The Honorable Walter Cronkite

We mourn the death of Walter Cronkite at age 92.

Unlike Tim Russert (and his cohorts) who made himself the story and debased his profession Walter Cronkite was an honorable man who cared about reporting the news.

Walter Cronkite hit the Normandy beach with American troops on D-Day. That was not the only news Walter Cronkite covered.



Notice how the story was the center of the drama, not the man announcing the news.

Walter Cronkite was not perfect in his life.

However, compared to today’s Big Media blowhards Walter Cronkite was perfect.

If Big Media “personalities” would look at the career of Walter Cronkite and examine their own debased activities the American people would be better off.

Good-bye Honorable Walter Cronkite.

116 thoughts on “The Honorable Walter Cronkite

  1. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/07/17/eveningnews/main5170556.shtml?tag=breakingnews

    The “most trusted man in America” is gone.

    Walter Cronkite, who personified television journalism for more than a generation as anchor and managing editor of the “CBS Evening News,” has died Friday night in his New York home following a long illness, surrounded by family. He was 92.

    Known for his steady and straightforward delivery, his trim moustache, and his iconic sign-off line -“That’s the way it is” – Cronkite dominated the television news industry during one of the most volatile periods of American history. He broke the news of the Kennedy assassination, reported extensively on Vietnam and Civil Rights and Watergate, and seemed to be the very embodiment of TV journalism.

    “Cronkite came to be the sort of personification of his era,” veteran PBS Correspondent Robert McNeil once said. “He became kind of the media figure of his time. Very few people in history, except maybe political and military leaders, are the embodiment of their time, and Cronkite seemed to be.”

    At one time, his audience was so large, and his image so credible, that a 1972 poll determined he was “the most trusted man in America” – surpassing even the president, vice president, members of Congress and all other journalists. In a time of turmoil and mistrust, after Vietnam and Watergate, the title was a rare feat – and the label stuck.

    It was a remarkable achievement for a man whose beginnings were anything but remarkable.

    Walter Leland Cronkite was born in St. Joseph, Missouri on November 4, 1916, the only child of a dentist father and homemaker mother. When he was still young, his family moved to Texas. One day, he read an article in “Boys Life” magazine about the adventures of reporters working around the world – and young Cronkite was hooked. He began working on his high school newspaper and yearbook and, in 1933, he entered the University of Texas at Austin to study political science, economic and journalism. He never graduated. He took a part time job at the Houston Post, left college to do what he loved: report.

  2. admin Says:

    July 17th, 2009 at 8:19 pm
    Walter Cronkite is dead at age 92.

    With him goes the memory of responsible journalism.
    ****************************

    I loved this man. He was a father figure to many and carried himself with grace.

    The University of Texas loved this man as he loved Texas and the University that bares it’s name

    I have been thinking of him and wondering where he was, if he was sick…I know he must of been sick throughout the election.

  3. admin Says:

    July 17th, 2009 at 8:50 pm
    ********************************

    Hearing “Katie” speak Walter’s name made me want to throw up.

    I know Walter Cronkite and your no Walter Cronkite “Katie”

  4. Watching the above video, I cried all through his news cast as he so carefully, professionally and yet as humanely possible, informed us of the death of our beloved JFK

  5. Embed it PLEASE…
    Walter on the Ruling class of America…found on BP
    **********************

    youtube.com/watch?v=L9qyI7JVoi8&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fcamille424%2Ewordpress%2Ecom%2F2009%2F07%2F17%2F6257%2F%23comment%2D298940&feature=player_embedded

  6. Thanks, admin, for taking time to pay tribute to Mr Cronkite.

    He came from a time when TRUTH was representative of the America we once knew.

  7. h t t p ://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31928335/ns/health-health_care/?ns=health-health_car

    This has an interesting lead from another page. I was checking up on the status of the Swine Flu, which is believe it, it hitting summer camps, and I saw this lead. It is OK for the surgeon General to be Fat.

    I thought that was a harsh attack.

  8. I see people around are still talking about Obama’s weak ass pitch the other night. Can’t pitch, can’t bowl, any guesses he’s point a hunting rifle backwards, anyone get the impression, he was last kid picked for the team in school.

    Actually, the teleprompter could have thrown a better pitch, if it hadn’t committed suicide on public TV last week over its guilty conscience.

  9. Actually moononpluto, we are not sure of the suicide yet. Admin and I discussed this last week, and since the telepromter is the real President, Admin suggest a Special Commission should investigate.

  10. noquarterusa.net/blog/2009/07/17/sit-down-and-shut-up/

    SIT DOWN AND SHUT UP

    With the silencing of Hillary Clinton and Kirsten Gillibrand, is it any surprise that a brave woman from Alaska might decide to take a road less traveled?

    Women should be seen and not heard. Or perhaps neither seen nor heard. That would be the message that our political leaders are sending us. Time and time again, our few rising stars are seeing their words dissipate as they ascend.

    Is it any surprise then that the only way for women to be heard is to do things differently? On their own terms. To take it to the streets. To move forward in a non-traditional way. So as not to be silenced, discredited or simply disappear.

    When President Obama picked Hillary Clinton for secretary of State, there were cheers throughout our country and abroad. What excitement for our new international spokesperson. And true to form, right away, Hillary exceeded even her biggest admirers’ expectations. And of course, shortly thereafter, came the quiet mea culpa’s of “you were right” whispered by those who weren’t believers in 2008 to those who were.

    If a woman gets too much power, she becomes a threat and she must either be silenced, discredited or simply disappear.

    But as Hillary’s poll numbers continued to rise, something rather strange started to unfold: Hillary went missing. She gradually became less and less of the spokesperson that our country so surely needed on international issues. There was barely an utterance of her name in the media as President Obama and Vice President Biden trekked around the globe working on international affairs. Until finally last week the blogosphere started to ask: Where’s Hillary?

    Hillary got the memo. She wisely decided to give a high-profile speech to reassert herself. So as Hillary’s fans sat glued to their television sets eagerly awaiting her words, they were in for a surprise. Hillary wasn’t on. President Obama’s staff had scheduled an event in the Rose Garden, at, you guessed it, the same time. After all the build up for Hillary’s breakout party, well, you can catch the speech on YouTube.

    Also on YouTube, you can catch the speech by Senator Kirsten Gillibrand as she introduces Judge Sonia Sotomayor. Well part of it. The part before Senator Leahy rudely interrupts her and basically tells her “shut up.”

    In a Senate body known for its collegial atmosphere, especially amongst those of the same political party, the senator from Vermont just could not contain himself. Sure women compose just 17 percent of the Senate, and only 2 of the 19 members of the Judiciary Committee (Al Franken is on it; but not Kirsten Gillibrand). Don’t you get it, Kirsten? Women in politics, if you are seen, should not be heard. And certainly not beyond five minutes.

    Silencing women as they rise up the ranks of public life is hardly confined to U.S. senators from New York—former and current. This is par for the course in our fraternity of leadership. If a woman gets too much power, she becomes a threat and she must either be silenced, discredited or simply disappear. We even reward men like Larry Summers with the keys to our economy as a prize for silencing Brooksley Born. And give Timothy Geithner the other key for trying, as one of his first acts as Treasury secretary, to rid himself of FDIC Chairwoman Sheila Bair.

  11. Not too busy here tonight so maybe no-one would mind if I shared a little story.
    One summer day 25 years ago, when Martha’s Vineyard airport consisted of a runway and a little wooden one story building with a waiting room about 24×24 feet, I had to take a shuttle to La Guardia. Those shuttles were not very large and I’m not a happy flier even in a big plane – I hated the shuttles. When it arrived and we marched out of the building, I wanted to turn around and ask when a seat on something larger would be available because the plane had only about 16 little seats and there were only a few people boarding. I just couldn’t stomach the idea of bouncing over clouds high above the water in that little utility jumper. But guess who was getting on with us? Walter Cronkite. And the thought that calmed my panic was, “They wouldn’t let anything happen to HIM!” It gave me courage. On the plane I told him that. It cracked him up and everybody else laughed, too – it turned out to be a jolly ride all the way. And we landed safely. Of course. Who could let anything happen to Walter Cronkite?

  12. RIP, Mr. Cronkite, a true American Patriot.

    I wonder what he would say about this ad? Obama on the Stimulus, before and after.

    www dot youtube dot com/watch?v=s2MjQ17kDng&eurl

  13. Good Morning.

    I really think HRC has placed herself in a silent position that speaks volumes. He and they might try to marginalize her, but she is out there giving speeches that speak to the issues, and really answers questions by doing and saying what should happen. I don’t like her there anymore than anyone else, but her party won, and she wants to present a powerful public image. The international stuff O and Biden has done has really not produced much. and P has become overexposed giving very similar telepromter speeches which goes back on almost every political promise he has made. The people who won his campaign know fully well how to bully, cheat, and commit fraud. Funny how the economy does not react to that sort of pressure.

    SP’s party did not win, and they are having these chicken fights over who is the new leader. SP sees the polls and her party is not in power, so what she did shows power. Romney is bogged down doing his stuff fighting with who ever in the party wants to challenge him. SP will be out picking an choosing who she should supports, and she will make a headline everytime.

    HRCs speech may not have made prime time, but it made utube, and went all over the internet, the new prime time. I don’t think many people listened to the Rose Garden SHXT. If we could get stats on that, it might be interesting.

    I cannot wait for the next time O says this job is hard, the economy did not go the way they thought, and doing two things at once is difficult.

  14. Someone on TC is reading through the House healthcare bill, and found some disturbing stuff:

    Pages 317 – 325:

    Government control of physicians/owners/investors’ assets and investments as of January 1, 2009 held in a hospital or in any entity whose assets includes a hospital.

    Hospitals cannot expand the number of operating rooms, procedure rooms or beds after the date of the enactment of Para (C) of Page 317 without seeking Government approval of any expansion and the decision would be theirs to make.

    The hospital will not offer a physician/owner/investor the opportunity to purchase or lease any property under the control of the hospital.

    Even leaving aside the govt takeover of hospitals assets implied in the first part, that provision about not leasing space to doctors will KILL many city hospitals.

    Hospitals are hurting for docs. There are TWO major hospitals here in San Antonio that don’t even have a neurosurgeon on staff, and only one kidney guy, and internists are very frustrated that they can’t get specialist care for their inpatients who need it.

    One of the few mechanisms that hospitals have to attract docs to come practice there, especially at older inner city hospitals, is offering them office space, etc. A provision forbidding that is a DISASTER for good care in the cities.

  15. What the American people have been clamoring for is not a govt takeover of the whole system, but something along the lines of a very simple insurance plan that refuses no one. One that cuts out the massive middleman of the insurance brokers. And we are willing to pay a few taxes to help all afford it, if we can quit siphoning 35% of every healthcare dollar to BCBS and get such a simple universal INSURANCE plan. We want universal coverage that doesn’t bleed so much money to the parasitic sharks. That’s all.

