Terror Trial – Chuck Schumer With A 2×4

Obama and his Dimocrats remain stubborn and will try to ignore Massachusetts and Scott Brown. Obama and his Dimocrats need to be politically hit on their heads, repeatedly, with a 2×4.

There is a lot of Obama boobery and skulduggery today but we want to talk Chuck Schumer and his potential defeat in true blue New York State.

Items in today’s news we will not focus on (today) include: John Edwards, like Darth Vader, belatedly admits his paternity. Barack Obama will try to bamboozle the American public today with fake populist talk about bad Big Banks – but Obama won’t discuss his mob banker friend (and Illinois U.S. Senate candidate) Alexi Giannoulias nor Michael “Jaws” Giorango (which we will continue to discuss). The Obama economy continues to lose jobs and more jobs. Obama wants to bust the debt up by $1.9 trillion. And the Supreme Court has opened up the money gates which will ensure Republicans will have plenty of money to rightly destroy Obama Dimocrats this November.

Let’s get back to Chuck Schumer. Think Chuck is invincible in New York State? Guess again:

The poll had Schumer’s negative rating at 42 percent, where it has been for months in Marist — but his approval rating was at 51 percent, one of his lowest in that survey in recent years, and down from 58 percent in September.

We’re seeing some general erosion in his numbers,” said Marist pollster Lee Miringoff, “from what’s been a consistent mid- to high-50s. This is an electorate that’s increasingly unhappy.” [snip]

“There is a sense that …. his focus has shifted to Washington,” said one longtime New York Democratic insider. The insider acknowledged that Schumer is still doing as many small-bore Empire State pressers as he used to, but said there’s a growing sense that he’s focused on national issues.

New York’s senior senator is the No. 3 Democrat in the Senate, and some believe he’s eyeing a higher position.

Longtime Schumer watchers were surprised his pro-Martha Coakley email to supporters calling his now-colleague Scott Brown a “teabagger” last week, using the dismissive term used for the conservative Tea Party activists by hard-core Dems. And he’d long shied away from fights like the one he’s now locked in to bolster Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand by pushing back hard on potential primary rivals.

51% is not good. It’s enough to squeak by, but it is not good. If a Republican challenger arises, Schumer is vulnerable. Massachusetts proved that every Obama Dimocrat is vulnerable. Chuck Schumer is very vulnerable in the deep blue state of New York. The New York State race will be a tough race. Kristin Gillibrand, a stranger to statewide politicking will likely make novice mistakes. Governor Paterson is a dead duck not helped by his latest budgets of cuts and taxes. Mario Cuomo has bad blood from past campaigns yet he is supposed to be the savior for New York Dimocrats.

Chuck Schumer’s poll numbers are already wobbly before a punch is thrown. There is also a little discussed lesson from the Scott Brown Mass-acre of Dimocrats in Massachusetts. We noticed, and questioned the wisdom of the many Dimocratic ads which attacked Scott Brown on the issue. What was the issue? Here’s our earlier discussion:

In advertisements Coakley allies and the Coakley campaign are tagging Brown as “pro-torture” because he wants military imprisonment for terrorists, not trials in civilian American courts. Whatever the merits of those positions as policy issues, the reality is that most Americans, even those in Massachusetts agree with Scott Brown. Why is Coakley’s campaign making this an issue? Is it to get out the alleged Democratic base? How does that work when a sufficiently significant part of the base too agrees with Brown? How does that help? The Coakley campaign needs a refresher course in the Paul Tully message box.

On terrorist trials 65% of Massachusetts voters agree with Brown. How does that help Coakley to make this an issue?

If this issue worked so well for Scott Brown in Massachusetts, what could it do to Chuck Schumer in New York? Senator Schumer has flip-flopped on the issue of terror trials in New York. Schumer supports Obama on the issue now. All Schumer has said is New York should be paid for hosting the terrorist extravaganza. Chuck Schumer is vulnerable on this issue.

At his victory speech Brown said:

And let me say this, with respect to those who wish to harm us, I believe that our Constitution and laws exist to protect this nation — they do not grant rights and privileges to enemies in wartime. In dealing with terrorists, our tax dollars should pay for weapons to stop them, not lawyers to defend them.

This is a potent issue for Republicans against Chuck Schumer:

It was health care that nationalized the special election for what we now know is the people’s Senate seat. But it was national security that put real distance between Scott Brown and Martha Coakley. “People talk about the potency of the health-care issue,” Brown’s top strategist, Eric Fehrnstrom, told National Review’s Robert Costa, “but from our own internal polling, the more potent issue here in Massachusetts was terrorism and the treatment of enemy combatants.” There is a powerful lesson here for Republicans, and here’s hoping they learn it.

Like Barbara Boxer and just about every other Dimocratic incumbent, Chuckie Schumer is vulnerable. Perhaps Chuck needs to take a ride with the Chappaquiddick Chauffeur and concoct more Hillary Hate plots from the grave.

We discussed Chuck Schumer’s key role against Caroline Kennedy last year. Barack Obama and Baby Jane Caroline have learned that what Chuck will do FOR you he will do TO you as well.

Traitor Chuck Schumer and Barack Obama and the back-stabber Dimocrats have a lesson to learn. This from HillaryForTexas in our comments, a quote from the DailyKooks:

Q: Where are the other potential Dem collapse areas this Nov?

A: Almost precisely the places Hillary carried in the 08 prez primary”

Larry Sabato has an incomplete list of “more shocks on the way” for Dimocrats.

* * * * *

Is Chuck Schumer a treacherous beast? We need to definitively find this out. Recently we wrote about the book Game Change: Gossip is pernicious and vicious because you cannot tell truth from fiction because there usually is some truth in the fiction.”

We also wrote this about Chuck Schumer.

We have tangled with Chuck Schumer in the past so it is possible that our views are colored by that past. We’ve had friends who have tangled with Schumer too so our views are most definitely colored by that past. We hope Hillary is right and that Schumer did not stab her in the back as so many others have. But we wonder…

Many questions about Chuck have been raised.

Game Change” by John Heilemann and Mark Halperin revealed that Schumer and other powerful Dems urged Barack Obama to run – knowing that Clinton planned to. The pair wrote that Schumer even told Obama pal Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) to “take a two-by-four” to Clinton in 2007.

Our days of doubt are near an end. We increasingly believe Schumer acted dishonorably and treacherously on behalf of Barack Obama and against Hillary Clinton.

Chuck Schumer must answer the questions raised about his alleged back-stabs and treacheries. We must know, and soon, whether it is true or we must begin our moves against Chuck Schumer:

The book reported that many of Clinton’s Senate colleagues — including some who nominally supported her, such as New York Sen. Chuck Schumer — were secretly offering aid to Obama all along.

We demand a clear and compelling and honest answer Chuck. You must answer whether this report from Game Change is true, Chuck:

His friend and Illinois counterpart, Dick Durbin, was urging him to run, but that was to be expected. More intriguing were the entreaties he was receiving from New York’s Chuck Schumer. Schumer’s relationship with Hillary had always been fraught with rivalry and tinged with jealousy; though she was technically the junior member of the New York team in the Senate, she had eclipsed him in terms of celebrity and influence from the moment she arrived on the Hill. [snip]

The political handicapper in Schumer was fascinated by Obama’s potential to redraw the electoral map, a capacity Clinton surely lacked. In conversations with other senators and strategists in 2006, Schumer would make these points over and over. He made them to Obama as well, and repeatedly; in one instance Schumer even double-teamed him with Reid. Although Schumer was careful to signal that home-state decorum would prohibit him from opposing Clinton publicly—“You understand my position,” he would say—he left no doubt as to where his head and heart were on the question.

Senator Charles Schumer of New York, and many other Dimocrats up for election in 2010, are going to hear and feel the whack of a 2×4. It will be administered by Hillary supporters – nationwide. Barack Obama will be next.


223 thoughts on “Terror Trial – Chuck Schumer With A 2×4

  1. Oh, admin, I love a good mystery. What I am staggered by is the degree to which DC Democrats were sabotaging Clinton, concerned that her star power would eclipse their ability to attach their names in the public consciousness to legislation. at least, I think that’s what it is.

    Are they frightened by the fact that FDR gets all the credit for the New Deal? Gore Vidal still talks about how his grandfather’s proudest moment was introducing Social Security (or whatever it was he did – I can’t find it quickly).

    Everything is haywire.

    I’ve noticed how scrupulously the chattering class is ignoring the fact that Coakley’s husband’s union said specifically they were endorsing Brown because Coakley had promised to vote for Obama’s healthcare plan. You would think people would want to take notice of a specific reason given for a union distancing themselves from someone running for the US senate whose husband had once been in their ranks.

  2. Schumer was a back-stabbing traitor. I want to see him go down so badly, I plan to donate to whoever opposes him, whoever that may be. The Dem party I knew and loved can never come back until the roaches are flushed out of the party, permanently.

    Obama is the Raid Hotel – the roaches checked in, but they will never check out. They made their choice, and I plan to make sure they EAT that choice. Open wide, Dims, til you CHOKE on Hopenchange.

  3. Paul Krugman is about ready to give up on Obama. Read the comments–several “it could have been Hillary” type statements

    h t t p://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/20/he-wasnt-the-one-weve-been-waiting-for/

  4. Schumer is vulnerable. He has shit on the people of his state. He has been shown to be a conniving backstabber. And somewhere they must have the clip of him emerging from a meeting with that supercilious grin and saying pork? no pork! Just a few little piggies, ha, ha, ha, ain’t I just adorable.

  5. I wish I was in NY. I’d campaign against Schumer with a big ol’ sign that said “Take a 2X4 to Chuckie Cheese”

  6. All Hillary and Bill have to do is stay dignified and not respond to all the libellous digs that continue to rain down on them. Schumer et al are digging their own holes without any help from them.

  7. H4T, I am with you I wish I could transplant myself to help hitting CHuchie with that 2×4. The thought of him losing his place puts chills up and down my back. Revengence is mine sayeth the Hillary supporters.

    Admin: What a great article!

    Its going to be exciting while we all get our revenge on those who back stabbed her. In that way, that book we hated to come out is really good because it specifically tells us who gets the 2×4 and who doesn’t.

    Claire is one I just freaking can’t wait for her to get her pink slip.

  8. The political handicapper in Schumer was fascinated by Obama’s potential to redraw the electoral map
    Yes, Barack has withdrawn the electoral map alright. But not in the way Schumer believed and hoped for. Losing the Kennedy seat was unthinkable. Losing his own seat because of it would be the coup d gras. I would even support Bloomberg for that seat–and I am not a Bloomberg fan. But that may be just what the doctor ordered. Peter King is the logical choice but I am not sure that would work. If there were a way to primary him with someone like Cuomo that would be wonderful.

  9. I read on the previous thread that the Supremes have opened the ability of more corporate money to be given to campaigns? So does this mean they ruled against “HillarytheMovie”? Did they approve its release??

  10. We’ve been strolling through the websites run by the Nutroots today (we did not go near the DailyKooks site). There seems to be a general meltdown at the Nutroots sites. It’s quite funny. Krugman too is losing it today.

    We’re on our Pink Cloud, smiling.

  11. We’re on our Pink Cloud, smiling.


    Me too. Admin, you have been right on everything that has happened. Amazing.

    I am glad that the health insurance debacle is dead for now. How anyone could be upset that there aren’t enough votes to pass the senate bill, amazes me. It is a dirty bill, built on bribes and corruption.

  12. Imagine what John Kerry was thinking today as he met with Brown, especially since at Brown’s acceptance speech people were shouting for Kerry’s head.

    I hope Schumer, Kerry, McKaskill gets there’s.

  13. Another Missourian just ommented, “Show me” the exit for Claire McCaskill and we’ll “frog march” her there as soon as possible.

  14. LOL! I just saw a comment on HotAir (conservative site) about former kool-aid reporters grumbling over Gibbs being so dismissive of them all the time at WH press briefings

    Hey media…if you act like cheap whores, expect to be treated like cheap whores….

  15. it should of been scott brown…. every pole i have seen asking who should give this response Brown won hands down.

    what are the GOP thinking by not putting brown or Palin in that spot??

  16. djia, I understand why you’d think that, but I am glad they didn’t use Brown. He’s new to the Senate. Let him earn his chops. Above all, don’t overexpose him as the New Messiah, or you are setting him up for “American Idol fatigue”.

    IMO, the GOP was smart to resist the urge to put him in that spot.

  17. I heard Obama today, it seems he’s a slow learner. Same old talking points about job, blah, blah, blah.

    Let’s see em’ their Potus, put up or shut up. Where’s the jobs, when are they coming???

  18. djia, I understand why you’d think that, but I am glad they didn’t use Brown. He’s new to the Senate. Let him earn his chops. Above all, don’t overexpose him as the New Messiah, or you are setting him up for “American Idol fatigue”.

    IMO, the GOP was smart to resist the urge to put him in that spot.

    I agree…there is still that fight for when he will be seated…he may not even be sworn in by next week!!!

  19. Nobama: I agree with you 100% You want a purge. I want de Nazification. In the end it amounts to the same thing.

    The common problem with all of them is they do not respect our constitutional system and will use all manner of treacherous tactics to bring it down including destroying it to save it.

    They are like an astrocytoma in the body politic and radiation and chemo are indicated. But once it gets to a 3 or higher the prospects for survival are decidedly grim. More specifically:

    1. Liberal Democrats: in the tradition of Hillary, Bill and FDR should be running the party. If that is not the case, then no sane person should vote for the party.

    2. Big Business shills: like Obama, Kerry, Kennedy, Pelosi and Reid, who are there to do the bidding of global business, and Wall Street, at the expense of mainstreet and lying about it, all need to be run out of town with pitch forks.

    3. Bolsheviks: like Howard Dean, GreenPeace, Open Society Institute, Earth First, PETA, Ayers and others who are there to foment violent confrontation, revolution and civil disorder should be put in a cage after reading them their Miranda Rights.

  20. US, partners will ‘not back down’ on Iran: Clinton

    Thursday January 21, 2010

    US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Thursday the international community is “unified in its resolve” to put pressure on Iran over its disputed nuclear program, and will not back down.

    However, the chief US diplomat omitted to explicitly raise the threat of sanctions following a weekend six-power meeting in New York where China, which is reluctant to use such measures, sent a lower-level envoy. “Let me be clear, we will not be waited out and we will not back down,” Clinton told reporters as she stood with European Union foreign affairs chief Catherine Ashton, on her first trip to Washington in that role.

    Iran has long balked at an offer from the Vienna-based UN International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to ship abroad low-grade nuclear fuel so it can be further enriched and returned to refuel a Tehran medical research reactor.

    In Vienna, diplomats said Wednesday the Islamic Republic had effectively rejected the deal because it refused to accept some of the conditions called for by the West and insisted on a simultaneous exchange of fuel.

    Western countries have ruled out such an exchange as unacceptable.

    But Iran’s Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki was quoted by the Mehr news agency as saying Tehran had not rejected “the principle of the exchange (of nuclear fuel).”
    “Our position has not changed from what we already expressed in the past — we are ready for a gradual exchange of fuel,” Mehr quoted foreign ministry spokesman, Ramin Mehmanparast, as saying.

    The proposal made by the IAEA last October, “which was supported by France, Russia and the United States, continues to be on the table,” said IAEA spokeswoman, Gill Tudor.

    Clinton said the United States “will continue our close consultations on the next steps” with its partners: the four other UN Security Council permanent members — Russia, China, Britain, and France — plus Germany. “We are focused, we are unified in our resolve to work toward pressure on Iran in the face of their continuing rejection of the overtures by the international community,” the chief US diplomat said.

    But she gave no details about when the P5-plus-1 would next meet after a weekend meeting in New York at the political directors level yielded no apparent results and was attended by a lower-level Chinese official. China, as well as Russia, has been more reluctant to support tougher sanctions on Iran than the United States or its European partners.

    But the State Department has hailed the meeting as useful.
    And Clinton said: “The last meeting (…) was another productive step along the way toward accomplishing unified international action.” She added: “We’re going at this in a very concerted and unified manner, because we think it’s important to send that message to the Iranian leadership that the world will act, and the world will act together.”

    Ashton echoed Clinton’s point. “It is very important that we do this in a measured and collective way and there are very clear steps that we now need to take together to move forward. It’s not about rushing into, but determined and concerted steps,” Ashton said.

    Clinton repeated the State Department’s often-used mantra.
    “Iran has a very clear choice between continued isolation and living up to its international obligations,” she said.

    The IAEA proposal is designed to buy breathing room as the big powers try to halt Iran’s uranium enrichment — which the West fears masks a drive to build a nuclear bomb.

