Howard Dean For President!

Update (November 30): Via Yale Daily News (Howie also has a new book, precursor to candidates announcing):

Congress isn’t going to pass a bill that reforms health care,” Howard Dean ’71 said. “What we want is to have the kinds of choices so that we can reform health care.”

Dean, former Head of the Democratic National Committee and a 2004 Democratic candidate for president, addressed 50 undergraduates at a Pierson College Master’s Tea Monday afternoon. His talk on health care comes on the heels of the release of his new book, “Howard Dean’s Prescription for Real Health Care Reform,” as well as the start of debate about the health care bill on the Senate floor. According to Dean, the most important component of the health care bill is the public option.

“If we don’t have a choice, this bill is worthless and should be defeated,” the former Governor of Vermont said.

—————————————————————————————————-

Ever wonder why Howard Dean got zilch from the Zero?

Many Howard Dean Big Blog Boys think Dean got zap from Obama because of opposition from his enemy, Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel. Emmanuel, as head of the DCCC tasked with electing Democrats to the House of Representatives, fought with Dean over money when Dean was running the Democratic National Committee. But as usual, the Big Blog Boys are wrong.

Dean got zilch because Obama does not want vipers like himself around. Obama is a traitorous viper too. As the saying goes, “it takes one to know one”. Most people do not like traitors and liars around them. Al Capone of Chicago would use traitors from opposition gangs but eventually they would find their heads cracked by a bat wielded by Capone.

Obama, like Capone, welcomed traitors and liars but remained wary of them. If they betrayed once, what’s to stop them from betraying again? Obama welcomed traitor Greg Craig, even gave him a job, but soon Craig felt the bat on the noggin.

But Obama never welcomed Dean, never gave him a job. Obama saw how Dean debased his position as Chairman of the Democratic National Committee in order to rig the nomination for Obama. Dean betrayed the Democratic grassroots by not being a trustworthy arbitrator and instead manipulating and deceiving to help Obama.

Under Howard Dean, there were no fora to discuss women’s issues even though there was a woman running with a high probability of winning the nomination. Instead there were many fora and town halls featuring African-American issues and even more in Obama friendly sites like Chicago. There were no fora or town halls run by the DNC in Hillary friendly places like New York or in front of predominately women audiences.

Howard Dean was a dirty traitor to the Democratic grassroots and his position as Chairman. We wrote:

During this election cycle, Chairman of the Dimocratic Party Howard Dean remained silent on sexism and misogyny but any “racial” statements were quickly condemned even if the “racial” statements were merely hoaxes set up by the Obama campaign. The condemnation of “racist” statements however were not made against the Obama campaign when the barely veiled racism benefited Obama.

When Obama called Hillary in anonymous memoranda the Senator from Punjab only the East Asian community (and Big Pink) took offense. The Democratic Left which condemned the turbaned stereotypes of Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom did not denounce this particular baiting by the Obama campaign.

Howard Dean attributed his silence on sexism and misogyny to ignorance because he did not get cable television. The Chairman must have missed the sexism and misogyny on broadcast television, in Obama statements, in newspapers, magazines and every conceivable Big Media outlet. The Hillary Clinton “nutcrackers” and the “Bro Before Ho” merchandise must also have escaped the Democratic Chairman from the Democratic Left. The good German did not know what was going on – he did not smell the furnaces burning.

It was Howard Dean who tried to force Hillary Clinton out of the primary race along with his hires such as Donna Brazile. When Obama supporters threatened riots at the Denver convention if Obama was not nominated Dean smiled. When Hillary supporters demanded a vote at the convention Dean stomped his feet and demanded “unity”.

It was Howard Dean who further rigged the “48 State strategy” by rejecting the voting rights of Michigan and Florida. It was Howard Dean, via the Rules and Bylaws Committee, who stole Hillary Clinton Delegates and “redistributed” them to thieving Barack Obama.

Obama, with nods and winks, grinned as Howard Dean abused his supposed to be impartial position as Chairman of the Party in order to rig the results for Obama. Obama saw how Dean used his power at the DNC and right then and there knew he would never give Dean any position of authority.

Dean, as a medical practioner, would have been perfect for a Health Czar position or Secretary of Health and Human Services. The HHS position in particular (as well as the Health Czar position due to tax cheat Tom Daschle’s problems) had been difficult to fill and Howard Dean would have been a perfect fit with the job. But Obama knew that if Dean had a Department to run he would abuse his position in the same way he abused his position as Chairman of the DNC.

In short, untrustworthy Obama could not trust untrustworthy Dean.

* * * * *

Which brings us to our topic.

When researching Turkeys For Thanksgiving we were forced to visit websites run by Big Blog Boys. It was a dirty job but we did it for our readers. Repeatedly we ran into delusional posts about how secure Obama is and that no one will ever challenge him. This is a good example of the delusional genre from one of the most delusional Obama lovers:

Is President Obama becoming vulnerable to a primary challenge in 2012? Further, is there any chance that challenge could be from the left?

Looking President Obama’s job approval by partisan and ideological self-identification, looking at the partisan and ideological self-identification of the Democratic primary electorate as a whole, one can quickly answer “no” to both of those questions.: [snip]

This means that, at least right now, President Obama is not vulnerable to a primary challenge, and what little danger he faces comes primarily from his right, not his left.

So far, the dominant narrative among liberal and progressives is that President Obama is on their side and accomplishing what he can. Any shortfalls are the fault of Republicans, conservative Democrats, the media, corporate lobbies, or anyone who is not President Obama. This can be seen in the actions of most progressive grassroots organizations, such as MoveOn.org. The basic idea is that progressives are pushing conservative Democrats to fall in line with President Obama’s agenda, not that President Obama himself is failing to push hard enough (or actually opposed to progressive ideas).

Whether this narrative will change following large and long-term troop increases in Afghanistan, the coming across the board spending freezes or cuts, and the formation of commission to cut Social Security, remains to be seen. However, my guess is that all of this won’t have any particularly strong impact on President Obama’s approval among the left. [snip]

Instead of a primary challenge, I expect the continuing economic malaise and factionalization within both parties to result in one–or more–strong third party candidates in the 2012 elections. Once again, the strongest of those challenges will not be on the left, but either in the Perot-Buchanan line of American exceptionalism, or from the hard-right teabaggers. The self-identified left is still largely with President Obama.

All the delusions of the above are too many to take on. Let’s just say reality is more aligned with this comment responding to that pile of delusions:

Remember the balmy days between the election and the inauguration? Those were the days progressives took Obama’s campaign promises literally and were convinced that, between the “demographic shifts” and all the young people brought into the political process via Pouffe’s Organizing For America folks, the conservatives and the Republicans were doomed for years to come.

Remember that?

Now the OFA folks have been carefully subsumed in the DLC’s DNC and even the generic polls show the generic Republicans out in front.

That’s what happens when you have an electorate that doesn’t have a clue as to how power really functions in our “democracy”.

Indeed, that 87% of liberal Democrats actually approve of Obama’s presidency to date speaks volumes about the blind leading the blind to the deaf and dumb.

And now here we are discussing the possibility of Obama being challenged from the right!!

Only the Bilderberg folks behind the scenes in the Obama administration are a lot less blind than “the people”.

So far, the dominant narrative among liberal and progressives is that President Obama is on their side and accomplishing what he can.

Really, how appalling…how scary…is that?!!

Dean implemented a successful program in Vermont. His opinion should be taken very seriously. He’s the one whose 50-state plan landed Obama in the WH. He should have been surgeon general or secretary of health but he and Rahm ‘I’m-a-f**king-c*ntface’ Emmanuel don’t get along so Deano got snubbed.

The above comment, minus the lack of perception regarding Emmanuel/Dean which we explained at the outset, is the point we wish to address.

We have good news for that commentor and the rest of the Nutroots. Howard Dean might be the one to challenge Obama from the left. Indeed, if we were friends of Howard Dean (we are friends of very, very, very, close friends of Dean) we would advise him to take Obama on – from the left. Dean might be doing just that. Listen to the video below and you will see Dean possibly positioning himself to take on Obama after 2010’s election disasters.



It’s not only on health care that Dean can take on Obama. Dean, after 2010, can attack Obama for not following through on the “50 State strategy”. Dean can take Obama on regarding all the lobbyist, ethics, promises Obama made during the campaign but has not delivered on and does not intend on delivering on.

Dean is also a darling of his beloved Nutroots. If the Big Blog Boys had to choose between Dean and Obama they would have wet dreams every night but eventually go with their first true love – Howie. It was with Howie Dean that all the nutkooks that now infect our politics got their start. It would be true love to once again flack for Howie.

Howard Dean could also take on Obama (and Nancy Pelousy) on Iraq/Afghanistan.

President Obama will reveal his new Afghanistan war strategy in a speech Tuesday evening to cadets at West Point, but his most skeptical audience is likely to be the powerful Democrats on Capitol Hill who oppose a troop buildup. [snip]

On Tuesday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) described what she called “serious unrest” in her caucus over the prospect of another vote to finance billions of dollars for an expanded war. It is, she said, the most difficult vote she can ask of the members of her party. “We need to know what the mission is, how this is further protecting the American people and is this the best way to do that, especially at a time when there’s such serious economic issues here at home,” she told bloggers on a Tuesday conference call. [snip]

In June, Pelosi strong-armed anti-war Democrats into voting for a $100 billion measure to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. During an interview in July, she recounted her appeal to the lawmakers: “Will you change your mind and one more time vote for war funding?” She also promised not to ask again. “This is the very last time,” she told them.

Now, barely five months later, Pelosi and Obama will soon have to go back to the war well, even as they seek difficult votes from the same Democrats on health-care reform, climate change legislation and regulation of the financial industry.

Howard Dean would have a lot of fun opening another front against Obama. Howie could help us in our job to drive Obama from ever running for office again.

If Howie had any guts, he would run against Obama.

We’ll cheer Howie on. Get a dog to kill a dog.

We’ll giggle, we’ll laugh, we’ll watch in horrified glee as two dogs fighting prepares the way for a real president to emerge wearing a pantsuit.

Howard Dean For President!

Share

99 thoughts on “Howard Dean For President!

  1. Great Post! One of the best yet.

    I was a supporter of Dean….what a disappointment he turned out to be.

    If Hillary doesn’t run and Lou dobbs does….I would vote for dobbs.

  2. Extremely exciting prospect; poetic justice; could you imagine the debates???
    A great read on a slow Saturday.

  3. Much of the speculation will be settled by the 2010 election. At that point three questions will be ripe:

    1. can any democrat win in 2012? (the capitualation of the blue dogs will finish off the party).

    2. can she run and win? (given that the party and press have been corrupted)

    3. can she achieve success as president? (the situation may be too far gone at that point)

    The Obama supporters are telling us she should wait until 2016. That is not realistic. It is simply their way of warning her not to run.

    I cannot understand what is in it for these ignorant bots. He has screwed them 10 ways from Sunday. They are too dumb to spit. If they are in it for the power they would do well to remember he left them at the alter.

    The real question is whether the Republican Party can offer anything of substance to the American People. Can anyone solve the problems of this country or are they all just parasites–like Bambi and Dean. Hillary is the exception of course.

  4. Who in their right mind would want to be head of a Democratic Party that is this corrupt and is destroying our country? The last time I asked that question it was about the Republican Party. Only now it is orders of magnitude worse.

  5. “It’s not only on health care that Dean can take on Obama. Dean, after 2010, can attack Obama for not following through on the “50 State strategy”. Dean can take Obama on regarding all the lobbyist, ethics, promises Obama made during the campaign but has not delivered on and does not intend on delivering on.

    Dean is also a darling of his beloved Nutroots. If the Big Blog Boys had to choose between Dean and Obama they would have wet dreams every night but eventually go with their first true love – Howie. It was with Howie Dean that all the nutkooks that now infect our politics got their start. It would be true love to once again flack for Howie.” [snip]

    ~~~

    “Howard Dean would have a lot of fun opening another front against Obama. Howie could help us in our job to drive Obama from ever running for office again.

    If Howie had any guts, he would run against Obama.

    We’ll cheer Howie on. Get a dog to kill a dog.

    We’ll giggle, we’ll laugh, we’ll watch in horrified glee as two dogs fighting prepares the way for a real president to emerge wearing a pantsuit.

    Howard Dean For President!”

