Terror Trials And Lobbyists And Mulligans

In a way this is a follow-up, a Part II, to our “Mulligan Man” article from January 22, 2009. After a major piece of boobery, Obama usually tries for a “mulligan” (a do-over in golf terms). This past week the major acts of boobery came by the bushel and Obama wanted a mulligan on them all.

The Kooks and Nutroots and Obama enablers in print and cable are in a swoon because Obama spoke to the Republicans on Friday. “Glory Be!” they shout. But we’ll explain the boobery of the Friday Mulligan today. We’ll also explain the boobery of the terror trials. And we will explain the failure of the State of the Union publicity stunt.

* * * * *

Let’s start with the boobery publicity stunt which was the State of the Union speech, on Wednesday. Why was that publicity stunt such a failure? This question can be disposed of quickly:

During his State-of-the-Union address Wednesday night, President Obama spoke about a deficit of trust between the American people and political leaders. New Rasmussen Reports polling on the president’s speech shows just how deep that trust deficit has become.

The president in the speech declared that his administration has cut taxes for 95% of Americans. He even chided Republicans for not applauding on that point. However, just 21% of voters nationwide believe that taxes have been cut for 95% of Americans. Most (53%) say it has not happened, and 26% are not sure. Other polling shows that nearly half the nation’s voters expect their own taxes to go up during the Obama years.

The president also asserted that “after two years of recession, the economy is growing again.” Just 35% of voters believe that statement is true, while 50% say it is false.

Obama claimed that steps taken by his team are responsible for putting two million people to work “who would otherwise be unemployed.” Just 27% of voters say that statement is true. Fifty-one percent (51%) say it’s false. [snip]

Regarding another initiative detailed in the speech on Wednesday night, just nine percent (9%) of voters believe the president’s proposed freeze on discretionary spending will have a big impact on the deficit.

In short, Obama promised he would bring trust – but now the distrust has spread and infects all elected officials. Very short:

Obama simply cannot be trusted. Obama cannot be trusted on any issue. Obama cannot be trusted by his friends. Obama cannot be trusted by his enemies. Obama cannot be trusted.

Republicans know Obama is Poison:

A tactic that would have seemed far-fetched a year ago, when the new president was sworn in with a 67 percent job approval rating, is now emerging as a key component of the GOP strategy: Tie Democratic opponents to Obama and make them answer for some of the unpopular policies associated with the chief executive.

* * * * *

Let’s discuss the Friday boobery which is so hailed on the Big Blogs. Obama knows he bumbled in front of 48 million people on Wednesday. So on a slow Friday dump day he chose to take a chance and visit triumphant Republicans. Big Blogs Boys that enabled Obama whooped and hollered about how great Obama was – that is always their first instinct before they realize they have been punked, again. Here is what the garbage scow, Maureen Dowd, wrote about Fabulous Friday:

The Utah Republican Jason Chaffetz picked up on the president’s line in the State of the Union about “a deficit of trust.”

“We didn’t create this mess, but we are here to help clean it up,” the freshman member said, before ticking off a litany of things that have soured many Americans on the president who came in trailing fairy dust.

“When you stood up before the American people multiple times and said you would broadcast the health care debates on C-Span, you didn’t,” he said.

And another good one: “You said you weren’t going to allow lobbyists in the senior-most positions within your administration, and yet you did.”

And another: “You said you’d go line by line through the health care bill. And there were six of us, including Dr. Phil Roe, who sent you a letter and said we would like to take you up on that offer. … We never got a call.”

And this rousing finale: “And when you said in the House of Representatives that you were going to tackle earmarks and in fact you didn’t want to have any earmarks in any of your bills, I jumped out of my seat and applauded you.”

What normal Americans and real Democrats, like those at Big Pink saw, and what the happy Kooks and Nutroots saw, differ greatly. The Kooks and the Nutroots have allies at Politico (Politicoo-coo). The Politicoo-coos want more speeches, more speeches, as if that would help boob Obama:

What his advisers are trying to do — first with the State of the Union and more dramatically with Friday’s event — is make clear that he wants to work with Republicans and that the minority party deserves blame, too.