    Denying the charge, Iran says it seeks peaceful uses of nuclear energy.


  21. LMAO..well i verntured into the orange abyss for y’all today..

    it’s a total meltdown! obama is weak, they are sad and angry that their agenda has not come to fruition
    via “hope & change”

    they are very disappointed in obama’s leadership or better said Lack of leadership skills.
    I believe i heard a few “wussie” references LMAO

    they are totally burning up over the loss of HCR bill and cheerleading Pelosi’s bigger and tuffer balls than obama’s over not giving up on it and trying for reconciliation to get it passed.

    a bunch of comments stating the obvious that he should stop the “lecturing” and stay off the air waves so much except they would like him to do
    “fire side” chats that are “honest” with the people.

    they know they lost the younger voters attention and that they didn’t show up in MA on tuesday and are trying to figure out how to get them back.

    they also want obama to “sound” the way he did on the campaign trail during the primary and to keep his promises. they are saying he is in bed with the corporatist and they feel “jilted” and “lied” too LMAO!!!



  22. Schumer may be a shit, but I’m still hoping for Pelosi to lose her leadership role soon. The GOP has gained traction on her back and she has gladly let them because of her hyper inflated ego. She really thinks she is the most powerful woman in the world and it ain’t pretty on her.

    It’d be one thing if she were an East Coast blue blood, but an ultra-liberal from San Francisco where people wear buttless chaps and give voting rights to their Gucci wearing tea cup terriers while drinking free trade $15 lattes and driving $50K electric cars really riles up most of the rest of the Heartland. (And, no, I don’t really think that about CA- well…not entirely, but I know plenty of folks who do from the South, the Midwest, the Southwest and those areas of the country that might as well be Arctic islands for half the year do.)She comes across as arrogant and pretentious.

    Her fashion style seemed professional at first and now it’s a joke. She’s the female version of BO- all hat, no cattle. It shows and the more assertive she becomes in pushing BO’s agenda for him, the more it looks like a personal power grab by her. It’s turned off centrists all over the nation and they are just starting to see some of it in these 4 elections.

    Whether voters will come out and say it, they actually like gridlock. One party with too much power has always equaled massive abuses of power…until they get punished at the ballot box.

  23. I was having a big giggle as how it would be awesome to see scott brown give his response to obama while sitting in his truck 😀 LMAO

  24. wbboei- You forgot Code Pink in #3. I’d like to take a 2×4 to them as well. You want to talk about self-important little shits? We need an industrial-sized pooper scooper for those assholes.

    djia- have you seen the “Hope Is Fading” shirts? Damn funny. May buy a couple for some pals who are just shocked and blaming it on everyone but BO and their own stupidity in believing his snake oil sales pitch.

    And on a bigger front- these sites including the Orange Abyss- all seem to be self-insulating. We get a mob mentality. Had Big Pink been as big and well established in ’08, it might have changed things somewhat with younger voters. Unfortunately, it wan’t and didn’t, but that being said, BO and his minions (esp. DB Pooper) mistake the one time power boost as a complete change in the Democrat demographic. It’s a terrible mistake bc that coalition is still out there and ripe for the taking. Still, historically, as long as that coalition was a little hungry, a little tired and a little pissed at the bossman, you could assure votes for guys with (D) after their name. Not anymore. They got fat and happy in the ’90’s and realized their souls were up for grabs, too. When they are tired and hungry, and a bit pissed they’d normally come back, but the party is dead. Howie and DB Pooper killed it, skinned it, ate it and sold the bones to the Daley machine which is selling the entrails for a quick buck.

    The old party is gone. Get used to it.

  25. *The old party is gone. Get used to it.

    Unless there is a top to bottom change out of Reid, Pelosi, et al. and BO STFU.



    Obama Weighs Paring Goals for Health Bill

    WASHINGTON — President Obama signaled on Wednesday that he might be willing to scale back his proposed health care overhaul to a version that could attract bipartisan support, as the White House and Congressional Democrats grappled with a political landscape transformed by the Republican victory in the Massachusetts Senate race.

    “I would advise that we try to move quickly to coalesce around those elements of the package that people agree on,” Mr. Obama said in an interview on ABC News, notably leaving near-universal insurance coverage off his list of core goals.

    But it was not clear that even a stripped-down bill could get through Congress anytime soon. Throughout the day, White House officials and Democratic Congressional leaders struggled to find a viable way forward for the health care bill and to digest the reality that much of their agenda, including an energy measure and an overhaul of banking regulations, had been derailed by the outcome in Massachusetts.

    Inside the White House, top aides to the president said Mr. Obama had made no decision on how to proceed, and insisted that his preference was still to win passage of a far-reaching health care measure, like the House and Senate bills, which would extend coverage to more than 30 million people by 2019.

    On Capitol Hill, Democratic leaders said they were weighing several options. But some lawmakers in both parties began calling for a scaled-back bill that could be adopted quickly with bipartisan support, and Mr. Obama seemed to suggest that if he could not pass an ambitious health care bill, he would be willing to settle for what he could get. In the interview with ABC, he cited two specific goals: cracking down on insurance industry practices that hurt consumers and reining in health costs.

    “We know that we need insurance reform, that the health insurance companies are taking advantage of people,” Mr. Obama said. “We know that we have to have some form of cost containment because if we don’t, then our budgets are going to blow up, and we know that small businesses are going to need help so that they can provide health insurance to their families. Those are the core, some of the core elements to this bill.”

    Republican Congressional aides said a compromise bill could include new insurance industry regulations, including a ban on denying coverage based on pre-existing medical conditions, as well as aid for small businesses for health costs and possible steps to restrict malpractice lawsuits. But as Mr. Obama noted on ABC, a pared-down package imposing restrictions on insurers might make coverage unaffordable, which is one reason he prefers a broad overhaul.

    As the full Congress returned to Washington to start a new legislative year on the first anniversary of Mr. Obama’s inauguration options were limited and there were signs of a divide between the White House and Democrats on Capitol Hill. House leaders signaled that they had effectively ruled out the idea of adopting the Senate bill, which would send it directly to the president for his signature. Yet close advisers to the president said such a move was still on the table.

    Mr. Brown’s victory in Massachusetts on Tuesday denies Democrats the 60th vote that they need to surmount filibusters and advance a revised health measure. Senate leaders said they would not risk antagonizing voters by trying to rush a bill through before Mr. Brown could be sworn in, and Mr. Obama agreed.

    “People in Massachusetts spoke,” the president told ABC. “He’s got to be part of that process.”

    Another option considered by Democrats would be to use the procedural maneuver known as reconciliation to pass chunks of the health care bill attached to a budget measure, which requires only a simple majority. But there appeared to be little appetite for such a move on Capitol Hill.

    Democrats also wrestled with the implications of losing their 60-vote majority for their wider legislative agenda, including efforts to tighten regulation of the financial system and combat global warming, even as they sensed new urgency to turn their attention to creating jobs and improving the economy.

    Democratic efforts to pass a bill on energy and global warming were in trouble even before the special election; administration officials and Senate Democratic leaders have been quietly negotiating a scaled-back package focusing more on job-creating technologies than on limits for climate-altering pollution.

    Even the president’s new proposal to tax big banks for the government’s bailout losses, which Republicans privately conceded was a political winner given widespread anti-Wall Street sentiment, suddenly did not look like such a sure thing. Industry lobbyists noted that Mr. Brown publicly opposed the bank tax and that Mr. Obama had spotlighted that opposition during a campaign appearance in Massachusetts on Sunday — to no avail.

    But the outcome might put further impetus behind efforts to bring down the budget deficit, a topic the White House has addressed more visibly in recent days. On Tuesday, the administration and Congressional Democrats agreed to create a commission to attack the deficit and the national debt.

    At a news conference at the Capitol, the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, sought to minimize health care as compared with jobs and the economy. But he made clear that Democrats did not see a clear path forward.

    “The election in Massachusetts changes the math in the Senate,” Mr. Reid said. “But it doesn’t change the fact that people are hurting.” Pressed about the health care legislation, Mr. Reid said, “The problems out there — it’s certainly more than health care.” Pressed again, he said: “No decision has been made.”

    Senior Republicans showed little new willingness to collaborate with the Democrats. Asked where he might be willing to work across the aisle, the Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, offered praise for Mr. Obama’s strategy in Afghanistan but not a single example on domestic policy.

    Mr. McConnell was asked if the health care bill was dead. “I sure hope so,” he said.

    Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, said she was eager to work with Democrats in devising an alternative to the health care bill passed four weeks ago by the Senate on a party-line vote.

    “What I hope the White House will do is start from scratch and, instead of pushing this bill through the House, work with a bipartisan group of senators to achieve a consensus bill that would have widespread support,” Ms. Collins said. “There are many provisions of the bill that have bipartisan support. And I believe the president would be wise to draft a new bill that he could get through both the House and the Senate with supermajority votes.”

  27. Brown is the insurgent candidate.

    Normally what happens is the party selects a candidate, lines up the money men, provides a campaign manager, introduces him to the public through the media, etc. Obama is an example of that process. It is specifically intended to minimize public input and make sure he stays bought.

    What happened in Brown’s case was the reverse of that. No party member greased the skids for him. He did it all on his own. He drove his pickup truck to all corners of the state introducing himself to ordinary people and getting to know them. He did not know he was getting traction until he say the first Scott Brown for Senate sign that was not planted for him. Belatedly, the RNC donated a modest check of $500,000. His campaign reads like a Frank Capra movie.

    How do you think that made the DIMOCRATS feel when they heard that story. How do you think they felt when they saw the authenticity that they lack, and the way ordinary people bonded to him. Did that make them feel a little cheap–and maybe even a little bought? Did it? Did it make them remember the oath they took, and why they pursued public life in the first place. Did it make them realize that maybe the Messiah had feet of clay? Or worse, negative coattails–3 in a row.

    While they were pondering that question, the White House was playing the Brown victory down much as they tried to play down the abortive terrorist attack initially. The first tactic by the West Wing boys (Bambi’s version of Murder Inc.) tried to dismiss his significance and cast him as a Republican. The next attack was on Coakley personally, she ran such a poor campaign that not even the magic of the Messiah or the good name of St. Teddy could save her. Then Axelrod said damn the torpedoes full speed ahead on health care and even the most craven of the craven said stop.

  28. djia, As to your comment about Scott in his truck I was reminded when I used to post over at the DNC, somehow the conversation came around to what everyone drove and I mentioned that I drive a 3/4 chevy truck, OMG, you’d thought I committed a mortal sin. They berated ever time I posted, even got to calling me cornfed. Those elitest are the meanest people that ever walked this earth and I am so enjoying that a pin-up guy driving a TRUCK beat their b(*Sls off is quiet satifying.

  29. Connie: I talked to someone who knows Rush. I am informed that he is a patriot and he considers Hillary to be a patriot as well. He likes her. His call for her to get back into political life was not for the ratings but for the country. He is very worried about the country the way things are headed and believes that we need the best minds to lead our country.

    Since I do not know Rush personally,I cannot comment further except to say this.

    When I was campaigning for Hillary in Indiana I went to the house of a man who looked like Sergeant Rock who had one of those stares that would burn right through you. He was mowing his lawn and I was a little apprehensive about disturbing him since I did not think I could outfight him or outrun him. But I approached him and gave him my Hillary talk. He looked at me and said give me the literature. I support her. Rush told me to support her. He winked and said Operation Chaos right? I left and he went back to mowing his lawn.

    I understood what he meant. At the beginning of the campaign he pushed Obama, but by the middle he was all for Hillary. Maybe it was all just chaos, but I suspect what my contract told me is true. Unlike so many others, Rush sees Hillary and Bill as two different people, and they do not agree on everything–like NAFTA.

  30. The bland Larry Sabato is on Fox News ripping into Obama. Sabato calls Obama’s attacks on banks a “pose”. The past 5 minutes have been a discussion of how “fake” Obama is. Very Pinkish conversation.

  31. Check this video of Howie out. Is it just me or does he look like he’s had some work done? Hair dyed? Check. Face-lift? Check. Teeth capped? Check.

    Aw hell, Howie went all Hollywood…must have been competing with Nancy. 😆


  32. wbboei- You forgot Code Pink in #3.
    You are right Okie. They are card carrying Bolsheviks too. It was not my intent to leave them off the list of wackos. I hope they are not offended.

  33. I’m very impressed with what I read on this blog. With that out of the way, I want to write about my gut feel about Schumer. He’s a little man filling a big pair of
    britches. Don’t trust him, therefore go after him. He’s way too comfortable with Obama which should tell you everything you need to know about him. The same goes for Claire McDumbskull in the state of Misery (Missouri). These people are indeed treacherous. Hillary should realize by now that many of her supposed friends were actually enemies in disguise. Otherwise, she would have been the Democratic nominee since she did win the popular vote in the primaries. She’s being too
    nice if she thinks Schumer didn’t try to derail her. Hillary shouldn’t dirty herself by responding to Schumer in kind, but her supporters should cut the head off of that snake.


    Smart people learn and grow. Bill Clinton in 1994 changed gears and cruised to a re-election. Even the H1N1 virus continually adapts.

    Obama? Fuggedaboudit.

    Here’s the money quote:

    “If there’s one thing that I regret this year, is that we were so busy just getting stuff done and dealing with the immediate crises that were in front of us, that I think we lost some of that sense of speaking directly to the American people about what their core values are and why we have to make sure those institutions are matching up with those values,” he said. “And that I do think is a mistake of mine.”

    So let me get this straight. You are claiming that you are actually doing lots of good things, things people want, but that you have NOT spent enough time selling and marketing and communicating????

    The guy has done more interviews, wasted more prime time, hogged every possible spotlight, than all presidents in the 20th century combined.

    My $$$ comments inserted.


    Obama Trying to Turn Around His Presidency

    Published: January 20, 2010

    WASHINGTON — Chastened and bruised, President Obama on Wednesday began the daunting process of trying to turn around his presidency in a drastically altered political environment that will test his leadership, his instincts and his political dexterity as never before.

    With the loss of his party’s unilateral control of the Senate, Mr. Obama pivoted to acknowledge the deep public anger on display in Tuesday’s special election in Massachusetts, offering limited regrets for losing touch and signaling that he may scale back some of the sweeping ambitions he brought into office just one year ago to the day.

    But he and his advisers were still reeling from the Republican victory in Massachusetts that cost them the filibuster-proof majority they had used to advance his priorities. Inside the White House, a debate ensued about what lessons to draw: Did the president try to enact too much change or not enough? Was he too liberal or too close to financial institutions? Should he tack to the center or more aggressively push a progressive agenda?

    In an interview with ABC News, Mr. Obama indicated he would not give up his signature health care initiative but suggested paring it down to its “core elements.” He maintained that he heard the message of an election that handed the late Senator Edward M. Kennedy’s seat to a Republican but cast it as an echo of the public discontent that vaulted him to the White House.

    “Here’s my assessment of not just the vote in Massachusetts but the mood around the country — the same thing that swept Scott Brown into office swept me into office,” Mr. Obama said. “People are angry and they are frustrated. Not just because of what’s happened in the last year or two years, but what’s happened over the last eight years.”

    $$$ Refusing to accept responsibility ensures that the subject is unwilling to change.

    That, of course, was a way of putting at least some of the blame on former President George W. Bush. For himself, Mr. Obama sided with those who saw a failure of communications rather than a flawed policy agenda.

    “If there’s one thing that I regret this year, is that we were so busy just getting stuff done and dealing with the immediate crises that were in front of us, that I think we lost some of that sense of speaking directly to the American people about what their core values are and why we have to make sure those institutions are matching up with those values,” he said. “And that I do think is a mistake of mine.”

    $$$ Forgive us for laughing. “So busy getting stuff done”? Getting it done the wrong way. So let’s have another speech.

    The president alluded to his own reputation for emotional distance from voters suffering from a troubled economy. “What they’ve ended up seeing is this feeling of remoteness and detachment where, you know, there’s these technocrats up here, these folks who are making decisions,” he said.

    $$$ “I don’t feel your pain”

    That Mr. Obama made these observations to the ABC anchor George Stephanopoulos may have been fitting, given that Mr. Stephanopoulos was a White House adviser to President Bill Clinton when Democrats lost the Congress in 1994. The loss of a single Senate seat in Massachusetts does not quite match the political tectonic shift 15 years ago, but Clinton veterans in the Obama White House experienced an uncomfortable sense of déjà vu.