    ~~~

    Yes, admin, I was thinking the same thing. A very useful strategy if Dean would take on Obama during a Dem Primary. Hillary would have to run as an Indy (which is fine w/me) and take on the Dem and Pub winners in the Final down and dirty.

    There is a great advantage to Hillary running as an Indy (not subject to the corrupt Dem Committee’s Rules) and best of all, her loyal supporters can kick their sorry asses on election day if they try any funny stuff, like putting the muscle on the Pink voters. grrh…..

  6. I’d LOVE to see Hillary run as a Democrat or an Independent…or even a Republican.

    Could an Independent president have success with a Democratic or Republican controlled Congress?
    But then again, Bill Clinton was a Democrat. Was he highly supported by Democrats or liberals?
    Of ocurse, we all remember well the vileness of the Republicans and conservatives when he was president.

  7. Great idea! If Hillary doesnt’ run, I’d rather see Pres Dean than Pres Obama.

    Dean has really done some things, and presumably is sincere about some leftist issues, unlike Obama.

    Of course the best thing would be for Dean and Obama to destroy each other in the early primary and Hillary be drafted as a compromise! (She’s left of Obama on many issues, is Dean left of her?)

  8. coffee talk: It never fails. Maria out there with her cell phone stuck to her ear, speeding and parking her SUV illegally. Speaking to women as the model we should embrace as the ideal who has so little regard for the Law..any Law even paying their Taxes just because she’s a Kennedy. How far they have fallen from Jack and Jackie.

    IRS files $79,000 tax lien against Schwarzenegger [Updated]

    November 27, 2009

    The Internal Revenue Service has filed a federal tax lien against Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger for nearly $80,000, public records show.

    The lien was filed May 11 at the Los Angeles County recorder’s office for $79,064, according to a record in an electronic database that includes lien filings. The record does not indicate what property the lien was placed on, but it lists the debtor as Arnold Schwarzenegger with the governor’s home address in Brentwood.

    [Updated at 11:42 a.m.: A federal tax lien would be attached to all of the governor’s properties, according to the IRS.]

    The lien was reported this morning by TMZ.com, which posted a copy of a lien document that says it is from the county recorder’s office. That document shows that Schwarzenegger owes $39,047.20 from 2004 and $40,016.80 from 2005. The document also lists a section of the IRS code that suggests the debt may be penalties for a failure to report certain business transactions.

    Schwarzenegger’s spokesman, Aaron McLear, said in a statement that the “governor has paid his taxes in full and on time.”

  9. http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=117248

    CZAR WARS
    Obama appoints anti-Israel lobbyist to anti-Semitism post
    J Street pick hints Jewish state to blame for hatred against its people

    http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com/2009/11/obama-to-pick-anti-israel-j-streeter-as.html

    Obama To Pick Anti-Israel J-Streeter as Envoy to Combat Global Anti-Semitism

    and one more…
    Fellow liberal progressive, ADL Chairman Abe Foxman ripped Rosenthal in this op-ed:

    An Open Letter To Hannah Rosenthal
    By Abraham H. Foxman
    National Director of the Anti-Defamation League
    This article originally appeared in The New York Jewish Week on May 1, 2008

    Dear Hannah Rosenthal,

    In “Reclaiming The Pro-Israel Mantle” (Opinion, April 25) you reflect on your experience at a National Israel Solidarity Rally in Washington six years ago during your tenure as executive director of the JCPA. You recall a day of speeches in which you heard only the constant drumbeat of “narrow, ultra-conservative views of what it means to be pro-Israel…” You found yourself asking, “Where was the pro-Israel, pro-peace message? Why was the voice of so many American Jews absent from this rally?”

    I was also there with you and tens of thousands of other proud American Jews on that uncommonly hot April day in 2002, less than three weeks after the horrific suicide murder of 30 Israelis celebrating Passover at the Park Hotel in Netanya.

    My memory of what happened at the event that day is quite different from yours.

    I remember many of the speakers delivering “pro-peace” messages. There was Rep. Richard Gephardt (“We must not waver in our commitment to those — Israelis and Arabs alike — who have chosen the path of peace”), as well as Sen. Harry Reid (“I call on all who share our vision and hopes to continue to spread a message of peace: shalom, salaam, peace”). There was also Paul Wolfowitz, representing the Bush administration (“Peace in the Middle East is the only way to end the suffering of Palestinians and Israelis, of Arabs and Jews”), as well as Natan Sharansky (“Real peace, dear friends, depends on us”). And there was Mayor Rudy Giuliani (“All of us, all of you good people who have come here today, all of us wish for peace. We pray for it.”). I remember you introducing Hugh Price, then president of the National Urban League, and I remember Mr. Price closing his remarks with a call to world leaders “to give lasting peace a chance in the Middle East.”

    So I ask: Why are our perceptions of that historic outpouring of support for Israel so jarringly dissimilar? Of course, there were also speakers who focused only on Israel’s right to defend herself against violent murderous terrorist attacks; those who spoke in anger or in pain. And there were those who had a particular political point of view that did not reflect the politics of some in the Jewish community. Why did I hear a variety of views expressed at the rally six years ago while for you, the event triggered a six-year-long period during which you questioned why you did not hear the pro-peace voices in our community?

    In the American Jewish community — today as well as yesterday — there have always been diverse opinions on a whole range of social, economic, political and religious issues. Throughout my experience as a leader in the Jewish community I have appreciated and welcomed the broad range of views and the variety of forums in which members of our community can participate to express themselves. Our community has never been lacking in public self-examination, robust debate and vocal advocacy of the many ideas, beliefs and opinions we all have, including about Israel and Israeli government policies. One of the great strengths of the Jewish people is our willingness to question and reassess and re-evaluate those ideas, beliefs and opinions.

    Israel’s 60th anniversary offers a focal point for deepening our understanding of the role and relationship of American Jewry to the future of Israel. But it also offers us, as American Jews, the opportunity to deepen our understanding of one another, whatever side of the pro-Israel fence we find ourselves on. I am confident that all of the voices in our community will continue to have an outlet and hopefully will continue to be heard, just as I heard them in April 2002 at that historic gathering in Washington in support of the most significant common element of our heritage, the modern State of Israel.
    The appointment of Hannah Rosenthal is more proof of how our President is trying to push ahead an anti-Israel agenda. This move is just a little more cynical than his normal Israel-trashing move.
    Please email me at yidwithlid@aol.com to be put onto my mailing list. Feel free to reproduce any article but please link back to http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com

    __._,_.___

  10. Most Americans would never vote for H. Judas Dean, but it would be a beautiful sight to watch those two treacherous hyenas Obama and Dean attack each other while their rabid and bewildered followers follow suit. And then the real leader of the genuine Democrat Party, Hillary reclaims the nomination stolen from her in 2008.

  11. I hope people remember that Dean is Soro’s first protege. I can’t stand Howie the Dean scream. He/they are going to use reverse psychology to keep the office of Potus in the pocket of Soros and company.

  12. admin, this is a great post, if you are right and Howie runs, OMG, I think this is to get Obama’s constituents back by giving them their first love Howie. There ‘s is no telling what the Bilderberg will do to keep their leftist puppet in office. Throw out the first and and get the second.

    Hillary can beat Howie hands down.

  13. Obama has created many enemies since he robbed Hillary of her rightful place in the WH- The disgruntled Obama loyalists would be potential Dean supporters if he has the intestinal fortitude to go all out and neuter Obama’s chances for re-election. Hmmm… veddy… interrrresting! 🙂

  14. The White House Blog takes on Charles Krauthammer regarding health care and loses

    November 28,
    Kimberly Morin

    One of the most recent White House Blogs, posted by Dan Pfeiffer on November 27th, takes on an article written by Charles Krauthammer in the Washington Post. The White House blog has become quite a junior high version of ‘he said she said’ by attempting to counter what op-ed authors are writing about. This is their latest lackluster attempt at trying to defend their health care reform bill against political commentary. From the White House Blog:

    “In today’s Washington Post, Charles Krauthammer takes great pains to paint a bleak picture of health care reform as “monstrous,” “overregulated,” and rife with “arbitrary bureaucratic inventions.” The columnist’s argument may be cogent and well-written, but it is wholly inaccurate.”

    Pulitzer- prize winning Krauthammer is one of the most intelligent, informed and respected political commentators in America today. He comments based on facts, knowledge and truth. The White House will never stand a chance against him yet they make a feeble attempt and it turns out it is they who are ‘wholly inaccurate’.

    From the White House Blog: “President Obama issued a Presidential Memorandum directing the Secretary of HHS to move forward with an initiative to give states and health systems the opportunity to apply for medical liability demonstration projects. Section 2531 of the House bill also includes a voluntary state incentive grants program to encourage states to develop alternatives to traditional malpractice litigation.”

    Krauthammer is correct when he talks about tort reform not existing in the health care reform bills from either the House or the Senate as the blog actually proves above. A ‘Presidential Memorandum’ is not the same as being part of a legislative policy. Obama’s memorandum is never going to see the light of day in Congress. It is purely a tactic to have Americans believe that he is on board with tort reform.

    From the White House Blog: “Section 9001 of the Senate bill does impose a fee on high-cost health care plans. (A PDF of the Senate bill is available here.) To clarify: This is a fee on insurance companies that offer high-cost plans that drive up the cost of health care for all Americans, not a tax on individuals.”

    It is clear that the White House has absolutely no idea how business works. The tax they impose on ‘cadillac plans’ will be added to the cost of companies that provide these plans who will in turn impose that cost onto their employees who have these plans. Another scenario is that employers will no longer purchase these plans but will purchase plans just under the limit which will therefore nullify the $201 billion taxes from these plans that the House bill plans to use to pay for their health care reform.

    From the White House Blog: “Section 1333 of the Senate bill allows for interstate health care choice compacts. Coupled with insurance market reforms to ensure individuals are not discriminated against, this policy will expand health care choices to millions of Americans.”

    Apparently they haven’t actually read Section 1333 because nowhere is the word ‘portability’ mentioned or that Americans can purchase health insurance across state lines. The wording actually never mentions that Americans can buy insurance across state lines. There is much more involved with state laws and governance over the insurance industry that the health care reform bills do not take on.

    The White House Blog doesn’t even touch on the majority of points made by Krauthammer. It is a sophomoric attempt at countering someone who clearly knows what he is talking about. It is an embarrassment to Americans that the White House continues to ‘battle’ with political commentators, especially when they cannot make a valid point. When the White House cannot back up their own health care reform bill with any factual evidence or accurate commentary, it is clear that they have no idea what they are talking about. The White House Blog took on Charles Krauthammer – did they really expect they would be one up on him? As usual, when they resort to ‘junior high’ blogging, the White House just make themselves look vulnerable, foolish, unprofessional, unknowledgeable, thin-skinned and completely UN-executive like.

    http://www.examiner.com/x-9100-Boston-Conservative-Independent-Examiner~y2009m11d28-The-White-House-Blog-takes-on-Charles-Krauthammer-regarding-health-care-and-loses

  15. Barack Obama accused of ‘renting out’ ambassador roles

    Diplomats’ anger over President Obama’s appointment of dozens of wealthy campaign backers to top overseas jobs

    Paul Harris The Observer, Sunday 29 November 2009

    Barack Obama is coming under fire for handing dozens of coveted ambassadorships to donors who raised millions for his presidential campaign. The diplomatic postings range from tiny island nations in the Caribbean to major political partners, such as France and Britain, and have raised the hackles of many American diplomats.

    The practice of appointing campaign donors instead of state department professionals has a long tradition in the US. However, many had hoped that Obama would reduce such displays of patronage. That has not happened. Since taking office, Obama has made almost 80 ambassadorial nominations, of which 56% went to political appointees.

    “It is time to end the spoils system and to stop renting out these ambassadorships for fabulous sums of money,” said Susan Johnson, president of the American Foreign Service Association, which monitors the nominations. Johnson said Obama was on track to equal the number of such appointments made by President Bush. “It is business as usual,” she said.

    Some Obama backers have been posted to glamorous European countries. Britain’s new US ambassador is Louis Susman, who raised more than $500,000 for Obama. The new ambassador to France is Charles Rivkin, a former TV executive who helped raise $800,000, while Germany is getting Philip Murphy, an ex-finance chairman of the Democratic National Committee who has donated $1.9m to the party since 1989.