By that measure, Friday’s event was a home run. It also showed Obama’s determination to ditch a Rose Garden strategy that pinned him down, month after month, in fruitless White House wrangling over heath care.

Expect more of Friday’s Obama, his aides say, with the president out on the road, liberated from messy legislative process, taking scores of questions from friends and foes.

Expect monthly meetings with Republican leaders.

Expect a campaign.

“Expect a campaign” applaud the Politicoo-coos. Isn’t that the problem? Americans complain because Obama has talked too much and done nothing for them so Politicoo-coos think the answer is more publicity stunts. The Hopium deliveries must arrive daily at Politico headquarters.

On Wednesday, Big Media, the DailyKooks and Nutroots saw their god, the rest of us saw a boob. A boob that cannot be trusted.

How shall we put it politely? Perhaps this:

Obama simply cannot be trusted. Obama cannot be trusted on any issue. Obama cannot be trusted by his friends. Obama cannot be trusted by his enemies. Obama cannot be trusted.

* * * * *

What about the terror trials? What happened there? For a full answer to that question read our recent article Terror Trial – Chuck Schumer with a 2×4. In that article we explain the danger to Schumer in particular and Democrats in general. For the lazy here is a video which explains the politics:

But what specifically happened in New York with the terror trials? One word: Lobbyists. You remember those lobbyists that Obama denounced in 2008, 2009 and last Wednesday? It was the Lobbyists that finally persuaded pal Obama. From the New York Times:

The Obama administration on Friday gave up on its plan to try the Sept. 11 plotters in Lower Manhattan, bowing to almost unanimous pressure from New York officials and business leaders to move the terrorism trial elsewhere.

“I think I can acknowledge the obvious,” an administration official said. “We’re considering other options.”

The reversal on whether to try the alleged 9/11 terrorists blocks from the former World Trade Center site seemed to come suddenly this week, after Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg abandoned his strong support for the plan and said the cost and disruption would be too great.

But behind the brave face that many New Yorkers had put on for weeks, resistance had been gathering steam.

The gathering steam was not the angry populace. No, it was powerful business interests that spend millions on lobbyists. Ordinary New Yorkers protested in the streets against the trials, but the rich and the powerful had access and willing ears in the White House:

After a dinner in New York on Dec. 14, Steven Spinola, president of the Real Estate Board of New York, pulled aside David Axelrod, President Obama’s closest adviser, to convey an urgent plea: move the 9/11 trial out of Manhattan.

Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly had laid out his plans for the trial: “blanketing a swath of Lower Manhattan with police checkpoints, vehicle searches, rooftop snipers and canine patrols.”

Mayor Bloomberg finally realized his support for the five accused September 11 plotters was foolish and the cost exorbitant. Mayor Bloomberg pulled his support. Perhaps this was a clever trap to hurt Senator Schumer who supported holding the trials in Manhattan. But Chuck Schumer, via the miracle of google alerts or regular readership saw the peril to himself. Chuck cut the cord, “It is obvious that they can’t have the trials in New York,” said Senator Charles E. Schumer, New York’s Democratic senior senator.

Citizen protests did not dissuade Obama. Lobbyists however had his ear and devotion.

The story of how prominent New York officials seemed to have so quickly moved from a kind of “bring it on” bravado to an “anywhere but here” involves many factors, including a new anxiety about terrorism after the attempted airliner bombing on Christmas Day.

Ultimately, it appears, New York officials could not tolerate ceding much of the city to a set of trials that could last for years.

“The administration is in a tricky political and legal position,” Julie Menin, a lawyer who is chairwoman of the 50-member Community Board 1 that represents Lower Manhattan, including the federal courthouse and ground zero, said of President Obama and his Justice Department. “But it means shutting down our financial district. It could cost $1 billion. It’s absolutely crazy.

Citizen protests did not matter. Families of the dead did not matter. Public uproars were not heard. Lobbyists’ whispers were heard loudly:

The breakdown of support for the trials in New York might have actually been assisted by the way New York officials were first notified by the Obama administration.

