantime, am I the only one who thnks MJ aranging for invitro of white kids is weird?
    ————————————————————————————–

    Basil9 no you are not the only one. I have said so myself why not an AA.
    It is as if he did not want to be black.

  98. I can’t imagine why MJ arranged for invitro to have white children, or why he himself always appeared white later on in his life.
    I saw him in Dallas when he was doing Thriller 1984 or 85. I saw him very close up and he was a very handsome black man, why would he want to change that?? He was a star that transcended race, he was truly amazing.
    Its sad that sometimes in life the most talented individuals are the ones that are the most conflicted.

  99. Has anyone read lamecherry?? He is saying that Iran has already got nuclear capabilities. He is saying that is why no one is really doing anything to them for this revolution. Could this be true??

  100. Could this be true??
    *********
    Having done some recent research on the engineering needed to product a nuclear weapon, I think that is highly unlikely, especially without any testing.

  101. neetabug,
    I guess that made him racisssssstttttt.
    👿

    ‘It is as if he did not want to be black.’

    sorry – i know the man is dead, RIP, but the media freakshow is so over the top. Makes me imagine what it must have been like during the days of the Roman Colesseum. Now, instead of distracting the masses by throwing people to the lions and watching gladiators destroy one another the US circus focuses on mind-numbingly meaningless drivel and passes it off as relevant and the morons eat it up.

  102. I’m hearing celestial choirs now. Angels are circling overhead…oops I think those are the terrorists.
    **********************************

    I think we are dealing with Banshee’s…..

    The Banshee (pronounced /ˈbænʃiː/, BAN-shee), from the Irish bean sí (“woman of the síde” or “woman of the fairy mounds”) is a female spirit in Irish mythology, usually seen as an omen of death and a messenger from the Otherworld. Her Scottish counterpart is the bean shìth (also spelled bean-shìdh).

  103. WE know now that this administration is lined up with the likes of Chavez! Obama is cutting ties with the Honduras because of the coup. I guess Obama liked it with CHavez smelled sulfer at the UN.

  104. Hmmm… thought I already posted this to confloyd.. If it’s a duplicate- apologies:

    # confloyd Says:
    July 1st, 2009 at 11:27 am

    Mrs. Smith, What scared me most about what Brzezenski said was his ideology about foreign relations. Its just stupid to think we can talk nice to these dictators and tyrants and they will reciprocate.
    I believe in fighting fire with fire or speaking from a position of power. Maybe all these years I have really been a republican and did not know it. I really liked it when Hillary said during the primary that if Iran messes with Israel we would obliterate them. I think that how we need to handle these govt.
    These elites are just crazy. Did you notice that Brzezenski seemed light up when speaking about China?? He seemed to like that regime. I wonder what he thought about Tienamine square?

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Churchill’s famous quote: “You CAN’T make Peace with Dictators.” Is a truism..Dictators are almost always the puppet in front of the power players.(with the exception of Castro and Napoleon. The only ones I can think of right now) Obama is so deficient in his knowledge of ANY history US or World history. He is a blind man on a leash, lead around by his owners.

    Brzezinski was Jimmy Carter’s foreign policy adviser and you see what he did to Carter. Big FAIL!

    Brzezenski’s usefulness is over. He was used for support (msnbc daughter) during the run up to the Primary.

    Z-Big is a dead man walking and hasn’t figured it out yet. Soros and the IMF are running the show. Z-Big is Cold War material. A washed up has-been reliving his past.

    Power is the one to watch!

  105. I understand that MJ and his brothers and sisters were horribly abused by their father while growing up.

    Consequent actions by MJ could have revolved around the mental damage he experienced. It certainly seems as if he wasn’t all there when it came to his decision making as an adult. Being filthy rich also would have been a huge factor as well especially where paranoia and trusting anyone was concerned.

    Just a thought.

  106. basil9 Says:
    July 1st, 2009 at 4:47 pm

    Mrs Smith,

    More on Rice.
    There’s a clip at hotair of her saying this.