    Other political appointees have been aimed at less important countries, but ones where a few years in the sun might seem like an attractive proposition: Nicole Avant, who raised at least $800,000 for Obama, is the new ambassador appointed to the Bahamas.

    Anti-corruption groups say the practice sends a message that government posts can be bought by backing the right candidate in an election campaign. “It is an auction for donors. It is a way the administration has of rewarding them,” said Josh Israel, a project co-ordinator for the Center for Public Integrity, a Washington-based watchdog group.

    The revelations fly in the face of Obama’s election campaign promises to change the face of Washington and his pledge to rid the capital of its reputation for insider dealing and lavish spending. That is no easy task and Obama’s efforts to clean up the city have already been damaged by coverage of the extraordinary access that many top bankers enjoy to senior members of his administration.

    Obama’s reputation for meaningful change was also further tarnished by the coverage of last week’s first state dinner for the Indian prime minister, Manmohan Singh. Many commentators frowned on the lavishness of the exercise at a time when millions of Americans are out of work.

    White House officials say there is nothing wrong with making political appointments and insist they are not influenced by the size of donations. They say that the practice allows a president to make nominations that might capitalise on a person’s expertise or special link with a country. One such nomination, which counts as a “political” posting, is that of Karl Eikenberry, the new ambassador to Afghanistan. Eikenberry was a senior military commander in Afghanistan.

    Critics admit that changing the system will not be easy. Existing legislation is supposed to ensure that all US ambassadors have expert knowledge of the country to which they are assigned and familiarity with its language and culture. But both the White House and Congress, which vets the appointments, seem happy to let the rules slide.

    “Nominees are probably not getting posts solely on the basis of their donations,” said Israel, “but they can often give a bad impression. It certainly poses the question of how committed an administration is to a professional foreign policy.”

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/29/barack-obama-ambassadors-role-accusation

  16. Jan-the daughter of a lady in my building got the ambassadorship to Luxenbourg. She is a venture capitalist and patron of the arts. I have never met her. But it is a disservice to the country to give these things out like plums to fat cat cronies. This practice does not advance the interests of the United States. Ambassadorships should go to foreign service officers with a proven track record of success and specific knowledge about the country in question. I think of someone like George Kennan as the ideal.

  17. White House officials say there is nothing wrong with making political appointments and insist they are not influenced by the size of donations.
    ——————————
    1. Nothing wrong with making political appointments? There is plenty wrong with it. If it is an important job, then job related experience is vitally important. Politics is not.

    2. Not influenced by the size of donation? Then why is it that the plum jobs go to people with no experience who made huge donations.

    3. When all else fails, try the truth for a change. Oh excuse me I forgot. We are talking about the truth and Obama has no concept of what that is. Joe Wilson called the game on him.

  18. Carol, regarding your question “Do you have any idea or knowledge as to why Dean supported Obama over Hillary?”

    Not only did Howard Dean have an interest in being a player with his “Dean For America” later “Democracy For America” but… in the 2000 election cycle Howard Dean wanted to run for president and Bill Clinton told him he wanted Al Gore to have an unchallenged run. Dean has held a grudge ever since.

    Eventually, Bill Bradley was recruited to be the anti-Gore. As ridiculous as it sounds, Bradley as a former basketball player (and Senator of New Jersey with basketball fans in New York) was presumed to have some strength with the African-American community. The African-American community was viewed as a Clinton voting bloc so it had to either be divided or neutralized.

    Bradley, posed as a reformer but indeed had been in cahoots with people like Golisano and Gary Hart and others to bolt the party years earlier (the “gang of eight” which eventually became the “gang of six”). Gore beat Bradley in every primary but it was close at points in Iowa and New Hampshire. When Gore beat Bradley in New Hampshire the primary race was effectively over.

    There are some interesting stories left untold about the debate at the Apollo Theater and the preparations beforehand. Gore smashed Bradley in the debate (google this, it is almost funny how Gore gored Bradley).

    Since the 2000 race most every power player understood that the only way to beat the Clintons was to separate them from the people the Clintons had helped over many years. Enter Obama.

  19. The problem with Dean is that he could have two terms, 2012-2016 and 2016-2020. At least Obama can’t go past 2016.

  20. Good Morning All

    My unscientific opinion is that Dean is a Dr, and most of them feel like they are experts in ever thing, even if they are not. With little experience, he obviously thought he was wiser than the Clinton, even thought the Clinton’s have spent their lives in politics, while he was going to medical school.

    Of course Admin’s reply hits it on the head, but what I took from that is how BJC gave his support to Gore, in the most influence way he could, even though Gore was afraid to use him because of the crap he had gone through. It also shows you how petty men can be, and they talk about women.

    It will be interesting to see whether the people the Clintons have support all their lives will ever show the loyalty back that they were shown.

  21. Sunday, November 29, 2009

    NGO explains to Clinton why Israeli settlements are legal

    The Arab world and the international media have today convinced most people that Israeli towns and villages located in Judea and Samaria – more commonly referred to as “settlements” – are illegal and the primary obstacle to peace in the Middle East.

    But in a letter to US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton last week, the Office for Israeli Constitutional Law, a non-governmental legal action group, explained why that view is flawed and perhaps even illegal, especially as far as the US is concerned.

    OFICL direct Mark Kaplan told The Jerusalem Post that there is a little-known treaty called the Anglo-American Convention that was signed between Britain and the US in 1924. The treaty more or less made the US a partner with Britain in upholding and maintaining the British Mandate for Palestine – which included all of what is today Israel and the “West Bank.”

    Kaplan noted that even though the UN’s 1947 partition plan and subsequent recognition of Israel lopped off the West Bank as an Arab territory, that decision was non-binding since the UN General Assembly does not have the authority to change borders or create nations. By contrast, the Anglo-American Convention remains in force, as there is no statute of limitations on treaties.

    Furthermore, the Anglo-American Convention and the British Mandate for Palestine were based on the 1920 League of Nation’s decision in San Remo, where the precursor to the UN determined that the entire area encompassed by the British Mandate was to become a Jewish state and fully open to Jewish settlement.

    Also unlike the 1947 partition plan, the San Remo declaration was and remains legally binding.

    http://www.israeltoday.co.il/default.aspx?tabid=178&nid=20051

  22. Settle down, Mr. President: Pressuring Israel only makes Arabs more stubborn

    Editorial
    Sunday, November 29th 2009.

    Here’s the latest dispatch from the annals of the “evenhanded” Mideast peace process – in which the Obama administration applies ever more pressure on Israel to make all manner of off-the-point concessions when it is clear that Palestinians’ refusal to accept the very existence of the Jewish State is the insurmountable obstacle to progress.

    Israel declared it was freezing residential settlements on the West Bank for the next 10 months, satisfying one of the chief demands of the Obama administration and of the Palestinians. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called this a “painful” step, and indeed for many Israelis it will be.

    Secretary of State Clinton hailed the freeze, saying it “helps move forward toward resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.”

    And as a reward for this supposedly momentous concession, the Palestinian response was: Take your freeze and stuff it.

    They refused to return to the negotiating table because the Israelis reserved the right for Israelis to settle in East Jerusalem. Yes, in Jersualem. “The exclusion of Jerusalem is a very serious problem for us,” said Palestinian prime minister Salam Fayyad.

    Give them a square inch, they’ll demand a square yard. And keep threatening and committing violence and demanding more. Because haggling over settlements has been merely a pretext for shunning progress toward a two-state peace, including recognition of Israel.

    This is a truth that President Obama may now be waking up to – as he must.

    http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2009/11/29/2009-11-29_settle_down_mr_president_pressuring_israel_only_makes_arabs_more_stubborn.html

  23. Couple said to seek payment

    By James Hohmann
    Washington Post
    Sunday, November 29, 2009

    The Virginia socialites who apparently crashed the White House state dinner last week remained elusive Saturday, as reports surfaced that the aspiring reality-TV stars were trying to sell their story for hundreds of thousands of dollars and CNN said the couple’s upcoming appearance on “Larry King Live” had been cancelled.

    The Associated Press reported that Tareq and Michaele Salahi were offering to talk to broadcast networks about their experience and were looking for a payment in the mid-six figures range. The news service attributed the information to a television executive it did not name. According to the report, representatives for the couple contacted networks to urge them to “get their bids in” for an interview.

    The New York Times cited television executives making the same claim, also speaking on condition of anonymity. “They are asking for best offers from all the networks,” the newspaper quoted one as saying.

    Network news divisions generally do not pay for interviews.

    CNN said the couple’s appearance on Monday had been cancelled after producers were told that the Salahis were postponing.

    The voicemail box for the couple’s publicist, Mahogany Jones, was full Saturday night, and she did not respond to an e-mail. Their attorney, Paul W. Gardner, did not respond to a phone message.

    Meanwhile, no one answered the door Saturday at the couple’s house in Front Royal, Va., where reporters and photographers were staked out at the end of their gravel driveway. A CBS employee folded a handwritten note into the door, promising the couple that they would get a fair hearing of their side of the story if they talked with anchor Katie Couric.

    A dog inside the house still barked loudly. A note taped to the front door read: “Hi Dana, Thanks for watching the dog. See you after weekend.”

    The Secret Service apologized Friday for the security breach, saying protocols were not followed Tuesday night when the Salahis gained entry to President Obama’s first state dinner. A spokesman for the Secret Service said criminal charges had not been ruled out.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/28/AR2009112802447.html

  24. admin
    November 29th, 2009 at 2:38 am

    “Since the 2000 race most every power player understood that the only way to beat the Clintons was to separate them from the people the Clintons had helped over many years. Enter Obama.”

    ~~~~~~~

    Fair enough- But the game has changed dramatically since then. Enter George Soros. Until we did the research on the Soros effect on the last presidential election we couldn’t comprehend any one person having the power, influence and ownership of so many crucial elements necessary for a candidate to win a presidential election.

    There is a detailed study published here after months of research and connecting the dots illustrating how Soros, as an individual, was able to get Obama elected once he put his machine in motion in tandem with the Chicago machine.

    h…. pumasunleashed.wordpress.com/2009/11/05/blockbuster-obama%e2%80%99s-godfather/

  25. #
    captain friday
    November 28th, 2009 at 5:55 pm

    “Most Americans would never vote for H. Judas Dean, but it would be a beautiful sight to watch those two treacherous hyenas Obama and Dean attack each other while their rabid and bewildered followers follow suit. And then the real leader of the genuine Democrat Party, Hillary reclaims the nomination stolen from her in 2008.”

    ~~~~~~~~~~

    Dean could almost do as much damage by publishing a book revealing the scandalous operations used by Axelrot and Co for highjacking the election from Hillary. Of course, he would need to update his will and double his life insurance after joining a witness protection program perhaps in Siberia.

  26. Dean was on Fox News Sunday this morning knocking the healthcare deal. He sounded like a centrist democrat and we know he is NOT. He and Huckabee agreed on everything, so what up with that??

    I don’t trust him, he is a Soros operative.

  27. don’t trust him, he is a Soros operative.
    ———————–
    Thats for sure, not for maybe. Also, he has strong family ties to wall street. He is the quintessential limosine liberal. Somewhere along the line it will dawn on some members of the benighted left that they were deceived. If they flock to Dean which they will if he runs they will if he runs, then they will repeat the same mistake. The first question one should ask about any politician is not what they say but who owns them. Therein lies the answer to the riddle. That is the question big media avoids because it calls the game on the whole pretense of democracy, and because they have their own hand out. Instead, they right endlessly about the parries, thrusts, blocks and catches, and the footwork of the political pugilists, and ignore the deeper logic. No one gets elected in New York without being owned by somebody. Once you accept that reality, the question becomes are the interests of the owner(s) of the particular politician congruent with those of the American People, or do they run at cross purposes. In the case of Obama–and Dean it is the latter. That is because both men are Soros puppets. My point is this. We need to fight the battles in the blogs and on the street. If we fail to do that we will lose what is left of our country. But it is equally important to figure out who the behind the scenes players are because their motives and actions hidden to the naked eyes will have more to do with what happens to each of us than all the words in websters dictionary uttered by frauds like Obama who use them to bamboozle. Again I would say this: the progressive movement is a joke if they cant figure this guy out. He is as corporate as it gets.