Mr. Holder called Mr. Bloomberg and Gov. David A. Paterson only a few hours before his public announcement on Nov. 13; and Mr. Kelly got a similar call that morning from Preet Bharara, the United States attorney in Manhattan, whose office had been picked to prosecute the cases.

But by the time those calls were made, the decision had already been reported in the news media, which was how Mr. Bloomberg learned about it, according to mayoral aides.

One senior Bloomberg official, speaking on condition of anonymity so as not to antagonize the White House, said: “When Holder was making the decision he didn’t call Ray Kelly and say, ‘What do you think?’ He didn’t call the mayor and say, ‘What would your position be?’ They didn’t reach out until it got out there.”

Obama and his thugs ignored elected officials and did not bother to consider the people of New York. The lobbyists are another matter. Obama listens to Lobbyists:

Soon, though, New York real estate executives were raising concerns with the Obama administration, according to Mr. Spinola, president of the Real Estate Board of New York.

Mr. Spinola said he had received calls and e-mail messages from the board’s members. Residential real estate brokers were “going berserk,” as he put it, worried that they would no longer be able to sell apartments downtown.

Commercial brokers feared they would not be able to lease office space.

On Nov. 20, the Friday before Thanksgiving, the real estate executive William C. Rudin held a meeting at his office to talk about issues with Jim Messina, a deputy White House chief of staff, according to Mr. Spinola.

The meeting was not on the topic of the trials, but the executives pressed their case anyway.

Mr. Spinola said that he told Mr. Messina, “I hope that the White House was going to put a ton of money into it.”

A turning point came when Mr. Kelly spoke before a large business crowd at a New York Police Foundation breakfast on Jan. 13.

After addressing the year’s highlights in crime reduction, he turned to the 9/11 trials, offering a presentation that was direct and graphic.

“Whatever the merits of holding the trial in Lower Manhattan,” he said, “it will certainly raise the level of threat.” He said that “securing this area and the entire city for the duration of this event promises to be an extremely demanding undertaking.”

He offered a detailed account of his department’s security plan, with inner and outer perimeters, unannounced vehicle checkpoints, countersniper teams on rooftops, and hazardous-materials and bomb squad personnel ready to respond. And he cited the hundreds of millions it would cost to protect the city.

“The entire audience issued a collective gasp when it became clear that this was an event that could go on for years,” said one guest, Kathryn S. Wylde, president and chief executive of the Partnership for New York City.

The unhappiness grew. During the Real Estate Board of New York’s annual gala, held on Jan. 21, Mr. Bloomberg dropped by, and Bloomberg officials said they got “an earful on that” from real estate executives, all of whom were angry about the plan.

A week later, his public opinion had changed, and so, it seems, had the ultimate destination of the trials.

New York politicians know when they need office space for campaigns they get reduced rates from these real estate moguls. In years past, when office space was needed, “Call Lew” (Lewis Rudin) was the reply. Now it is “Call Bill”.

Lobbyists and those Obama needs for his self advancement always have access to Obama’s Jumbo ears. Ordinary citizens, Obama does not hear.

Obama’s terror trials in Manhattan will not happen. Terror trials will go to where the lobbyists do not live.

Obama boobed up this past week. The latest polls indicate Obama helped himself with those whose help he does not particularly need. Independents, however, are sick of the boobery. Independents now, Just Say NO.

Obama will be given endless mulligans from the gullible. The wise have had enough.


75 thoughts on “Terror Trials And Lobbyists And Mulligans

  1. Obama’s New Strategy: Blame the Other Guys

    h t t p://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-mcmanus31-2010jan31,0,128927.column

    Jan. 27, 2010: Pres. Obama: “What the American people hope – what they deserve – is for all of us, Democrats and Republicans, to work through our differences; to overcome the numbing weight of our politics,”

    Jan 31, 2010: Axelrod on Republicans from the article above: “They didn’t pay enough of a price for what was a determined strategy not to work with us,” he said. Now, “they either work with us or they have to pay the price for working against us.”