    Video: U.S. ambassador to UN won’t say Iranian regime is illegitimate
    posted at 4:05 pm on July 1, 2009

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Thanks for posting this little tidbit of information. Power, Rice and Jarrett are trying to be the foreign policy adviser’s to Bambi. Power, the academic, Rice, the mouthpiece and Jarrett, the Acorn/Fundraiser extradonaire. A nest of vipers. If Obama is having difficulty thinking about anything, he sure as hell will make a fool of himself listening to those three triple teaming Emanuel and burning his own ears off listening to their redundant phone calls making their case for the final “word”.

  107. basil9 Says:

    July 1st, 2009 at 7:17 pm
    neetabug,
    I guess that made him racisssssstttttt.

    ‘It is as if he did not want to be black.’

    sorry – i know the man is dead, RIP, but the media freakshow is so over the top. Makes me imagine what it must have been like during the days of the Roman Colesseum. Now, instead of distracting the masses by throwing people to the lions and watching gladiators destroy one another the US circus focuses on mind-numbingly meaningless drivel and passes it off as relevant and the morons eat it up.

    ****************************************

    basil & neetabug…I do not believe much of what is being said about MJ…especially anything coming from CBS – Diane Diamond or god forbid Maureen Orth…

    and that even goes for some of his supposed ‘friends’ that are now all over national tv talking negative stuff about him…if they cared they would shut up, but so many of them are media whores…deepok chipor being one of the biggest…

    i happened to catch barry gordy with tavis smiley reflecting on MJ last night…now that was first class and positive…

  108. Obama on single payer:

    The President was asked why, unlike most industrialized nations, he is not pursuing a single-payer health care system. He answered that such a system would be “hugely disruptive” because of the current systems reliance on employer based healthcare.

    “We should be able to find a way to create a uniquely American solution to this problem that controls cost but preserves the innovation that is introduced in part with a free- market system,” the President said.
    *************
    Or more likely, Penny Pritzker traded Health Care for the American people for Insurance industry money.

  109. “U.S. ambassador to UN won’t say Iranian regime is illegitimate”

    —————————–

    There comes a time when morals, human rights, and ethics must come into play when making decisions on behalf of the United States. It is woefully apparent that this “ambassador” is unskilled and following bambi’s damaged rhetoric.

    bambi’s morality play is a plague upon the world.

  110. “ambassador” is unskilled and following bambi’s damaged rhetoric
    *********
    I think that is the other way…Bambi is mouthing Susan Rice, our UN Ambassador’s damaged rhetoric. Obama isn’t going to waste time thinking about Iran: it would interfere with the parties, basketball games and golf, he just reads what is put in front of him.

  111. SHV,

    Either way, U.S. reputation is taking a beating. Rice should never have been appointed. Then again obama should have been deported years ago.

  112. I think the “official” jobs report for June is due tomorrow but an early estimate:

    “Private-sector jobs in the U.S. fell 473,000 in June, according to a national employment report published Wednesday by payroll giant Automatic Data Processing Inc. and consultancy Macroeconomic Advisers.

    The expected loss exceeds the 400,000 drop forecast by economists in a Dow Jones Newswires survey and suggests that layoffs may be worsening.

    /online.wsj.com/article/SB124645016745579363.html

    That will likely push the unemployment rate over 9.6%. what isn’t mentioned in the jobs reports is that the economy needs to create ~150,000 new jobs, just to keep even with the new workers entering the job market.

  113. I agree wit Basil9………..Hillary must resign as she has been relegated to a very minimal position. I even read today where she begged Obama to be harder on Iran , and only at ther last minute, without consulting her, used the “appalled and dismayed” language in his press conference. Hillary and the State Dept were caught off guard and made to look weak and ineffectual towing the prior Obama liner of not meddling. Lets be honest, there are very few, if any, of his policies that she would otherwise support but for being SOS. I understood she is trying to mitigate the damage this do nothing, one term senator, is doing to our country, but she can’t allow herself to be marginalized and embarrassed any further. The dailykooks and others willblame her no matter what, so she should simply resign odue to differences in “approaches to nhow to handle certain national and foreign affairs” and prepare fr 2016.

  114. OT but I saw it on another site. Don’t know if it has any potential significance but it caught my eye:

    A Pittsburgh judge is telling prosecuters to go after ACORN

    w w w.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/pittburgh/s_631577.html

    A district judge who held another ACORN worker for trial Monday on election law violations urged prosecutors to go after the real culprit, the organization that employed him.