    What we get is either republicans who tell us that we have excellent healthcare, and no one really goes without care in this country. (Yeah, right!) Or democrats who want to use the whole issue as a trojan horse to take over the whole shebang.

    NEITHER SIDE gives a shit about what WE want.

  16. Just one thing we should note in mourning Walter Cronkite is that he was a very good friend to Hillary and Bill, notably in the darkest hours of the Lewinsky scandal.

  17. HillaryforTexas, RIGHT ON! Exactly what we want and need. We are going to get the biggest bunch of bullshit ever mustered up and it’s going to be the biggest fraud behind teh one’s fricking stimuluch bull. We are screwed.

  18. jeswezey

    We have gone from someone reporting the news just as it was to people slanting the news, and giving their own personnel opinion. The only time I know that Walter showed anything personel was a sign of frustration with the war in Viet Nam.

    That is why I do not watch the news anymore, and why they are losing viewers.

    If Walter were still there, I would be nightly out there watching him.

  19. just read the the messiah is going to preach another message via the boobtubes on Wednesday. Is he not learning that people are tirining of him and his teleprompter. I admit though I’m loving his dropping like a rock in the polls. I just hope Hill gets outta there soon. This administration is a disaster.

  20. jeswezey, You make a good point about Mr. Cronkite’s friendship with the Clintons. He was not only a one-of-a-kind journalist, he was a great guy and honorable man as well.

  21. BTW, here’s what Hillary said when asked by Laura Rozen, who covers her well, about the chatter that she’s been marginalized. I urge everyone here to read this.

    Clinton, dressed in a cream-colored pantsuit and no longer wearing an arm sling, seemed perplexed by the idea that she might feel insecure about ceding turf to the envoys, given, she said, that she had been instrumental in getting them appointed and that they report to both her and the president (she also noted that she consults actively with them). “I am really not,” insecure about that, she said emphatically.

    “Given all the new administration inherited, the demoralization, the steady demands of the job, there’s so much to take on at once,” Clinton said, explaining that being the secretary of state requires a great deal of multitasking, whether it’s teleconferencing with ambassador to Iraq Christopher Hill, reviewing a George Mitchell memo, communicating with Congress, or meeting with ousted Honduran President Manuel Zelaya, and a longer list she ticked off. It would have been “irresponsible,” she said, to try to micromanage everything, with all the foreign-policy challenges and priorities that she, at any moment, as a top cabinet official, is working with President Obama to articulate.

    “I’m comfortable delegating,” Clinton said. She described the job as immensely challenging and rewarding. “It’s so substantive, it’s so demanding.”

    Also:

    Had she deliberately spent her early months as secretary trying to build rapport with the other principals and overcome any legacy of mistrust from the primary campaign, before moving to raise her profile as the nation’s top diplomat, as she aimed to do with Wednesday’s speech?

    “There’s no other approach that would have worked,” Clinton said. “I am [directly] responsible for 50,000 people,” she noted, referring to the approximate size of the State Department’s workforce. “When I have gotten into a new job, from senator to first lady to secretary of state to lawyer,” she explained, it’s been important to get acclimated, do the homework, and build relationships.

  22. Hillary defends U.S. demands for anti-terror help.

    news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090718/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/as_clinton_india

  23. gonzotx Says:

    YA all need to watch this!

    July 17th, 2009 at 9:27 pm
    Embed it PLEASE…
    Walter on the Ruling class of America…found on BP
    **********************

    youtube.com/watch?v=L9qyI7JVoi8&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fcamille424%2Ewordpress%2Ecom%2F2009%2F07%2F17%2F6257%2F%23comment%2D298940&feature=player_embedded

  24. Admin

    I just noticed on the left side of this site to donate to Hillary is 44

    Can you tell me if this is to keep this site on going?

  25. Everyone needs to go to http://www.google.com and type in America Freedom to Fascism. Click on the top link which is the director’s authorized version. I just watched this film tonight, which is 1 hour 51 minutes long. It’s chilling but true and it explains everything that is happening to us and our country. Please watch and tell everyone about this. We have to stop this and we don’t have alot of time. Here is the direct link to the video but I’m not sure if it will work:
    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173

  26. OT………ww.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/17/AR2009071702093.html

    Is the tide turning?? The WaPo Sh*ts on the Messiah:

    “What’s Next, Mr. President — Cardigans?”

    By Matt Welch and Nick Gillespie
    Sunday, July 19, 2009

    “Barely six months into his presidency, Barack Obama seems to be driving south into that political speed trap known as Carter Country: a sad-sack landscape in which every major initiative meets not just with failure but with scorn from political allies and foes alike”
    (snip)
    “So far, he seems to be skipping the chapter on Bill Clinton and his generally free-market economic policies and instead flipping back to the themes and comportment of Jimmy Carter.”

    Ouch!!!!

  27. Obama drives into that speed trap known as Carter Country?
    —————————–
    How about Thunder Road, weed in his mouth, driving at lightening speed to down a winding mountain road chased by revenuers and hoping outrun his empty promises, prolifigate spending and foreign policy blunders, until finally the devil soros gets him for keeps.

  28. dot48, neetabug

    Good Morning.

    When you click on that link it leads nowhere. I know we have discussed contributing to this site before, and Admin has always remained silent on it.

    You have to admit, having no ads to deal with is really nice, and if I have not said it enough, THANK YOU ADMIN.

    So how did that slam get through the Washtington Post Editorial review staff? Sounds like they have been reading Big Pink, as we have made that comparison before.

    Can you imagine, O is a consolidation of Bush II and Carter. One has to wonder where the Press has been all these years to not see that, and not having seen that during the Primary. Perhaps all those older experienced people have retired or been laid off at the papers, and the younger people believed that shxt about hope and change. Then they hired back a few veterans.

    I have to tell you IT IS TOO LATE. People have always wanted all the facts and honesty, and the Press and media let us down. It is just like in any other relationship, when people start lying to you, the relationship does not last long.

  29. Good Morning.
    Sorry for the length of this post but there’s some good stuff here
    as SHV noted at 11.43.

    The Washington Post ravages BO! :gasp:

    Although THIS excerpt made me barf. But the rest is (finally) brutally honest..

    ‘As writers who inveighed against last year’s GOP candidate and called George W. Bush’s presidency a “disaster,” we’re equal-opportunity critics. As taxpayers with children and hence some small, almost certainly unrecoverable stake in this country’s future (not to mention that of General Motors, Chrysler and AIG), we write with skin in the game and the fear that our current leader will indeed start busting out the 1970s cardigans.’
    SOME EXCERPTS

    Barely six months into his presidency, Barack Obama seems to be driving south into that political speed trap known as Carter Country: a sad-sack landscape in which every major initiative meets not just with failure but with scorn from political allies and foes alike.
    _____________________________________________________________________
    From a lousy cap-and-trade bill awaiting death in the Senate to a health-care reform agenda already weak in the knees to the failure of the stimulus to deliver promised jobs and economic activity, what once looked like a hope-tastic juggernaut is showing all the horsepower of a Chevy Cobalt.
    _______________________________________________________________________
    And perhaps most important, as with Carter, his specific policies are genuinely unpopular. The auto bailout — which, incidentally, is illegal, springing as it has from a fund specifically earmarked for financial institutions — has been reviled from the get-go, with opposition consistently polling north of 60 percent. Majorities have said no to bank bailouts and to cap and trade if it would make electricity significantly more expensive.
    _________________________________________________________________________

    Beyond pushing the “emergency” $787 billion stimulus package (even while acknowledging that the vast majority of funds would be released in 2010 and beyond), Obama signed a $410 billion omnibus spending bill and a $106 billion supplemental spending bill to cover “emergency” expenses in Iraq and Afghanistan (and, improbably, a “cash for clunkers” program). Despite pledges to achieve a “net spending cut” by targeting earmarks and wasteful spending, Obama rubber-stamped more than 9,000 earmarks and asked government agencies to trim a paltry $100 million in spending this year, 0.003 percent of the federal budget

    ________________________________________________________________________
    Such is the extent of Obama’s magical realism that he can promise to post all bills on the Internet five days before signing them, serially break that promise and then, when announcing that he wouldn’t even try anymore, have a spokesman present the move as yet another example of “providing the American people more transparency in government.”
    ________________________________________________________________________

    Instead, Obama has mistaken his personal popularity for a national predilection toward emergency-driven central planning.
    ____________________________________________________________________
    .Bush whipped up an atmosphere of crisis every time he sensed a restive Congress or a dissatisfied electorate

    ______________________________________________________________________
    Bush learned the hard way that running government as a perpetual crisis machine leads to bad policy and public fatigue.
    ______________________________________________________________-
    Obama’s insistence on taking advantage of a crisis to push through every item on the progressive checklist right now is threatening to complete that cycle within his first year.
    _____________________________________________________________________
    Americans have a pretty good (if slow-to-activate) B.S. detector, and the more you mislead them now, the worse they’ll punish you later.

  30. Chris Wallace is DECIMATING Peter Orszag on his Sunday show.

    WTF do ALL of these BO appointees look like they’re still in High School???????

  31. Hahahahahahaha!

    I LOVE Krauthammer.

    He just said BO has had a “the-emperor-has-n-clothes-moment” over health care.

    With the CBO saying it will increase deficits Bo has no where to go coz it refuted his LIE that it WON’T increase deficits.

  32. Basil

    the fear that our current leader will indeed start busting out the 1970s cardigans.’
    ————————————————————————————–

    O’s wife is already busting out the cardigans

  33. Basil9

    O and the Dims should have put HRC in with O as VP. Let HRC clean up the mess, show you how it is done, unify the Dims for you, and you would have gone down in History.

    Instead, you are proving all too clearly that not having a record is a sign of something, and it is not good. So the way you go down in History might be a little different than you though.

    I wonder if there are any back channel messages going between the superduds at this point (not me, no Not me I did not want to put this guy in).

    When you are in a deep hole and a down turn in the economy, you have to choose your moves wisely. You just cannot borrow and spend your way out of it. When people have to hand you a piece of paper 5 minutes before you do something, does it sound like you give any thought to anything.

    HRC gets racked over the coals because she chooses great people to lead in key areas and then relies on them. Then she gets criticized because she is not micromanaging those areas.

    O MICRO MANAGES NOTHING. That is a mistake. You have to know what to micro manage, and when. HRC knows this, and O does not.

  34. Love the phrase about American’s BS meter being slow!! So true but lets hope they are like elephants as well as never forgetting.

  35. Hello everyone, I finally have my computer back. I was lost without it. I had to listen to the lying news channels for a whole week. I was able to get on a little at work, but they have so many sites blocked that you really can’t find anything out.

    I read over on TD’s that Hillary made a veiled threat to Iran while she has been in India. They did not post the threat, I just wondered if any of you all had read or seen it??