    That defeat was followed by weeks of debate between some like Mr. Stephanopoulos who advocated more liberal populism and others like Rahm Emanuel (now Mr. Obama’s White House chief of staff) who favored tacking to the political center. Ultimately, Mr. Clinton moved to the middle on issues like welfare and the deficit and declared “the era of big government is over.”

    “Clinton took the ’94 results as an affirmation to govern the way he campaigned, to not being the president Congress wanted him to be but to be the president America had elected him to be,” said Bruce Reed, a Clinton adviser in the centrist camp. Mr. Obama, he said, can use this as an opportunity to focus on “results, not ideology,” and “make government better, not bigger.”

    Indeed, administration officials, who did not want to be identified discussing internal strategy, said Mr. Obama would put more emphasis on issues like deficit reduction and job creation. He already was assembling a bipartisan budget commission and officials acknowledged that some proposals would probably take a back seat now, like a market-based cap on greenhouse gas emissions and liberalized immigration rules.

    Still, Mr. Obama is loath to follow Mr. Clinton’s example too much. His senior adviser, David Axelrod, made clear in media appearances Wednesday that the president would eschew the incremental, small-bore initiatives Mr. Clinton favored in the 1990s. And Mr. Axelrod’s public rhetoric in recent days has favored populist language about standing up to banks and insurers.

    But that too has its tradeoffs. Mr. Obama has proposed a tax on banks to recover taxpayer money from the bailout, but even some officials who support the policy worry that the rhetoric fuels the image of an antibusiness administration at a time when creating jobs is the top priority.

    Mr. Obama has often confronted moments of challenge with a major speech, as he did during a race controversy in the 2008 primaries and again when health care seemed in trouble last fall. With the State of the Union now scheduled for Wednesday, he has another such opportunity. Aides said he will use it to reframe his record and aspirations.

    “When these things hit, it’s like a football team that’s losing — you’ve got to get back to fundamentals — blocking and tackling and running the ball,” said Dan Bartlett, a top adviser to Mr. Bush, who lost control of the Senate when a Republican bolted from the party in the middle of 2001. “They have to hone in, be more disciplined, focus on one or two issues and be relentless in driving them home.”

  35. Howard is delusional. The answers he gives are unresponsive. All he does is repeat shop worn campaign rhetoric.

  36. By the way, Pelosi indicated that there is no need to rush the health care bill. Funny how an election loss can change one’s perspective. The witch is not to be trusted EVER! Believe me, she’s still scheming. That’s why any version of Obamacare that still MAY get passed is bad. It would be a foot in the door that would allow the quasi-marxists in Congress to eventually modify it to their liking sometime in the future. It’s their treacherous nature to continue to fight for their ideological priorities at the expense of a vast segment of the population. What’s good for Nancy is typically not good for most of the rest of us. I really do hate these marxists that masquerade as Democrats because they give real Democrats a very bad name.

  37. From last thread: nomobama, I agree with your synopsis of the Dimocrats, there is no longer a party for the Democrats. I have long supported everyone registering as an Independent voter whether they lean Dem or Repub. The two parties are the two wings of the same bird; and both parties are full of corrupt people who would rather line their pockets than protect our children’s children’s future. When I registered as an Independent, the feat alone was exhilerating as I was no longer a slave to either party. As witnessed in MA, it was the Independent voters who saved our nation. God bless them every one.
    As an Independent you can choose the person(s) that stand for what you believe in. You know, country over party. As an Independent voter, every candidate must EARN your vote; and in this day and age we will watch everyone we vote for to be on ready to work against them next time if they fail us. Be important. Make a difference. Don’t ‘give’ your vote, make them earn it. Become a registered Independent voter and matter again!
    For the real democrats, I do feel for them, but to say that you can take the party back I don’t know. Why would you even want to, after Obummer/Reid/Pelosi/Schummer/etc have given it such a bad reputation. As an Independent, I can work toward electing Hillary, or Palin, or Brown, or Blackburn, or Bachmann. And, I will work for Hillary just as hard and long as I did last time. I am an Independent American Woman. I do not vote with my body parts, for my cronies, or for scoundrels and terrorists. Hear me roar!!!!!
    Okie Atty said it well above also.

  38. wbboei, I realize that but it’s still damn funny especially with the Extreme Makeover: Hair Edition.
    Oh he needed a tune-up alright. But they forgot the missing part:

    If Howie Only Had a Brain . . .

    He could while away the hours, conferrin’ with the flowers
    Consultin’ with the rain.
    And his head he’d be scratchin’ while
    his thoughts were busy hatchin’
    If I only had a brain.

    He’d unravel every riddle for any individ’le,
    In trouble or in pain.
    With the thoughts he’d be thinkin’
    Could have been another Lincoln
    If he only had a brain.

  39. AirAmerica, a station we used to like many years ago, is dead. The station will repeat broadcasts until January 25, when it will officially die. Good riddance.

    We still have buttons and memorabilia from the launch party at Hiro in New York.


  40. Be prepared for tomorrow Beck will uncap the true meaning of progressivism. He is already getting blowback from the proposed documentary. His station managers had to watch it just because of the blowback from the “progressives”. Beck has said it is not for small children to watch.

    Apparently he is about to teach America what a progressive really is. I just wish he would quit playing the video of Hillary saying she is a modern progressive, although today he said many politicians will change their minds on whether to call themselves progressive after viewing his first documentary tomorrow.

  41. I never listened to one speech of Dean’s, he just rubbed me the wrong way after seeing him for the first time. I never like him. I can’t imagine anyone ever liking the fool. I think I just don’t like Doctors that go into politics. Why, I don’t know??

  42. wbboei, I just can’t understand what has happened today with campaign finance. I wish someone could explain it in laymans terms for the texan here on the blog.

  43. The comparisons between Clinton’s savvy and Obama’s boobery are flying around the Red blogs today.

    Yup, as expected, Captain America looks at the Clinton example, puts his nose in the air and doubles down on stupid.

    Nothing if not predictable.

    Even Clinton-hater Beck showed a clip of Bill’s reasonable, logical reaction to the big losses in the House in ’94, and contrasted it with Obama. PUBLIC COMPARISON TO BIG DAWG, and Obama falls laughably short.

    Meechelle must be yanking sleeves, because the surest way to get the One all peeved and off-kilter is to start comparing him unfavorably to a Clinton in public. He’s so wee-weed up that the Secret Service has been sent out for another carton of cigarettes.

  44. I just can’t stand Axelrove. Someone said he needed to shave his mustache. I think his mustache makes him look like Hitler.

  45. Clinton unveils civilian strategy for Afghanistan, Pakistan

    WASHINGTON — US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Thursday unveiled a long-term, non-military strategy to stabilize Afghanistan and Pakistan that calls for sending more US civilian experts to the region.

    More than a month after the Obama administration announced a military surge for Afghanistan, the new civilian strategy outlines plans to rebuild its farm sector, improving Afghan governance, and reintegrating extremists into society.

    It also calls for boosting Pakistan’s capabilities to fight a growing Islamist insurgency and to enhance the US partnership with Islamabad partly through supporting political and economic reforms.

    “While our military mission in Afghanistan is not open-ended, we are committed to building lasting partnerships with Afghanistan and Pakistan,” Clinton said in a statement.

    “I believe this strategy offers the best prospect for stabilizing Afghanistan and Pakistan,” the chief US diplomat said.

    “I look forward to working with Congress to secure the non-military resources needed to achieve our mission and to signal our commitment to Afghanistan and Pakistan,” she said, adding the money would be well spent.

    However, it was not immediately clear how much support there is in Congress for the strategy. In terms of concrete civilian deployments, Clinton called for increases of experts in Afghanistan beyond the nearly 1,000 US civilian experts due to be deployed within the next few weeks.

    “We anticipate further increasing our civilian staffing in 2010 by another 20 to 30 percent, concentrating experts in the field and at key ministries that deliver vital services to the Afghan people,” the report said.

    The Afghanistan and Pakistan Regional Stabilization Strategy was produced by the office of the Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, Richard Holbrooke, who began briefing senators on the strategy.

    In early December, President Barack Obama called for deploying another 30,000 US troops to Afghanistan to reverse the momentum of a Taliban insurgency.


  46. Clinton: Peace up to Israel, Palestinians

    Yitzhak Benhorin Published: 01.22.10

    WASHINGTON – “With respect to the Middle East, I think that you know we’re absolutely committed. It doesn’t matter whether it’s round two or round 20,” US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Thursday in reference to the stalled peace process.

    During a joint press conference with British Foreign Secretary David Miliband, Clinton said, “We believe that this is a situation that deserves constant, persistent attention; that the absence of such attention perhaps created some of the difficulties that we are now encountering.

    “But ultimately, as the president also said in his interview, this has to be between the Israelis and the Palestinians. The United States, the UK, the EU, the Arab League, everyone can work together to try to create the conditions for a resolution of the outstanding issues between the Israelis and the Palestinians, but at the end of the day, they must make that decision,” the top US diplomat said.

    “So we are going to continue to do everything we can to create an environment in which that is possible. We have urged both the Israelis and the Palestinians to get back to the negotiating table and to start hashing out the very difficult but, we believe, solvable problems that stand in the way of security for the state of Israel and a state for the Palestinians.”

    Earlier Thursday, US President Barack Obama said his administration overestimated its ability to persuade the Israelis and Palestinians to resume meaningful peace talks. He said both parties have been unwilling to make the bold gestures needed to move the process forward. If the US had anticipated that earlier, the American leader said, he might not have raised his expectations so high.

    Everyone Effected

    Clinton also discussed the Iranian issue, telling reporters “this is not happening in a vacuum, this whole effort that we’re engaged in regarding influencing and restraining the Iranians’ nuclear program.

    “The prospects of the instability that would potentially ensue from Iran pursuing and achieving a nuclear breakout capacity or even a nuclear weapons program would be so intensely destabilizing, there is not a country in the world that is in the neighborhood, the region, relying on the oil market, that would not be directly affected,” she said.

    Meanwhile, officials in Jerusalem said Israel would continue to support the American peace initiative in order to boost its status within the international community. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told special US envoy George Mitchell during their meeting Thursday night that he does not believe indirect talks with the Palestinians under US mediation were necessary.

    Ahead of the meeting with Mitchell, Netanyahu said, “For us it is easiest to impose more and more conditions on the Palestinians, such as not discussing the refugees or the status of Jerusalem. But we are not doing this, and we expect the Palestinians not to impose any additional conditions either.”


  47. admin: I do have to admit, he kinda looks like Wimpy. Poor little Wimpy though, he’s too much of darling to hang with Axelrove.

  48. Admin, WHy do you think we as democrats are unable to keep a “Rush” type radio station??

    I think their are just too many factions in the dim party for it too be a real force. The republicans usually speak as one, we never do and I can’t understand why.

  49. The Air America hosts are on a freeway somewhere, holding up signs that say “Will Blame Bush for Food.”

    It’s the only schtick they knew.

  50. confloyd i think you answered your own question to admin.

    “too many factions in the dim party for it too be a real force”

    That and the this is a “center right country” and the dims are now way too left for most Americans.

  51. confloyd
    January 21st, 2010 at 3:59 pm
    I am so enjoying that a pin-up guy driving a TRUCK beat their b(*Sls off is quiet satifying.
    yup, very easy on the eyes, that mr. brown. nice to see a man with real “pecs” vs “manboobs”.

  52. While checking out daily kaos to get an idea of what’s going on in cheetosland, I couldn’t avoid the top polling number:

    Daily Kos State of the Nation
    Favorable: 55%
    Unfavorable: 42%

    I am very interested in what they smoke. It seems to help in blocking out reality.

  53. Below is the article on Gibbs and the media from the Washington Post. I think this is what a poster was referring to.
    While White House’s Gibbs has mastered art of speaking with his hand

    By Dana Milbank
    Wednesday, January 20, 2010; A02

    For Democrats, the only good thing to come from Tuesday’s loss of the Senate election in Massachusetts is this: It could wipe the grin off Robert Gibbs’s face.

    The Democrats’ failed struggle to hold onto Ted Kennedy’s seat in the liberal state showed how badly the party’s brand had been damaged over the past year. But as the White House press corps challenged President Obama’s press secretary on Tuesday afternoon about the anticipated loss, Gibbs answered with his usual mix of wisecracks and insults.

    “Broadly speaking, can you talk about the difference between 59 and 60 votes in the Senate and what that means for the president’s agenda this year?”

    “Broadly, it’s one,” Gibbs answered.

    Will Obama hold a news conference Wednesday to discuss the results?

    “Be here around 10 a.m. If we’re not here, start without us.”

    “Is there something you could have done better,” asked Sheryl Stolberg of the New York Times, so that “you wouldn’t be in the situation that you’re in right now?”

    “Sheryl,” Gibbs replied, “I’ll read this transcript and think there’s things that I could have done better.” No doubt.

    On Tuesday, he allowed that Obama was “angry” over Democrats’ troubles in Massachusetts. “With whom is he angry?” a reporter asked.

    “I didn’t expand on that,” the spokesman replied.

    “Okay, can you now?”

    “I won’t now.”

    “But you might tomorrow?”

    “There’s always hope,” Gibbs said, using a favorite Obama campaign word.

    “Audacious,” interjected CBS News’s Mark Knoller, using another.

    Gibbs acts as though he’s playing himself in the movie version of his job. In this imaginary film, he is the smart-alecky press secretary, offering zippy comebacks and cracking jokes to make his questioners look ridiculous. It’s no great feat to make reporters look bad, but this act also sends a televised image of a cocksure White House to ordinary Americans watching at home.

    This is the most visible manifestation of a larger problem the Obama White House has. Many Obama loyalists from the 2008 race still seem, after a year on the job, to be having trouble exiting campaign mode. They sometimes appear to be running a taxpayer-funded rapid-response operation.

    At Tuesday’s briefing, Gibbs looked down and shuffled his papers as the Associated Press’s Jennifer Loven began with two questions about the White House’s role in the Massachusetts race. Gibbs gave her two dismissive waves of the hand and told her to wait for “the outcome of the election, which, as many people know, is ongoing.”

    The correspondent for Reuters asked two more Massachusetts questions. Gibbs treated him to two more dismissive waves. “We will schedule a briefing, not unlike this, at approximately the same time tomorrow,” the spokesman said.

    The line of questioning continued, and the press secretary assured his audience that “these are going to be all great questions tomorrow.” “So you’ll answer them tomorrow?” asked The Post’s Mike Shear.

    “I promise I’ll be here tomorrow,” Gibbs proposed.

    Contrast the glib Gibbs gibes with a press briefing on the same topic a few hours earlier by House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer.

    “I don’t need the Massachusetts race to tell me the psyche of the American people,” the Maryland Democrat said. “People are angry, people are fearful. . . . Probably none of us in the room knew how deep the recession that confronted us was.” He acknowledged that the Democrats’ agenda “has not affected . . . change as quickly as all of us would like.” He admitted that “we’re all pretty unpopular.” He assured the reporters that “I get it.”

    Gibbs didn’t quite get it, though, as CBS’s Chip Reid joked that he would try a question on “a different topic: the election in Massachusetts.”

    The press secretary drummed a bah-dum-bum on the lectern. Reid ignored the percussion and asked whether the “groundswell of support for a Republican in the blue state of Massachusetts for a candidate who’s running against the president’s agenda” meant that “the White House has simply lost touch with the American people.”

    Gibbs gave another dismissive wave and cited a CBS News poll that wasn’t about Massachusetts.

    “Good diversion,” Reid replied.

    “I hate to quote CBS to CBS,” Gibbs continued with a grin.

    About the closest the spokesman came to acknowledging fault in Massachusetts was to say that Obama “understands that frustration” among voters, but he then added that the president “heard it when he ran for the United States Senate, beginning in 2003.” Unemployment, now at 10 percent, was 5.7 percent at the end of 2003.

    Gibbs was so combative that when he turned to the Wall Street Journal’s Laura Meckler, he tried to predict her question. “There’s a race near Connecticut,” he guessed.

    “I wasn’t going to mention New England at all,” Meckler said. “But feel free to answer your own question.”

    Don’t give him any ideas.

    out today, I ready it in our local paper.

  54. Another problem in Cheetosland is that they still hope that Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and Cabal will move forward with advancing a “progressive agenda”.

    We too here at Big Pink want politicians to advance a progressive agenda.

    But the problem is that the majority of Dems are only fake populists who quietly line their pockets with lobbyists’ funds. And add to it that in combat with the Repubs, they are spineless and inept. So there are not many politicians from either side of the aisle who a) fight for the right things, AND b) fight well.

    Hillary does both.

    Obama does neither.