    “Somebody has to go after ACORN,” Senior District Judge Richard H. Zoller said about the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now.

    “It’s happening all over the country. All you have to do is turn on the television,” he said, referring to voter registration fraud charges brought recently against ACORN and its workers in Nevada.

    “We will,” Allegheny County Detective Robert F. Keenan promised as he wrapped up his testimony.

    A spokesman for District Attorney Stephen A. Zappala Jr. said following the hearing that the county’s investigation into members of ACORN and their activities during the 2008 campaign “remains open and active.”

    “(T)here is quite a bit of activity aimed at determining if anyone else should be charged,” Zappala’s spokesman Mike Manko said.

    Eric E. Jordan, 20, of North Braddock became the sixth person ordered to face trial in Allegheny County. He is charged with soliciting a voter registration and interfering with county voter registration officials by submitted applications for himself in order to meet his quota for registrations. A seventh defendant faces a preliminary hearing next month.

    Zappala claims the ACORN canvassers engaged in voter registration fraud and a quota system for registrations, which is barred by state law.

    Olga Salvatori, Jordan’s attorney, told the judge her client did not know a quota system was illegal. She said Jordan was told he had to bring in a set number of registrations each day or he would be fired.

    “ACORN should be charged, not my client,” Salvatori said.

    But, argued Assistant District Attorney Matthew Robinowitz: “By accepting a job with a quota, he violated the law.”

    Salvatori argued that Jordan didn’t “interfere” with anyone because all he did was resubmit his own voter registration three times, changing his address or party affiliation.

    ACORN officials repeatedly have denied the organization imposed a quota system on workers, although they have acknowledged they had “standards” canvassers were expected to maintain. They did not respond yesterday to requests for comment.

    Salvatori said after the hearing it was unfair that her client and other workers were charged for such technical violations.

    “I didn’t even know a quota was illegal until I looked it up,” she said. “They go into poor neighborhoods and sign these people up. They tell them they have to meet minimum standards. How would (the workers) know what the law is?”

    Keenan testified that he questioned Jordan last spring about suspect voter registrations he filed. He said Jordan, who was in custody on unrelated charges, acknowledged during the interview that he had to get 10 to 12 registrations per day or he would be fired.

    Jordan attended the hearing but did not testify.

    County Elections Division Director Mark Wolosik testified that every time a voter registration application was submitted or resubmitted, county workers had to process the application and generate a voter card and other paperwork.

  115. Helen Thomas hammers Gibbs and the O’Fraud:
    ” (CNSNews.com) – Following a testy exchange during today’s briefing with White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, veteran White House correspondent Helen Thomas told CNSNews.com that not even Richard Nixon tried to control the press the way President Obama is trying to control the press.

    “Nixon didn’t try to do that,” Thomas said. “They couldn’t control (the media). They didn’t try.

    “What the hell do they think we are, puppets?” Thomas said. “They’re supposed to stay out of our business. They are our public servants. We pay them.”

    Thomas said she was especially concerned about the arrangement between the Obama Administration and a writer from the liberal Huffington Post Web site. The writer was invited by the White House to President Obama’s press conference last week on the understanding that he would ask Obama a question about Iran from among questions that had been sent to him by people in Iran.

    “When you call the reporter the night before you know damn well what they are going to ask to control you,” Thomas said.

    “I’m not saying there has never been managed news before, but this is carried to fare-thee-well–for the town halls, for the press conferences,” she said. “It’s blatant. They don’t give a damn if you know it or not. They ought to be hanging their heads in shame.”

  116. I respectfully disagree with many of my friends here who think Hillary should resign. I know how you feel, but she is a public servant first and foremost, and I feel a lot more comfortable with her as SoS rather than someone like Kerry or Richardson (barf).

    I also don’t believe she’s been marginalized in the least. Her view has prevailed on a number of issues (more troops in Afghanistan, a harder stance on Iran, etc.) and she’s managed to make the State Department a real force again in foreign policy. The State Department budget was just increased under her watch and the Foreign Service is being expanded, for example. Plus, she’s very popular at State with the rank and file.