  36. Neetabug, NMF, dot, confloyd,

    There’s lots more in the article SHV posted at 11.43.

    The thing that steams me, though, is those frigging so-called ‘writers’ daring to call themselves equal-opportunity critics.

    Anyway, I’m glad to see the article in WaPo. Better late than never, i guess.

  37. “Israel won’t stop housing project in Muslim neighborhood”

    “Asked about his remarks, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton declined to comment Sunday on ongoing negotiations. But Clinton, on a visit to India, emphasized the matter is a high priority for President Barack Obama’s administration.”

    ww.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/07/19/israel.netanyahu.housing/index.html

    I thought “high priority for President Barack Obama’s administration.” was an interesting “turn of phrase”. Direct indication of who has the “priority” for a position that is a loser. Only an aggressive, narcissistic sociopath would think that he could “make a demand” that Bibi would stop all construction. Bibi basically told Obama to stick his demand up his a**.

  38. White House Deputy Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer dismissed the suggestion that Obama should be expected to succeed effortlessly – or that he’s on a path toward failure on any of these varied fronts.

    “Obama and his team have been down this road dozens of times and been declared dead many times and always succeeded,” he said. “No one gets rich betting against Barack Obama.”

    www2 dot seattlepi.com/articles/408250.html

    Repeated for emphasis: “No one gets rich betting against Barack Obama.”

  39. No one gets rich betting against Barack Obama

    #$@!@#$!!

    Didn’t BO say that in some PC the other day?
    B@st@rd!

    NMF,

    Yeah, I know the so-called writers think he will get it together. That’s some pretty stron koolade. :sigh:

  40. holdthemaccountable 4:48

    “No one gets rich betting against Barack Obama.” That really sounds like a bully. Well there are powers about O and I hope they are listening.

  41. I’m thinking more along the lines that this Dan Pfeiffer is telling it the way it is.

  42. ADMIN, PLEASE EMBED.

    Market Ticker’s Denninger lays out a 4-point plan to solve the housing crisis. It’s good, it’s sane, and our govt of by and for Goldman Sachs will likely never do it.

    youtube.com/watch?v=lbh50tyY5R8

  43. Again this evening,great coverage of Hillary’s speech in Mumbai by Fox and Friends.They have seen the light on her where ever she appears with throngs of people cheering and chanting praises.Our friends in foreign countries recognize a genuine leader when they see and hear one with so much compassion and wisdom to make this world safer and its peoples living a better life.I have to believe that the emperor is slowly doing a strip of his garnents.”The emperor has no clothes and will soon be out there stark naked exposed to the world as a tiny speck on a gnats A–.
    Hillary is back,looking more rested and beautiful than ever.Her confidence
    level higher than ever and enjoying the aclocades and warm welcomes that are given her even before she speaks.That my friends is STAR Power.
    BO and MO Emanuel and Aselrod get the moving vans ready.

    By ABM90. First MSNBC and now FOX.
    Can the rest of the media be far behind.The passing of the great journalist Cronkite will have some effect on the lackeys that spout from scripts pepared by supporters of the money hungry members of congress that realize their gravy train may soon be derailed.Congress members your ratings are so low you could now walk under a snakes belly wearing a high hat.

  44. I am so fulfilled by the E-mails that are coming in by leaps and bounds covering every word from Hillary at all the meetings and interviews while she is traveling.They include her schedules and itinerary.

    Go to <usstatebpa@subscriptions.fgg.gov

  45. I’m in moderation, probably because I have a link to Greenwald’s column at Salon about Cronkite and Tim Russert.

  46. ABM90, If Fox is now keeping up with Hillary and giving her airtime, in my opinion its just to link her with the failed President Obama. They will never do whats right when it comes to the Clintons. They always have ulterior motives.
    I am glad to see her though, however they will use the information. If you watch Glen n Beck he now puts Hillary’s pic right next to Obama and says in esscense they are both incompetant.

  47. confloyd I agree with you on the Fox game plan about reportin Hillary news but at least she is in the news and not in a box.Hannity is just about to do a segment on the marginalization of her role as SoS.That is in direct conflict with her recent activities since her recovery from surgery.Hannity is a devious self loving white other half of Obama.A real stomach turner.Greta will interview President Hillary Mon nite on Fox following Hammity.I am not a dreamer confloyd.Just a very old guy hoping for all this this country has been subjected to under Telebama
    will soon be corrected and he is run out of office.

    By ABM90. Thanks for your opinions

  48. No one gets rich betting against Barack Obama
    —————————-
    No, but they can make a pretty decent living at it, since he sat down at the poker table with the word governing on the wall and the dealer called the name of the game put up or shut up. And the longer Barack remains at that table, the more the odds against him improve. A friend of mine and I are writing a paper on his first hundred days and if you look at it in detail, things are really fucked up. Now what point does this all come unravelled, no one can say for sure. But the odds are it will happen sooner as opposed to later.

  49. GlennBeck a real nut job.A brain dead fool.He never drank the Kool-aid.He must have been on anti-freeze when he did his imbibing.Beck,O’Reily and Hannity.The modern day three stooges.Fox three ring circus for the
    steady flow of uninformed has been
    panelists.

  50. # ABM90 Says:
    July 19th, 2009 at 9:44 pm

    GlennBeck a real nut job.A brain dead fool.He never drank the Kool-aid.He must have been on anti-freeze when he did his imbibing.Beck,O’Reily and Hannity.The modern day three stooges.Fox three ring circus for the
    steady flow of uninformed has been
    panelists.
    **********
    Amen****no one could have said it better!!! Those three push the “hot buttons” of their audience, cash their pay-checks, live the million dollar life style and then laugh their a**es off at the people who watch them.

  51. ABM90, I agree, the three stooges is a perfect name. You would be surprised at the amount of bloggers quoting Beck all the time. These are Hillary sites, so I think they are striking a nerve with some. I pray they wont listen to intently on these windbags. They dont care anymore about America than Obama does.

  52. I’m pretty sure I’ve seen Beck quoted here. Whenever I see it – I run away for a few days. I don’t care if Beck says that the sky is blue. If he says it I’ll have to look out of the window to make sure.

  53. DYB, what I have noticed about Beck is his statements, they are just headline statements with only half of the information to back it up. The information is highly filtered to coincede with his views on what we should be doing.
    Oh and his crying of late is really hilarious. He said during the New Hampshire primary “It cries”, referring to Hillary. I just wish I could tell him to his face, “He cries and LOL at him. He is ridiculous, anyone that pays attention should see this crying as BS, since he made fun of Hillary worrying about her country. If you go to RBO, they have clip after clip of Beck, its really disgusting.

  54. Good Morning, who ever is here.

    It was a quiet weekend, blog wise. However, week days it always picks up. I guess I think Beck and all the news people remind me of gossip people. They just go around gathering information to support their point of view, and then they gossip about it. I don’t think any of them has the foggist idea about what makes a good leader, let along being able to recognize one. Of course the gossips are interested in ratings to keep their jobs, so the more inflamed they can made a simple fact, they think they will be better off Of course I think the same is true with the sensation healines.

    But the inevitable happens, people get tired of clicking on headlines that really are not what they seem, and listening to the garbage, so they turn it off.

    So the people turn to the internet more and more, because they can get a variety of information, and they can judge for themselves. I am off to read the news on the internet, while I drink my coffee.

  55. h t t p ://www.lemondrop.com/2009/07/16/should-health-officials-have-to-be-healthy/?icid=main|hp-laptop|dl7|link3|http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lemondrop.com%2F2009%2F07%2F16%2Fshould-health-officials-have-to-be-healthy%2F

    I have to agree with this article. The nominee for the new SG is being criticized for her Weight. This is totally a go after women technique. Where is NOW and the others, and the leaders they pay all that money for. This is crap.

    Using this justification the person who leads AAA would have to be a non Acoholic.

  56. Very nice tribute to Cronkite..one of the last of the true newsman. Frauds like Russert, Couric, and all of the cable news networks would not know how to cover a real news story if it hit them right in the face…it’s all about sensationalism and tearing good people like Hillary and Bill down, while going crazy over freaks and frauds like Jackson, Obama, etc.

  57. I had a great conversation today with someone who is coming to fix my filter water system. He is a Rep, and went to the 15 Apr teaparty. We had a great time talking, and he says the same thing, he no longers reads or listens to the new.

  58. Approval at -7 still but the 50/49 approve disapprove is nice.

    hey hey the Daily Rassmussen is fun today, look at the internals.

    The internal figures say it all, its only being held up by the AA vote again.

    Only 41% of whites approve, lol, is that the lowest ever. 97% of AA voters (he obviously can do no wrong there) and only 58% of others. So with those figures, i can’t see how they have him at 50% overall approval really unless they are seriously overpolling Dem leaning states. states.

  59. moononpluto

    So what has he done for the AA vote lately? I have to wonder, as I think they are having the same problems as everyone else, and to some degree they probably are losing their jobs at a higher percentage, depending on where they work. I also wonder what the % is of those going bankrupt, and losing their homes. But then, they view him as representing them in the WH. Yet, they award BC the honors?

  60. found link @ BP
    *********************

    July 20, 2009

    Not Obama’s Czars but his Commissars

    By Bruce Walker
    The three dozen or so people that Barack Obama has surrounded himself with to handle this problem or that issue, and yet are not confirmed by the Senate or operating an agency created by Congress, are not really his “czars.” These people are, instead, his “commissars.” Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany both called those vague, undefined figures appointed by the Leader to carry out his intentions “commissars” (Hollywood never speaks of Nazi commissars for the same reason that it never notes that Nazi Party members called each other “comrade” – the pretense that Nazis and Bolsheviks were polar opposites rather than identical twins is too vital a myth to dispel.)

    In our constitutional republic, government does not have a role in every part of life. That is why Congress has to create departments, agencies and administrations. Everything that the federal government does must, in some way, relate to its powers under the Constitution. The first cabinet offices dealt with clear cut federal duties – diplomacy, war, justice, money, and postal services. Before Congress creates a federal office, a threshold question is whether the Constitution allows the work of that office to be done by the federal government. That is the heart of limited government.

    There is, for example, no Department to Promote Politically Correct Thinking. No Congress would ever pass a law creating such an entity. A terrified Reichstag or the Central Committee of the Communist Party, on the other hand, might well do that. In those totalitarian regimes, “government” does not really exist: the party exists or, rather, the party and the state in a hopeless confusion of purpose and function. The very independence of Congress, even a venal and silly Congress, is a natural check upon a party-state with a leader at its apex.

    Congress also has the right and the obligation of oversight of the federal government. This means it can create and it can destroy executive branch departments. Congress also can create and destroy federal courts as well as change the jurisdiction of federal courts and increase or decrease the size of the Supreme Court. Congress sets the budgets and appropriates the funds for other parts of the federal government.