  55. Sorry the out today, I ready it in a local paper. should be at the top of the article and should be
    I was out today and I read it in our local paper.

    Another send before I read day.

  56. Wbboei,

    Here you go, I think there was one on Fox, but this one was on CNN.

    h t t p ://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xvQy4oM7yg

  57. From Dana Milbank’s quote above, the following excerpt succinctly describes how the Obama CAMPAIGN never transitioned into a GOVERNMENT:

    “It’s no great feat to make reporters look bad, but this act also sends a televised image of a cocksure White House to ordinary Americans watching at home.

    This is the most visible manifestation of a larger problem the Obama White House has. Many Obama loyalists from the 2008 race still seem, after a year on the job, to be having trouble exiting campaign mode. They sometimes appear to be running a taxpayer-funded rapid-response operation.”


    It’s bad enough that they are bad at governing.

    It’s worse that they are taking the tax payer’s money to advance themselves.

  58. Here’s some information on the seals.

    Trials of Navy SEALs Keefe and Huertas Moved to Iraq
    Posted January 12th, 2010 by USNavySeals
    The trials of two of the three Navy SEALs who are facing assault charges for allegedly physically mishandling a suspected terrorist while the latter was in detention will be moved to Iraq.

    We – and the rest of America – have been following the story of Navy SEALs since news of their being charged with assault broke out towards the end of November. Monday marked the first hearing of the cases for the year.

    During this preliminary hearing, military court judge Cmdr. Tierney Carlos declared that he would like to have the cases of Navy SEALs Petty Officer 1st Class Julio Huertas and Petty Officer 2nd Class Jonathan Keefe moved to Camp Victory in Iraq. The ruling will give the court the ability to question Ahmed Hashim Abed – the alleged victim.

    The lawyer who represents Jonathan Keefe had requested that Abed be brought to the United States for questioning regarding the case.

    The charges are all linked to an alleged incident involving Abed, the suspected perpetrator of the killing and burning of four Blackwater contractors in Fallujah, Iraq. Abed had complained to investigators that he was subjected to physical abuse – he was said to have been punched – while he was in detention.

    Jonathan Keefe is charged with dereliction of duty and making a false official statement. Julio Huertas faces the same charges as well as impeding an official investigation.

    Carlos reportedly said the following as he made the ruling for Keefe: “It doesn’t make sense to me that the alleged victim is available for deposition and not available for trial. In order to prevent prejudice to the accused, this case should be tried in Iraq.” Carlos said further: “This deposition will not be a substitute for the alleged victim’s appearance.”

    The third accused Navy SEAL, Petty Officer 2nd Class Matthew McCabe, will be facing a special court martial on Wednesday

  59. January 12, 2010
    Navy Seals trial moved to Iraq
    Jane Jamison

    The Newport News DailyPress.com reports :

    Two of the three Navy elite commando SEALS who are facing military court martial for their arrest of an Islamic terrorist are going to have trials in Iraq so that they can exercise their right to confront their accuser face-to-face.

    Special Warfare Operater 2nd Class Jonathan Keefe, Special Warfare Operator 1st Class Julio Huertas and Special Warfare Operator 2nd Class Matthew McCabe are accused of mistreating Ahmed Hashim Abed after arresting him and denying wrongdoing in later statements to commanders.

    Abed is the accused Islamo-terrorist mastermind of the ambush, torture, murder, burning and hanging of 4 Blackwater contract personnel who were making a food delivery in Fallujah, Iraq in 2004. The American men, most of them former U.S. military, were dragged behind vehicles, burned and hung from a Euphrates river bridge while town crowds cheered.

    U.S. Military commanders, (who apparently suffer from the same “politically-correct” illness as the President of the United States) allege that SWO2 McCabe may have punched Abed after his arrest. The alleged “crime” of the other two SEALS is, apparently, that they didn’t rat out their fellow soldier. Abed may have also suffered a cut lip in the incident. Background on this story is here and here.

    In the past few weeks, military prosecutors have sought to delay the trials of the SEALS and also tried to simply try the SEALS on the basis of a taped deposition of Abed. Attorneys for the SEALS demanded the right to confront and question their Muslim terrorist accuser in person at trial. The fact that the SEALS have to be flown to Iraq to protect their rights, their careers, their names and the SEALS’ reputation is a shameful waste of time, expense and effort. The Christmas Day bombing attempt on an American jetliner shows the U.S. government has much more important business than prosecuting soldiers who were doing exemplary work tracking down a Muslim terrorist murder suspect.

    The clock keeps ticking, the Obama administration has had plenty of time and still has more time to drop these charges and make this all go away. American soldiers being treated like terrorists. Terrorists being treated like soldiers. The silence from this White House on this matter is shameful.

  60. 4:37p.m.

    Hey, we agree that Claire McCaskill could easily be called “McDumbskull”, however, we Big Pink readers and big Hillary supporters here in Missouri may disagree that we live in “the state of Misery”.

  61. Bill Clinton to Lead UN Jobs Program for Haitians

    Margaret Besheer | United Nations
    21 January 2010

    Former U.S. President Bill Clinton has agreed to lead a U.N. program that will offer jobs to Haitian youth as part of the clean-up and recovery following last week’s earthquake.

    Last spring U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon asked Mr. Clinton to become his Special Envoy for Haiti. Now the former president has agreed to take on an additional role – promoting the U.N.’s jobs for cash program.

    “During my recent visit to Haiti I have met many people,” said Ban Ki-moon. “What they asked us – of course they need water, food, shelter, basic needs – they need a better future. They need a better future and permanent jobs – work with dignity.”

    The U.N. says the jobs will include the basics of recovery such as removing rubble from the streets. They will pay $5 per day. With 20 work days per month, individuals will earn $100 each month – a very decent wage in Haiti.

    Mr. Clinton said he was already working on development projects in Haiti before the earthquake and that the cash for jobs program is a natural next step.

    “It is really important,” said Bill Clinton. “The United States has a lot of experience with that in the Middle East, Afghanistan – that it is really important to give young people something positive to do. And a lot of people there want to be a part of rebuilding their country.”

    On Monday, cabinet ministers from many countries will meet in Montreal, Canada at a preliminary meeting to look ahead at Haiti’s medium- and longer-term reconstruction needs.

    Officials warn that the road ahead will be long and expensive. The United Nations has already appealed for more than $550 million for emergency relief over the next six months. But that figure is likely to go up and reconstruction costs will be much more.


  62. Beyonce, Madonna, Bill Clinton Added to Telethon

    By: Roger Friedman
    Thursday January 21, 2010

    Here are the newest additions to tomorrow night’s George Clooney telethon, “Hope for Haiti Now.”

    Madonna will perform from New York. (God only knows which of her numbers would be appropriate for this.) Beyonce will join the London artists, where husband Jay Z was already scheduled to perform with U2.

    Former President Bill Clinton will appear, as well as Ben Stiller, Brad Pitt, Chris Rock, Clint Eastwood, Denzel Washington, Halle Berry, Jon Stewart, Julia Roberts, Leonardo DiCaprio, Matt Damon, Meryl Streep, Morgan Freeman, Nicole Kidman,Robert Pattinson, Samuel L. Jackson, Tom Hanks, and Will Smith with Muhammad Ali, whom the actor portrayed in an Oscar nominated performance.

    Add those names to Sting, Wyclef Jean, Bruce Springsteen, Alicia Keys, as well as Clooney, Anderson Cooper, and Haitian artist Emeline Michel. Two hours doesn’t seem like enough time, does it?

    According to a press release, “Hope for HAiti Now” will be taking donations as follows:

    from 12:00 p.m. ET/9:00 a.m. PT on Friday, January 22 via:
    • Online: http://www.hopeforhaitinow.org
    • Phone: 877-99-HAITI
    • Text: Text “GIVE” to 50555
    • Mail: Hope For Haiti Now Fund, Entertainment Industry Foundation,
    1201 West 5th Street, Suite T-700, Los Angeles, CA 90017


  63. OT but interesting…How much did the obamas donate?

    Leonardo DiCaprio donates 1 million dollars to Haiti fund

    LOS ANGELES — Leonardo DiCaprio has become the latest star to back the Haiti earthquake relief effort, donating one million dollars to help the shattered country, a statement said Thursday.

    DiCaprio’s donation was made to the Clinton Bush Haiti Fund. Former US presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush House have been named as special coordinators of aid to Haiti by President Barack Obama. The pair established their Haiti fund to respond to needs in the country and improve the quality of life for victims of the devastating earthquake.

    “I salute Leonardo DiCaprio for his extraordinary generosity,” president George W. Bush said. “This donation sends a clear message to the people of Haiti that America’s commitment to helping rebuild their country is strong. “I thank Leo for setting a wonderful example for all Americans of helping a neighbor in need.”

    Several celebrities have made large donations to Haiti following last week’s magnitude 7.0 earthquake killed at least 75,000 people according to Haitian government officials.

    DiCaprio’s supermodel ex-girlfriend Gisele Bundchen has donated 1.5 million dollars to the relief effort while power couple Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie donated one million dollars to Medecins sans Frontieres (MSF/Doctors Without Borders) for the organization’s operations in Haiti.

    Actress Sandra Bullock also gave a one million dollar donation, according to data from the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs.


  64. ShortTermer
    January 21st, 2010 at 5:33 pm

    I remained a Democrat because I figure that when primaries are held in the state of Florida (where I currently live) I could vote for the Democratic candidate that best matched my values. If a wacko leftist somehow managed to win the Democratic primary, then having done what I could to prevent that occurence, I would scoot over to the Republican party and vote for their candidate in the general election. I will NOT support an avowedly leftist candidate for anything. When I think about it, I’m not done sending the Democratic party a message. I will be voting solid Republican again in 2012 regardless of who is running from the Democratic party. Sorry to say, but that would probably happen even if it is Hillary, but I’ll leave my options open with that scenario. Nothing against her, but as was seen with Scott Brown, I am currently in the mode of supporting and voting for anti-Democrats. I am really sick of the Democratic party as constituted today.

    About me: I’m a white male who voted for Hillary in the Florida primary. She wooped Obama’s ass here. The DNC shenanigans got me pissed off, so I voted a solid Republican ticket in Florida as payback. Some might not like what I am going to write here, but I actually like Sarah Palin. I do not think she is as vapid as the MSM tries to lead people to believe. I saw her 3 different times in Clearwater, Ocala, and Winter Springs? (the Orlando area). I don’t think she is stupid at all. I think her actions up to now have been very politically astute. So, if she runs in 2012, unless something comes up to show me that she is unworthy of the presidency, I’ll be voting for her, and I’ll feel very good doing it.

  65. Southern Born
    January 21st, 2010 at 8:37 pm

    Nothing against the state of Missouri! I wrote that because it must be misery to have Claire as one of your US Senators! Sorry, but there was no offense intended! I apologize for that!

  66. The only offense taken is with our Missouri Senator. You are right, it is misery and embarrassing to have Claire represent us. We can hardly wait until 2012 to hopefully march her out of here.

  67. confloyd
    January 21st, 2010 at 6:05 pm

    Any idea at what time the documentary is?

  68. Nomobama, Not sure what time it is out in Florida, but here in Texas I get the GlennBeck program at 4 pm.

    P.S. I voted for Sarah too. It just so happen that McCain came along with her, but in all sincerity my vote was for her and her alone. I not much for McCain, but he is way better than the current terrorist we have as POTUS.

    If I had choose between Sarah and Hillary, I would vote for Hillary, but that me and I wouldn’t hold it against anyone that wanted Sarah, both are class acts. I wish they would run together on an independent ticket, I guarantee you it would win.

  69. This is cute..just got it via an email:

    Heaviest Element Yet Known to Science: (Gv)

    Lawrence Livermore Laboratories has discovered the heaviest element yet known to science. The new element, Governmentium (Gv), has one neutron, 25 assistant neutrons, 88 deputy neutrons, and 198 assistant deputy neutrons, giving it anatomic mass of 312.

    These 312 particles are held together by forces called morons, which are surrounded by vast quantities of lepton-like particles called peons.

    Since Governmentium has no electrons, it is inert; however, it can be detected, because it impedes every reaction with which it comes into contact.

    A tiny amount of Governmentium can cause a reaction that would normally take less than a second, to take from 4 days to 4 years to complete.

    Governmentium has a normal half-life of 2 – 6 years. It does not decay, but instead undergoes a reorganization in which a portion of the assistant neutrons and deputy neutrons exchange places.

    In fact, Governmentium’s mass will actually increase over time, since each reorganization will cause more morons to become neutrons, forming isodopes.

    This characteristic of morons promotion leads some scientists to believe that Governmentium is formed whenever morons reach a critical concentration. This hypothetical quantity is referred to as critical morass.

    When catalyzed with money, Governmentium becomes Administratium, an element that radiates just as much energy as Governmentium since it has half as many peons but twice as many morons.

  70. JanH
    January 21st, 2010 at 8:37 pm
    Bill Clinton to Lead UN Jobs Program for Haitians


    if Bill Clinton is leading the UN Jobs Program for Haitians…the Haitians will be back to work before we are…you can bet on it…

  71. djia, I was just going to post the audio to that banter between Michelle Bachman and Arlen SPecter. He was such a jerk to her. He also showed he’s way to old to be running our government. He couldn’t connect fast enough to the question or the answers so what did he do, he showed himself as a true misognist.

    This is why we don’t have a female Potus yet.

    h t t p ://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnIxgNucioA

  72. Some interesting statistics from Hot Air Pundit

    During Barack Obama’s first year in office:

    * 29 rounds of golf campared to 7 for George Bush
    * 411 speeches or statements with 52 of those specificly on healthcare
    * 158 interviews 90 on TV 11 on Radio
    * 10 foreign trips to 21 nations (4 of them twice) The next most traveled president: Geo. HW Bush 7 trips to 14 countries
    * 160 flights on Air Force One
    * 193 flights on Marine One
    * 28 Political Fundraisers Geo Bush did 6 his first year
    * 11 visits to Camp David for 27 days Bush Jr. 26 visits for 81 days
    * 26 days of vaation on 4 trips Bush Jr. 69 days on 9 trips
    * 29 rounds of golf Bush Jr. 7 rounds
    * On the day BO took offie the national debt was $10,626 trillion.
    One year later the debt was $12,319 trillion
    Increase on BO’s watch $1,693 trillion

  73. wbboei, This is the video on FOx. Its much more comprehensive.

    h t t p ://www.foxnews.com/search-results/m/28471587/navy-seal-s-trial-postponed.htm#q=navy+seal+mccabe

  74. * 29 rounds of golf campared to 7 for George Bush
    * 411 speeches or statements with 52 of those specificly on healthcare
    * 158 interviews 90 on TV 11 on Radio
    * 10 foreign trips to 21 nations (4 of them twice) The next most traveled president: Geo. HW Bush 7 trips to 14 countries
    * 160 flights on Air Force One
    * 193 flights on Marine One
    * 28 Political Fundraisers Geo Bush did 6 his first year
    * 11 visits to Camp David for 27 days Bush Jr. 26 visits for 81 days
    * 26 days of vaation on 4 trips Bush Jr. 69 days on 9 trips
    * 29 rounds of golf Bush Jr. 7 rounds
    * On the day BO took offie the national debt was $10,626 trillion.
    One year later the debt was $12,319 trillion
    Increase on BO’s watch $1,693 trillion

    On yes…we kinow he was working on “crisis after crisis” and as such he did not have time to communicate with the American people…that is why they are angry…

  75. * 11 visits to Camp David for 27 days Bush Jr. 26 visits for 81 days
    * 26 days of vaation on 4 trips Bush Jr. 69 days on 9 trips

    wow, look at Bush numbers..

  76. Boy, that Millbank is a real Einstein, huh? It’s only taken him three effin’ years to figure out that the only thing Obama has ever done is campaign.

  77. S, you crack me up. The Haitians will be back to work before we are since Bill is the one getting the jobs together. ROTFLMAO!!! actually I should be crying!

  78. His was much to busy taking vacations to completely hear what the American people was trying to tell him. LOL!

  79. I wonder why Edwards wanted to go to Haiti to work right now, guess he wanted to miss his picture all over the news.

    He is total crap, and his wife saying that about Hillary knowing her husband was doing the same thing. These people lie without any remorse at all.

  80. For anyone interested…

    Bill Clinton is going to make an appearance on the telethon tomorrow night that George Clooney is hosting.

  81. Scroll down and check out the picture of her…very frightening.

    Scott Baio attacked with death threats after posting unflattering photo of Michelle Obama on Twitter

    BY Rich Shapiro

    Ex-“Happy Days” star Scott Baio says he’s received a barrage of death threats after he mocked Michelle Obama on Twitter.