    Just because Hillary isn’t on TV every 5 minutes doesn’t mean she’s not leaving her mark. Remember, she’s a workhorse, not a showhorse. Another benefit to all this is that conservatives are really beginning to appreciate her because they know she’s not a liberal ingenue like Obama.

  117. July 1, 2009

    Clinton Won’t Travel to Russia

    Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who is recovering from surgery on a broken elbow, will not travel to Moscow with President Obama next week to meet with Russian officials.

    Clinton had successful surgery on the elbow June 19th, two days after she injured it in a fall while on her way to the White House. But a senior White House official told CNN that Clinton’s intense physical therapy sessions to rehabilitate the elbow were deemed too difficult to replicate during the trip. Clinton earlier cancelled a trip to Italy and Greece because of the injury.

    State Department spokesman Ian Kelly told reporters yesterday that “She’s in some pain,” as the Washington Post reports. “She had a very serious break in her elbow…. She’s energetic, she’s fully engaged, but we need to make sure that she heals and then can get back to a full schedule where she can come in every day,” Kelly said. Clinton has largely been working from home since her injury.

    The Post notes that Clinton did participate in the swearing in of Daniel Rooney, the new ambassador to Ireland and the owner of the Pittsburgh Steelers, today. Joked the secretary of state: “I came off the injured reserve list.”

    cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/07/01/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5128471.shtml

    ————————-

    Good. He can screw up all on his own.

  118. Paula Says:

    July 1st, 2009 at 9:38 pm

    ——————————

    Well said. I think she is doing a lot of good and I think her influence, contrary to how some of bambi’s jealous thugs were prefer, is solid.

    I posted an article earlier that in my view was mostly speculative and a negative piece aimed at belittling her. I don’t have any idea how much spin was put on it. He makes lots of mistakes on his own and big ones at that.

    This is one strong woman who will stay as long as she feels she can do something positive and will go when she senses the time is right.

  119. Also, her recent injury has of course made her take a step back on some of these trips. This doesn’t make her less relevant. I’m glad she is taking care of herself. Putting out international fires is a tough job and she has accomplished some amazing things in the few months she has been SOS.

  120. July 1, 2009

    A Disconnect on Health Care Overhaul

    Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute, is a former White House correspondent with two decades of experience covering Washington government and politics.

    There appears to be a substantial disconnect between what the still-undefined health care overhaul plan working its way through Congress is likely to cost and what Americans say they are willing to pay for and use.

    That’s the inescapable conclusion of a Quinnipiac University Poll released this morning that found Americans would be quite happy to let the rich and business pay for the whole package, but aren’t real thrilled about doing it themselves.

    While that shouldn’t be a shock, since voters traditionally want more from government than they are willing to pay for in taxes, it doesn’t make the job of those trying to redesign the nation’s health care system any easier. For if the overhaul could be accomplished by just taxing the rich and corporations – without doing harm to the national economy – President Barack Obama and the Democratic Congress likely would already be taking their victory lap.

    But the reality that seems to be taking shape on Capitol Hill is that the rest of us – not just business and the rich – will have to chip in if the current price estimates are even close to reality.

    Happy With Current Coverage

    That could be problematic because the vast majority of Americans think they already have a good deal with their current health care – and interestingly, those on Medicare and Medicaid are even happier than those with private insurance. Americans might be wary of change if they decide their costs will be more than they expected.

    The reason why Americans have been supportive of the general idea of a health care overhaul is that they don’t think their friends and neighbors are as fortunate when it comes to their health care situation. This is not an unusual phenomenon. Surveys typically find people much higher on their local schools than those statewide or nationally. In these tough times, they see their own financial situation is much rosier than they do the overall economy.

    Nevertheless, for most Americans, a health care overhaul means first cutting costs for people who already have insurance — not covering the roughly 46 million who lack coverage. How they want to go about doing both is clear as mud. They think it would be a good thing if there was a government-run health care plan for those Americans who want it. But the vast majority would not trust their families to one if it existed and would stay with their private insurer. And, they see the idea of just having a government-run system, which some believe would be the ultimate result of the competition between government and private insurers, as a bad thing.

    Adding to the Deficit

    Because of the public wariness about the program’s cost, Congress is trying to cut the price tag for the proposed health care overhaul from a projected $1.5 trillion to $1 trillion over 10 years. In either case, that’s an awful of money that will certainly add to the already record federal deficits.