    Congress has the right and the duty to review, confirm, or reject the chief officer of the federal executive and legislative branches (except, of course, for the president and vice president.) And Congress has the right and the duty to remove any important federal officer who is corrupt or exceeds the powers of his office. The duty of Congress to remove corrupt principal officers of the executive and judicial branches is often simply forgotten. If the Secretary of the Treasury, for example, engages in some stinky behavior, he usually simply resigns. But whether he does — indeed, even if he does — the House can impeach him and the Senate can convict him.

    That is a deliberate check the Founding Fathers intended to give Congress over the Executive Branch. But could the House impeach or how could the Senate convict an Obama commissar, who had never been confirmed by the Senate and who held a position not created by Congress? Cabinet secretaries and heads of agencies are accountable both to the president and to Congress. These commissars, on the other hand, could not be impeached and removed from office because they do not, formally, hold an office.

    This is very dangerous. The leader, in this case Obama, becomes more than the office itself. The structure of government morphs into the structure of the party. Stalin, in large measure, did not wield his awful power as the head of the Soviet Union or chief of the Soviet government: he did, in fact, often brag that he was simply a member of the Communist Party, an ordinary Soviet citizen. Hitler did combine the offices of Chancellor and President, but his real power was as leader of the Nazi Party, not an official of the German government.

    When separate parts of government blend together, when rules of procedure are simply bypassed, when the distinction between political parties operating within government are transformed into political parties (through a system of commissars) operating as the government, then any nation with established, stable, and republican institutions has entered a very deadly phase.

    The patterns are already ominously clear. Legislators, quite literally, vote for legislation not yet written (which rather sounds like Hitler’s Enabling Act.) Judicial nominees make only the vaguest pretense of adhering to ideals of impartial administration of justice (Hispanic Justice and Aryan Justice may sound different to some people, but they are not.) Now commissars are replacing cabinet secretaries — and we should stop letting Obama define the changes. He is not appointing dozens of “czars.” He is creating a party-state system of political commissars.

  61. NewMexicoFan Says:

    July 20th, 2009 at 1:00 pm
    *****************************

    Think OJ…It is enough apparently that he is black!

  62. I ask you? Was the murderer Ted’s health crisis managed? Or did he fly all over God’s green earth and get the best care $$$$ can buy?
    ***************************

    Kennedy: Let’s Ration Health Care

    washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Kennedy-Lets-Ration-Health-Care-51145997.html

    Newsweek Managing Editor Daniel Klaidman explains that his magazine decided to ask Sen. Ted Kennedy to author a cover piece on health care, because “his absence during this historic debate had been so palpable, yet here was a way for this respected voice on health care to weigh in and be part of the national conversation at a critical moment.”

    Well, Sen. Kennedy has weighed in, and he may have helped doom Obamacare.

    For Kennedy and his co-author, Bob Shrum, have let the rationing cat out of the bag. And that’s a problem for President Obama and the Democrats. Make no mistake: Beyond all the other crippling problems with the Democrats’ health care proposal–its cost at a time of massive deficits, the tax increases it requires at a time of recession, its preference for government over the private sector and for central planning over free competition–the deepest vulnerability of Obamacare is that it (intentionally) puts us on a course towards government rationing of health care.

    Here’s the key paragraph from Kennedy and Shrum:

    We also need to move from a system that rewards doctors for the sheer volume of tests and treatments they prescribe to one that rewards quality and positive outcomes. For example, in Medicare today, 18 percent of patients discharged from a hospital are readmitted within 30 days–at a cost of more than $15 billion in 2005. Most of these readmissions are unnecessary, but we don’t reward hospitals and doctors for preventing them. By changing that, we’ll save billions of dollars while improving the quality of care for patients.

    Now first of all, if there are problems with Medicare, the laws and regulations governing Medicare–a government program–can be changed, without a government take-over of the rest of the system. Second, given that first diagnoses are often wrong or that hospital treatments lead to unanticipated complications, it’s not so clear on the face of it that an 18 percent readmission rate within 30 days for elderly patients is unreasonable. And third, even if the whole $15 billion worth of hospital readmissions were unnecessary (which can’t be case), $15 billion per year is less than 1 percent of our health care spending.

    But the most important implication of the Kennedy-Shrum claim–“Most of these readmissions are unnecessary, but we don’t reward hospitals and doctors for preventing them. By changing that, we’ll save billions of dollars.”–is this: The government is going to decide–ahead of time, obviously, since deciding after the fact wouldn’t save any money; and based on certain general criteria, since the government isn’t going to review each individual case–what kinds of hospital readmissions for the elderly are “unnecessary” and what kinds aren’t. And it’s going to set up a system “to reward hospitals and doctors for preventing” the unnecessary ones. That is, the government will reward hospitals and doctors for denying care they now provide, care the government will now deem “unnecessary.”

    Indeed, this understates the case. For in reality the government isn’t going simply to reward “good” and penalize “bad” admissions. It’s going to prevent insurance companies from paying for “unnecessary” admissions and procedures, if those companies want to participate in the government system. In other words, government bureaucrats are going to deem entire categories of treatment inefficient for all or

    certain categories of patients, and put those treatments out of bounds for doctors and hospitals.

    There are problems aplenty with our current health insurance and health care system. But do the American people want this kind of reform, one that has at its center an expansion of government control and one that leads, according to its own logic, to government rationing and denial of health care?

  63. Good Afternoon everyone. We had a very small group this morning.

    AOL headline says (days after we discussed it), that the Honeymood is over. It is like they get their news by pony express.

    A Day late and a dollar short.

  64. SHV Says:
    July 18th, 2009 at 11:43 pm

    Is the tide turning?? The WaPo Sh*ts on the Messiah:

    “What’s Next, Mr. President — Cardigans?”
    &&&&&&&

    Thanks, SHV, that op-ed was quite a good one. This paragraph sums it up extremely well:

    The key to understanding Obama’s predicament is to realize that while he ran convincingly as a repudiation of Bush, he is in fact doubling down on his predecessor’s big-government policies and perpetual crisis-mongering. From the indefinite detention of alleged terrorists to gays in the military to bailing out industries large and small, ***Obama has been little more than the keeper of the Bush flame***. Indeed, it took the two of them to create the disaster that is the 2009 budget, racking up a deficit that has already crossed the historic $1 trillion mark with almost three months left in the fiscal year.

  65. Sorry, that article just keeps on giving. Two more paragraphs:

    In the same way that Bush claimed to be cutting government even while increasing real spending by more than 70 percent, Obama seems to believe that saying one thing, while doing another, somehow makes it so. His first budget was titled “A New Era of Fiscal Responsibility,” even as his own projections showed a decade’s worth of historically high deficits. He vowed no new taxes on 95 percent of Americans, then jacked up cigarette taxes and indicated a willingness to consider new health-care taxes as part of his reform package. He said he didn’t want to take over General Motors on the day that he took over General Motors.

    Such is the extent of Obama’s magical realism that he can promise to post all bills on the Internet five days before signing them, serially break that promise and then, when announcing that he wouldn’t even try anymore, have a spokesman present the move as yet another example of “providing the American people more transparency in government.”

  66. For example, in Medicare today, 18 percent of patients discharged from a hospital are readmitted within 30 days–at a cost of more than $15 billion in 2005. Most of these readmissions are unnecessary, but we don’t reward hospitals and doctors for preventing them. By changing that, we’ll save billions of dollars while improving the quality of care for patients.

    This is insane. Elderly patients get readmitted because a) they are the most likely to be really sick, and most importantly b)

    THE MEDICARE REGS ALREADY IN PLACE DEMAND THAT THEY GET DISCHARGED WHEN CERTAIN CRITERIA ARE MET. This bullshit of blaming it on doctors and hospitals not “preventing” those readmissions is just that – BULLSHIT.

    My husband has dozens of Medicare patients in the hospital on any given week. Do you think he has the leeway to decide they get to stay until they are, in his medical opinion, absolutely stable to go home? NO! He gets told by Medicare “Tough titty, they have been here for 3 days for pneumonia, that’s our limit, send ’em home.” Because while to him they are human beings, with varying home situations that might affect their course of treatment after discharge, they are mere statistics to Medicare. Do they have family at home to help? Do they have freaking air-conditioning? (It matters for lung problems.) Do they have transportation to the follow-up outpatient visits that will be needed? How “with it” are they mentally, and do you feel certain that they can do the self-care at home that will be needed? Will they even remember to finish their antibiotics? See, he’d LIKE to, as a physician, take all that into account. To actually KNOW his patients on a human level, and plan accordingly. Some patients might be able to go home while still not 100%, because he feels confident that they’ll be okay. Some might need to stay until they are not just fever-free, but stronger and well out of the woods.

    He can’t MAKE those decisions. Those decisions are taken out of his hands. He discharges people every single day KNOWING that they will be back in a month. How the FUCK is that his fault for not “preventing” that readmission, when the govt that is bitching and moaning about it is the very one that INSISTED they had to be discharged?

    This crap just makes my blood boil.

  67. HillaryforTexas

    There has to be a way to do this the right way, and this country should be able to figure it out. Unfortunately, we elected a leader who does not have a clue, and does not want to even try to understand anything. Hand him a paper 5 minutes before he needs it.

  68. Tonight my friends:Hillar being interviewed by Greta on Fox.Will be a real treat to see and hear our real President Hillary Rodham Clinton.

    By ABM90

  69. hillary.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/07/20/photo_summary_hillary_clintons_india_trip

    great photos of Hillary on trip to India

  70. Over at gatewaypundit (I know, I know) they are having a blast with this statement from Zero:

    In some ways, African Americans are more fundamentally rooted in the American experience because they don’t have a recent immigrant experience to draw on. It’s that unique African American culture that has existed in North America for hundreds of years long before we actually founded the nation.”

  71. IT’S A DEM-EAT-DEM WORLD

    What to do with a supermajority? That’s right: fail spectacularly!

    No wonder they didn’t want another smart Clinton as POTUS, so they backed a freshman senator whom they can push around and disregard.

    From Saturday’s NYTimes:

    nytimes.com/2009/07/18/health/policy/18health.html

    Democrats Grow Wary as Health Bill Advances
    ================================

    By ROBERT PEAR and DAVID M. HERSZENHORN
    Published: July 17, 2009

    WASHINGTON — Three of the five Congressional committees working on legislation to reinvent the nation’s health care system delivered bills this week along the lines proposed by President Obama. But instead of celebrating their success, many Democrats were apprehensive, nervous and defensive.

    Even as Democratic leaders and the White House insisted that the nation was closer than ever to landmark changes in the health care system, they faced basic questions about whether some of their proposals might do more harm than good.

    And while senior Democrats vowed to press ahead to meet Mr. Obama’s deadline of having both chambers pass bills before the summer recess, some in their ranks, nervous about the prospect of raising taxes or proceeding without any Republican support, were pleading to slow down.