    Interesting way to try to “work through differences” and build more bipartisanship….

  2. Jan 31, 2010: Axelrod on Republicans from the article above: “They didn’t pay enough of a price for what was a determined strategy not to work with us,” he said. Now, “they either work with us or they have to pay the price for working against us.”
    That sounds like don Vito Coreleone. He might think something like that, he might even say it privately, but to say it on national television is unhinged. Unhinged. He does not control the board and if he wants to play the game of megapolitics it could work out very badly for Mr. Axelrod. We are a nation of laws and thug tactics have their limits.

  3. OT…The John & Elizabeth topic:

    Looks like I missed Friday’s ABC 20/20 …lots of juicy bits on this topic on various websites today

    and what language from “Elizabeth – with her perfect marriage”…

  4. They have no idea how to coordinate anything, nor how to negotiate. In lawyering, that was not OO favorite part. He like the presentation of the cases. All of the Dims had as much information as we did. I think every superdelegate should be voted out of office.

  5. Admin: great article.

    You can take Obama out of Chicago.

    But you cannot take Chicago out of Obama.

    You can incarcerate Rezko.

    But Obama will always find others willing to play the same game.

    The Obama game is in three (3) parts:

    1. Rape the public

    2. Reward insiders

    3. Show me the money and show me the money

  6. Birdgal, Per our last post. I think alot depends on how many children you have. My daughter had 3 and worked for minimum wage, she got 4500. once and 6,000. My daughter bought washer/dryer, furniture, beds and set up the whole little house. It was a hand up for her. So many people just go on welfare and don’t work, so I think this is a nice way of helping them and its good for the economy. I just wish I could borrow a couple of kids at tax time.LOL!!!

  7. admin,great article.

    Wbboei, I wonder if that wide open threat from Axelrod had anything to do with daddy Bush coming to the WH. Maybe they threatened them. That’s what the Chi-town boys do, they dig up dirt and splash on over the news.

  8. We excluded the topic of the Bushs and Obama from our article today. What we were going to include but did not is that it is part of the Obama strategy to bring back the Bushs to center stage.

    Obama was helped in late 2008 when the financial crisis brought George W. Bush back to center stage. After eight years George W. was not popular and the more he appeared the worse the situation became for McCain.

    The Obama thugs are doing everything they can to bring the Bushs back to prominence because they think that will help Obama. But even in that clever strategy they are boobs. George W. has now been given a mulligan from the Katrina mess by raising money for Haiti. Obama could have appointed Bill Clinton and H.W. Bush to help Haiti but he wanted to be clever and remind Americans how much they dislike/hate George W. This tactic has not helped, possibly backfired.

    The Obama thugs are all about tactics and they think George W. and HW back in prominence will remind the country of what is disliked about Republicans. But Obama makes George W. Bush look good.

    Read that last sentence and shake heads in disbelief that this can possibly be true. But it is true – Obama makes George W. Bush look good by comparison.

  9. Admin: You are correct Obama and his buddies make George Bush look good. I really never had anything against the old man and was really quiet astonished when he was not re-elected as he did such a great job on the Gulf War.

    Obama would made a dead fish look good. I saw the re-runs of him today on C-span fighting with the republicans, he always had that evil grin. The man is pure evil.

  10. A follow-up on what Neetabug wrote today:


    “WE’RE what you might call an opinion-based barbershop,” proclaims Clemon Clay, the owner of Gordy’s barbers on the South Side of Chicago. “Equal parts politics and haircutting.” [snip]

    Over the past year, Clay, known as Cee Cee, has watched his clients go from soaring enthusiasm to deep disillusion. Republicans, scenting blood after their stunning victory in liberal Massachusetts, have set their sights on Obama’s former Senate seat.

    “Our customers talk politics all the time because they’re frightened — frightened of losing their homes and jobs,” said Cee Cee, wielding his razor on a heavily built butcher sporting a diamond earring. “I think Obama makes promises like all the other presidents but don’t really follow through. Maybe he has good intentions but he’s in the pigsty realm of Washington so his boots have got a little muddy.”