  28. admin
    November 29th, 2009 at 2:38 am

    “Since the 2000 race most every power player understood that the only way to beat the Clintons was to separate them from the people the Clintons had helped over many years. Enter Obama.”

    Admin,
    Thank you….very enlightening!

  29. “Since the 2000 race most every power player understood that the only way to beat the Clintons was to separate them from the people the Clintons had helped over many years. Enter Obama.”
    ———————————————————–
    You can call it the reaction of an oppressed minority, or a failure to realize that he has done nothing tangible to improve their lives. But either way, the people I know are increasingly disgusted with it. Race is elevated over performance–just like in Washington DC where a drug addict whose minions looted the city got re elected time and again because of race, and other factors. In North Carolina, the head of the Democratic Party told his constituents not to vote for any candidate who is white. And trust me, the same views have arisen in the non-AA community toward black politicians. This divides the country and deprives us of the best leadership which has no color line. And all for a race baiting elitist corporate hack who plays the race card against the country. It is bad what he is doing to us.

  30. I am very skeptical that Dean would run again. I suspect they will over him HHS if he stays in the fold, and I suspect he will accept. The Chicago thugs and parasites will bring too much pressure to bear on Dean. And they will label him a racist to ever challenge Obama. He knows that.

    Nevertheless, it is fun to speculate. If the did run, he would peel away the youth and the hard left from Obama leaving him with nothing but his fat cat backers and the ever loyal African American demographic. In essence, he could do to them what he did to the Clintons with a group they helped over the years, and failed to return the favor.

  31. When I said that no politician becomes Mayor of New York without being owned by somebody that in and of itself is not the problem. If the interests of the behind the power players are congruent with those of the American People–as they were during the Clinton Administration then the country thrives. That is not the case with Obama however. The people behind him operate at cross purposes to the American People. Obama is not about values he is about power.

    The difference between Hillary and Obama could scarcely be more clear. Hillary is all for the people, Obama is all for the elites and the elites promote Obama because he is their man. Hillary is the greatest leader of this generation and she would be a great president if she gets the chance to prove it.

  32. This is what bimbo gets for breaking bread with terrorists, no conditions needed…

    Another Hillary was right moment…

    Sunday, 29 November 2009

    Iran ‘planning 10 new uranium enrichment sites’

    Iran’s government has approved plans to build 10 new uranium enrichment plants, according to state media. The government told the Iranian nuclear agency to begin work on five sites, with five more to be located over the next two months. It comes days after the UN nuclear watchdog rebuked Iran for covering up a uranium enrichment plant.

    Western powers say Iran is trying to develop nuclear arms. Iran says its nuclear programme is peaceful. BBC Tehran correspondent Jon Leyne says Sunday’s announcement is a massive act of defiance likely to bring forward direct confrontation over Iran’s nuclear programme.

    Iran says the new plants would be of a similar size to its main existing one at Natanz. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told his cabinet that parliament had ordered that Iran should produce 20,000 megawatts of nuclear energy by 2020. It therefore needed to make 250-300 tonnes of nuclear fuel a year, he said, which would require 500,000 centrifuges for enriching uranium. Natanz has nearly 5,000 working centrifuges, with plans to build 54,000 in all.

    Under the plan Mr Ahmadinejad presented to the cabinet, the level of enrichment would also be increased.

    Such a move would be in direct contravention of UN Security Council resolutions, our correspondent says, though Iran counters that it is simply doing what is allowed under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

    On Friday, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) passed a resolution that was heavily critical of Iran for covering up a uranium enrichment plant near the town of Qom.

    Earlier on Sunday it was reported that the Iranian parliament had urged President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s government to reduce co-operation with the IAEA.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8385275.stm

  33. This article by the Australian Prime Minister is too good to be ignored or shelved.Read it and pass it on and hope that it gets to our gravy train political hacks and cowards that campaign every day of their terms.

    By ABM90 I am for Hillary in 2010 and stop BO in his tracks.

    +================================================================

    Whole world Needs A Leader Like This!

    Prime Minister Kevin Rudd – Australia

    Muslims who want to live under Islamic Sharia law were told on Wednesday to get out of Australia , as the government targeted radicals in a bid to head off potential terror attacks..

    Separately, Rudd angered some Australian Muslims on Wednesday by saying he supported spy agencies monitoring the nation’s mosques. Quote:

    ‘IMMIGRANTS, NOT AUSTRALIANS, MUST ADAPT. Take It Or Leave It. I am tired of this nation worrying about whether we are offending some individual or their culture. Since the terrorist attacks on Bali , we have experienced a surge in patriotism by the majority of Australians. ‘

    ‘This culture has been developed over two centuries of struggles, trials and victories by millions of men and women who have sought freedom’

    ‘We speak mainly ENGLISH, not Spanish, Lebanese, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, or any other language. Therefore, if you wish to become part of our society . Learn the language!’

    ‘Most Australians believe in God. This is not some Christian, right wing, political push, but a fact, because Christian men and women, on Christian principles, founded this nation, and this is clearly documented. It is certainly appropriate to display it on the walls of our schools. If God offends you, then I suggest you consider another part of the world as your new home, because God is part of our culture.’

    ‘We will accept your beliefs, and will not question why. All we ask is that you accept ours, and live in harmony and peaceful enjoyment with us.’

    ‘This is OUR COUNTRY, OUR LAND, and OUR LIFESTYLE, and we will allow you every opportunity to enjoy all this. But once you are done complaining, whining, and griping about Our Flag, Our Pledge, Our Christian beliefs, or Our Way of Life, I highly encourage you take advantage of one other great Australian freedom, ‘THE RIGHT TO LEAVE’.’

    ‘If you aren’t happy here then LEAVE. We didn’t force you to come here. You asked to be here. So accept the country YOU accepted

  34. If I understand the nature of our system correctly, then it is an oligarchy which relies on a mandate of the people. The American People have a minor role in the process but it is important in two areas. First, it is important at election time. Second, it is important during the term of governance. At election time, the people select between two candidates selected by the party. The 2008 primary proved that the primaries are not democratic. Second, it is important during the course of governance because other politicians are reluctant to buck a popular president–while he remains popular, and when he ceases to be popular they are emboldened. I can think of so many examples of this in history and in the corporate world. In history, there is that forgotten event in the westward trek of Lewis and Clark when they came to the Myrias River in Montana and did not know which way to go. Their supplies were low and it was late fall so a bad decision could be . . . how shall I but it . . . bad. So the leaders of the expedition conducted a plebesite and made the right choice. (The only better thing they could have done was ask Sacagawea). That plebicite gave them a mandate to proceed, and it spread the risk of a bad decision. In the corporate world we have all seen the corporate executive fall from grace, because he no longer enjoys the support of the ruling clique, and it flows downhill from there. But it can also happen from the bottom up if those who he is supposed to lead reject his leadership. That has been a problem in the military over the years, and an upper classman at the Naval Academy put it to us as succinctly as possible–we want to teach you how to lead men in combat so that you don’t get fragged. In Viet Nam, they lost a few officers that way.

  35. Years ago I knew a lady who was a bargaining unit driver in Boston. She had been assaulted by two male drivers in separate events because she was attractive and because she would not play the games they did to bleed the clock for overt time. We prevailed in both cases but it took all the courage she had to face her accusers in the ensuing arbitration. I was a Republican in those days, we discussed politics and she was a strong fan of Bill Clinton. Her answer was succinct and to the point. She said my life was better under his presidency. Now that is the highest accolade any political leader can hope to achieve this side of the grave.

  36. “The Chicago thugs and parasites will bring too much pressure to bear on Dean. And they will label him a racist to ever challenge Obama. He knows that.”

    ———————–

    Exactly! A vicious circle where power corrupts power and now that the door has been crashed open by them, how do you get rid of vermin with money to burn?

  37. ABM90
    November 29th, 2009 at 1:14 pm

    This article by the Australian Prime Minister is too good to be ignored or shelved.Read it and pass it on and hope that it gets to our gravy train political hacks and cowards that campaign every day of their terms.

    By ABM90 I am for Hillary in 2010 and stop BO in his tracks.

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

    Yes, ABM90,I agree. I wonder at times whatever happened to the sponsorship provision for immigrants that used to exist when my grandparents came over to this country. From what I’ve read lately, the influx of illegal/legal immigrants is only going to get worse now that Obama is going to include them in our HC seeing the ban has been lifted on HIV positive foreigners gaining access to the US.

    I do like Australia’s stand on protecting it’s country from being overrun by foreign cultures and saying so clearly and concisely in no uncertain terms.It will never happen here. Obama sees them as potential voters who owe him (a vote) for the gift of access.

  38. Obama opening the gates wide open admitting HIV positive immigrants seems to coincide with an announcement by the President of Uganda.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    The Family’ behind proposed Ugandan law that would execute HIV+ men.

    The African nation of Uganda is weighing a bill that would impose the death penalty on HIV positive men who have committed what it calls “aggravated homosexuality.”

    As if that were not shocking enough, a U.S. author is claiming that a secretive group of American politicians appear to be a driving force in seeing the proposal become law.

    The Anti-Homosexuality Bill 2009, heavily supported by Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni, was first read in October, triggering a wave of condemnation. According to the gay blog Queerty, Joann Lockard, public affairs officer at the Kampala, Uganda embassy, said the law would “constitute a significant step backwards for the protection of human rights in Uganda.”

    She added: “We urge states to take all necessary measures to ensure that sexual orientation or gender identity may under no circumstances be the basis for criminal penalties, in particular executions, arrests, or detention.”

    While that condemnation by a U.S. official would seem reflexive, others in U.S. political circles are providing financial and political support for the bill’s sponsors, according to author Jeff Sharlet.

    more at link:

    h… rawstory.com/2009/11/author-the-family-proposed-ugandan-law-execute-hiv-men/

  39. The article by Ani at No Quarter is a must read for all Hillary fans. It delineates how the bloom is off the rose with the leftist media establishment in Washington and the foreign policy establishment. Two points were salient to me. First, the way she refuses to let big media off the hook when they claim they merely misjudged the man: “Misjudged? What other politician have you ever heard of who got a lot of important people to stake their reputations on his “integrity” without ever having offered any more than “words, just words” attesting to the same? The word is an abject failure to do due diligence, and a preference for steamy romantic fiction over skeptical fact based journalism–stop me if I am being too critical of the beamer crowd behind the typewriters. Second. the subtle change among democrats no longer flushed with victory and knowing that sooner of later the chickens will come home to roost on them. (Note: I checked with Reverend Wright and he has allowed me to use that expression just once without violating his intellectual property such as they are). But the beauty of it is these people have gone from saying aint life grand and isnt he wonderful to saying you know I was really in favor of Hillary. Obama is a show horse only. Hillary is a workhorse and a show horse. And she is on the side of the American People whereas Obama is on the side of the elites–like Brian Williams.

  40. MMIGRANTS, NOT AUSTRALIANS, MUST ADAPT. Take It Or Leave It. I am tired of this nation worrying about whether we are offending some individual or their culture. Since the terrorist attacks on Bali , we have experienced a surge in patriotism by the majority of Australians.
    ——————————
    No Red Vienna for them. No pretending that terrorist cells and synagogues can co-exist without tragic results.

  41. No one gets elected in New York without being owned by somebody.

    ==========================

    I suppose you mean NY City, rather than US Senators from NY?

    Who owns Paterson?

  42. I suppose you mean NY City, rather than US Senators from NY?

    Who owns Paterson?
    ————————————-
    I meant to say Mayor of New York–because that is the saying. But I think it is a law of nature–made infinitely worse by our campaign laws. Again, the question for me comes down to whether the politician cares more about the American People than his campaign contributors. In Hillary’s case, she is devoted to this country and to the American People. In Obamas case the welfare of the country is not a priority. The only calculation relates to perpetual power and the personal perks that power affords him.

  43. Gordon Brown reveals summit for Afghanistan pull-out

    By James Lyons 29/11/2009

    Gordon Brown yesterday set a date for a summit to create an exit strategy to get British troops out of Afghanistan.

    Us Secretary of Secretary Hillary Clinton and Afghan president Hamid Karzai are among those expected at the conference in London on January 28.

    The PM vowed yesterday that it would also set out a “clear timetable” to hand over parts of Helmand province – where fighting has been fierce and dozens of British soldiers have been killed – to Afghan security services within a year. British troops will then be used to train thousands of local police and soldiers instead.