    Baio, 48, posted an unflattering picture of the First Lady on Tuesday accompanied by some even more unflattering remarks.

    “WOW He wakes up to this every morning,” Baio tweeted.

    In minutes, the former “Charles in Charge” star received a slew of angry comments. Some were on the playful side: “Well she’s still better looking than your doughy looking a–.”

    Others were downright frightening.

    “Easy to find your house Scottie boy and finish YOU,” one person wrote. “I am a republican and I love Mrs O.”

    Baio backtracked immediately, saying he’s not a racist. His wife’s best friend is black.

    The reality TV star and vocal Republican even posted a picture of the woman and implored his detractors to back off.

    “For New followers: I POST A LOT OF JOKES WITH PICS,” Baio wrote. “They are JUST that, a joke. NOT targeting anyone. Laughter IS the best medicine.”

    The brouhaha prompted Baio to contact the FBI and scores of people to begin following him on Twitter.

    “Because people love to hate,” Baio said.


  82. What the heck happened to Lanny Davis?? He is filled with kool-aid. He had the audacity to say now that Scott’s win has now freed Obama to get the healthcare that he campaigned on. He campaigned on a bipartison bill. Hillary was the one who campaigned on a mandate and a public option.

    What I get out of this statement is that Obama is glad that Scott won because now he is free.

    What the heck is up with Lanny Davis. He also told O’Reilly, be carefull with your prediction and Obama will be a one termer, people said the same thing about BIll Clinton.

    Could this be why they are getting rid of the blue dogs?? To free Obama???

  83. What’s this about. THe end of Social security as we know it???

    By Lori Montgomery
    Washington Post Staff Writer
    Wednesday, January 20, 2010

    Faced with growing alarm over the nation’s soaring debt, the White House and congressional Democrats tentatively agreed Tuesday to create an independent budget commission and to put its recommendations for fiscal solvency to a vote in Congress by the end of this year.

    Under the agreement, President Obama would issue an executive order to create an 18-member panel that would be granted broad authority to propose changes in the tax code and in the massive federal entitlement programs — including Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security — that threaten to drive the nation’s debt to levels not seen since World War II.

    The accord comes a week before Obama is scheduled to deliver his first State of the Union address to a nation increasingly concerned about his stewardship of the economy and the federal budget. After a year in which he advocated spending hundreds of billions of dollars on a huge economic stimulus package and a far-reaching overhaul of the health-care system, Obama has pledged to redouble his effort to rein in record budget deficits even as he has come under withering Republican attack.

    The commission would deliver its recommendations after this fall’s congressional elections, postponing potentially painful decisions about the nation’s fiscal future until after Democrats face the voters. But if the commission approves a deficit-reduction plan, Congress would have to act on it quickly under the agreement, forged late Tuesday in a meeting with Vice President Biden, White House budget director Peter R. Orszag, and Democratic lawmakers led by Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.), House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (Md.).

    ‘This is essential’

    Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), who has long advocated creation of an independent budget panel, called the agreement an “understanding in concept” that holds the promise of at last addressing the nation’s most wrenching budget problems.

    “This goes to the question of the country’s credibility with managing its own finances. This is essential for the nation,” Conrad said.

    The commission is likely to form the centerpiece of Democrats’ efforts to reduce projected budget deficits, which have soared into record territory in the aftermath of the worst recession in a generation. Government spending to bail out the troubled financial sector and to stimulate economic activity have combined with sagging tax collections to push last year’s budget deficit to a record $1.4 trillion. The budget gap is projected to be just as large this year and to hover close to $1 trillion a year for much of the next decade.

    Deficit spending, in turn, has caused the nation’s accumulated debt to swell to dangerous levels. Last month, Congress voted to increase the legal debt limit to $12.4 trillion, a record figure that the Treasury expects to exceed early this year. The deal on the budget commission clears the way for Congress to approve an even larger increase in the legal limit on borrowing, to well over $13 trillion, a figure that Democrats hope will see the Treasury through the rest of 2010.

    The Senate is expected to open debate Wednesday on the debt limit. Conrad and other Senate moderates had threatened to oppose a significant increase without a budget commission. Conrad plans to meet today with the group of about a dozen senators to review the agreement.

    The presidentially appointed commission would be a fallback if the Senate, as expected, does not vote to create a budget commission as part of the debt-limit legislation. House leaders are insisting, however, that they will not go along with the commission’s creation unless the Senate does approve stringent pay-as-you-go budget rules, an outcome that is far from certain. Such rules, which helped produce budget surpluses under President Bill Clinton in the late 1990s, bar lawmakers from approving legislation that increases the deficit.

    For weeks, Biden has been moderating talks on the commission, but progress was stymied by the insistence of Conrad and like-minded lawmakers that a presidentially appointed commission would lack the authority to force action in Congress. The breakthrough Tuesday was an agreement by House leaders to bring the commission’s recommendations to a vote, though Conrad said he is still waiting to see that commitment in writing.

    House Budget Committee Chairman John M. Spratt Jr. (D-S.C.), a participant in the talks, said the deal calls for both chambers to vote on any recommendations exactly as promulgated, though lawmakers could also vote to amend them.

    Skeptics in the GOP

    Republican commission advocates remain skeptical that a presidentially appointed panel would have the clout to tackle the nation’s toughest fiscal problems. Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), a sponsor with Conrad of legislation to create a budget commission by law, called a presidentially appointed panel “a fraud” designed to do little more than give Democrats political cover.

    “It’s a fraud among anyone interested in fiscal responsibility to claim an executive order could structure something that would actually lead to action,” Gregg said.

    Some Democrats, particularly in the House, where leaders have long resisted relinquishing their authority over taxes and spending, are also less than optimistic. Under the agreement, the commission would have 18 members, including six lawmakers appointed by congressional Democrats and six lawmakers appointed by congressional Republicans. Obama would appoint six others, only four of whom could be Democrats.

    Fourteen commission members would have to agree on any deficit-reduction plan, a prospect that skeptics called a recipe for gridlock because action would depend on the support of at least two Republicans for a plan that is sure to include tax increases. Meanwhile, many influential interest groups — including some unions and AARP — have lined up in opposition to giving an outside commission power to cut federal spending and are likely to pressure Democrats to resist sharp budget cuts.

    The White House declined Tuesday to comment on the commission agreement, though Orszag spokesman Kenneth Baer acknowledged in a statement that “the administration has been discussing, with members of Congress and others, a range of ideas about how to put the nation back on a sustainable fiscal path.”

  84. What the heck happened to Lanny Davis??
    Lanny is a very emotional guy. He gets turned around too easily. He was 180 out on Florida and that is not the first time. He is a decent guy but a little delusional in this instance.

  85. Newt is saying that he may run for Potus in 2012′. Oh brother! Another stale politician!
    Not much doubt in my mind that he will run.

  86. OMG!! that picture of Meeeshelle is so horrible!!

    she’s horrible, but i never realized even she could look that horrible while a camera was near by LMAO!

    I predict this photog will be coming to a 2012 campaign ad near you

  87. If Newt gets into the presidential race, wonder if he will be hounded for the hot affair he was having at the same time he was pounding President Clinton and trying to impeach him for lying about sex?

  88. The point Lanny is missing is that Bambi is not Bill Clinton. He is not willing to say I have heard the voters and will reverse direction accordingly. Instead, he elects to bash Wall Street in an attempt to repackage himself as a populist. But as Krauthammer notes, he cannot pass himself off as a populist after he has vilified so many average people. Cops, women, people who live in small towns. This is not an authentic role for him and more he vilifies banks the more likely he is to tank the stock market. Why? Because the banks are the ones driving this the market now and if they fall so will the broader index. And praytell what will he do then?

  89. As I have asked all day for someone to explain the supremes decision on campaign finance. Well, its seems now that the corporations, groups of folks with axes to grind, unions or anything else can make films and these films can ruin people’s lives (Hillary,the movie).

    I suspect that since Beck twice this week as ran a clip of Hillary saying she is a progressive and now tomorrow he will link modern day progressives with killers like MAO, Che, Hitler and such.


    All the supremes did was allow the corporatist,cronies the ability to slime anyone they please and the blinded electorate will believe it.
    Folks with a Supreme Court like this we might as well call this county finished.
    If you think a billion dollar campaign to get the most ignorant, pansie, unprepared POTUS this nation has ever seen, just wait, its going to get better. There is no limit to the amt of money these corporations can spend to get their pick elected.

  90. djia, That pic of Meenshelle, theres one almost like it of Hillary.

    Well, IF Newt runs, I hope we make sure he hasn’t had any affairs on his new wife and he should be hounded like a dog just like he did Bill.

    No hiding behind the Catholic church either Newt. God is the only one who forgives what you did to Bill Clinton.

  91. Id vote for Obama before I would vote for the POS Newt. Same thing for Rudolph, Romney and all those same old crummy rethugs.

    I’d vote for a reformer like Sarah though, or a Michelle Bachmann. I would never, never, never vote for anyone that had anything to do with the hunting of Bill Clinton because these people lie and lie easily and we DON’T need that again.

  92. Confloyd

    I think the billion dollar campagn’s are going to fall on deft American ears from now on….America is awake
    and not going to fall in line in november or in 2012

    I believe the American people will not be bamboozled any longer and anyone who is being supported by big money like that will fall flat with egg on their face…….so I say let them waste their dollars as all it will really do is HELP US TO KNOW WHO NOT TO VOTE FOR.

  93. I put Newt on the level as a Rush Limbaugh. Hypocrites every last one of them. I can’t stand them. I really, really want a breath of fresh air.

  94. I figured that was why he (newt) JUMPED onto the Tea Party band wagon last year.

  95. Admin, please post in honor of our Supreme Court ruling today on campaign finance reform.

    h t t p ://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acLW1vFO-2Q

  96. That video was made in 05′. Its fits today perfectly and this is why the teaparties are scaring the hell out of SOros, Zbig and all of those jerks.

  97. Tonight Hannity had a segment about John Edwards and his love child. But he just could not resist and followed that up by bringing up Bill Clinton and even verbally immitated Clinton’s voice. It’s been ten years or more and Hannity just can’t keep from plowing that old ground again. It must be his all time favorite subject.

    Hannity followed that up with an interview of Michelle Baumann sp) and the Arlen Spector comments.

    Unbelievably, Hannity commented how no one has ever been treated as badly by the press, etc. and Republican women and also Republican men.

  98. I laughed my ass off at Hannity – he went on and on about how adultery was a valid issue, because it goes to trust and character, not 3 minutes after he had breathlessly asked Neeeewt if he was going to run.

    BTW, most of the Red blogs are telling old stale Newt to keep his tired pasty ass off the political stage. Even the other side is sick of the same old interchangeable machine.

  99. Southern Born, I would a few bucks that Hannity is a closet player. He just can’t keep his mouth shut about Bill, just like Newt couldn’t. That tells me he probably has many girlfriends.

    Hannity irritates me more than the rest of them.

    Glenn Beck is getting on my nerves with that film clip of Hillary saying she is a modern progressive.

    Tomorrow we will see the masacre of Hillary beginning all over again, and personally I think it with the permission of Obama.

    Its funny this ruling by the Supremes came down as the rethugs are beginning to take control again.

  100. H4T, Thankgoodness, just when I thought I might be able to hold my nose and look seriously at the republicans, I sure wouldn’t want any of those backstabbers to look at again. We need more like this Scott. I like to know more about John THune.

    McConnell and all those Clinton era rethugs need to retire.

  101. I just love the way the republicans name those kickbacks, the “cornhusker kickback” and the “Louisiana Purchase”. I am sure they had just as many kickbacks during the Bush administration as the few years the democrats have actually been in. The blind electorate is stupid and thats how they like us.

  102. As many times as Hannity has talked about the Clinton/Lewisinsky situation and continues to bring it up as often as he can all these years later..it does make you wonder if he gets some sort of thrill going up and down his leg or wherever. He’s really “into” it.

  103. http://www.nydailynews.com/lifestyle/fashion/2010/01/14/2010-01-14_michelle_obama_goes_to_shorter_lengths_for_a_new_bob_hairstyle.html

    Michelle can sometimes look ok, but many times, that sour puss of her’s shows the anger she has inside. The link above shows her and Barack together. In that picture, she doesn’t look as bad, nor does she look horrible in the picture on the upper right hand side of the webpage. But the picture of her next to the one of Scott Baio (sp?) is not good, and the picture that Scott posted on Twitter is REALLY BAD! I think Michelle has real problems. The guys on Hillbuzz, who have seen her in person at functions in Chicago, say she is one pushy, nasty, you-know-what.

    The comments left by readers concerning Meechelle’s new hairdon’t are kind of funny, especially the one about not be able to dress up a wildebeest.

  104. http://www.nydailynews.com/lifestyle/fashion/2010/01/14/2010-01-14_michelle_obama_goes_to_shorter_lengths_for_a_new_bob_hairstyle.html

    Michelle can sometimes look ok, but many times, that sour puss of her’s shows the anger she has inside. The link above shows her and Barack together. In that picture, she doesn’t look as bad, nor does she look horrible in the picture on the upper right hand side of the webpage. But the picture of her next to the one of Scott Baio (sp?) is not good, and the picture that Scott posted on Twitter is REALLY BAD! I think Michelle has real problems. The guys on Hillbuzz, who have seen her in person at functions in Chicago, say she is one pushy, nasty, you-know-what.

    The comments left by readers concerning Meechelle’s new hairdon’t are kind of funny, especially the one about not be able to dress up a wildebeest.

  105. Obama is a muppet, he loses massachusetts, starts to try and be all populist against the banks to divert attention.

    He must be an idiot because if you think the banks are ever going to do any of that, he’s got another think coming. They remove him from the WH first.

  106. This week just gets better.
    Specter is toast after the act like a lady bit. I was prepared to work hard against him but looks like he’s got that under control.

  107. Cannot access this site on my netbook using mozilla. Page loads and then shuts down everytime. No problem with any other sites. Need to take down the firewall I guess but I have no idea how to do that. Cheap laptop(works really really well- an asus eee, light and portable cost less then 125 but it uses Linux and I have no clue how to tailor it.

  108. regarding the post heading above. people should wave 2X4’s at every campaign stop held by schumer and mc caskill. kick chuckie in the ass and send claire back to the feeding trough where she belongs.

  109. January 24, 2010

    The Hillary Clinton I saw

    Our contributing editor shares personal impressions of the woman behind the public figure, gathered while creating his latest PBS documentary.

    By Tavis Smiley

    For a few days in early December, I shadowed Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for a documentary called “Tavis Smiley Reports: One on One With Hillary Clinton,” which will air on PBS Wednesday at 8 p.m. ET. The show looks at Clinton’s first year as the United States’ No. 1 diplomat and what’s ahead for 2010. Five things struck me as I spent time with her:

    Her job is even harder than I thought. I’ve interviewed five secretaries of state: Lawrence Eagleburger, Warren Christopher, Madeleine Albright, Gen. Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice, all of whom have tried to convey to me the sheer intensity inherent in this position.

    It wasn’t until I had the opportunity to spend some time with Clinton, however, that I came to better understand the long days and late nights, endless travel, contentious congressional hearings, international arm-twisting and domestic wrangling that come with the job. This kind of public service is unduly taxing, especially given that diplomacy is a game of inches and not yards, where there are rarely clear-cut wins or losses. It makes me wonder why Hillary Rodham Clinton, at age 62, and with a legacy that is already locked and loaded, would even want to be the U.S. secretary of state.

    Little big things matter. In December, just days after President Barack Obama delivered his major address concerning Afghanistan, Clinton was on Capitol Hill to testify before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Preparing to be bombarded by the committee, Clinton saw Bertie Bowman, hearing coordinator for the Foreign Relations Committee. Amid the commotion, Clinton remembered that Bowman’s wife had recently died, and without hesitation, she approached him and gently asked how he was holding up. Bowman said that he had received her written condolences, as well as a note from her husband. She told Bowman she also would have expressions of sympathy sent from the president and vice president. Never mind the political grilling Clinton was about to face — she remembered Bertie Bowman and his grieving heart.

    Fox News … say, what? As we waited to board Clinton’s plane to NATO headquarters in Brussels, I saw that the TV in the media holding area at Andrews Air Force Base was tuned to the Fox News Channel. Given the rancor between the Obama administration and Fox News, to say nothing of Fox News’ treatment of the Clintons when they were in the White House, I was doubly stunned to find that the TVs on Clinton’s plane also were tuned to Fox News. Talk about things that make you go hmm …

    Don’t stop the press! Every public official has to wrestle with the media, but it’s difficult to think of a woman in American politics who has been more demonized than Hillary Clinton. Yet she maintains an accessibility that is impressive. As we prepared for our departure to Brussels, Clinton made an impromptu trip to the press section of the plane to take questions. As we sat on the tarmac for our return, she showed up again, smiling, and with Belgian chocolates to share.