    Some ideas under consideration on Capitol Hill to solve the problem are quite popular with the masses, such as requiring businesses to pay for their employees’ health care and reducing tax deductions for the rich. Others that might require contributions from most of the population – such as taxing health benefits that workers get from their employers and requiring everyone to have health insurance — aren’t.

    The poll found almost half of Americans say they are unwilling to pay any more in taxes than they do now, and another quarter want to fork over just another $500 annually. That’s not much of a public appetite for tax increases to overhaul health care. It’s difficult to see how those numbers add up, even with a conservative estimate of the overhaul. Covering all the folks who now lack coverage will increase the number of potential patients by about 15%. Meanwhile, $500 a year is between 1% and 2% of the annual average household income.

    Think of it this way: Almost three-quarters of Americans say they aren’t willing to pay more than the cost of a cheese pizza a week – with no extra toppings – to pay for health care reform.
    Whether that will be enough to finance the kinds of changes percolating within the Beltway is an interesting question.

    blogs.wsj.com/capitaljournal/2009/07/01/a-disconnect-on-health-care-overhaul/

  121. cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=50445

    Following a testy exchange during today’s briefing with White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, veteran White House correspondent Helen Thomas told CNSNews.com that not even Richard Nixon tried to control the press the way President Obama is trying to control the press.

    “Nixon didn’t try to do that,” Thomas said. “They couldn’t control (the media). They didn’t try.

    “What the hell do they think we are, puppets?” Thomas said. “They’re supposed to stay out of our business. They are our public servants. We pay them.”

    Thomas said she was especially concerned about the arrangement between the Obama Administration and a writer from the liberal Huffington Post Web site. The writer was invited by the White House to President Obama’s press conference last week on the understanding that he would ask Obama a question about Iran from among questions that had been sent to him by people in Iran.

    “When you call the reporter the night before you know damn well what they are going to ask to control you,” Thomas said.

    “I’m not saying there has never been managed news before, but this is carried to fare-thee-well–for the town halls, for the press conferences,” she said. “It’s blatant. They don’t give a damn if you know it or not. They ought to be hanging their heads in shame.”

    During today’s briefing, Thomas interrupted a back-and-forth between Gibbs and Chip Reid, the White House correspondent for CBS News, when Reid was questioning Gibbs about who was going to decide what questions would be asked of President Obama in a townhall meeting that was scheduled to take place in Annandale, Va., today.

    …article continues…

    ********************************

    RIGHT ON HELEN THOMAS…speak TRUTH TO POWER LOUD AND CLEAR…NOT like the corporate propogandists that exist as our MSM these days…

    BRAVO!

  122. Well that regime in Iran, hung the disodents today. I wonder what Rice, Power and Bambi think of that?

  123. So much for transparency. Helen Thomas is my new hero!
    **********
    ANNANDALE, Va. – President Barack Obama wanted to put a human face on his plans to overhaul health care, and a Virginia supporter did just that Wednesday. Fighting back tears, Debby Smith, 53, told Obama of her kidney cancer and her inability to obtain health insurance or hold a job.
    The president hugged her — she’s a volunteer for his political operation — and called her “exhibit A” in an unsustainable system that is too expensive and complex for millions of Americans.
    (snip)

    Smith, of Appalachia, Va., is a volunteer for Organizing for America, Obama’s political operation within the Democratic National Committee. She obtained her ticket through the White House.

    /news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090701/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_health_forum

    The lady has a bad problem but Obama used her for a “shill”.

  124. A friend of mine who is a great supporter of Hillary but is wavering now because she does not like what she is seeing. She told me a story.

    She was in her home one night and she heard voices in the hallway. Her husband who is older than she is was asleep in the next room. She realized instantly that this was a home invasion.

    She heard one of the voices say to the other–you take care of the woman and I will take care of the man. She decided to defend the home and husband. The odds were against her but she had no choice.

    She got out of bed and rushed into the hallway. She screamed at them as loud as she could Get the fuck out of my house! One of them shined he flashlight in her face and kicked her.

    She said in a low voice–oh now that wasnt nice you scumbag! She ran at him and screamed get out of my house you bastard!