    Speaking at a meeting of Commonwealth leaders in Trinidad, Mr Brown said: “I want the conference to set conditions needed for a district by district hand-over. I believe this can begin in 2010 in a number of districts, including one or two in Helmand province itself.” The PM is expected to commit an extra 500 troops this week, bringing the UK total to 9,500, while US President Barack Obama will finally agree to pour up to 40,000 more US troops into the war-ravaged country.

    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2009/11/29/brown-announces-afghan-summit-115875-21858406/

  44. At the top of this post, admin had the blog of Chris Bowers (one of the Big Boy Blogs), and the idiot does not even know whether he approves of Obama’s job performance yet. It’ll take another four months. His quote:

    (FWIW–I am “undecided” on whether I approve of President Obama’s job performance. I imagine the next four months–health care conclusion, Afghanistan decision, budget announcement, jobs bill, potential Social Security / Medicare commission–will clear things up one way or the other.)

  45. BTW, that blog site is “Open Left”, or should we call the “Left Open”, as in:

    He left open his flank to the left hook.

  46. rgb44hrc
    November 29th, 2009 at 5:44 pm

    BTW, that blog site is “Open Left”, or should we call it the “Left Open”.

    ~~~~~

    Or… Left Behind 🙂

  47. I REALLY CAN’T STAND THIS WOMAN, BUT…I THINK WE KNOW WHO THE 20% ARE
    *********************

    He Can’t Take Another Bow

    An icon of a White House that is coming to seem amateurish.

    By PEGGY NOONAN

    Article Comments more in Opinion »Email Printer
    Friendly Share: facebook ↓ More
    StumbleUpon
    Digg
    Twitter
    Yahoo! Buzz
    Fark
    Reddit
    LinkedIn
    del.icio.us
    MySpace
    Save This ↓ More
    Text
    This week, two points in an emerging pointillist picture of a White House leaking support—not the support of voters, though polls there show steady decline, but in two core constituencies, Washington’s Democratic-journalistic establishment, and what might still be called the foreign-policy establishment.

    From journalist Elizabeth Drew, a veteran and often sympathetic chronicler of Democratic figures, a fiery denunciation of—and warning for—the White House. In a piece in Politico on the firing of White House counsel Greg Craig, Ms. Drew reports that while the president was in Asia last week, “a critical mass of influential people who once held big hopes for his presidency began to wonder whether they had misjudged the man.” They once held “an unromantically high opinion of Obama,” and were key to his rise, but now they are concluding that the president isn’t “the person of integrity and even classiness they had thought.”

    View Full Image

    Associated Press

    President Obama bows as he shakes hands with Japanese Emperor Akihito.
    She scored “the Chicago crowd,” which she characterized as “a distressingly insular and small-minded West Wing team.” The White House, Ms. Drew says, needs adult supervision—”an older, wiser head, someone with a bit more detachment.”

    As I read Ms. Drew’s piece, I was reminded of something I began noticing a few months ago in bipartisan crowds. I would ask Democrats how they thought the president was doing. In the past they would extol, with varying degrees of enthusiasm, his virtues. Increasingly, they would preface their answer with, “Well, I was for Hillary.” This in turn reminded me of a surprising thing I observe among loyal Democrats in informal settings and conversations: No one loves Barack Obama. Half the American people say they support him, and Democrats are still with him. But there were Bill Clinton supporters who really loved him. George W. Bush had people who loved him. A lot of people loved Jack Kennedy and Ronald Reagan. But no one seems to love Mr. Obama now; they’re not dazzled and head over heels. That’s gone away. He himself seems a fairly chilly customer; perhaps in turn he inspires chilly support. But presidents need that rock—bottom 20% who, no matter what’s happening—war, unemployment—adore their guy, have complete faith in him, and insist that you love him, too.

    They’re the hard 20 a president always keeps. Nixon kept them! Obama probably has a hard 20 too, but whatever is keeping them close, it doesn’t seem to be love.

    ***
    Just as stinging as Elizabeth Drew on domestic matters was Leslie Gelb on Mr. Obama and foreign policy in the Daily Beast. Mr. Gelb, president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations and fully plugged into the Democratic foreign-policy establishment, wrote this week that the president’s Asia trip suggested “a disturbing amateurishness in managing America’s power.” The president’s Afghanistan review has been “inexcusably clumsy,” Mideast negotiations have been “fumbling.” So unsuccessful was the trip that Mr. Gelb suggested Mr. Obama take responsibility for it “as President Kennedy did after the Bay of Pigs.”

    He added that rather than bowing to emperors—Mr. Obama “seems to do this stuff spontaneously and inexplicably”—he should begin to bow to “the voices of experience” in Washington.

    When longtime political observers start calling for wise men, a president is in trouble.

    It also raises a distressing question: Who are the wise men and women now? Who are the Robert Lovetts, Chip Bohlens and Robert Strausses who can came in to help a president in trouble right his ship? America seems short of wise men, or short on those who are universally agreed to be wise. I suppose Vietnam was the end of that, but establishments exist for a reason, and it is hard for a great nation to function without the presence of a group of “the oldest and wisest” who can not only give sound advice but help engineer how that advice will be reported and received.

    ***
    More Peggy Noonan
    Read Peggy Noonan’s previous columns

    click here to order her new book, Patriotic Grace
    Mr Obama is in a hard place. Health care hangs over him, and if he is lucky he will lose a close vote in the Senate. The common wisdom that he can’t afford to lose is exactly wrong—he can’t afford to win with such a poor piece of legislation. He needs to get the issue behind him, vow to fight another day, and move on. Afghanistan hangs over him, threatening the unity of his own Democratic congressional base. There is the growing perception of incompetence, of the inability to run the machine of government. This, with Americans, is worse than Obama’s rebranding as a leader who governs from the left. Americans demand baseline competence. If he comes to be seen as Jimmy Carter was, that the job was bigger than the man, that will be the end.

    Which gets us back to the bow.

    In a presidency, a picture or photograph becomes iconic only when it seems to express something people already think. When Gerald Ford was spoofed for being physically clumsy, it took off. The picture of Ford losing his footing and tumbling as he came down the steps of Air Force One became a symbol. There was a reason, and it wasn’t that he was physically clumsy. He was not only coordinated but graceful. He’d been a football star at the University of Michigan and was offered contracts by the Detroit Lions and Green Bay Packers.

    But the picture took off because it expressed the growing public view that Ford’s policies were bumbling and stumbling. The picture was iconic of a growing political perception.

    The Obama bowing pictures are becoming iconic, and they would not be if they weren’t playing off a growing perception. If the pictures had been accompanied by headlines from Asia saying “Tough Talks Yield Big Progress” or “Obama Shows Muscle in China,” the bowing pictures might be understood this way: “He Stoops to Conquer: Canny Obama shows elaborate deference while he subtly, toughly, quietly advances his nation’s interests.”

    But that’s not how the pictures were received or will be remembered.

    It is true that Mr. Obama often seems not to have a firm grasp of—or respect for—protocol, of what has been done before and why, and of what divergence from the traditional might imply. And it is true that his political timing was unfortunate. When a great nation is feeling confident and strong, a surprising presidential bow might seem gracious. When it is feeling anxious, a bow will seem obsequious.

    The Obama bowing pictures are becoming iconic not for those reasons, however, but because they express a growing political perception, and that is that there is something amateurish about this presidency, something too ad hoc and highly personalized about it, something . . . incompetent, at least in its first year.

    It is hard to be president, and White Houses under pressure take refuge in thoughts that become mantras. When the previous White House came under mounting criticism from 2005 through ’08, they comforted themselves by thinking, They criticized Lincoln, too. You could see their minds whirring: Lincoln was criticized, Lincoln was great, ergo we are great. But of course just because they say you’re stupid doesn’t mean you’re Lincoln.

    One senses the Obama people are doing the Lincoln too, and adding to it the consoling thought that this is only the first year, we’ve got three years to go, we can change perceptions, don’t worry.

    But they should worry. You can get tagged, typed and pegged your first year. Gerald Ford did, and Ronald Reagan too, more happily. The first year is when indelible impressions are made and iconic photos emerge.

  48. Admin: how about “Nothing Left of Our Brain After Obama”?

    Or, my favorite:

    The useful idiots of the Left had done the work of a globalist money speculator, marching under self-proclaimed ‘high ideals’, again fulfilling Oswald Spengler’s political dictum that ‘there is not a left-wing movement, not even the communists, who do not operate in the interests dictated by Money). (See Russo-Georgian Conflict Originates With Soros Subversion@ http://www.rense.com/general83/soros.htm)

  49. this article also includes a photo of the “gate crashers” with obama at another event held prior to “gate crash gate” (this can also be seen here : polocontacts.com/photo/americas-polo-cup-preevent?context=popular)

    Klein: White House ‘gatecrashers’ tied to Obama’s Palestinian friend. Harsh critic of Israel excuses terrorism

    November 29, 2009 by Brenda J. Elliott
    The Virginia couple who allegedly crashed a White House state dinner are tied to Rashid Khalidi, a pro-Palestinian professor who excuses terrorism and has been a close associate to President Obama.

    Michaele and Tareq Salahi (above) met Obama in a receiving line at last week’s event, with a “deeply concerned and embarrassed” Secret Service stating it never checked whether the two were on the White House guest list.

    Tareq Salahi served on the board of the American Task Force for Palestine, where Khalidi (right), currently a Columbia University professor, served as vice president. Both Salahi’s and Khalidi’s names have been scrubbed from the Task Force website, although Salahi’s bio still comes on a Google cache search of the site.

    SNIP

    Obama, Khalidi closely tied

    According to a professor at the University of Chicago who said he has known Obama for 12 years, Obama first befriended Khalidi when the two worked together at the university. The professor spoke on condition of anonymity. Khalidi lectured at the University of Chicago until 2003, while Obama taught law there from 1993 until his election to the Senate in 2004.

    therealbarackobama.wordpress.com/

  50. Mr Obama is in a hard place. Health care hangs over him, and if he is lucky he will lose a close vote in the Senate. The common wisdom that he can’t afford to lose is exactly wrong—he can’t afford to win with such a poor piece of legislation. He needs to get the issue behind him, vow to fight another day, and move on. Afghanistan hangs over him, threatening the unity of his own Democratic congressional base. There is the growing perception of incompetence, of the inability to run the machine of government. This, with Americans, is worse than Obama’s rebranding as a leader who governs from the left. Americans demand baseline competence. If he comes to be seen as Jimmy Carter was, that the job was bigger than the man, that will be the end/
    ——————————-
    On health care, she is right. That is how I have seen it all along. This bill will be a disaster for democrats because it is unaffordable, takes away freedom and squanders a once in a generation opportunity to fix the problem. But then again Obama was never a problem solver was he?

    Just a gigalo
    Everywhere I go
    People know the part
    That I am playing

    Paid for every
    Selling each romance
    Every night
    Some heart betraying

    There will come a day
    Youth will pass away
    And what will they say
    About me?

    When the end (2012)
    Comes I know
    They’ll say just a giggalo
    As life goes on without me

    With respect to Afghanistan he says he will “finish” the job? WTF does that mean? Is he Churchill or is he Chamberlain? Me thinks the latter. And now his sidekick Brown is talking about an exit strategy? That is how Brown intends to “finish” the job–in a disorderly retreat. It begs the question of the meaning of the word “finish”–which the anti war protests scheduled to start on December 12. I have not decided whether I will be out there with the little Bolsheviks but it is tempting. A good way to waste an afternoon if you dont mind a little tear gas. I say that as a veteran of WTO.

  51. Weekly Standard
    *****************

    Holding Holder Accountable
    The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights steps up.
    by Jennifer Rubin
    12/07/2009, Volume 015, Issue 12

    The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (USCCR) is in the news again, for the first time since then-chairman Mary Frances Berry tried to prevent seating a George W. Bush appointee. This time, though, it is challenging liberal civil rights orthodoxies, and Democrats and left-leaning civil rights groups are the ones in the crosshairs. Since January, the commission has been helping to fill the gap left by the lack of congressional and media oversight of a liberal administration. The commission, according to Kenneth Marcus, the USCCR staff director from 2004 to 2008, becomes more important “when the president and Congress are of one party and major civil rights organizations are aligned with them.”