    What you see is not always what you get. We live in the most multicultural, multiracial and multiethnic America ever. But I was the only African American in Clinton’s press pool, and I was a visitor. How strange that with a black commander in chief (one making life and death decisions about an American military disproportionately black and brown), that there were no people of color in the press pool.

    This is certainly not the fault of Clinton; it is the media entities themselves that determine who is sent to cover the news. I wondered, though, what she thought of the fact that her entire press pool was white, while all of the flight attendants (active-duty military personnel) were black. I wonder if she noticed.

    USA WEEKEND Contributing Editor Tavis Smiley also is the host of “Tavis Smiley” on PBS and “The Tavis Smiley Show” from PRI.


  110. Henry, polls from yesterday, before the “lady” comments:


    Former congressman Pat Toomey (R) leads his two potential Pennsyvlania Senate general election foes, a new Rasmussen survey finds (Jan. 18, 1000 LV, MoE +/- 3%). In the past month, Toomey doubled his lead over Sen. Arlen Specter, who’s margin deficit is now larger than Rep. Joe Sestak’s.

    “The relatively unknown Toomey is seen as the populist outsider, and Specter could not be more of an example of a political elitist,” Keyston College political scientist Jeff Brauer told the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review’s Salena Zito. “The other backlash is against the current health care approach, which is why Sestak is not catching Specter even though he is less of a political elitist.”

    Toomey 49 (+3 vs. last poll, Dec. 10)
    Specter 40 (-2)
    Und 8

    Toomey 43 (-1 vs. last poll, Dec. 10)
    Sestak 35 (-3)
    Und 16

  111. To me, the problem with campaign finance is not with the Supreme Court. The problem is with Congress. Either there are no limitations or we implement strict, enforceable restrictions. If we agree that campaign contributions are tilting the process, the simplest solution is for Congress to pass legislation that limits EVERYONE to the same maximum contribution. Whether you’re a corporation, an individuals, a union, an association or a non-profits, if we level the contribution playing field it will force politicians to focus more on speaking to the voters and remove the incentive for having lobbyists be the #1 White House visitor.

  112. Obama Seen as Anti-Business by 77% of U.S. Investors


  113. Specter Tells Bachmann To Act Like A “Lady”


    His behavior was disgusting. He bullied his way through and took no prisoners. He kept ragging her to answer his question and when she tried to he would cut her off before she could even finish a sentence. He belittled and insulted her and I hope he goes down for it.

  114. Have all the women’s organizations fallen apart. We are hearing nothing from them. They might as well disolve.

  115. I agree that freaking Specter needs a manners lesson, just like the OBama got in MA.

    MOP, Soros is mad cause we bitch slapped Obama in MA and he is going to make us pay. I am expecting a complete crash now.

  116. As George Carlin so eloquently says in the video I posted “they don’t want an electorate that can think for themselves”, they want us to be mindless idiots that will vote for the current American Idol they give us so we can vote away our life savings, retirements, jobs, and our health so they can get richer and more powerful.

  117. Don’t stop the press! Every public official has to wrestle with the media, but it’s difficult to think of a woman in American politics who has been more demonized than Hillary Clinton
    What I would like to do is get someone like Milbank or Cilzezz on the air and ask them the following questions:

    Q-1: do you think there is such a thing as a glass ceiling? (Note: what a great place to start the cross examination. Raps him right on the nose like you do when you rap a dog with a newsaper to let get their attention. In the case of Schumer it takes a 2×4. He has to say yes)

    Q-2: in fact, you see it in all walks of organizational life do you not?

    Q-3: in business?

    Q-4: in politics?

    Q-4: and in the media-true?

    Q-5: do you think it is a bad thing or a good thing?

    Q-6: Travis Smiley was quote as saying: it’s difficult to think of a woman in American politics who has been more demonized than Hillary Clinton. Would you agree with that statement? (now he knows where this is going and starts to dig in)

    Q-7: Do you believe that certain media personalities have demonized Hillary Clinton over the course of her career?

    Q-8: Let us forget about Sean and Beck for the moment.

    Q-9: You have testified that you believe there is a glass ceiling, that it is a bad thing, and that media personalities have villified Hillary Clinton. Would that perchance include you?

    Q-10:Isn’t it true that you and your fratboy Cilezza did a video where the two of you sat around in smoking jackets and called Hillary Clinton a bitch?

    Q-11:Would calling Hillary Clinton a bitch be demonizing her? (assume he fights me on this and says it was all a big joke)

    Q-12:Are you suggesting because it was a comedy skit it is excusable?

    Q-13:Do you think it is funny to call Hillary Clinton a bitch. Yes or no?

    Q-14: Did the publisher of the Washington Post think it was funny for you to call Hillary Clinton a bitch?

    Q-15: You were punished for that offense were you not?

    Q-16: You were suspended for two weeks without pay?

    Q-17: Did you think that was funny?

    Q-18: What efforts, if any, have you made to set the record straight?

    Q-19: Have you any daughters?

    Q-20: How would you feel if they were treated by someone in power the way you treated Hillary?

  118. The Supreme Court has screwed the Blue Dogs. Its is downright disgusting to equate a corporation the rights and priviledges of a human being.

    Its those republicans again, I can tell you we are going to be a corporate state.

  119. I yield to no one in my hatred of Matthews, but I must say this: that was one hell of a number he did on Howard Dean. Anyone who aspires to teach trial practice to law students, or practicing lawyers would be well served to use that clip as a powerful example of effective cross examination. It was quite remarkable really and when you see something like that even from a low life like Matthews fundamental fairness requires that you give the devil his due.

  120. The Supreme Court has screwed the Blue Dogs. Its is downright disgusting to equate a corporation the rights and priviledges of a human being.

    Its those republicans again, I can tell you we are going to be a corporate state.
    That ruling terrifies me. It is out of step with the zeitgeist of our era. The Supreme Court does follow election results. Megapolitics is driving the political processes down to the grass roots level, as we saw in the recent Brown victory. Megapolitics just is driving the cycle of violence down to that level as well. It is the difference between the 1967 War and what we saw in Lebanon a couple years ago.

  121. Let me add to my previous post about the Supreme decision yesterday. The said since corporation are own and ran by people the corporation should have first amendment rights. Well my question is what about those corporations that are multinational corporations???

    Our military now will be used to do the work of the corporation. If clearing and occupationing a nation serves a certain corporation then you betcha that military and the children of the low and middleclass families will be there to fight and die for that corporations need for greed.

  122. Have all the women’s organizations fallen apart. We are hearing nothing from them. They might as well disolve.
    The national organizations are nothing but extensions of the dimocratic party. Power over principle, and all they get from it is crumbs, if that. I suspect however that there are local chapters of NOW like the one in New York, and the one in Los Angeles when Tammy Bruce was head of it, who do speak up on the issues, when the Washington DC careerists do not.

  123. Schumer acting like he did not like the decision handed down by the Supremes yesterday, hell, he works for its product. We can expect more gorgeous and articulate puppets in the future.

    Why don’t we just let all the politicians come straight out of Hollywood as that is where they will now be made.

  124. wbboei

    I would be nice if we could kind of trace these small women’s groups that are speaking out, and bring their message to the blog, where it could get wider attention. Do you have some website address?

  125. wbboei, I think we can fully expect the stock market to go down to the lowest levels in years because we dare to take the country in our own hands and send Washington a message. I dare us tell George Soros what we want done, afterall, we are just the dumb electorate.

  126. Years ago I was at the Los Angeles law office of an aggressive and now defunct law firm Finley Kumble and Wagner. We were there to discuss a lawsuit which was being brought against us which sounded in breach of contract and business tort. When we entered his office and before we could even sit down the newly minted partner who I had never met before showed us an invitation he had received from the office of then Vice President George Bush to attend some gala affair in Washington DC. I told him that is really great, but we are here to talk about is the case. For the next hour we talked about the case but his mind was transfixed by that damned invitation and I doubt he heard a word he said. That is sort of how Washington works–or doesn’t. If I had wanted to form an industry organization I would not locate its main office inside the beltway, for just that reason.

  127. I would be nice if we could kind of trace these small women’s groups that are speaking out, and bring their message to the blog, where it could get wider attention. Do you have some website address?
    I would start with that New York Chapter of NOW. They stood tall for Hillary and got Matthews muzzled. If the leadership has not changed they are solid gold. I do not know them personally so I cannot provide an entre.

  128. What Scott Brown’s win means for the Democrats

    By Charles Krauthammer
    Friday, January 22, 2010

    On Jan. 14, five days before the Massachusetts special election, President Obama was in full bring-it-on mode as he rallied House Democrats behind his health-care reform. “If Republicans want to campaign against what we’ve done by standing up for the status quo and for insurance companies over American families and businesses, that is a fight I want to have.”

    The bravado lasted three days. When Obama campaigned in Boston on Jan. 17 for Obamacare supporter Martha Coakley, not once did he mention the health-care bill. When your candidate is sinking, you don’t throw her a millstone.

    After Coakley’s defeat, Obama pretended that the real cause was a generalized anger and frustration “not just because of what’s happened in the last year or two years, but what’s happened over the last eight years.”

    Let’s get this straight: The antipathy to George W. Bush is so enduring and powerful that . . . it just elected a Republican senator in Massachusetts? Why, the man is omnipotent.

    And the Democrats are delusional: Scott Brown won by running against Obama, not Bush. He won by brilliantly nationalizing the race, running hard against the Obama agenda, most notably Obamacare. Killing it was his No. 1 campaign promise.

    Bull’s-eye. An astonishing 56 percent of Massachusetts voters, according to a Rasmussen poll, called health care their top issue. In a Fabrizio, McLaughlin & Associates poll, 78 percent of Brown voters said their vote was intended to stop Obamacare. Only a quarter of all voters in the Rasmussen poll cited the economy as their top issue, nicely refuting the Democratic view that Massachusetts was just the usual anti-incumbent resentment you expect in bad economic times.

    Brown ran on a very specific, very clear agenda. Stop health care. Don’t Mirandize terrorists. Don’t raise taxes; cut them. And no more secret backroom deals with special interests.

    These deals — the Louisiana purchase, the Cornhusker kickback — had engendered a national disgust with the corruption and arrogance of one-party rule. The final straw was the union payoff — in which labor bosses smugly walked out of the White House with a five-year exemption from a (“Cadillac”) health insurance tax Democrats were imposing on the 92 percent of private-sector workers who are not unionized.

    The reason both wings of American liberalism — congressional and mainstream media — were so surprised at the force of anti-Democratic sentiment is that they’d spent Obama’s first year either ignoring or disdaining the clear early signs of resistance: the tea-party movement of the spring and the town-hall meetings of the summer. With characteristic condescension, they contemptuously dismissed the protests as the mere excrescences of a redneck, retrograde, probably racist rabble.

    You would think lefties could discern a proletarian vanguard when they see one. Yet they kept denying the reality of the rising opposition to Obama’s social democratic agenda when summer turned to fall and Virginia and New Jersey turned Republican in the year’s two gubernatorial elections.

    The evidence was unmistakable. Independents, who in 2008 had elected Obama, swung massively against the Democrats: dropping 16 points in Virginia, 21 in New Jersey. On Tuesday, it was even worse: Independents, who had gone 2-to-1 Republican in Virginia and New Jersey, now went 3-to-1 Republican in hyper-blue Massachusetts. Nor was this an expression of the more agitated elements who vote in obscure low-turnout elections. The turnout on Tuesday was the highest for any nonpresidential Massachusetts election in 20 years.

    Democratic cocooners will tell themselves that Coakley was a terrible candidate who even managed to diss Curt Schilling. True, Brown had Schilling. But Coakley had Obama. When the bloody sock beats the presidential seal — of a man who had them swooning only a year ago — something is going on beyond personality.

    That something is substance — political ideas and legislative agendas. Democrats, if they wish, can write off their Massachusetts humiliation to high unemployment, to Coakley or, the current favorite among sophisticates, to generalized anger. That implies an inchoate, unthinking lashing-out at whoever happens to be in power — even at your liberal betters who are forcing on you an agenda that you can’t even see is in your own interest.

    Democrats must so rationalize, otherwise they must take democracy seriously, and ask themselves: If the people really don’t want it, could they possibly have a point?

    “If you lose Massachusetts and that’s not a wake-up call,” said moderate — and sentient — Democratic Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana, “there’s no hope of waking up.”

    I say: Let them sleep.


  129. Wbboei, How is Mrs.Smith? She made one comment and we haven’t heard from her since, I wonder if she had to go back to the hospital. She sure had a rough time with her stopping twice. I hope she’s OK.

  130. Obama’s ‘Volcker Rule’ shifts power away from Geithner

    By David Cho and Binyamin Appelbaum
    Washington Post Staff Writer
    Friday, January 22, 2010; A01

    For much of last year, Paul Volcker wandered the country arguing for tougher restraints on big banks while the Obama administration pursued a more moderate regulatory agenda driven by Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner.

    Thursday morning at the White House, it seemed as if the two men had swapped places. A beaming Volcker stood at Obama’s right as the president endorsed his proposal and branded it the “Volcker Rule.” Geithner stood farther away, compelled to accommodate a stance he once considered less effective than his own.

    The moment was the product of Volcker’s persistence and a desire by the White House to impose sharper checks on the financial industry than Geithner had been advocating, according to some government sources and political analysts. It was Obama’s most visible break yet from the reform philosophy that Geithner and his allies had been promoting earlier.

    Senior administration officials say there is now broad consensus within the White House and the Treasury for the plan advanced by Volcker, who leads an outside economic advisory group for the president. At its heart, Volcker’s plan restricts banks from making speculative investments that do not benefit their customers. He has argued that such speculative activity played a key role in the financial crisis. The administration also wants to limit the ability of the largest banks to use borrowed money to fund expansion plans.

    The proposals, which require congressional approval, are the most explicit restrictions the administration has tried to impose on the banking industry. It will help to have Volcker, a legendary former Federal Reserve chairman who garners respect on both sides of the aisle, on Obama’s side as the White House makes a final push for a financial reform bill on Capitol Hill, a senior official noted.

    Advocates of Volcker’s ideas were delighted. “This is a complete change of policy that was announced today. It’s a fundamental shift,” said Simon Johnson, a professor at MIT’s Sloan School of Management. “This is coming from the political side. There are classic signs of major policy changes under pressure . . . but in a new and much more sensible direction.”

    Industry officials, however, said they were startled and disheartened that Geithner was overruled, in part because they supported the more moderate approach Geithner proposed last year. “His influence may have slipped,” said a senior industry official who spoke on the condition of anonymity to preserve his relationship with the administration. “But you could also argue that it wasn’t Geithner who lost power. It’s just that the president needed Volcker politically” to look tough on big banks.

    Geithner agreed with Volcker that banks’ risk-taking needed to be constrained. But through much of the past year, Geithner said the best approach to limiting it is to require banks to hold more capital in reserve to cover losses, reducing their potential profits. Geithner said blanket prohibitions on specific activities would be less effective, in part because such bans would eliminate some legitimate activity unnecessarily.

    The shift toward Volcker’s thinking began last fall, according to government officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the deliberations were private. Volcker had been arguing that banks, which are sheltered by the government because lending is important to the economy, should be prevented from taking advantage of that safety net to make speculative investments.

    To make his case, he met with lawmakers on Capitol Hill and gave numerous speeches on the subject, traveling to at least nine cities on several continents to warn that banks had developed “unmanageable conflicts of interest” as they made investments for clients and themselves simultaneously.
    “We ought to have some very large institutions whose primary purpose is a kind of fiduciary responsibility to service consumers, individuals, businesses and governments by providing outlets for their money and by providing credit,” he said during one speech in Toronto. “They ought to be the core of the credit and financial system. Those institutions should not engage in highly risky entrepreneurial activity.”

    Gradually, Volcker picked up allies. John Reed, the former chairman of Citigroup, expressed his public support. So did Mervyn King, governor of the Bank of England. His ideas began gaining traction within the administration in late October, when the president convened a meeting of his senior economic advisers in the Oval Office to hear a detailed presentation by the former Fed chairman.