    His colleague Sam is less understanding. “I don’t think he done nothing, the situation’s got worse and worse for me,” he complained. “His slogan was change but now he’s saying change is not just up to me. Well, that wasn’t what he said in the elections.

  11. “George W. has now been given a mulligan from the Katrina mess by raising money for Haiti. Obama could have appointed Bill Clinton and H.W. Bush to help Haiti but he wanted to be clever and remind Americans how much they dislike/hate George W. This tactic has not helped, possibly backfired.”
    Absolutely backfired. When it was first announced BC was once again going to chair a relief fund for victims of the Haiti earthquake, I could have sworn HW’s name was originally announced in the partnership but within a day had been changed to ‘W’ by a WH PS announcement.

    If anything, the Bushes involvement in the Haiti Relief Fund is having a positive effect on their image and softening any public animosity generated by the Dems chanting …. “remember who got us into this mess?”

  12. Iran warns Clinton over sanction remarks

    Sun, 31 Jan 2010

    In reaction to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s remarks on Iran’s nuclear program, Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki warned Sunday about the consequences of “tension-seeking” American policies.

    “We believe the world public opinion should be concerned about tension-seeking US policies and their consequences on regional and international peace and stability,” Mottaki told reporters in the Ethiopian capital, Addis Ababa.

    Mottaki was reacting to the recent remarks made by his American counterpart, Hilary Clinton, on Tehran’s nuclear program. He said Tehran does not take her comments “seriously.”

    “Clinton’s efforts to take the US back to the time of the unsuccessful policies of [former President George W.] Bush will bear no fruit for the American people and the new administration,” he said.

    “The Islamic Republic of Iran has been faced with the hostile approaches of certain US officials during the past three decades but has always tried to maintain peace and stability in the region,” he said.

    In unusually blatant remarks aimed at China, Secretary Clinton on Friday assailed the country for not joining the US-led front in imposing fresh sanctions against Iran over its nuclear work.

    Clinton said she understood China’s unwillingness to impose new penalties on Iran, one of the country’s biggest oil suppliers in the world, but warned against “longer-term implications” if Iran did not stop its nuclear program.

    “We understand that right now it seems counterproductive to you to sanction a country from which you get so much of the natural resources your growing economy needs. But think about the longer-term implications.”

    Mottaki, meanwhile, said sanctions and threats cannot prevent Iran, which has always committed itself to regulations of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), from seeking its inevitable right to peaceful nuclear technology.


  13. White House holds out hope for 9/11 trial in New York
    (AFP) – 7 hours ago

    WASHINGTON — White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said Sunday that the accused author of the 9/11 attacks would “meet his maker” after being convicted, and said the US administration still hopes the trial can be held on American soil.

    Self-confessed 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, “is going to meet justice and he’s going to meet his maker,” Gibbs told CNN television. “He will be brought to justice, and he’s likely to be executed for the heinous crimes he committed,” President Barack Obama’s spokesman said.

    Gibbs said the White House is still hoping to bring Sheikh Muhammed and other alleged plotters of the September 11 attacks to trial in New York, despite recent reservations expressed by officials there. “We are talking with the authorities in New York,” he said. “We understand their logistical concerns and their security concerns that are involved. We have been discussing that with them.”

    The Obama administration had hoped to prosecute the self-described mastermind of the 2001 attacks, and his four co-defendants, in a federal court in lower Manhattan, not far from site of the World Trade Center attack that destroyed the Twin Towers and left some 3,000 people dead.

    But New York City’s Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who initially welcomed the White House plan, abruptly reversed his stance last week, saying he would prefer a different location because of the high cost of holding the trial.
    He was joined by other New York elected officials, including Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer, who said last week he was pressing the White House “to find suitable alternatives.”

    Gibbs said Sunday that the administration was hoping to get them to reconsider. “As you know, they were originally supportive of this,” he told CNN’s “State of the Union” program. “We want to see this man tried and brought to justice in the place in which the crime was committed,” Gibbs said.
    “We will work with them and come to a solution that we think will bring about justice for those that lost loved ones on such a horrific day on 9/11.”