    The USCCR is something of an oddity. Created in 1957 as part of the Civil Rights Act, it conducts investigations, holds hearings, and publishes reports–about four a year–on the key civil rights issues it decides the nation is facing. (Half of its eight commissioners are appointed by the president, half by Congress, with not more than four allowed from the same party.) It has a minuscule budget ($9 million) and no power to enforce legislation. As Marcus explains, “Its sole power is the power of the bully pulpit. .  .  . It is the power to shame.”

    Today a majority of commissioners favor a “conservative” view of civil rights–opposition to racial preferences and adherence to a colorblind vision of the Constitution–which they believe mirrors the original vision of our civil rights legislation. The USCCR’s agenda includes voter fraud, the adverse impact of economic regulation on minority opportunity, school choice, and a number of other topics in conflict with liberals’ civil rights agenda. The commission has lately opposed law school and state bar racial preference policies and exposed the lawless preservation of racial preferences in government contracting. The USCCR commissioned compelling research pointing to the deleterious impact of racial preferences on minority students pursuing science, technology, and math careers. And it just announced an investigation into the admissions practices of nonelite universities, which may in the name of “gender balance” be suppressing the number of female admittees. The issue has failed to attract the interest of the self-styled feminist groups, and it’s no wonder. As Roger Clegg of the Center for Equal Opportunity wryly observes, if women’s groups were to argue that gender should be irrelevant and women admitted based on their superior merit, “That’s a slippery slope. If that’s true for gender, why not for race?”

    The USCCR’s efforts are putting it in conflict with leftist civil rights groups devoted solely to expanding racial preferences. Commissioner Gerald Reynolds points to the commission’s examination of a provision in the Democrats’ health care plan that would encourage race preferences in medical schools in order to improve health care for minorities. USCCR research showed that instituting race preferences for medical school would not improve the health care in minority communities. “When you peel it back and analyze the issue,” Reynolds says, “it is not [racial] disparity which has created the two-tier health system.” It is “a non-sequitur.”

    The USCCR is also taking a major role in the high-profile New Black Panther party (NBPP) voter intimidation case. On Election Day 2008, members of the NBPP were caught on video threatening voters at a Philadelphia polling station. Department of Justice lawyers investigated and were poised to enter a default against the NBPP and three individual members. In May, though, Obama administration officials dismissed the case without explanation. The decision enraged legal groups and Republican congressmen, forcing an investigation by the Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR). But no congressional hearings are forthcoming, and doubts about OPR’s rigor and independence have been raised. Republican representative Frank Wolf says that he is “not so sure OPR is really digging”: “They are not really talking to a lot of people and about a lot of things.”

    Into this breach has stepped the USCCR. It sent letters in June and August to Justice demanding to know the reasons for the dismissal and whether the department had changed its longstanding interpretation of the Voting Rights Act. The USCCR’s concern goes beyond potential ethical violations by Obama appointees meddling with career attorneys’ work, Reynolds explains. No one, he notes, would “seriously entertain the view that the Justice Department would have taken the same approach if we moved this out of Philadelphia, to the South with white men .  .  . in hoods, swinging billy clubs and saying ‘This is a white man’s world.’ ” The USCCR’s interest, he explains, is in the “precedent”: “I don’t want any organization or group to point to the New Black Panther party controversy and say, ‘We did the same exact things, and we want the same treatment.’ ”

    Attorney General Eric Holder has so far ignored requests for relevant documents despite a statutory mandate to cooperate. Notes Commissioner Peter Kirsanow, “We thought we had made a very reasonable information request. We got a cursory response, and we’ve continued to be stiffed.” Hans von Spakovsky–a former counsel to the assistant attorney general for civil rights–thinks Holder must have “something to hide.”

    There is no reason why the pleadings and other documents in the case cannot be turned over to the Civil Rights Commission. The case is over with–it is not an ongoing matter. If they did nothing wrong and made the correct decision on the law and the facts, they should want to turn over their legal opinions and analysis.

    The USCCR has decided to conduct its own year-long inquiry and hold hearings.

    The USCCR advised Holder of its plans in a September 30 letter noting that, if he didn’t respond to its request for documents, “it will be necessary for us to propound our interrogatories and interview requests directly on the affected Department personnel.” Holder again did not respond, and on October 30 the USCCR voted 5-2 to authorize issuance of subpoenas. A source unrelated to the commission with knowledge of the case describes what the subpoena will force the government to disclose:

    Justification memos, investigative memos, witness statements and affidavits, remedial memos, proposed remedial orders, emails discussing the facts and applicable law, information obtained from potential expert witnesses the Department consulted prior to dismissal, emails and memos responding to political appointees, emails from third parties to political appointees including from any NAACP officials lobbying for a dismissal, and perhaps most interesting of all–the responses about the case the four career attorneys prepared for the Office of Professional Responsibility regarding their investigation of then Acting Deputy Assistant Attorney General Steve Rosenbaum and then Acting Assistant Attorney General Loretta King which were provided to OPR back in September. The latter are likely the best source of the truth about the case.

    Such data and the testimony from witnesses would likely focus a public debate on Obama officials’ political interference with career attorneys’ work. On November 16, the Justice Department finally responded, tersely informing the USCCR that it would await completion of the OPR investigation before cooperating.

    Late last week, the USCCR went ahead and issued subpoenas to depose a number of witnesses, including at least one Justice Department employee, with accompanying demands for relevant documents concerning the NBPP case. That employee has informed the Justice Department that he has been served. On November 20 the commission voted to approve procedures for an array of depositions and a complete discovery plan, but the USCCR has not divulged the number or the identities of those subpoenaed at this stage. Commissioner Todd Gaziano says that the USCCR will not be dissuaded by the Justice Department’s refusal to cooperate and may proceed to vote as early as December 4 on conducting a full hearing.

    A legal standoff is likely if Holder defies a subpoena issued to the department or seeks to prevent individual Justice Department employees from complying. Justice is charged with enforcing subpoenas in federal court–an action Holder’s subordinates certainly would not take against their boss or colleagues. Spakovsky says: “If Holder defies the subpoena, there should be calls for congressional action. There certainly would have been during the Bush administration.” Reynolds says that he doesn’t think “it will get to that”: If “the Department of Justice is comfortable with its decision it should have no problem discussing the facts and its rationale in a public setting.”

    However the legal wrangling progresses, the USCCR has raised the NBPP case’s profile. Any efforts to block witnesses from appearing will certainly attract notice and may spur Republicans in Congress to address the issue by resolution or in oversight hearings. Clegg notes, “They can certainly put pressure, public pressure on the Justice Department to expose a cover-up if they can get anybody to listen.” If there was improper pressure brought to bear on career attorneys, “That’s a story,” says Clegg.

    Meanwhile, Republican congressmen have been redoubling their efforts. On November 10, Wolf and Lamar Smith of Texas sent a letter to the attorney general expressing concern “that close to three months after OPR’s inquiry began, we have yet to receive a clear explanation of the basis on which the Civil Rights Division dismissed the complaint against the New Black Panther party.” On November 16, Wolf followed up with a letter asking for copies of reports prepared by the trial team in the NBPP case.

    A minority of the commissioners is not pleased with pursuing the matter and would rather defer to Holder. Two Democratic commissioners have publicly criticized the commission’s investigation of the NBPP case, deeming it “deeply troubling.” One can expect that future Obama appointees will concur. There is also speculation that the Democratic Congress and White House will try to disband the USCCR.

    But the Obama team may simply choose to hunker down until it can stock the USCCR with sympathetic commissioners. Given the staggered terms, the present majority likely will continue until the end of 2010, when President Obama will be able to replace the chairman and another commissioner.

    For now, the commission is doing what no other government entity is: challenging the Justice Department’s lack of transparency and politicization. An effort by the administration to shut down or muzzle the commission would, as Clegg points out, “look ham-handed” if its NBPP work gains “traction.” It’ll be one more controversy the Obama administration could do without.

    Jennifer Rubin is a lawyer and a contributing editor to Commentary.

  52. wbb

    I don’t know. I think we have to fight the Talibhan and co in Afghanistan. If they take over, Pakistan will fall I fear. Nuclear weapons, what a nightmare.

    But we can’t do this light-hearted, we can’t have another Vietnam. He hasn’t the will, I know it…and many young Americans will die because of it.

  53. All kidding aside, the Afghan problem is very difficult. I have alot of faith in Patreus and McCrystal on the military side. But as they would be the first to tell you the question of whether we should fight this war is a political question. Obama has described as a war of necessity and in doing so he has limited his options. The geopolitical aspect is clear. It is not entirely the threat of Taliban getting nuclear weapons. It is just as much a matter of who controls the world energy supply as between the US/Britain vs China. The inherent problem with fighting such a war however is it puts us right back in the business of nation building with no raw material to work with.

  54. I wish they would stop using the word liberal to describe the Obama Administration. This Administration is radical. Radical is what they are.

  55. I don’t know. I think we have to fight the Talibhan and co in Afghanistan. If they take over, Pakistan will fall I fear. Nuclear weapons, what a nightmare.

    But we can’t do this light-hearted, we can’t have another Vietnam. He hasn’t the will, I know it…and many young Americans will die because of it.
    ———————————–
    Gonzo, you make two points:

    1. we must fight this war: people I trust like Hillary believe that and that is enough for me.

    2. if we fight we must win: that is axiomatic

  56. And Iran once again ignores international pressure and threatens to build 10 more enhancement facilities….so much for BO’s outreach program.

  57. And Iran once again ignores international pressure and threatens to build 10 more enhancement facilities….so much for BO’s outreach program.
    ———————-
    In the 1980s it was fashionable for men to be non macho. So they would wander around like lost souls showing people their pet rock and talking aimlessly about their inner child. When he was going with Dina Shore, Burt Reynolds was capable of that long after his college football days and vivid portrayals of the blacksmith on Bonanza. Well, Barack may set a new trend among macho males. Wandering around showing their inner coward. I first spotted it during the pirate fiasco–and if you really paid attention and did not blink you saw the navy calling him on it in that on again off again video of the navy seal with a siloutte and garbeled voice like he was some kind of mafia informant. But if you look for a copy of that you will see it has been scrubbed and that was appropriate.

  58. “White House ‘gatecrashers’ tied to Obama’s Palestinian friend. Harsh critic of Israel excuses terrorism”

    —————–
    Why is it that everywhere we turn obama is caught up in connections that are one of three types…criminal…terrorist…
    hatemongering?

    And why is it that the media and voters knew all this and yet still supported him and continue to turn a blind eye?

    At one time, just one Rev. Wright, or Ayres would have kyboshed any ambitions this loser had. What has changed? Does he have any buddies who are honest and humanitarian?

  59. Why is it that everywhere we turn obama is caught up in connections that are one of three types…criminal…terrorist…
    hatemongering?

    And why is it that the media and voters knew all this and yet still supported him and continue to turn a blind eye?
    ———————–
    The reason he is caught up in these things is because Mark Furman is on the loose, showing us what it means to protect and serve and allllll the while planting evidence. Who would have thunk the voters would prove to be no smarter than that the OJ jury. As a matter of fact the bots have much in common with that jury.

    As for the media, one good question deserves another: why does Obamas godfather own an interest in 257 newspapers in 113 countries. Is it because he thinks they are a good financial investment? Or is he trying to shape the public mind? Is there any corollation between his major ownership interest in ABC and Obama choice of that netword to launch his health care program and the fact that the little greek and though policeman Linda Douglas both hail from those sunny shores?

    Surely there is an innocent explanation for all this.

  60. Does he have any buddies who are honest and humanitarian?
    ——————————
    The jury is still out on his dog.

  61. Jan–it is the Hollywood dream factory run amok. Take a radical, press him into the service of global interests, bamboozle the pubic, pervert the primary and cheat his way to the Oval Office with big media marching behind him with a tingle down their leg and their collective tongue dragging on the pavement. A new heaven and a new earth–or so they say. Now, take his wife who is most likely anti white based on the fact that she brought her daughters to Wrights tent show. To take someone like her, doll her up as if she was the reincarnation of Jackie O and have her play those Lady Bountiful vignettes in the garden–she has got to hate this really. And if on top of all that Barack has a wandering eye well then . . . then someone I know will represent her in whatever she decides to do about it and their line of defense will be extreme mental cruelty. But her pain is as nothing compared to ours at seeing our country go down the tubes under baracks benighted leadership.