    Democrats had three reasons for concern. The director of the Congressional Budget Office warned Thursday that the legislative proposals so far would not slow the growth of health spending, a crucial goal for Mr. Obama as he also tries to extend insurance to more than 45 million Americans who lack it.

    Second, even with House committees working in marathon sessions this week, it was clear that Democrats could not meet their goal of passing bills before the summer recess without barreling over the concerns of Republicans and ending any hope that such a major issue could be addressed in a bipartisan manner.

    Third, a growing minority of Democrats have begun to express reservations about the size, scope and cost of the legislation, the expanded role of the federal government and the need for a raft of new taxes to pay for it all. The comments suggest that party leaders may not yet have the votes to pass the legislation.

    Mr. Obama tried Friday to shift the political narrative away from the grim forecasts of the Congressional Budget Office. He said he and Congress had made “unprecedented progress” on health care, with even the American Medical Association endorsing the House bill this week.

    He acknowledged a treacherous path ahead, saying, “The last few miles of any race are the hardest to run,” but insisted, “Now is not the time to slow down.” And he vowed: “We are going to get this done. We will reform health care. It will happen this year. I’m absolutely convinced of that.”

    On Capitol Hill, the picture is more complex. Representative Jared Polis, a freshman Democrat from Colorado who voted against the bill approved Friday in the Education and Labor Committee, said he worried that the new taxes “could cost jobs in a recession.”

    To help finance coverage of the uninsured, the House bill would impose a surtax on high-income people and a payroll tax — as much as 8 percent of wages — on employers who do not provide health insurance to workers.

    Mr. Polis said these taxes, combined with the scheduled increase in tax rates resulting from the expiration of Bush-era tax cuts, would have a perverse effect. “Some successful family-owned businesses would be taxed at higher rates than multinational corporations,” he said.

    In a letter to the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, Mr. Polis and 20 other freshman Democrats said they were “extremely concerned that the proposed method of paying for health care reform will negatively impact small businesses, the backbone of the American economy.”

    And in the latest sign of lawmakers’ chafing at Mr. Obama’s ambitious timetable, a bipartisan group of six senators, including two members of the Finance Committee, sent a letter to Senate leaders pleading with them to allow more time.

    “While we are committed to providing relief for American families as quickly as possible,” they wrote, “we believe taking additional time to achieve a bipartisan result is critical for legislation that affects 17 percent of our economy and every individual in the United States.”

    The group included three senators, Ben Nelson, Democrat of Nebraska; and Olympia J. Snowe and Susan Collins, Republicans of Maine, who met with Mr. Obama at the White House this week and urged him not to rush the bill.

    “The legislative process right now is going in the wrong direction,” said Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, the Connecticut independent, who also signed the letter. “I think it’s extremely doable to get this done before the end of the year. But just to try to get it passed in the Senate before we leave for the August recess seems just about impossible. It’s just too big a bill.”

    The House education committee approved the bill, 26 to 22, on Friday morning, after an all-night session. Three Democrats crossed party lines and voted no.

    The vote came eight hours after the House Ways and Means Committee approved a nearly identical bill, 23 to 18, with 3 Democrats voting no. On Wednesday, the Senate health committee approved a generally similar bill on a party-line vote, 13 to 10.

    The House and Senate bills would require insurers to take all applicants and vastly expand coverage, with federal subsidies for millions of people.

    But the director of the Congressional Budget Office, Douglas W. Elmendorf, testified on Thursday that doing so would come at a steep cost and that the proposals would not curb the rise in health spending by the federal government, which he called “unsustainable.”

    A budget office analysis released Friday said the House bill would “result in a net increase in the federal budget deficit of $239 billion” over 10 years, partly because of an increase in Medicare spending to avert sharp cuts in payments to doctors.

    House Democrats who voted no cited various concerns.

    “We are not doing enough to reform the health care delivery system, to change the incentives so reimbursement will be based on the value, rather than the volume, of services,” Representative Ron Kind of Wisconsin said.

    Others worry that a government-run health plan, to be created under the House bill, would underpay doctors and hospitals by using Medicare reimbursement rates. “I have a serious problem with the public plan in this bill because it’s based on Medicare rates,” Representative Earl Pomeroy of North Dakota said. “North Dakota is underpaid by Medicare.”

    Mr. Obama said he was confident that Congress and the White House would reach a deal on how to pay for the bill, and lower health care spending over the long term — an optimistic view that not all lawmakers share. But on one of Mr. Obama’s points, there was no dispute: “We’re going to be putting in a lot more hours,” the president said. “There are going to be a lot more sleepless nights.”

  72. African American culture that has existed in North America for hundreds of years long before we actually founded the nation.”
    **********
    Hundreds of years???? The first African were brought to the US as indentured servants between 1607 and 1615. 169 years aren’t hundreds..John Favreau has a persistent habit of making things us that could easily be fact checked. Obama, of course, wouldn’t know the difference, he just read whatever his handlers put on the Totus..

  73. Perhaps this is why you have a state department. Whereas Obama thinks he can galanvant around the country scoring big wins based on his personal charm and never let them see you sweat work. Didnt work.
    ——————————————————————–
    U.S. relations with Saudi Arabia are always something of a proverbial black box. And President Barack Obama’s meeting with Saudi King Abdullah last month was no exception. A late add-on to Obama’s planned June itinerary to Egypt, Germany, and France and conducted at King Abdullah’s horse ranch outside of Riyadh, the June 3 meeting was quickly overtaken by coverage of Obama’s high-profile June 4 speech to the Muslim world from Cairo.

    But two sources, one a former U.S. official who recently traveled there and one a current official speaking anonymously, say the meeting did not go well from Obama’s perspective. What’s more, the former official says that Dennis Ross has told associates that part of what prompted Obama to bring him on as his special assistant and NSC senior director for the “Central Region” last month was the president’s feeling that the preparation for the trip was insufficient. The White House vigorously disputes all of that, some of which was previously reported by the New York Times.

    Sources say Obama was hoping to persuade the king to be ready to show reciprocal gestures to Israel, which Washington has been pushing to halt settlements with the goal of advancing regional peace and the creation of a Palestinian state.

    “The more time goes by, the more the Saudi meeting was a watershed event,” said the former U.S. official who recently traveled to Riyadh. “It was the first time that President Obama as a senator, candidate, or president was not able to get almost anything or any movement using his personal power of persuasion.”

    “The bottom line is that the Saudis were not prepared,” the former official continued, for Obama to ask them to take steps toward Israel. Obama changed his trip to go to Saudi Arabia, he pointed out.

    “Senior sources in the Saudi national security team,” he said, “think the president’s trip was poorly prepared.” From their perspective, “he was coming and asking them for big favors with no preparation,” but “the Saudis never give big” in that situation.

    The former official said that Ross has told associates that Obama was “upset” about the meeting “because he got nothing out of it.” Ross didn’t respond to a query.

    The former official said Ross’s move to the NSC was in discussion before the Riyadh summit. “But the meeting may have been ‘the final straw,’ he said. “People at the NSC will obviously strenuously dispute that, but Dennis Ross is saying it to everybody. That’s his narrative about the NSC and I have heard it from a number of people.”

    Another official, speaking not for attribution, said last month that the 85-year-old Saudi monarch had launched a tirade during Obama’s long meeting in Riyadh, and that other Saudi officials had later apologized to the U.S. president for the king’s behavior. The official seemed to imply that the tirade was related to Israel, and that the king may be showing his age.

    The Obama administration pushed back hard on those allegations about the meeting, and said furthermore that the sources could not know what went on. “It was a very small group of folks who planned that trip,” a White House official said, disputing every aspect of the accounts. “The Saudi addition came on late.”

    The meeting included the two principals — the king and Obama — plus two advisors each, the White House official said. So “only four people” beyond the two leaders “know the real story,” the White House official continued. “It was deliberately designed to continue building their relationship and not to bring home deliverables,” and any source who says differently is “making things up.”

    Among those involved in the prep work, he said, were three top White House foreign-policy advisors: deputy national security advisor and chief of staff Mark Lippert, deputy national security advisor for strategic communications Denis McDonough, and White House counterterrorism chief John Brennan, who previously served as CIA station chief in Riyadh.

    “I can’t imagine Obama pressing the Israelis on settlements without expecting the Arabs to do something,” University of Vermont Saudi and Persian Gulf expert F. Gregory Gause told Foreign Policy, while saying he had no specific knowledge about the meeting. “He is pushing the Israelis, but he wants to show that in pushing them, it’s also bringing the Arabs closer” to peace with Israel. “He wants the Saudis to make some gesture to make it easier for the Israelis to stop settlements.”

    “And my reading of the Saudis,” Gause continued, “is they are not interested. We can criticize. But their line on this is, ‘We have done that already and gotten nothing. We did that in 2002 with the Abdullah peace plan and renewed it in 2007, and got the entire Arab league to sign on. Now why do more? We did that and got nothing.'”

    Former U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia Chas Freeman said he is not surprised there may have been different expectations for the meeting. “I spoke to the king’s advisors on the topic not long after the meeting, and they thought it went extremely well,” Freeman told Foreign Policy. However, Freeman continued, “From the American side, Washington has repeatedly misunderstood or been deluded about the Saudis on issues connected with Iran and Israel. The notion that somehow or other the Saudis will turn a blind eye to an Israeli strike on Iran — it does not compute.”

    Freeman also said Riyadh would reject the idea that an Israeli halt in settlement building “would bring forward some gesture from the Arabs.”

    “They have been around this road again and again with Madrid and Oslo,” Freeman said. The Saudi-led Arab peace initiative of 2002 is very carefully framed, he explained. “If the Israelis and Palestinians work out something mutually acceptable whatever it was … then this would be rewarded by wholesale normalization of relations between the Arab world and Israel.” But in Riyadh it’s seen as a “bonus,” Freeman continued, or an all-or-nothing proposition. “Not something to dicker over.”

    A Washington Middle East hand said on condition of anonymity that that may very well be the position of the Saudis, but it was not one that Washington had to accept as immutable and that Obama was perfectly wise to try to cultivate a relationship with the leadership and discuss these issues over time.

    Obama’s experience in Riyadh may be one factor prompting what some analysts see as recent adjustments and tonal shifts in the Obama administration’s articulation of its Middle East policy.

    “We don’t know if sending more junior people before [Obama’s] trip would have meant that the path would have been paved and everything would have been teed up for the presidential visit,” said David Makovsky, senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and coauthor with Ross of a new book on U.S. policy toward the Middle East, Myths, Illusions and Peace: Finding a New Direction for America in the Middle East. It’s perhaps possible that better prep work, he said, might have made Riyadh more amenable to a presidential request for tangible, confidence-building measures, or alternatively, that it would have tipped the White House off that the Saudis were prepared to offer nothing but “the back of their hand.”

    “If he’d known that in advance, the president would probably not have visited,” Makovsky said.