    There was no immediate change of course. But after the House passed a regulatory reform bill on Dec. 11 that was largely based on the Geithner’s vision, the administration began to warm to Volcker’s ideas, which had the political value of seeming tough on Wall Street, said sources in contact with the Treasury and White House.

    At the time, administration officials were growing concerned that government guarantees designed to spur lending by letting banks borrow cheaply were instead funding banks’ speculative investments and fueling soaring profits, said Austan Goolsbee, a member of the president’s Council of Economic Advisers. “We started coming out of the rescue and you saw some of the biggest financial institutions . . . who had access to cheap financing . . . use that money without lending or anything, just doing their own investments,” he said. “That clearly started putting [the issue] on the radar screen for us.” Goolsbee said that Vice President Biden became a particular advocate for Volcker’s approach.

    In mid-December, the president formally endorsed Volcker’s approach and asked Geithner and Lawrence H. Summers, the director of the National Economic Council, to work closely with the former Fed chairman to develop proposals that could be sent to Capitol Hill. The three men had long discussions about the idea, including a lengthy one-on-one lunch between Geithner and Volcker on Christmas Eve.

    Summers and Geithner had been reluctant to take on battles that weren’t at the heart of the problem that fueled the crisis. But ultimately, an administration official said, the two men concluded that reform needs to be about more than just fighting the last war — it needs to address sources of future risk as well.


  131. The Obama strategists have decided to play the class warfare card now. Do not buy what they say. Why not? Three reasons:

    1. the Rezko deal they cut with big pharma proves they are hypocritical

    2. the health care deform bill they tried to ram through proves they are tyranical (see the clip posted above for its contents)

    3. the race card they have played against Hillary, the Republicans and the American People proves they are willing to tear this society apart if necessary to consolidate and expand their power.

    If we have learned anything over the past year then surely it is this: the Obamites are bad. They will ruin this country if we let them. Alinsky is their God and Obama is their prophet.

  132. JUst on Fox, Bernanke is having trouble getting confirmed due to the Blue dogs.

    The blue dogs have help now and can help push this idiot to be more of a centrist like Bill Clinton.

    Obama and his elk are crapping their pants. Ha, ha!

  133. JanH, on that article

    The reason both wings of American liberalism — congressional and mainstream media — were so surprised at the force of anti-Democratic sentiment is that they’d spent Obama’s first year either ignoring or disdaining the clear early signs of resistance: the tea-party movement of the spring and the town-hall meetings of the summer. With characteristic condescension, they contemptuously dismissed the protests as the mere excrescences of a redneck, retrograde, probably racist rabble.

    You would think lefties could discern a proletarian vanguard when they see one. Yet they kept denying the reality of the rising opposition to Obama’s social democratic agenda when summer turned to fall and Virginia and New Jersey turned Republican in the year’s two gubernatorial elections.

    Yep. Dumber than a box of rocks, these Dims.

  134. Still no word in the media about the speech that Hillary gave at the Newseum yesterday and you can bet your last dime that the cesspool at FOX will continue to pay and support the tur– that do their smelly jobs Hannity,O’realy,Boreus Morris,Ingrahamster and anyone that would like to stir the pot of fair and unbalanced smellavision.


    Daily Appointments: Daily Appointments Schedule for January 22, 2010
    Fri, 22 Jan 2010 06:36:58 -0600

    Daily Appointments Schedule for January 22, 2010

    Washington, DC

    January 22, 2010



    12:00 p.m. Secretary Clinton hosts a Bilateral Meeting with His Excellency Vladimir Filat, the Prime Minister of Moldova, at the Department of State.

    12:30 p.m. Secretary Clinton hosts a Millennium Challenge Corporation Signing Ceremony with the Government of Moldova, at the Department of State.
    Pre-set time for cameras: 11:45 a.m. from 23rd Street Entrance.
    Final Access time for print journalists and still cameras: 12:15 p.m. from 23rd Street Entrance.

    1:00 p.m. Secretary Clinton meets with the Haiti Task Force Team, at the Department of State.

    2:00 p.m. Secretary Clinton delivers Remarks to the Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs Chiefs of Mission Conference, at the Department of State.

    2:30 p.m. Secretary Clinton hosts a Bilateral Meeting with His Excellency Lawrence Cannon, Foreign Secretary of Canada, at the Department of State.
    Press access time for print journalists and still cameras: 2:30 p.m. from 23rd Street Entrance.

    4:00 p.m. Secretary Clinton meets with UNESCO Secretary General Irina Bokova, at the Department of State.

  135. Yesterday, there was a luncheon sponsored by one of the major unions here in our town. A newly elected commissioner was invited to speak. He happened to be African American. He used this event as an opportunity to unburden himself about the past election and what he is seeing–and not seeing from Mr. Obama.

    He freely admitted that he voted for Obama. But he went on to say that Obama has let everyone down–everyone. He called Obama a big disappointment. As he said this, the union members stole furtive glances at each other. Several times people started clapping hoping that he would take the que, sit down and shut up. The union, you see, supported Obama. But he was determined to say his piece and he did.

    To which I say: let a thousand flowers bloom.

  136. H4T,

    Was it stupidity on their parts or just their massive/thug egos that refused to believe they couldn’t bulldoze their way through this hated agenda?

    I think they still believe that obama walks on water and just has to speak and the people will genuflect.

  137. You would think lefties could discern a proletarian vanguard when they see one.
    Oh they knew counter revolutionary forces when they saw them. Their strategy was to marginalize. This strategy was doomed to fail due to the law of megapolitics–a declining economy, the absence of constructive solutions, and theft which was and is open and notorious.

  138. Let’s face it, if he does not walk on water, as is being discovered, what other skills does he have to work his agenda with a group he never bothered to get to know.

    1. Worked with the community organizers
    2. Was elected to state office, and did not get anything legislation through until his party was in office, and then the party leaders put his name on everything.
    3. Elected to national office, and spent as little time as possible there, not even calling meetings of some committees he chair ever.

    4. He was busy building the mystic that he walked on water, and gave a good speech someone else wrote, and books someone else helped him write. Also building his ego so he gets the stroll to the podium right, and makes it possible for them to load his speeches to the teleprompter.

    The messiah was never there, and the people who made this possible should go down with him, not HRC people. But is looks like they will suffer also.

  139. What I keep hearing is the arrogance of this administration. I agree, what other group of people would think they were above the ordinary release of documents pertaining to the President of the United States???
    They are so arogant they think they don’t even have to tell the American people who this Potus is, where he came from, where he went to school, what his grades were. Obama is above all that mundane information the American people took for granted that all other Presidents freely gave us.

    This was the beginning of the distrust America has for this President, secondly it was the apologizing and bowing to the Saudi’s that started the distrust. Then they noticed he continued the Bush policies. Of coarse they all knew the cheated his way to the nomination. These things together is what started the tea party movement, then healthcare came and solidified it.

  140. OkieAtty
    January 22nd, 2010 at 12:26 pm

    And let’s face it, if he were white, he wouldn’t have beaten Hillary in the primary,” surmised my still politically active Washington mole.

    And my political strategist, by the by, is also not only fully aware I voted for Ms. Clinton in the primary, she also appears to be seeing why I was such a fan of H.C. in first place: “I totally agree with you. If Hillary had been elected, people could at least agree or disagree on something, because the woman makes decisions, not just a bunch of bulls–t talk and jibberish that speechwriters turn out to make him oh-so-dreamy and hopey-changey.”



  141. This article is important. It tells you why Obama will not change the way Bill Clinton did when he heard from the voters. During the campaign Obama said this about democrats and the American People: ” I can make them believe anything I want them to believe.” Ergo, I was not trying hard enough to get my message across, because if I had, they only ones who refused to accept it would be the ignorant or malicious. That is more than hubris–it is pure delusion.
    Obama’s 180 Degrees Out of Phase with the People
    By David Limbaugh
    January 22, 2010

    Reading excerpts of President Barack Obama’s interview with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos underscores how tone-deaf and self-absorbed Obama is — and that his tone-deafness is a function of his self-absorption and rigid ideology.

    Obama said: “One thing that I regret this year is that we were so busy just getting stuff done and dealing with the immediate crises that were in front of us that I think we lost some of that sense of speaking directly to the American people about what their core values are and why we have to make sure those institutions are matching up with those values. And that I do think is a mistake of mine. I think the assumption was, if I just focus on policy, if I just focus on this provision or that law or are we making a good, rational decision here … people will get it.”

    Let’s unpack that mouthful. It’s all about him; in almost every line, he is bragging or excusing himself. No wonder he can’t see any farther than his navel.

    Note in the opening sentence his umpteenth gratuitous reference to “crises” he inherited; he doesn’t use the word “inherited” there, but his meaning is clear.

    In the next sentence, he pretends to criticize himself (for not speaking directly to the American people) as a backdrop for patting himself on the back for “just getting stuff done and dealing with the immediate crises.” Even if he hadn’t immediately turned the phony self-deprecation into a boast, we’d know he wasn’t sincere because the substance of his statement is flat-out false.

    If he hasn’t spoken “directly” to the American people more than any politician in modern history, then I’m a politically correct progressive who idolizes Al Gore — unless, of course, by “directly,” he meant “truthfully.” But I’m sure that’s not what he meant. Has any president gone “directly” to the American people more than he has, desperately trying to convince them that this or that proposal is in their urgent self-interest?

    In fact, one could argue that all this guy does is give speeches. Only rarely does he engage in the nitty-gritty of policymaking, which is not quite glamorous enough for him. Don’t get me wrong; I’m convinced he’s the driving force behind the socialist hellfire being inflicted on this country, but he leaves the “details” to his minions.

    But notice also what he says he didn’t talk to the American people directly enough about: “what their core values are and why we have to make sure those institutions are matching up with those values.”

    Is it just me, or is this psychobabble? What institutions? I can find no antecedent in his statement to indicate what he’s referring to.

    Could he mean that he needs to do a better job of conforming his policy agenda to the people’s values? If so, he’s not going to learn those values by giving speeches all the time and never listening. He’s not going to learn them by listening, either, though, if he doesn’t remove his ideological earplugs.

    Tea Party after Tea Party, poll after poll, legislative obstacle after legislative obstacle — they all indicate that his policy agenda couldn’t be more out of phase with the values of the American people, who are literally beside themselves over his reckless fiscal and national security policies.

    And just in case you think I’m drawing unwarranted inferences, look at how he ends the statement. He says that if he had spent more time explaining himself — not listening, but talking — to the American people instead of nobly grinding through the slog of public policy decisions, the people, thickheaded as they are, would “get it.”

    What? The correct formulation is that if he had spent less time dictating a policy agenda with total disregard for the values and will of the American people — not to mention the best interests of the nation — he might “get” that his values are completely at odds with an overwhelming majority of Americans.

    Besides, the problem is not the “crises” Obama inherited. It’s the ones he’s (SET ITAL) creating (END ITAL). He has lived in such a socialist policy shell all his life that he doesn’t have a clue that he’s on a different planet than most of us. If he were just slightly less narcissistic, he might be able to figure this out.

    But in the meantime, if you take away anything from his statement, let it be that no matter what adjustments he promises to make following the Boston Massacre, he still intends to govern like a socialist. He only wants to do a better job of figuring out how to do it less visibly, hoping we won’t “get it” before it’s too late.

    David Limbaugh is a writer, author and attorney. His book “Bankrupt: The Intellectual and Moral Bankruptcy of Today’s Democratic Party” was released recently in paperback. To find out more about David Limbaugh, please visit his Web site at http://www.DavidLimbaugh.com.

  142. Okay, this cracked me up. I surfed over to see what the other side was saying, and I must admit that the guys at Ace of Spades are indeed witty, despite their politics.

    AP has this:

    WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama says his administration overestimated its ability to persuade the Israelis and Palestinians to resume meaningful peace talks.

    Obama says both parties have been unwilling to make the bold gestures needed to move the process forward. If the U.S. had anticipated that earlier, Obama says he might not have raised his expectations so high.


    But Ace rewrote it for him:

    Obama: Hey, It Turns Out That 3000 Years of Warfare in the Middle East Wasn’t Going to End Just Because You Elected an Unprecedented, Historic Guy Made of Pure Awesome. Sorry, My Bad, I Thought They Would.

    How stupid do the John Kerry’s of the world feel now, who swore “Experience? We don’t need no stinkin’ experience! The dude went to Kindergarten in Indonesia! Top THAT!”

  143. The problem is Obama knows time is not on his side now, he’s got 9 months to get Soro’s agenda through before we kick his ass in Nov and watch he’s pretty much going to accelerate his agenda and screw us all over.

  144. “Besides, the problem is not the “crises” Obama inherited. It’s the ones he’s (SET ITAL) creating (END ITAL). He has lived in such a socialist policy shell all his life that he doesn’t have a clue that he’s on a different planet than most of us. If he were just slightly less narcissistic, he might be able to figure this out.”

    That’s it in a nutshell.

  145. If obama doesn’t get a second term, his disappointment will be heard world over and the dims will once again be laughingstocks.

  146. The problem is Obama knows time is not on his side now, he’s got 9 months to get Soro’s agenda through before we kick his ass in Nov and watch he’s pretty much going to accelerate his agenda and screw us all over.
    Moon: Before Massachusetts I would have agreed with you, whereas now some members of congress are becoming more afraid of the voters than of him. Survival is sine qua non. My friend was asked what Evan Bayh can do now to survive. She told them to tell him vote no on cap and trade, vote no on massive spending, vote no on amnesty if survival is your thing. In sum, do not support the toxic agenda of Mr. Obama. I would venture to guess that other vulnerable members of the party, and other honorable ones like Webb will heed the same advice.

  147. Moon: where I see the vulnerability now is with executive orders. Some of those may need to be challenged on the basis of their constitutionality. Impeachment proceedings are not ripe–yet. That is why it is important for the other party to win the House in November.

  148. exactly, thats what i mean wbboei, Obama is going to shunt through his things like Bush did with signatory sentences in things.

    He knows he’s toxic, we know he’s toxic, the dems know he’s toxic, so he’ll just go off and do his own thing, we all know he is narcicistic enough.

  149. If obama doesn’t get a second term, his disappointment will be heard world over and the dims will once again be laughingstocks
    I see no possibility of a second term. What I see with him is a long unwinding, as he travels to the garden spots of the world drinking and wasting away, talking about all the things that might have been if Bush were not following him everwhere he goes. One of my favorite college teachers who was a professor of English Lit went to India on his honeymoon during the 20s and saw English ex pats who were like that. As a matter of fact, they were fairly common in the gentlemen’s clubs and gin mills of that era. The line by Disraeli that as I grow older I find that I have been more places than I remember and remember more places than I have been had application to them as it will for Obama.

  150. …happened to be looking at the other blogs and notice that TM is quoting someone called ‘S’ – just to be clear, that is not me…i have noticed another ‘S’ on confluence or uppity and now on TM…that is why whenever i comment anywhere else but HERE I never use ‘S’…this probably matters little to many but I just want to set the record state…

    frankly I quit TM over a year ago…her loyalties and tone left me cold…

    I made one exception yesterday when I commented over at Joe Cononsan’s ‘No Obama Obituaries, Please’ post and said:

    By S, January 21 at 10:40 pm #
    (Unregistered commenter)

    Joe, come on…we know President Bill Clinton…Obama is no President Bill Clinton…and never will be anywhere close…

    President Bill Clinton had experience, twelve years as a Governor, was Arkansas Attorney General, was a policy wonk…a tireless people person…and no one ever accused President Bill Clinton of being dependent on his teleprompter…in fact, Bill had to wing his State of the Union one year when the teleprompter faulted…do you honestly think O could do that???

    Joe, please…I know you are trying to help O, but never compare him to President Bill Clinton…Obama is not and will never be in the same league as President Bill Clinton…Bill Clinton is one in a million…simple as that…

  151. I wonder if Mrs. Smith knows these people. She raised thoroughbreds and so do they. This letter is proof:

    This was sent to Mr. Rand who is the Executive Director of AARP.


    Dear Mr.. Rand,

    Recently you sent us a letter encouraging us to renew our lapsed membership in AARP by the requested date. I know it is not what you were looking for, but this is the most honest response I can give you. Our gap in coverage is merely a microscopic symptom of the real problem, a deepening lack of faith.

    While we have proudly maintained our membership for several years and have long admired the AARP goals and principles, regrettably, we can no longer endorse it’s abdication of our values. Your letter specifically stated that we can count on AARP to speak up for our rights, yet the voice we hear is not ours. Your offer of being kept up to date on important issues through DIVIDED WE FAIL presents neither an impartial view nor the one we have come to embrace. We do believe that when two parties agree all the time on everything presented to them, one is probably not necessary. But, when the opinions and long term goals are diametrically opposed, the divorce is imminent. This is the philosophy which spawned our 200 years of government.