  62. Isn’t it amazing that only now are the media elites starting to awaken to the fact that they were bamboozled. and to open their eyes to what has been obvious to most of us from the beginning thanks to admin.

    The definition of a second marriage is “a triumph of hope over experience”. That could just as easily explain how Obama got elected– if you ignore the undue influence of Soros.

    During the caususes I printed up a job description for the job of POUSA to show Hillary had the right stuff and Barack did not. I had friends of mine read it at the three caucuses. It was singularly unpersuasive becomes nobody would listen. Today it is different of course but wisdom came too late.

  63. Can anyone make any sense out of this?

    h/w
    agoracosmopolitan.com/home/Frontpage/2009/01/16/03035.html
    Have you noticed on the both sides of the Global Warming debate, there are two groups of very wealthy elites? We can perhaps readily appreciate the “no” side’s motivation. This group is tied to large Petroleum and other interests. But the “yes, there is Global Warming side”, that suggest that our planet Earth is on an unabated trend to heating up, is also tied to wealthy interests. Follow the money, and the trail seems to lead to an apparent interlocking clique with common ties to a reputed “Globalist Hegemony”.

  64. Justification memos, investigative memos, witness statements and affidavits, remedial memos, proposed remedial orders, emails discussing the facts and applicable law, information obtained from potential expert witnesses the Department consulted prior to dismissal, emails and memos responding to political appointees, emails from third parties to political appointees including from any NAACP officials lobbying for a dismissal, and perhaps most interesting of all–the responses about the case the four career attorneys prepared for the Office of Professional Responsibility regarding their investigation of then Acting Deputy Assistant Attorney General Steve Rosenbaum and then Acting Assistant Attorney General Loretta King which were provided to OPR back in September. The latter are likely the best source of the truth about the case
    ——————————————–
    These folks make Judge Gonzales look good. The memorandum by the career prosecutors would be most interesting because it is likely to be less partisan and there is safety in numbers. I bet you it advocated against dismissal and the political appointees buried it. I wish Julian Bond would respond to this if he is still head of the NAACP. Remember what Reverend Manning said: ” NAACP withheld endorsement of Obama for months because he was not black enough, but when Soros dumped several million dollars into their coffers he became black overnight”. My sense is they have alot to hide.

  65. Funny how the nutroots credit Howard Dean’s executive experience as Vermont Governor, but dismissed Palin running the ‘minor’ state of Alaska.

    The two states have roughly the same population. I thought Dean being Governor of Vermont counted for a lot. However, ‘Palin Country’ produces 20% of U.S domestic oil, including the largest oil field in North America. Imagine if ‘tiny, insignificant’ Alaska had still been Russian territory in the Cold War — that’s a WWIII scenario.

  66. wbboei,

    Thanks for responding to my late night rant.

    I keep looking for a silver lining and instead keep falling deeper and deeper into complete disgust.

  67. bu-bye Dubai, they are going to Let Dubai fail.

    Investors face huge losses as Dubai abandons debt company

    The Government of Dubai said today that it will not stand behind its wholly-owned subsidiary Dubai World, prompting fears that the company’s creditors could lose billions of dollars.

    Today’s comment, from Abdulrahman al-Saleh, the director general of Dubai’s Department of Finance, effectively confirms that country does not have enough money to repay Dubai World’s $60 billion of liabilities. Deloitte, the accountancy firm, has been called in to restructure the giant business.

    Last week, the state-owned conglomerate sought a six-month standstill on repaying its debts.

    Dubai World’s borrowings include a $3.5 billion Islamic bond that was due to be repaid by Nakheel, the property developer behind the Palm Jumeriah islands, in two weeks.

  68. 7 stories Obama doesn’t want told

    1 : He thinks he’s playing with Monopoly money (he spends like water)

    2 : Too much Leonard Nimoy (overempathy bordering on patronising)

    3 : That’s the Chicago Way (yup the WH is full of thugs)

    4 : He’s a pushover (Yup he’s a patsy)

    5 : He sees America as another pleasant country on the U.N. roll call, somewhere between Albania and Zimbabwe

    6 : President Pelosi (She has too much power, almost an equal)

    7 : He’s in love with the man in the mirror. (well, we did tell you)

    Ouch someone at Politico actually said how it is.

  69. lol, best comment on Politico

    The way Obama handles horrendous issues is he ,

    1. BLAMES BUSH
    2. SPENDS A TRILLION dollars OR SO then
    3. MAKES A STAGED SPEECH IN AN ENVIROMENT THAT IS SAFE SO HE WON’T GET called out or boo-d.

    Then a speedy exit strategy, so Obama jets off to some 3rd World Country he more interested in than the United States of America.

    Couldnt have said it better myself.

  70. Facing Bad Poll Numbers on Health Care, White House Asks “Who Do You Trust?”

    November 30, 2009

    The Gallup poll has some discouraging news for President Obama today.

    “Despite the considerable efforts of Congress and the president to pass health insurance reform, the public remains reluctant to endorse that goal,” Gallup says.

    The poll shows that 49% of respondents say or lean towards saying that they would advise their member of Congress to vote against a bill, while 44% say or lean towards advocating in favor of the bill. Support among Rs, Ds, and Is has dropped since last month, having dropped 12 points among Republicans, 6 points among Democrats and 8 points among Independents since early October. By 53-40, most Americans disapprove of the President’s handling of health care policy—”his worst review to date on this issue.”

    Any good news in them thar poll numbers? Yes — “opinion on the issue is far from settled. When initially asked about their preferred course of action on healthcare legislation, 22% of Americans say they do not yet have an opinion on the matter.”

    Some arrows in the quivers of health care reform-backing Democrats that you may hear about today:

    1) MIT professor Jonathan Gruber has released a study stating that the Senate Democrats’ health care reform bill makes “market reforms which will make health insurance much more affordable for individuals facing purchase in the non-group market.”
    2) The White House this morning released this video from Vice President Biden asking the American people: who do you trust? Doctors and nurses in favor of reform? Or special interests opposed to it? The video features Dr. Lori Heim, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians and Rebecca Patton, RN, president of the American Nurses Association.

    http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/11/facing-bad-poll-numbers-on-health-care-white-house-asks-who-do-you-trust.html

    —————–
    If you go to the link above, you can view the video at the bottom of the article.

  71. Nov 30, 2009

    Chelsea Clinton announces engagement

    Former first daughter Chelsea Clinton has become engaged to longtime boyfriend Marc Mezvinsky, ABC News reports.

    Clinton, 29, is the only child of former President Clinton and current Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

    She and Mezvinsky — an investment banker and the son of former Rep. Ed Mezvinsky, D-Iowa, and former Rep. Marjorie Margolies-Mezvinksy, D-Penn. — became friends in Washington, D.C. Both attended Stanford University.

    The couple was rumored to be getting married last summer in Martha’s Vineyard but the stories turned out to be premature.

    http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2009/11/chelsea-clinton-announces-engagement/1

  72. ABC Article…

    Chelsea Clinton Engaged to Marc Mezvinsky

    Clinton and Longtime Boyfriend Announced Engagement in E-mail to Friends

    By HUMA KHAN and KATE SNOW
    Nov. 30, 2009

    It won’t be a White House wedding, but former first daughter Chelsea Clinton is ready to tie the knot.
    Clinton is engaged to her longtime boyfriend Marc Mezvinsky, a spokesman for former President Bill Clinton confirmed to ABC News.

    Clinton, 29, is the only child of the former president and current Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. She and Mezvinsky — the son of former Rep. Ed Mezvinsky and former Rep. Marjorie Margolies-Mezvinksy — became friends in Washington, D.C., and closer friends when they both attended Stanford University.

    The couple sent out an e-mail the morning of Friday, Nov. 27 saying: “We’re sorry for the mass e-mail but we wanted to wish everyone a belated Happy Thanksgiving! We also wanted to share that we are engaged! We didn’t get married this past summer despite the stories to the contrary, but we are looking toward next summer and hope you all will be there to celebrate with us. Happy Holidays! Chelsea & Marc.”

    Clinton spokesman Matt McKenna said he believed the engagement happened “before Thanksgiving.” Others close to Clinton also indicated the engagement happened earlier and was only announced on Friday.

    Rumors swirled this past summer that the two were getting married in a grand celebrity-laden wedding on Martha’s Vineyard, but those proved to be false.

    Clinton and Mezvinsky were childhood friends in Washington and attended Stanford University but didn’t start dating until 2005. The future groom is an investment banker with Goldman Sachs.

    The daughter of political royalty, Chelsea Clinton grew up in the fishbowl of Arkansas and Washington politics. She literally held her parents together during the Monica Lewinsky scandal and emerged all grown up, campaigning for her mother’s bid for the presidency.

    Mezvinsky also has a political pedigree and is no stranger to political scandal. His father, former Iowa congressman Edward Mezvinsky, was released from federal prison last April after serving a sentence for his role in a Nigerian fraud scheme.

    The Mezvinkskys were also close to Bill and Hillary Clinton and were frequent guests at White House state dinners. Prosecutors say Mezvinsky used his connections to the Clintons and his son’s social relationship with Chelsea to persuade people to give him money to participate in the scams. Among those he cheated was his mother-in-law.
    Clinton and Mezvinsky, while a reported staple on the social circuit, keep a low profile.

    “Chelsea and Marc lead a pretty quiet life,” said New York Magazine’s Lloyd Grove, who wrote a cover story profiling Clinton last year. “The one thing Chelsea does here is she is on the board of the American Ballet school, couple of galas and such she is involved in — Marc will come to those, but he is careful when the paparazzi is there to keep his distance. The two of them don’t like to pose for pictures together.”

    During her father’s presidency, Clinton kept a low profile.

    “I don’t think Chelsea is one of those people that she has ever wanted to be the center of attention,” said Hollywood film director Harry Thomason, who is a close friend to the Clintons. “We can all see that over the following years — she had plenty of chances to be the center of attention in the White House and in her college years, and she’s just always chosen not to. I think that speaks well of the people who raised her.”

    In 2008, she broke her code of silence and hit the campaign trail with her mother, speaking at events and college campuses all over the country.

    Although Hillary Clinton’s bid for the presidency was unsuccessful, supporters came away impressed with Chelsea, asking her again and again if she would ever consider a career in politics. She has insisted that she would not.

    http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/chelsea-clinton-engaged-marry-marc-mezvinsky-summer/story?id=9206327

  73. #
    Canaan
    November 30th, 2009 at 3:51 am

    Funny how the nutroots credit Howard Dean’s executive experience as Vermont Governor, but dismissed Palin running the ‘minor’ state of Alaska.

    The two states have roughly the same population. I thought Dean being Governor of Vermont counted for a lot. However, ‘Palin Country’ produces 20% of U.S domestic oil, including the largest oil field in North America. Imagine if ‘tiny, insignificant’ Alaska had still been Russian territory in the Cold War — that’s a WWIII scenario.

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

    Isn’t Alaskan oil still being sold to Japan?

  74. Someone brave enough to speak out…

    On Israel’s right to be the Jewish State

    Author: Magdi Cristiano ALLAM
    29 November 2009

    From the 16 November I joined the three day mission to Israel of the EP Israel Delegation, of which I am privileged to serve as the Vice-President.
    I have understood the reality of Israel for many years. I was there for the first time in January of 1988 when the first Palestinian Intifada was launched. It was dubbed the “revolt of the stones” due to the common practice of throwing stones at Israelis.

    I have dealt with the Arab-Israeli conflict since I was born in Egypt in 1952 – four years after the proclamation of the State of Israel (May 15, 1948) and the first armed conflict launched by the Arab armies. Like the majority of Egyptians at the time, I was influenced by Nasser who promoted pan-Arab ideology that preached the extermination of Israel, which was presented as a “worldwide imperialist cancer”. This was inculcated in the heart of the Arab world and the message was that Israel had to be eradicated with force. I was fifteen years old when, in 1967, the Arab armies suffered their most bitter defeat. Egypt paid a very heavy human toll and was left with a bankrupted economy.
    It was then that I noticed the level of Nasser’s demagogy which denied the evidence of military defeat and continued to refuse any dialogue with Israel, let alone recognition or peace.

    The dominant slogan was: “what has been taken by force can not be returned if not by force.” The idea that peace can be founded only upon the return of territories occupied by Israel in the war of 5 June 1967 was established by UN Resolution 242 of 22, November 1967 creating the principle of “land for peace”.