    He described Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s speech this week as demonstrating “a kind of recalibration of the Obama administration’s approach,” making clear that “the president has expectations on both sides,” as opposed to chiefly on the Israelis to halt settlements.

    “Progress toward peace cannot be the responsibility of the United States — or Israel — alone,” Clinton said Wednesday. “Ending the conflict requires action on all sides…. Arab states have a responsibility to support the Palestinian Authority with words and deeds, to take steps to improve relations with Israel, and to prepare their publics to embrace peace and accept Israel’s place in the region. The Saudi peace proposal, supported by more than 20 nations, was a positive step. But we believe that more is needed. So we are asking those who embrace the proposal to take meaningful steps now.”

    “When the secretary of state says she needs [Arab states’] help in word and deed and that the Arab peace initiative is just a beginning and there is much more to do,” Makovsky said, “this administration is trying to resist easy characterizations that they are only leaning on one side.”

  74. O is coming to Cleveland this week. He will be speaking at South High School, the same place Hillary spoke.

    The unemployment is through the roof here.

    Do you think i will be going to see him (NOT)

  75. I never saw Mr Cronkite play any underhanded games in his interviews or give anything other than the facts in his reporting. He seemed to genuinely mourn the tragic times and rejoice in the good ones.

    May he rest in peace.

  76. We’ve endured some very difficult connection problems with WordPress these past few days. We’ll return to a regular schedule by morning. Apologies to all with access problems (which should now be resolved).

  77. And the incestuousness continues this week:

    July 17 (Bloomberg) — President Barack Obama announced today he was nominating Robert Hormats, a vice chairman of Goldman Sachs International, to a top economic position at the State Department.

    We tried to tell them. Anyone remember this, from way back in the beginning?

    WASHINGTON–On May 3, 2007, Barack Obama attended an event at the Museum of Modern Art in Manhattan that was not on his public schedule and is only now surfacing–a private dinner for Goldman Sachs traders with a discussion on issues moderated for the Wall Street firm by NBC’s Tom Brokaw.

    Brokaw is the moderator of Tuesday’s second presidential debate between Obama and John McCain at Belmont University in Nashville, Tenn.

    Brokaw’s appearance was arranged through Goldman Sachs–not the Obama campaign.

    http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/10/obama_interviewed_by_brokaw_at.html

    Goldman Sachs very quietly had their damn hooks in Obama FROM THE BEGINNING OF HIS CAMPAIGN, if not before.

  78. I. OBAMA IS A FACADE . . .

    A. HE PRETENDS TO BE A LIBERAL. That is what he told us in the campaign, and many people took him at his word. But if he is a liberal, then how does he account for: His reversal on wire tapping (FISA)? His flip flop on public financing of elections? His plan to regulate the internet? His checkered history of supporting big business interests when they were harming his constituents (Rezko, Excelon, etc)? His surreal promise to create a standing army within the United States equal in size to our military? Question: Is that what a “liberal” does?

    B. HE PROMISED TO PROVIDE TRANSPARENCY. Indeed, it is a good thing for people to know what their government is doing, within certain parameters, especially when it affects their lives. But if he really believes in transparency, then how does he explain: His abuse of signing statements? His planted questions to the press? His serial threats and bribery of super delegates, state party organizations and now Congress itself? His refusal to disclose the names of business lobbyist and GE people who visit the White House on a daily basis? His private party with lapdog reporters on July 4 which he forbade them to discuss? Question: is that what “transparency” is about?

    C. HE PROMISED TO END GUNBOAT DIPLOMACY. During the campaign, he claimed that he opposed the Iraq War from the beginning, even though he voted for every funding measure once he became a Senator. What’s more he made certain commitments to bring the boys home. But if he is opposed to gunboat diplomacy, then how does he justify: His failure to do withdraw the troops as promised? His unlimited commitment to wider war in Afghanistan? His betrayal of useful idiots like Move-On funded by Soros whose staunch opposition to war lapsed the moment their man was in the White House. Obviously, we do not want Iraq to become a petrie dish for terrorism, or the Taliban to control the nuclear weapons in Pakistan. But he promised withdrawal notwithstanding what the Generals said. When President Bush broke his word, i.e. read my lips, no new taxes it cost him the next election. Question: Should voters expect a President to abide by his campaign promises, absent new evidence? If he repudiates them in masse, should they continue to trust him? Can a democracy survive if there is no political accountability?

    D. HE CLAIMS TO SUPPORT PRIVATE ENTERPRISE. That is a sensible thing to say. After all, business in general– and small business in particular, is the engine that produces jobs and wealth in this country. By contrast, government control over the means of production creates an economy of perverse incentives which cannot compete in a global marketplace. But if Obama supports private enterprise, then how can he justify: His predatory tax program on small business? His protection of unions over investors? His takeover of a major car company with a failing business model? His precipitous firing of its experienced CEO and selection of a 31 year old to replace him? His pressuring solvent banks to accept TARP funds? His surrender of our financial sovereignty when he agreed to subject American companies that have a material effect on global commerce to the jurisdiction of a committee of twenty international bankers, above our Treasury and SEC? Question: are those the actions of someone who supports “private enterprise”? Or are they indicative of an entirely different economic model, namely state capitalism?

    E. HE CLAIMS TO SUPPORT THE RULE OF LAW. We are told that he was a Senior Lecturer in Constitutional Law, so how could it be otherwise? But if he supports the rule of law, then how can he defend: His exoneration of the Mayor of Sacramento who embezzled stimulus monies—and was allowed to keep the spoils? His termination of the Inspector General who blew the whistle on this corruption? His failure to prosecute members of the New Black Panther Party who threatened and coerced voters with words and weapons at a polling place to vote for him? His refusal through the DNC he controls to investigate 2000 cases of election fraud and voter intimidation in the primary as documented by Dr. Lynette Long? His reliance upon ACORN during the campaign, his massive public funding of that corrupt organization, his planned use of it to conduct the census despite its thuggish tactics, and widespread violations of election laws? His strange comment that he will retain power 14 years from now, contrary to the two term limit imposed by the Constitution? Question: Is that what you would expect from someone who supports the “rule of law”?

    F. HE CLAIMS TO UNDERSTAND THE ECONOMY. That is fascinating proposition, since in his entire life he has never run so much as a hot dog stand. But if it is true, then how does he explain: His erroneous predictions on the economy of a v-shaped recovery which was at odds with what Wall Street predicted, and upon which his massive spending programs are based? His use of stimulus monies taken from taxpayers to provide a political slush fund rather than to create jobs and support small business? His ultimate intention to raise taxes on everyone—not just the so called wealthy—as he defines them? His push for universal health coverage and cap& trade program which will cost the country trillions at a time we can least afford it and to reward one company in particular, General Electric—rather than taxpayers? His fiscal irresponsibility which places all of us at the mercy of nations like China? Question: is there an end-game here? Does he plan to drive the country into insolvency to liquidate government guarantees which are unsustainable? Does he intend to repay those obligations with inflated dollars? How will he solve the liquidity crisis? Does he intend to sell us to China? Does he have any idea what he is doing? Does he care?

    G. HE CLAIMS TO UNDERSTAND FOREIGN AFFAIRS: That is a fascinating proposition as well. With a straight face, he tells us that he is an expert on foreign policy because he lived in a Kenyan village with his grandmother when he was a child. Amazing. But if he has profound judgment in foreign affairs, then how does he explain: His failure to comprehend Russia’s goal which is to reassert hegemony over Eastern Europe? His apparent willingness to limit deployment of our strategic missile defense system in deference to Kremlin wishes? His apparent willingness to entertain a quid pro quo which would curtail our submarine and long range bomber forces in exchange for an agreement to destroy aging cold war nukes and a cheap headline? His on again off again war with the CIA? His failure to appreciate America’s strategic interest in regime change in Iran, which is a mortal threat to our ally Israel and the State Sponsor of terrorism? His refusal to speak out on behalf of the democratic uprising in that country as other nations did, and all past presidents would? His leap to the side of Chavez on coup in Honduras? His efforts to undermine his own Secretary of State for purely political reasons? The damage he has done to the prestige of this country by violating the time honored political doctrine that politics stops at the water’s edge? His love bouquets to radical regimes, wavering support for our allies and blatant favoritism toward the non-western world? Question: Is this what we should expect from the presumed Leader of the Free World? If not then to whose drum is he marching?

    G. HE PROMISED GOOD GOVERNMENT: We can all drink to that. Good government requires a sound management structure and hiring honest qualified people. But if he believes in good government, then how does he explain: his failure to staff key positions in a timely manner? The high number of appointees who have been forced to decline his invitation or withdraw due to scandal? His widespread appointment of political hacks to cabinet, sub cabinet and ambassador positions, which has drawn criticism from State Department veterans, and rebuke from our key Asian ally Japan? His installment of 33 Czars who oversee all aspects of government and business, operate above the cabinet level, and report only to him? His failure to answer the institutional objections expressed by Senator Byrd (D-WVA), the senior member of his own party, and President Pro Tem of the Senate who called this an evasion of congressional oversight? Is this not in fact an ungovernable bureaucratic structure? Question: How can anyone justify this miasma as “good government”– in the American sense of the term? Is this what big media calls masterful?

    H. IN SUM, OBAMA IS A FACADE: Time and again his words do not conform to his actions. Granted, there could be innocent explanations for these anomalies–if there were only one or two of them. Moreover, the complexities, competing demands and temptations of political life require any politician to be flexible–up to a point. Desperate times require desperate measures– subject to Constitution. And, we can hardly expect a politician to keep every promise he makes—so long as he is fundamentally consistent. Those are fine observations. But none of them can quite account for Mr. Obama. Why not? Because, the more you examine the record as a whole, the more you realize that the image of him that big media portrays is fraudulent. He is not the political savior that so many people believed he was. He is not loyal to his constituents as history shows. And he not the reconciliation of the races others hoped for. Rather, he is a malleable individual with a missing past who has become a global celebrity through a 24/7 publicity blitz of self serving images, saccharine interviews, amen pundits and suppression of contrary evidence by a complicit press. But behind this benign façade and that incessant grin lurks a brutal political machine which destroys opponents and crushes dissent.

  79. I just read this on another blog and had to share it with you all because its sooooo true.

    An economics professor stated he had never failed a single student before, but had recently failed an entire class.

    That class had insisted that Obama’s socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, after the Great One completes his agenda.

    The professor then said, “OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama’s plan.” All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A.

    After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy.

    As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little.

    The second test average was a D! No one was happy.

    When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.

    The scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.

    All failed, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.

    Could not be any simpler than that.

  80. 7 1/2 more years of this and I ‘ll be institutionalized. This is the most outrageous power grab in a democracy not a war we have ever seen.

  81. Admin thanks for that explaination. For a while this morning I thought I was all alone.

    In addition, right after your note, I tried to loggin and failed. But I waited 30 minutes, and everything seems to be OK.