    One intruder said to the other lets get out of here. This bitch is crazy. And so they ran out of the house and she chased them. It was all adrenelin. They each had knives and one had a claw hammer.

    Now the hard point of the matter is this: there are times when the odds are not good but you still have to take a stand. Risk it all on a game of pitch and toss as Kipling mused.

    One of those times was at the Convention. I believe our girl was threatened by the Chicago group and by Vanity Fair. I am sure of it. But I do not believe that was the determining factor.

    I think she did not trust herself sufficiently. I think that is why she did not take the fight to the Convention. It was not the threats, not the party, it was that in my opinion.

    And when the enemy pushed her to campaign for him she did more than he campaigned for himself. And what good did it do? She did not allow herself the time she needed to grieve the loss. Instead she went to work for the enemy, and walled off her emotions.

    During the campaign I talked to a woman who is an executive headhunter. I marvelled at Hillary’s ability to keep a clear head and not be swayed by emotion. She told me whenever someone tells me what their greatest strength is that is also their greatest weakness. Yes, there is a ying and a yang to it.

    I do not worry about that problem myself because I do not have Hillarys god given ability–not even close. But neither does Obama, or anyone else in the current political meangerie. She is our countrys best hope.

    But I do worry about it for her. Bills infidelity is a matter of record. Did she grieve that or did she compartmentalize it? When you compartmentalize things people mistakenly think you are cold.

    Likewise she shuts out the media. I am sure what those deviants say hurts but she does not allow herself to respond to them. Like any bully the passivity only eggs them on.

    In this case, Obama has left her at the alter twice. First on Iran and then on Hondurus. He refuses to accept her advice, she tows the party line and then he runs in an entirely different direction, and she looks like a fool–when the real fool is him.

    When this happens, it diminishes her not him in the eyes of supporters and adversaries alike. I may be wrong, but I do not think this is calculated on his part. I think someone pushed his button and he ran in the opposite direction. It never occurred to him that he was leaving his key people in the lurch becasuse he is not an organizational man.

    Hillary is where she is because she is a patriot, and to her credit but also to her detriment she worries more about us than about herself. Just think about how quickly she returned to work after that broken elbow. Remember her reaction in New Hampshire–those tears were real.

    If Hillary is going to stay on as Secretray of State and play the assertive role the country needs, then as in the primary it is come to jesus time. She is standing in that same dark hallway as my friend.

    I am nothing but an observer. I have zero inside information here and that is the truth. I admire Hillary, but I do not know her personally other than a few casual meetings she would never recall.

    I hope that article was a shot across his bow. Not a threat so much as a wake up call. I hope the decision to bring in Bluementhal is a further indication that she intends to stand up to him. Regardless of the risks. She has to if she is going to stay. Otherwise its time to pull up stakes.

  125. SHV…didn’t see your coverage of Helen before I posted…we are on the same page…what infuriates me is how Gibbs – like O – just try to laugh everything off…with their smug sacastic ‘wit’ they try to disregard and deflect any criticism…

    all one big joke…

    …they are nauseating…wake up America…zombie democrats and media…instead of change the democrats are bland…

    go Joe Sestak…take it to the hoop against this dimocrat establishment…I hope ed rendell comes to his senses…last time I heard him and the rest of the PA group they were trying to ridicule and make a joke of Joe Sestak entering the senate race and the dims were going to support Spector against Sestak…O does not even want any competition on a state level…the ultimate betrayal…

  126. wbboei, I agree.

    Good piece on Greta just now, taking about Hillary and her urging Obama to get tougher on Iran, and his change of tone without telling her.

    It’s good – they are actually talking about the fact that AXELROD has made more public statements about foreign policy than Hillary. Talking about whether he is following Hillary’s advice, and whether or allies and enemies are confused.

    Talking about how normally the SOS is the face of our foreign policy, and many are questioning whether Hill is being shut out, and uneasy with the idea that perhaps political operatives have the ear of the Prez on foreign policy more than she does.

    Liz Cheny is talking, and her whole attitude is negative on Obama (to be expected) but very respectful of Hill. Takeaway “feel” of the piece was that he has a tremendous asset in Hill, and if he is sidelining her, then he is a monumental idiot, and all our friends and allies and enemies know it.

    She needs to either exert some control, or WALK.