    Once upon a time, we looked forward to being part of the senior demographic. We also looked to AARP to provide certain benefits and give our voice a power we could not possibly hope to achieve on our own. AARP gave us a sense of belonging which we no longer enjoy. The Socialist politics practiced by the Obama administration and empowered by AARP serves only to raise the blood pressure my medical insurance strives to contain. Clearly a conflict of interest there!

    We do not understand the AARP posture, feel greatly betrayed by the guiding forces that we expected to map out our senior years and leave your ranks with a great sense of regret. We mitigate that disappointment with the relief of knowing that we are not contributing to the problem anymore by renewing our membership. There are numerous other organizations which offer discounts without threatening our way of life or offending our sensibilities.

    This Presidential Administration scares the living daylights out of us. Not just for ourselves, but for our proud and bloodstained heritage. But even more importantly for our children and grandchildren. Washington has rendered Soylent Green a prophetic cautionary tale rather than a nonfiction scare tactic. I have never in my life endorsed any militant or radical groups, yet now I find myself listening to them. I don’t have to agree with them to appreciate the fear which birthed their existence. Their borderline insanity presents little more than a balance to the voice of the Socialist mindset in power. Perhaps I became American by a great stroke of luck in some cosmic uterine lottery, but in my adulthood I CHOOSE to embrace it and nurture the freedoms it represents as well as the responsibilities it requires.

    Your website generously offers us the opportunity to receive all communication in Spanish. ARE YOU KIDDING? Someone has broken into our ‘house’, invaded our home without our invitation or consent. The President has insisted we keep the perpetrator in comfort and learn the perp language so we can communicate our reluctant welcome to them.

    I DON’T choose to welcome them.

    I DON’T choose to support them.

    I DON’T choose to educate them.

    I DON’T choose to medicate them, pay for their food or clothing. American home invaders get arrested.

    Please explain to me why foreign lawbreakers can enjoy privileges on American soil that Americans do not get?

    Why do some immigrants have to play the game to be welcomed and others only have to break & enter to be welcomed?

    We travel for a living. Walt hauls horses all over this great country, averaging over 10,000 miles a month when he is out there. He meets more people than a politician on caffeine overdose. Of all the many good folks he enjoyed on this last 10,000 miles, this trip yielded only ONE supporter of the current administration. One of us is out of touch with mainstream America . Since our poll is conducted without funding, I have more faith in it than one which is power driven.

    We have decided to forward this to everyone on our mailing list, and will encourage them to do the same. With several hundred in my address book, I have every faith that the eventual exponential factor will make a credible
    statement to you.

    I am disappointed as hell.
    I am scared as hell.
    I am MAD as hell, and I’m NOT gonna take it anymore!

    Walt & Cyndy
    Miller Farms Equine Transport


    “We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress & the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.” – Abraham Lincoln

  152. It is bad enough BO is an idiotic, narcissist, but to be surrounded by the same type of assholes in the West Wing and at every leadership level (save SoS) that he has bothered to fill a year later- it compounds the problem 100 fold.

    The international community was happy he wasn’t Bush and they had high hopes. Those hopes are utterly dashed now. You see it in the tone and tenor of how Russia pushes us around on defense and foreign policy and weapons issues. You can see it in how Chavez makes little humpy dance moves behind BO’s back as if he owns his ass. And it’s readily apparent in Israeli and Palestinian negotiations- the US is no longer a leader and it has zero to do with Bush. They recognize BO as the impotent pretender he is.

    I’d be willing to bet Bill’s Haitian appointment wasn’t BO’s idea. He’s nowhere even close to being that smart. I’d guess Biden to be honest. The guy may be a gaff machine, but he’s no dunce when recognizing good talent.

    I’m glad the Blue Dogs will be pushing back against Pelosi with some real force. I’m sorry the D behind their name may lose their seats for them in the next election. Congress sorely needs their centrist views.

    S- I was surprised to receive an email from TM the other day. I haven’t been there in almost two years. That bitch is not worthy to lick my ass let alone pretend to be a good Dem. She went with the bucks and the kudos when times were tough. May she have Breck Girl’s next love child.

  153. I’m pretty sure the label “narcissist” on obama was started here at Big Pink…if memory serves. it was wobboei.

    I wanted to make mention that since, I continually; more and more see this word “narcissist” being used when writing/talking about Obama..IT’S CATCHING ON!!

    as we knew/hoped it would.

    but more to the point… once again Big Pink is first! and continually RIGHT ON THE MARK! 😀

  154. JanH
    January 22nd, 2010 at 11:20 am
    What Scott Brown’s win means for the Democrats


    Jan, O is “recalibrating”…and has taken his line “that is a fight I want to have” out of the health reform scam and moved it into his fight with the banks ‘that is the new fight he wants to have’…we will see how long and strong that fight is…

  155. S,

    Wall Street investments are already tanking because of obama’s so-called fight with the banks. Aren’t these the same banks that helped him win the election?

    If he really wants to destroy the economy, he is going about it in the right way. I’m not saying that executive bonuses shouldn’t be reigned in, but this isn’t the way. Who does he think will end up suffering? The banks will in all likelihood raise customer fees etc. sky high because of this.

  156. Oakie: excellent points and spot on. BO has had a remarkable trajectory: like a v-2 rocket: from world leader to world pushover all in one year. As for TM, it seems she has reverted back to her old profession and all for the love of BO.

  157. Jan, his pivot tothe banks was to deflect and stop the bleeding on the Scott Brown win and the demise of the dims who is dragging kicking and screaming to defeat…

    …notice all the mixed messages in the media on O’s fight with the banks…Geigthner has doubts…Dodd against auditing the Fed, etc, etc…

    …the banks, GS were O’s biggest contributors…does anyone really believe he is going to throw them under the bus? he just shafted the drug and insurance co of their millions of new customers…


    OkeyAtty … good one from Ted Casablanca above…one can only imagine what they are starting to actually say in private…

  158. S- that’s from someone in the Bush administration who is still very connected. Ted’s a Texas boy, Austin. I would not be surprised if who he is speaking to isn’t both gay and Texan.

  159. obama talks out of both sides of his mouth and is an equal opportunity “under the bus” thrower. If/when he looks for supporters for a second run, it will be interesting to see if the same backers are still there for him.

    Not only that, but he is giving the GOP an amazing amount of ammunition to use against him.

  160. politico.com/news/stories/0110/31839.html

    White House caught in Democrats’ crossfire

    By GLENN THRUSH & JAKE SHERMAN & LISA LERER | 1/22/10 4:45 AM EST Text Size- + reset

    Hill Democrats are demanding that Obama’s brain trust, including White House senior adviser David Axelrod, shelve their grand legislative ambitions.

    Congressional Democrats — stunned out of silence by Scott Brown’s victory in Massachusetts — say they’re done swallowing their anger with President Barack Obama and ready to go public with their gripes.

    If the sentiment isn’t quite heads-must-roll, it’s getting there.

    Hill Democrats are demanding that Obama’s brain trust — especially senior adviser David Axelrod and chief of staff Rahm Emanuel — shelve their grand legislative ambitions to focus on the economic issues that will determine the fates of shaky Democratic majorities in both houses.

    And they want the White House to step up — quickly — to help shape the party’s message and steer it through the wreckage of health care reform.

    “The administration has got to be in the forefront now, instead of throwing some meat on the track and seeing what the House can work out,” said New Jersey Rep. Bill Pascrell, expressing the frustrations also voiced by about two dozen Democratic elected officials and aides interviewed by POLITICO.

    “I haven’t seen Rahm Emanuel except on television. We used to see him a lot; I’d like him to come out from behind his desk and meet with the common folk,” added Pascrell.

    “What happened was they got so caught up in all these other issues like health care and cap and trade and all this other stuff, that because of that they maybe didn’t put enough focus on the economy,” said Minnesota Rep. Collin Peterson, a moderate who represents a conservative, rural district hard-hit by the economic crisis.

    The White House would not comment for this story.

    Administration officials say they get it — with Axelrod recently admitting that Obama’s team is recalibrating and refocusing on the economy. Emanuel, for his part, is now pushing for a stripped-down health care bill that could be passed within a few weeks and force Republicans, for a change, to take a few tough votes.

    That may mollify some Democratic moderates, but it will further infuriate the liberals, who insist that the lesson of Massachusetts is that Obama has come on too weak, not too strong. New York Times columnist Paul Krugman captured the left’s winter of discontent Thursday with a blog post in which he wrote that he’s “pretty close to giving up on Mr. Obama, who seems determined to confirm every doubt I and others ever had about whether he was ready to fight for what his supporters believed in.”

    Despite the criticism, Obama is still popular on the Hill, and most Democrats acknowledge the enormity of the problems he faced when he took office.

    “At this point, the challenge that they have had, and we have had, is that there were so many problems that were dumped in their lap when they took over,” said Michigan Sen. Debbie Stabenow. “They have been moving quickly on a hundred different points, so I think that’s their biggest challenge.”

    But the Brown loss has exposed deep resentment about Obama’s all-fronts legislative strategy, his hands-off approach to health care reform for much of the year, the actions of his economic team — especially Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner — and his Afghanistan escalation.

    But more than anything else, there’s a sense that the party’s greatest communicator isn’t conveying to voters that he understands their worries about the economy.

    And that could swamp all Democratic boats, even those carrying incumbents who previously felt they were secure.

    California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who supported Obama’s $787 billion stimulus a year ago, says the president needs to be much more forceful about how, where and why the money was spent if Democrats are going to get credit for attacking the recession in an era of double-digit unemployment.

    “I think the administration needs to be much more aggressive, and hopefully the president will outline some of this in his State of the Union address,” she said. “We very much need leadership from the executive on this. You can’t just put money out there — even if we had it to put it out there — unless it’s going to produce an actual new job.”

    Rhode Island Rep. Patrick Kennedy — whose father’s seat was captured Tuesday night by a Republican who opposes the health care reform bill — says Obama is still popular but needs to harness his “fierce urgency of now” when it comes to improving the economy.

    “We’ve done a damn good job at righting this ship. And now it’s starting to move in the right direction. Now what happened?” he said. “We lost the sense of urgency that we’re still doing it every single day, because this isn’t over yet.”

    The problem, from the perspective of the White House, is that fractious Democrats provide all the political direction of a nine-needled compass — and often send contradictory messages about how they want him to proceed.

    In the House alone, there are nearly as many Democratic positions on health care as there are Democrats, with liberals goading Obama to double-down on reform and ram through a bill using the Senate’s controversial 51-vote “reconciliation” process.

    Moderates, embodied by Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh, a fiscal hawk, and New York Rep. Eliot Engel, are urging Obama to dispense with the issue as soon as possible before he marches the party off a cliff.

    “I think that an effective majority is one that advocates and listens,” Engel said. “I’ve done a lot of advocating; now I’m listening. If the people say, ‘Wait, slow down, you’re going a little bit too fast,’ then we need to slow down.”

    At the moment, the whole cacophonous crew seems to be united by the fear that no one is safe if a tea party-backed Republican can win the Senate seat the late Ted Kennedy held for nearly 50 years.

    On the day after Brown’s win, panicky House Democrats convened in the Capitol to discuss post-Massachusetts strategy, with some in attendance complaining about what they believed to be continued White House disengagement.

    “We all pretty much knew for sure we were going to lose Massachusetts,” one person in attendance told POLITICO on Wednesday. “And yet, last night and this morning, we had absolutely no message guidance from the White House, [the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee] or [the Democratic National Committee]. There was no leadership. … So all of the members today are just opining about what they think it means and whether we should move forward on health care.”

    Despite the criticism, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs seemed determined to stay the hands-off course. Gibbs told reporters Thursday that, after Massachusetts, the president wants to let “the dust settle” and look “for the best path forward.”

    But House Democrats, already terrified by the wholesale defection of independents to the GOP in Massachusetts, were infuriated when a New York Times article, apparently citing an administration source, suggested Speaker Nancy Pelosi could pass an unamended version of the Senate’s health reform bill.

    “The sense was that the Obama folks were trying to say it was inevitable when it wasn’t,” said New York Rep. Anthony Weiner, a supporter of the public option who has clashed with the White House repeatedly about the issue.

    “It wasn’t that they were bullying us, but it reinforced the idea that they were a little tone-deaf to what the reality inside the House and Senate really were,” Weiner added.

    Meredith Shiner, Kasie Hunt and John Bresnahan contributed to this report.


    Weiner says they were a little ‘tone deaf’…try saying ‘O and his WH are ready to throw the whole dim congress under the bus rather than take any responsibility for anything’…that, the rest of us, would understand…

  161. I’m pretty sure the label “narcissist” on obama was started here at Big Pink…if memory serves. it was wobboei.

    I wanted to make mention that since, I continually; more and more see this word “narcissist” being used when writing/talking about Obama..IT’S CATCHING ON!!

    as we knew/hoped it would.

    but more to the point… once again Big Pink is first! and continually RIGHT ON THE MARK!

    I still think the most amazing thing (in the good sense for the big media) is that ADMIN is still anonymous after almost 2.5 yrs of writing/managing this wensite; Of course personally I am still curious but this secret is good for them and the DEMSs..

  162. yes, OkieAtty, I got that…just saying, one can imagine what ‘everyone’ is beginning to say in private…as in politico article above, the dim congress are getting antsy with O and his narcissim, the gay community, Ted is in the thick of the entertainment community, the moderates, independents and middle class are fed the hell up…

    enough with the O adoration, he is becoming yesterday’s “it” boy…no real there, there…

  163. a lot of people in MSM talking about O’s squandered first year…time wasted…had many opportunities to work on the economy and reform the banks from day one…INSTEAD O admin funneled tons of money to them, turned blind eye, wink, wink, to the stockpiling for bonsus and allowed O’s foreclosure rescue plan not only to FAIL, but allow foreclosures to INCREASE and more americans lose their homes…

    the only real democratic voice i heard out there speaking for the american people in the dimocratic congress was MARCY KAPTUR and she is still speaking out…one of the few clones…

    …the O admin and the Dim Congress have been useless…with people like Chris Dodd and Barney Frank steering the economic reform ship we are headed for the rocky cliffs…Dodd will exit and be fine…Barney will continue to bark and deflect…and i ask, how many more homes will the banks confiscate under O’s watch?

    How high will the credit card interest rates go under the watch of O and the dim Congress??

    …these people talk a big talk…and walk the other way…

  164. Rep. Barney Frank (D-Ma.), chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, said Friday that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac should be eliminated as they stand now.

    “This committee will be recommending abolishing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in their current form and coming up with a whole new system of housing finance, that’s the approach rather than the piecemeal one,” Frank said.


    Of course they would…after having participated in corruption, billions in tax payers handouts, congressional deals with various housing authorties to the likes of ACORN etc, they need to stop the trail of corruption by abolishing the two entities now…and then create something equally revolting full of similar corruption.

  165. btw…I saw a clip of O in Ohio trying to talk about his banking reform and saying how the repubs are going to try to stop him and his government interference, etc…like he is setting up the defeat because of opposition before he has to even give it the good fight…if the repubs were smart, they would let him hang himself…leave O out there with no opposition so he would be forced to do the reform he is suddenly so concerned about…

    …call his bluff…the people want regulatory reform…outfox the fox…independent, moderates of both parties should start taking the lead…work on the common ground…

    …Call Marcy Kaptur, Scott Brown and all independent minded, common sense real leaders of the people…find the common ground and call O’s bluff…

  166. I have some thoughts on NEWT’s 2012 run:

    Personally he was absolutely scum going after Bill C. on the personal issues aside while being a hypocrite himself on the same issue. But I am going to say that the two man are both guilty on this issue and answerable to their family/spouses only.

    Some/most of Bill C’s successfull bills came after tough negotations with the GOP with NEWT in charge so they can both claim somewhat similar legislative successes..and maybe even failure.

    Personality wise, NEWT comes nowhere near Bill C’s.

    I hope NEWT does not run for the GOP/tea party and/or gets beaten by a somewhat better person – whoever she/he is from that party in the primaries.

    BUT IF NEWT ENDS UP AGAINST BO IN THE PRESIDENTIAL RUN THEN I WILL BE VOTING NEWT!!!!!! tough it maybe but I can do it without ANY QUALMS on the issue of ANYBODY BUT BO!!!!

  167. mp, I doubt Newt could win the GOP primary. Most Republicans and tea party folks think he does good analysis, but is old stale bread as for as POTUS goes.

Comments are closed.