  82. When I appear to be talking to myself, it is not nearly as interesting as having the group talk.

  83. Obama’s approval rating drops below 50%

    Chris McGreal
    Monday 20 July 2009 18

    Public support for Barack Obama is slipping on the major issues likely to define his presidency, particularly healthcare reform with approval dropping below 50% for the first time.

    According to a Washington Post poll published today, voter confidence in Obama on other key issues, such as the economy, unemployment and the huge budget deficit, is also slipping.

    The president’s overall rating remains strong with 59% of those polled generally approving of his leadership. Nonetheless that is six points down on a month ago.

    The growing political fight over healthcare reform appears to be taking its toll on Obama’s ratings as support for him on the issue fell to 49% from 57% in April. Opposition to his proposals rose sharply, from 29% to 44%, as accusations that the president’s plan for comprehensive access to health insurance amounts to socialism that will lead to the government choosing people’s doctors, more taxes and increase the national deficit have had an impact. However, health reform is still strongly backed among Democrats and those earning less than $50,000 a year.

    There has also been a major shift since Obama took office in January against the government attempting to spend its way out of recession. At the beginning of the year, a little more than half of voters supported federal spending to revive the economy. That has fallen sharply, to 40%, while a significant majority now believes it is more important to avoid increasing the budget deficit.

    The increased spending has also undermined Obama’s attempts to portray himself as a new type of Democratic president. Four months ago, two out of three Americans saw him as careful with the public’s money and a break from the old-style tax and spend Democrats. Now, the numbers are much closer with only 52% having such confidence.

    guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jul/20/barack-obama-healthcare-poll

  84. Amman begins stripping state’s Palestinians of citizenship

    Jul. 20, 2009

    Jordanian authorities have started revoking the citizenship of thousands of Palestinians living in Jordan to avoid a situation in which they would be “resettled” permanently in the kingdom, Jordanian and Palestinian officials revealed on Monday.

    The new measure has increased tensions between Jordanians and Palestinians, who make up around 70 percent of the kingdom’s population.

    The tensions reached their peak over the weekend when tens of thousands of fans of Jordan’s Al-Faisali soccer team chanted slogans condemning Palestinians as traitors and collaborators with Israel. Al-Faisali was playing the rival Wihdat soccer team, made up of Jordanian-Palestinians, in the Jordanian town of Zarqa.

    Anti-riot policemen had to interfere to stop the Jordanian fans from lynching the Wihdat team members and their fans, eyewitnesses reported. They said the Jordanian fans of Al-Faisali hurled empty bottles and fireworks at the Palestinian players and their supporters.

    Reports in a number of Jordanian newspapers said that the Jordanian fans also chanted anti-Palestinian slogans and cursed Palestine, the PLO, Jerusalem and the Aksa Mosque.

    Prince Ali bin Hussein, chairman of Jordan’s National Football Association, strongly condemned the racist slurs chanted by the Jordanian fans, saying those responsible would be severely punished.

    Baker al-Udwan, director of Al-Faisali team, also condemned the behavior of his team’s supporters. He said that a minority of “outcasts” and “corrupt” elements were behind the embarrassing verbal and physical assault on the Palestinian soccer players and their fans. “We condemn this uncivilized demeanor and welcome any step that would result in the elimination of this tiny group of parasites,” he said.

    Tarek Khoury, chairman of the Wihdat team, instructed his players to abandon the field as soon as the Jordanian fans started hurling abuse against Palestinians and the Aksa Mosque.

    Palestinians said that the confrontation with the Jordanians was yet another indication of increased tensions between the two sides.

    “Many Palestinians living in Jordan are convinced that the Jordanian authorities are trying to squeeze them out,” said Ismail Jaber, a West Bank lawyer who has been living in the kingdom for nearly 20 years. “There is growing discontent and uncertainty among Palestinians here.” He and other Palestinians said that Jordanians’ “hostile” attitude toward them had escalated after the rise to power of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu earlier this year.

    Several Jordanian government officials, they said, are convinced that Netanyahu and Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman are secretly working toward turning Jordan into a Palestinian state. As a preemptive measure, the Jordanian authorities recently began revoking the citizenship of thousands of Palestinians, leaving many of them in a state of panic and uncertainty regarding the future.

    The Jordanians have justified the latest measure by arguing that it’s aimed at avoiding a situation in which the Palestinians would ever be prevented from returning to their original homes inside Israel. Since 1988, when the late King Hussein cut off his country’s administrative and legal ties with the West Bank, the Jordanian authorities have been working toward “disengaging” from the Palestinians under the pretext of preserving their national identity.

    That decision, said Jordan’s Interior Minister Nayef al-Kadi, was taken at the request of the PLO and the Arab world to consolidate the status of the PLO as the sole and legitimate representative of the Palestinian people.
    “Our goal is to prevent Israel from emptying the Palestinian territories of their original inhabitants,” the minister explained, confirming that the kingdom had begun revoking the citizenship of Palestinians.
    “We should be thanked for taking this measure,” he said. “We are fulfilling our national duty because Israel wants to expel the Palestinians from their homeland.”
    Kadi said that, despite the new policy, Palestinians would be permitted to retain their status as residents of the kingdom by holding “yellow ID cards” that are issued to those who have families and homes in the West Bank.

    He said that Palestinians working for the Palestinian Authority or the PLO were among those who have had their Jordanian passports taken from them, in addition to anyone who did not serve in the Jordanian army.

    The Jordanian minister said that the Palestinian leadership in the West Bank had been notified of the decision to revoke the Jordanian citizenship of Palestinians.

    A PA official in Ramallah expressed deep concern over Jordan’s latest move and said that it would only worsen the conditions of Palestinians living in the kingdom. The official said that PA President Mahmoud Abbas raised the issue with King Abdullah II on a number of occasions, but the Jordanians have refused to retract.

    Asked by the London-based Al-Hayat daily where the Palestinians should go after they lose their Jordanian passports, the minister replied: “We’re not expelling anyone, nor are we revoking the citizenship of Jordanian nationals. We are only correcting the mistake that was created after Jordan’s disengagement from the West Bank [in 1988]. We want to highlight the true identity and nationality of every person.”

    Kadi claimed that the kingdom was seeking, through the new measure, to thwart an Israeli “plot” to transfer more Palestinians to Jordan with the hope of replacing it with a Palestinian state. “We insist that Jordan is not Palestine, just as Palestine is not Jordan,” he stressed. “We will continue to help the Palestinians hold on to their Palestinian identity by pursuing the implementation of the 1988 disengagement plan from the West Bank.”

    jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1246443863400&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

  85. Well I think its ironic that now his poll numbers as well as the rest of the dims are dropping fast, they shake the cobb webs off Hillary and bring out the one every in American voted for.

  86. Thank you wbb for the point by point desimination of Obama’s character. The sooner people realize Obama isn’t who they think he is or was supposed to be, the sooner we can move on.

    Obama is the appointed quarterback building on the groundwork Bush laid for him over the 8 yrs he was in office. There was a plan in place for Obama to be the president select, long before the election.

    Why was he chosen over Hillary? Surely Hillary is smarter and has an unbelievable work ethic. Surely Hillary would have stopped the country from hemorrhaging money within the first 6 mos in office. Hillary would have had the country turning the corner by now producing positive results. We all know that and we could have been on our merry way.

    So, why did they pick Obama? We know the city of Chicago where Obama has lived for the last 20 yrs is ‘untouchable’ (no pun intended) and shares the mastery of corrupt politicians like no other state. You can count on finding corruption in Chicago from the pulpit to the presidency and everything in between.

    Does anyone think Wall St., Big Pharma, Health Care lobbyists, the World Bank, the European Union, anyone(?) could OWN Hillary? I don’t. Could a powerful entity give Hillary a daily script for public appearances and send her out with the duty of saying the words they want people to hear… then have her say she is promoting transparency (?), (another of Obama’s biggest whoppers) and would Hillary be totally uninvolved in the decision making process crafting public policy?.Acting as the stooge for the brains behind the brain slowly but surely wrecking the country’s economy? Could Hillary ever do that?

    She would refuse the presidency if those were the terms conditional for the nomination.

    From past experience we know Obama doesn’t have a problem with Rev Wright and ACORN… He doesn’t have a problem standing behind a Hater of America and terrorist group-members. Obama doesn’t have a problem with these types of people, because he’s One of Them!

    Obama is the water bearer for the destruction of America. Think of all the messages you can possibly invent that Bin Laden could have left for the American people… here are a few examples that come to mind. “We will kill ALL the infidels”.. “We will instigagte chaos and terrorize you until you are a broken 3rd World country.” No- he didn’t say anything like the examples given. Not at all. OBL said very simply: “We shall destroy you from within.” Lo and Behold, marking his words, it is happening before our eyes.

  87. I wish we could do a blast fax to all members of Congress warning them not to sign any bill they have not read. Obama is sure to pull the same thing on health care that he did with cap and trade. These bills are so huge and so far reaching that it is CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE for any public offical who takes an oath to support and defend the constititution without reading and fully understanding the plain meaning of every line in the bill and its full ramifications. The Constititution calls for the separation of powers, not a congressional rubber stamp.

  88. I wish we could do a blast fax to all members of Congress warning them not to sign any bill they have not read. Obama is sure to pull the same thing on health care that he did with cap and trade.
    **************
    I have downloaded the HR versions of both the Energy and Health Reform bills. The Energy Bill was ~ 900(?) pages without the addenda and the Health bill was 1061. Reading them is like reading a foreign language that you took for two years in High School, you can recognize words and phrases but not the meaning. I can now understand why legislators don’t read what they vote on. I am not sure anyone understands the complete picture. Lobbyist write sections that interest the people who pay them and legislative assts. write their sections. The funniest part of the Health bill was the section that mandated that rules and regulations be written in clear and understandable language.

  89. http://www.wral.com/golo/image/5472874/

    Bamopoly

    Bamopoly, destroy American capitalism by having the government take over everything!
    The very latest game out on the market and it’s selling out all over the country. Check it out.

    The object of the game is to destroy American capitalism by having the government take over everything!

    Tokens include a bus, a teleprompter, a sprig of arugula and a waffle iron.

    Wanna play? No??? Too bad, you’re already playing… and quite frankly, in this game, nobody wins!

    Share and Enjoy:

  90. I know no quarter is a lousy blog, or at least it has turned into one, but sometimes there really are good posts. May I recommend, “This Mouth is Mine”. You will not be disappointed. It is about Women’s voices around the World, interesting enough, also blatant is the silence of the American Woman…

  91. Well, I have to say I wanted to give Hillary the benefit of the doubt about her NOT being sidelined, but I just went over to the DNC blog and there are pics of everyone, but none of Hillary. I clicked on “Our Party”, there were pics of Pooplosi, Harry Reid and some others I dont know, but you would think there would be one of Hillary. No, No, NO, there is no pic of her anywhere on the website. There are pics of some guy name Reggie fist bumping Obama and Biden who incidently looks like his been hitting the scotch bottle, but NO pics of our lady.
    I AM SO SICK OF THIS IDIOT, WE NEED, I NEED UHC, WE DONT NEED THE USURPER!!!