  127. “Joe Sestak entering the senate race ”
    ***********
    I got this e-mail from Joe Sestak last week:

    “Only 28% of Pennsylvanians now want Arlen Specter “re-elected” to the U.S. Senate; 57% (and growing) now believe it’s “time for a change” — up from 46% two months ago.”

    I live 1200 miles from Penn. but I sent money, Specter is a POS and if Sestak wins the primary it will be a big FU to the Obots.

  128. SHV Says:

    July 1st, 2009 at 10:16 pm

    ——————————-

    The amoral bystander president would shill his own children if it would help his image. In fact he already has.

  129. Joe Sestak entering the senate race ”
    ———————————-
    SHV: I am going to try to get ahold of him through navy contacts. He is the real thing. And even if he were not, Spector is so disgusting.

  130. On the Iran “tone change”, I’m waiting for the smoking gun – a copy of the internal memo from Hillary to Obama, stating simply:

    “For God’s sake, GROW A PAIR!”

  131. youtube.com/watch?v=ga8WSWusXLw&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Ethedailybeast%2Ecom%2F&feature=player_embedded

    Helen Thomas giving it to that clown Gibbs…she tells him point blank you don’t have any answers…

  132. “she intends to stand up to him. Regardless of the risks. She has to if she is going to stay. Otherwise its time to pull up stakes.”

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    How do you stand up to a wimp? You sit down and have a heart to heart talk with the scared rabbit reminding him of his mistakes and ask him who is going to be his foreign policy adviser?…

    Hillary or the Lee Sisters? Homely, Ugly and Beastly.. After the disastrous advice they handed Bambi on Iran, he needs her more than she needs him.

    Sorry folks, I don’t agree with having Hillary resign. She’s on the ball and she and only she knows when it’s time to go. She handled this little skirmish like a Pro..

    Brava to our sister fighting for us on the front lines.

  133. HillaryforTexas says:

    Takeaway “feel” of the piece was that he has a tremendous asset in Hill, and if he is sidelining her, then he is a monumental idiot, and all our friends and allies and enemies know it.
    ************************************************

    Hill for Texas – O is afraid of being outshined by her…let’s face it, he stole all her good stuff, policies, best lines, etc during the primaries…If O isn’t trying to imitate Bill, he is stealing from Hill…and he knows that she does not need a Teleprompter…Hillary is the real deal, O is a stand-in that knows how to read…

  134. wbboei Says:

    July 1st, 2009 at 11:13 pm
    Joe Sestak entering the senate race ”
    ———————————-
    SHV: I am going to try to get ahold of him through navy contacts. He is the real thing. And even if he were not, Spector is so disgusting.

    ***********************************************************

    btw…I would like to see some reporter ask O point blank in front of the cameras “will you endorse Joe Sestak or Arlene Spector in the PA senate race?” and then begin to badger Gibbs with that question…(O and PA pols are on record supporting Spector…I would like to see the issue forced upon them…a traitor who was once a dem, then a repub and now a dem again to try to save his butt…or a naval hero and true Democrat)

  135. btw…I would like to see some reporter ask O point blank in front of the cameras “will you endorse Joe Sestak or Arlene Spector in the PA senate race?” and then begin to badger Gibbs with that question…(O and PA pols are on record supporting Spector…I would like to see the issue forced upon them…a traitor who was once a dem, then a repub and now a dem again to try to save his butt…or a naval hero and true Democrat)
    —————————-
    S: bambi already promise Spector that if he crossed party lines there would be no primary. So this is one to watch. Your question would put Obama between a rock and a hard place–right where the smug bastard belongs.

  136. Helen Thomas giving it to that clown Gibbs…she tells him point blank you don’t have any answers…
    —————————–
    Helen is right. He is just another pretty face. Like Pugsley on the Adams family.

  137. Michelangelo Signorile reports strong scepticism on the $1 million reported by the DNC to have been raised at the LGBT frundraiser. Dan Savage expressed his skepticism as well, posting his observations in two different posts immediately after the event. And Americablog discussed rumors that the event only brought in $250,000 and notes that the FEC reports next month will tell us more.

  138. Los Angeles Democrat, it would be great if not only Gay-American grassroots were waking up but Gay-American donors too.

Comments are closed.