    Since then, international diplomacy has been mobilized to press Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories, in the belief that this would automatically lead to peace in the Middle East.

    In reality, the territories occupied by Israel had previously been occupied by Arab countries in order to prevent the birth of an Arab state in Mandate Palestine as was required by UN Resolution 181 of 29 November 1947.
    At the same time, this Resolution granted to Israel the right to exist as a Jewish State. But Jordan occupied and annexed the West Bank and the eastern sector of Jerusalem. Egypt occupied and administered the Gaza Strip from 1948 to 1967. If Jordan and Egypt were truly interested in the emergence of a Palestinian state, they could have realized it with absolute tranquility. But instead of that, they preferred to keep those territories and to exploit the Palestinian cause with the aim of legitimizing the Arab and Islamic holy war aimed at the physical elimination of Israel. What I witnessed at first hand during my recent visit to Israel is the final collapse of the ideological myth of peace in exchange for the territories. Yasser Arafat and now the current Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas have both rejected unequivocally the land for peace proposal.

    At Camp David in 2000 Arafat rejected the proposal made by former Prime Minister Ehud Barak that would make Jerusalem the capital of a Palestinian State. After that, Mahmoud Abbas, at the end of 2008, refused a substantially similar proposal made by the then Prime Minister Ehud Olmert on the basis of the peace process launched in 2007 in Annapolis.

    These unequivocal facts demonstrate that for the Palestinians peace with Israel is not acceptable even in the face of Israeli willingness to give back the occupied territories of 1967’s war. And so, Israel has been forced to acknowledge that the conflict is not territorial but a conflict of legitimacy.

    However, all people of good will who genuinely care about building peace in the Middle East – and I turn especially to those who are committed to affirming the right of Palestinians to their own State – must recognize that the road to peace passes through the compulsory recognition of the inalienable right of Israel to exist as a State of the Jewish people. This right is the political recognition of the right to life of everyone, which is the core of fundamental human rights and the basis of common human civilization. The lesson of history is that the right to life is true for all or for no one.

    Magdi Cristiano ALLAM Italian MEP, Vice-Chairman of the Delegation for Relations with Israel

    http://www.neurope.eu/articles/On-Israels-right-to-be-the-Jewish-State/97790.php

  75. 1) MIT professor Jonathan Gruber has released a study stating that the Senate Democrats’ health care reform bill makes “market reforms which will make health insurance much more affordable for individuals facing purchase in the non-group market.”
    ———————————
    He is in the tank for Obama and he is the architect of the disasterous (they use the word ambitious) Massachusetts Health Care Plan. Need I say more? It would be interesting to explore his assumptions. I fully expect they are tainted with bias. I do not know the man, and if he served in the Clinton–that is the only point in his favor. That said I am open minded. If Robert Porter at Harvard backed him up on this I would be more inclined to accept his conclusions. As it stands I think they are most likely tainted with bias.

    During the 1997-1998 academic year, Dr. Gruber was on leave as Deputy Assistant Secretary for Economic Policy at the Treasury Department. He was a key architect of Massachusetts’ ambitious health reform effort, and in 2006 became an inaugural member of the Health Connector Board, the main implementing body for that effort. In that year, he was named the 19th most powerful person in health care in the United States by Modern Healthcare Magazine. During the 2008 he was a consultant to the Clinton, Edwards and Obama Presidential campaigns and was called by the Washington Post, “possibly the [Democratic] party’s most influential health-care expert.”

  76. appros of the above. I missed the question in the headline–who do you trust. The answer is not Dr. Gruber and certainly not Barack Obamafraud.

  77. 6 : President Pelosi (She has too much power, almost an equal)
    ——————————————————–
    Like giving a loaded gun to a maniacal stupid child and expecting it to practice proper handgun safety.

  78. Funny how the nutroots credit Howard Dean’s executive experience as Vermont Governor, but dismissed Palin running the ‘minor’ state of Alaska.

    The two states have roughly the same population. I thought Dean being Governor of Vermont counted for a lot. However, ‘Palin Country’ produces 20% of U.S domestic oil, including the largest oil field in North America. Imagine if ‘tiny, insignificant’ Alaska had still been Russian territory in the Cold War — that’s a WWIII scenario.
    ———————————
    Canan–logic has never been their strong suit. It is hard to reason with the Rabble of Paris.

  79. Curiosity got me. I read the original legislation for the Trans-Atlantic Pipeline years ago. It specified shipping the oil to Japan unless there was an emergency shortage in the US.

    Here is the latest:

    Shipping Alaskan Oil to Japan effectively ended in May 2000.

    h.. w… gov.state.ak.us/trade/2003/tad/pub/exportsstable.pdf

  80. Gawker had this nice line at the end about Chelsea’s engagement and I would wholeheartedly vote for a Chelsea Clinton down the road..

    “Congrats, Chelsea. May your reception be free of aspiring reality show characters, and here’s hoping Marc doesn’t mind the title “First Dude.””

  81. hmmm…he called Hillary first…

    —————-
    Obama facing tough selling job on Afghan policy

    By RICHARD LARDNER

    WASHINGTON — Barack Obama has begun one of the toughest sales jobs of his presidency, launching the much-awaited rollout of his new Afghan war strategy by informing top military and civilian advisers in Washington and Kabul and telephoning key allies around the globe. Obama is outlining his decision to an increasingly skeptical U.S. public on Tuesday night in a nationally broadcast address from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, N.Y. The strategy will include deploying thousands more American forces to Afghanistan, clarifying why the U.S. is fighting the war and laying out a path toward disengagement.

    He first told Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton his decision by phone on Sunday afternoon, and then informed other key administration advisers such as Defense Secretary Robert Gates in an early evening Oval Office meeting. It was at that time, said spokesman Robert Gibbs, that Obama’s order for the military to go ahead with the new deployments became official. The goal of the president’s revamped approach is to train Afghan security forces to eventually take over from the U.S., and Obama will say Tuesday that he doesn’t intend to allow an open-ended U.S. commitment, the spokesman said.

    Immediately after the Sunday session, the president called Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal, his top commander in Afghanistan, and the U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan, Karl Eikenberry. On Monday, Obama also began a series of calls to foreign leaders, starting with French President Nicolas Sarkozy, to be followed later in the day by British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev. The leaders were getting an overview of the new policy, but not specific troop numbers, Gibbs said. The president plans to speak with Afghan President Hamid Karzai and Pakistan’s President Asif Ali Zardari before his speech, most likely Monday night, Gibbs added.

    In Congress, Democrats already are setting tough conditions — if not outright opposition to a deeper U.S. involvement — and the American public is increasingly negative about the 8-year-old conflict that has become a serious drain on U.S. resources in a deeply troubled economic period. Casualties have increased sharply and are likely to grow more with the addition of more troops.
    Congressional uneasiness or opposition was voiced Sunday by the leading Senate Democrat on military matters, who said any plan to significantly expand U.S. troop levels must show how those reinforcements will help increase the number of Afghan security forces.

    Remarks by Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, were a preview of the possible roadblocks as the president begins to sell a broader, more expensive battle plan for Afghanistan to an American public weary of the conflict. Greater numbers of Afghan army and police are central to succeeding in the war, according to Levin, and more U.S. trainers and an infusion of battlefield gear will help meet that goal. But Levin said that it’s not clear what role the tens of thousands of additional U.S. combat troops would play in that buildup, and he said Obama has to make a compelling case for it on Tuesday. “The key here is an Afghan surge, not an American surge,” Levin said. “We cannot, by ourselves, win (the) war.”

    Another facet of Obama’s plan appears to be an expanded partnership with Pakistan as part of U.S. pressure on that country’s shaky government to do more to root out extremists based along Pakistan’s borders with Afghanistan.
    The Washington Post reported Monday that Obama had sent a letter to Zardari saying the U.S. planned no early withdrawal from Afghanistan and will increase its military and economic cooperation with Pakistan. The Post, quoting unidentified administration officials, also said that Obama called for closer collaboration against extremist groups, including five named in the letter. The letter, delivered by national security adviser James Jones, reportedly included a blunt warning that the U.S. would not tolerate support within Pakistan’s military and intelligence operations of extremists fighting in Afghanistan.

    At West Point, Obama was expected to announce an increase of up to 35,000 more U.S. forces to defeat the Taliban-led insurgency and stabilize a weak Afghan government. The escalation, which would take place over the next year, would put more than 100,000 American troops in Afghanistan at an annual cost of about $75 billion. Obama is also expected to outline an exit strategy for the war.

    Democrats concerned over the price tag have proposed a war tax to pay for operations. Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, has introduced legislation to impose a war surtax beginning in 2011. The bill would exempt service members and their families. “If this war is important enough to engage in the long term, it’s important enough to pay for,” Obey said.

    McChrystal wants an overall Afghan security force of 400,000 — 240,000 soldiers and 160,000 police officers — by October 2013.

    http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iqyaFh_efr-brDq0rMLF1hkop0tgD9CA1EN00

  82. Exerpt from: Small steps ahead in food security
    Jerry Hagstrom,Agweek, 11/30/2009

    “Josette Sheeran, an American who is the executive director of the U.N. World Food Program, which distributes food aid, said in an interview she thinks the high world food prices last year were a “wake-up call” that will keep officials around the world more focused on agricultural development than they have been in the past 20 years. Sheeran, a Bush administration political appointee in the State Department before she joined the United Nations, praised the Obama administration for donating $200 million toward a special $1 billion relief effort in the Horn of Africa. Sheeran said she has “never seen a secretary of State so behind” food and agriculture issues as Secretery of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.”

    http://www.agweek.com/articles/?id=7505&article_id=15679&property_id=41

  83. By RICHARD LARDNER
    ————————-
    I take this guy with a grain of salt. He is the grandson of Ring Larder the famous writer of short story fiction. He is an Obama lover and so is the newspaper he works for–the Atlanta Journal Constitution. He has 100% credibility rating according to some writer–probably Axelrod. He makes a big show of useless informatin about who is being informed of the DECISION. That does not equate however to competence or the right decision. It does not mean he is thorough. But it is a good way to cover for his several months of stalling. If he gives McCrytal anything less that what he asked for he is letting down the military. He goes on an on and on about what is wrong with America, but cannot bring himself to say anything negative about Muslim terrorists. He is weaker than Carter.

  84. Obama goes to West Point? Give me a break. He should broadcast his sermon from the Sears tower in Chicago. That would be a more appropriate venue. Tell me again how this clown ended up Commander in Chief. If I were the Taliban I would be smiling. I do not know if they laugh–but if they do I could see it as well.

    I really sympathize with the commanders and troops on the ground. Not only must you deal with the hardships, the terrain, the fatigue and the civilian population and those who are shooting at you–you have Obama as your CIC. I thought Bush was bad, but this guy is worse. A guy who spent almost 2 million dollars in attorney fees to hide his birth certificate.

  85. wbboei,

    He is going to West Point and bringing the violins with him. His whole argument will most likely be based on supporting those troops who are sitting ducks in Afghanistan. He will play on the guilt of everyone that defies him.

    This would have been an honest method if he hadn’t left them hanging as long as he has.

  86. I find it interesting that his handlers would say he informed Hillary of his decision. That is how Lardner put it reading off the Administration press release. They are so determined to show that he is in charge that they forget the fact that the whole decision may turn out to be a disaster, and by the way they worded this they make him the sole owner of the policy. The only thing they can argue if it turns out bad is faulty execution, and let us hope the commanders are smart enough to know that when the chips are down that is how he will try to scapegoat them as he did Craig. There is no mystery to this guy. He is predictable to a fault, and that is what our enemies are counting on.

  87. He is going to West Point and bringing the violins with him. His whole argument will most likely be based on supporting those troops who are sitting ducks in Afghanistan. He will play on the guilt of everyone that defies him.

    This would have been an honest method if he hadn’t left them hanging as long as he has.
    ————————————————————————————-
    Are we up for another media chorus of the greatest speech since the funeral oration of pericles? Let us hope that the stakes are sufficiently high at this point and experience has immunized those claptraps against hyperbole. We do not need to hear again from those ignorant fools that it was a brilliant speech. None of that. We need them to explain to us how it is sound policy, and stick their cowardly necks out a little rather than following behind him in lock step.

Comments are closed.