  92. I have downloaded the HR versions of both the Energy and Health Reform bills. The Energy Bill was ~ 900(?) pages without the addenda and the Health bill was 1061. Reading them is like reading a foreign language that you took for two years in High School, you can recognize words and phrases but not the meaning. I can now understand why legislators don’t read what they vote on. I am not sure anyone understands the complete picture. Lobbyist write sections that interest the people who pay them and legislative assts. write their sections. The funniest part of the Health bill was the section that mandated that rules and regulations be written in clear and understandable language
    ===============================================
    Well, that is what they have staff people for. In addition, they have experts in each field which their staffers can call for intereptation. They can go to industry associations who are adversely affected by th proposed legislation. Also, they have house or senate legislative counsel, whom I have worked with once or twice over the years drafting bills. They have the expertise or can draw on it if necessary. What they do not have is time, and that will not change until they put their foot down and say I am voting against it until I am given reasonable time to read it, understand the text and its practical ramifications. Otherwise, they will become nothing more than a rubber stamp.

  93. I wish we could do a blast fax to all members of Congress warning them not to sign any bill they have not read.
    ======================
    Both Henry Waxman and Steny Hoyer have laughed rather publicly in response to our requests for reading the legislations before voting. In late May, Waxman brought in a speed reader to one of his hearings for cap and trade. It’s immortalized on a CSPAN video. On July 8 CNS reported that Hoyer found the pledge to read before voting humorous.
    Yesterday at another blog there was [spoofing] speculation that legislation may not be written until after the vote. But, you know, I am seriously wondering if the arrogance of The Fools On The Hill has grown so large as to embrace such a policy.

  94. confloyd:

    Hillary is not in Congress anymore. She is above them at the Cabinet level.

    The AP has tons of new pics of Hillary.

    h….. news.aol.com/article/911-ringleaders-in-pakistan/579209

  95. Admin,

    After 6 mos of Obama, Fox videos at this link are painting Obama as a has been, one term president.

    Brit Hume, Lindsey Graham, Rush. At least, Dick Morris… lauds Clinton for his handling of America’s finances.

    http://thehopeforamerica.com/play.php?id=1514



  96. Clinton Signals Revival of U.S. Interest in Southeast Asia

    By JAMES HOOKWAY

    BANGKOK – U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is due to attend a Southeast Asia-based security summit on the Thai island of Phuket Wednesday in what diplomats are describing as a revival of U.S. interest in a vibrant region comprising several major exporters, the world’s most populous Muslim nation and 570 million people.

    But discussions on strengthening Washington’s trade and security ties with the ten-member Association of Southeast Asian Nations, or Asean, will likely be overshadowed by two long-running themes in the region: How to deal with a nuclearized North Korea, and how to convince Myanmar’s military junta to allow a degree of democratic change in the reclusive nation.

    The U.S. has longstanding ties to several Southeast Asian nations. U.S. troops are on the ground in the Philippines helping train local soldiers as they attempt to root out al-Qaeda-affiliated terrorist groups. Similarly, the U.S. has helped train and equip Indonesia’s counter-terrorism forces, which are now hunting for the masterminds behind the bombings which killed nine people – including two suicide bombers – at two luxury hotels in Jakarta on Friday.

    Total trade between the U.S. and Asean exceeded $178 billion in 2008, and, in an opinion piece Mrs. Clinton wrote that was published in Bangkok newspapers Tuesday, she said “there is no doubt that our economies’ fortunes and our nations’ futures are more intertwined than ever before.”

    Some regional analysts see the Asean grouping as the kernel of a broader free trade bloc spanning the Pacific and also encompassing China, Japan, South Korea. Mrs. Clinton is scheduled to sign a non-aggression pact with Asean in Phuket, as China did in 2003, which diplomats say could enable the U.S. to later enmesh itself within the so-called East Asia Summit group, which includes the ten Asean members plus trade partners China, India, Japan, South Korea, New Zealand and Australia.

    “America is shaping itself up to be a real player in the region again,” says Thitinan Pongsudhirak, director of the Institute of Security and International Studies at Bangkok’s Chulalongkorn University. “This is the first time since the Bush administration that we’ve seen the United States engage with East Asia as a region rather than as a series of bilateral agreements.”

    Former secretary of state Condoleezza Rice skipped the annual Asean Regional Forum, as it’s known, two times in three years during the second term of President George W. Bush.

    The region’s many political and security problems frequently crowd out trade and economic discussions, however – particularly the question of how to deal with North Korea.

    Besides the U.S. and Asean, representatives from China, the European Union, Japan, Russia and South Korea will attend, along with a host of ministers from other countries. Usually, North Korea’s foreign minister attends, but this year Pyongyang sent a roving ambassador in his place amid growing international criticism for its weapons tests and an increasingly hard-line, militaristic stance after North Korean leader Kim Jong Il fell ill earlier this year.

    In an interview broadcast on ABC television on Monday, Mrs. Clinton described North Korea’s actions this year – which included controlled nuclear explosions and missile launches – as a “constant demand for attention” reminiscent of “small children and teenagers.”

    The other thorny topic for the Asean Regional Forum is what to do with Myanmar. The resource-rich, military-run state is a source of constant embarrassment to Asean. Regional analysts have said Asean’s unwillingness to expel or take other harsh measures against the country could affect the grouping’s ability to secure wider trade pacts with some of its biggest trading partners.

    Several Southeast Asian nations, notably democracies Indonesia and the Philippines, have been pushing the grouping to take a stronger stance against the military leaders in Myanmar, which is also known as Burma. Indonesian Foreign Minister Hassan Wirayuda told the Associated Press on Tuesday that elections which the Myanmar junta is planning for 2010 must include opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi. Ms. Suu Kyi, a Nobel Peace laureate, is currently on trial and faces up to five years in prison on charges of violating the terms of her house arrest by allowing an uninvited American guest to stay at her home. “We should see whether from now until 2010 [Myanmar] develops a credible process leading to truly democratic elections acceptable to the international community,” Mr. Wirayuda said.

    Separately, Australia’s Foreign Minister Stephen Smith said Tuesday he is hoping to use the Phuket forum to talk with his Chinese counterpart, Yang Jiechi, about the detention of Rio Tinto PLC employee and Australian citizen, Stern Hu. Mr. Hu and three other Rio employees have been detained since July 5. China has alleged they used bribery to obtain state secrets.

    Australian officials, including Mr. Smith and Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, have argued that China’s handling of the issue will be watched and judged by governments and corporations around the world.

    online.wsj.com/article/SB124817084078767991.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

  97. Clinton stayed at Taj to send tough message to terrorists

    Tue, 21 Jul 2009

    Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has said she chose to stay at the Taj Mahal Hotel in Mumbai last weekend to make it very clear that India and the US “are going to work together to stamp out the scourge of terrorism”.

    “I wanted to start in Mumbai and I wanted to stay here, and I wanted to show our sympathy and solidarity for the people who lost their lives and were injured in the terrorist attack and for those who courageously prevented more deaths and injury,” Clinton said in an interview with Fox News recorded in Mumbai.

    Her stay at the Taj Mahal Hotel was also intended to “to make it very clear that, you know, we’re going to work together to stamp out the scourge of terrorism,” she said.

    Clinton agreed with the interviewer that it was “hugely significant” that she had chosen to stay at one of the two hotels attacked by terrorists Nov 26. “It is,” she said. “We’re in the Taj Hotel, which was one of the two hotels that were attacked by the terrorist on November the 26th, what they call 26/11 here in India. And I wanted to stay here. I was very anxious to come to India.

    “We waited until after their elections were over, which we thought appropriate. And then as soon as I could, I scheduled a trip to come and talk to the leaders about all the issues that we are going to work on together,” she said.

    “You’re right. I think part of staying here, part of the message that I want to send is that, just like we did after 9/11, we are not giving in. We are not in any way intimidated by the terrorists,” Clinton said when asked if she had wanted to make her event at the Taj more public. “They can wreak havoc and death, but they are no match for people’s feelings of positive energy, their commitment to life, their willingness to keep going,” she said.

    “So I see it as a rebuke to those who plan and plot and carry out these horrible attacks. And I feel very strongly that we have to stand up against that.”

    Clinton wrapped up her four-day India visit Monday.

    samaylive.com/news/clinton-stayed-at-taj-to-send-tough-message-to-terrorists/639824.html

  98. I noticed the commenting about the lack of HRC photos at the DNC site. I think HRC and BJC knew that was how they would play it. If she had stayed in the Senate, there were have been a lot fewer oppourtunities to notice her, and it would have looked like sour grapes.

    However as SOS, the media will follow what she does. So her visibility will be out there in front of the public, and it will not look like sour grapes. He is indecisive, wants to eternally vote present, and he changes his mind all the time. Now that is what I call READY TO LEAD FROM DAY ONE N O T.

    I have come to beleive that they were blood thirsty, bullying, fraudulently prepared to take care of their own mother if they had to, to get him elected, and they got on board every crook in the party, and bullied and bribed the rest. However, they don’t have a clue about preparing legislation, negotiating from a strong position, and sacrificing to get some of what they wanted. They thought, with the intial appearance of all this strength, they could get away with it. But, the Reps hung in there, many HRC people never folded in, the independance do not fold in, so if they voted for you, they can not vote for you next. This scenerios is then based on being able to negotiate and getting things done, not putting an ad in home town papers of the Senators and Reps that oppose you. O and his staff are unable to do that. REMEMBER HE DID NOT REALLY OPEN HIS ARMS OR EXTEND HIS HAND TO HRC SUPPORTERS. He did not think he had to (they would gravel at his feet like the women on the plane). He does not appologize, he simple ignores and bullies.

    I know if it were not for the internet he would be getting away with it. But the speeches that HRC might not be posted at the DNC, but they are at utube, and they do get exposure. In fact, I think people go looking for them, just to hear a speech that says something that is meaningful.

  99. Thanks, Admin for posting the Fox video-

    For the time being, the Repubs are elucidating valid points from the opposition Party, points they should have been making before the election. However, we’ve lived long enough to recognize, they and the Dems are “one” party and whatever position they are taking now is strictly for political expediency and their own self-interest. Has nothing to do with helping the People.

    If I hear Obama say one more time…”The American People… this…” “The American People that… ” His tone of voice is so removed from the problems we face, he lectures us like a Kenyan who just won the lottery!

    Who Cares about the DNC.. they all ought to be removed from office. They put this ne’r do well thief in charge to lead this country down the drain!

    fffft! on all of them!

Comments are closed.