    Meanwhile, Obama’s top political adviser, David Axelrod said the White House was still deliberating the trial venue issue, but stressed Obama’s determination to bring the suspects to trial. “The President believes… that we ought to bring Khalid Sheikh Muhammed and all others who are involved in terrorist acts to justice swift and sure — in the American justice system,” Axelrod told NBC television.

    Republicans have been adamant in opposing a US mainland trial for the September 11 suspects, arguing it would become a “show trial” and a recruitment tool for Al-Qaeda. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell told CNN a trial in New York was “dangerous nonsense.”

    “What we need to do is deny these people a show trial,” he said. “We have a way to do it… interrogate them, and detain them, and try them in military commissions. They cannot escape.”

    McConnell was asked if he was prepared to financially thwart the administration’s attempts to try the suspects on the US mainland. “Yes, absolutely. I think that will be done on a bipartisan basis. Whatever the domestic support they had for this is collapsing,” he said.


  14. Can the White House Control the News?

    Written by Sherwood Ross

    Now that one of every four Americans gets the news online, a communications authority wonders if the White House is still able to control the news.

    “The transformation of media has not only undermined the imperial institutions of the mainstream media; it has undermined the imperial Presidency,” writes Ken Auletta, a media authority, in the January 25th The New Yorker.

    Auletta reminds that six years ago there was no Facebook, no Twitter, no You-Tube and that many regional newspapers and TV stations were “highly profitable.”

    Today, he writes, Politico.com Web site has 79 editorial employees to satisfy the news hunger of its 3-million unique monthly visitors and Mike Allen, the online paper’s chief White House correspondent “has become one of Washington’s most influential journalists.” Auletta quotes Anita Dunn, Obama’s former chief communications officer, as saying, “The ability for online to drive stories into the mainstream media is significant.” Once a story gains traction, Dunn says, the Administration must respond quickly or “rumors become facts.”

    Obama has 69 press aides to respond to media questions, increasingly from cable news which is growing in influence. Auletta cites a Pew poll last July that found 40 percent of Americans get their national and international news from cable. He writes with the collapse of mass audiences for broadcast television “networks like Fox News and MSNBC have sought niche markets, in the process shedding all but the pretense of impartiality.”

    Cable “news” is giving political partisans what they want to hear. For each Democrat who watches Fox News, there are 18 Republicans; for every Republican who watches MSNBC, there are six Democrats.

    “Fox News is thriving,” Auletta reports. “Glenn Becks year-old show draws 2.3 million daily viewers, twice its predecessor’s audience.” Fox’s broadcasts attract more nightly viewers than CNN, MSNBC, and CNBC combined, The New Yorker says. Auletta tells of how the White House unsuccessfully tried diplomacy to soften Fox’s harsh coverage of the Obama presidency. By last September, though, “The White House had given up on changing Fox” and Obama’s aides began attacking it.

    Apart from Fox, Auletta reports that no president in modern times has received anything comparable to the adulatory news coverage that characterized Obama’s campaign and early months in office. Time magazine, he says, put Obama on its cover six times in the space of eleven months, in part because “the Obama campaign handled the press adroitly.” And a Center for Media and Public Affairs report found that in Obama’s first 50 days in office he got more than three times the network news coverage of his predecessor.

    Auletta makes the point that the emergence of new media is forcing a continuous news cycle, as Internet stories by the volume of their pick-up, push their way into the mass media. Reporters complain they hardly have breathing space to reflect on the meaning of a story but must react swiftly even to just get the headlines to their viewers and readers. “We’re all wire-service reporters now,” Chuck Todd of NBC is quoted as saying.

    Todd does anywhere from eight to 16 standup interviews daily for NBC and MSNBC on a patch of White House grass, including feeds to “Today” on NBC and “Morning Joe” on MSNBC. And by nightfall, Todd may have written as many as ten tweets or Facebook postings and five blog entries. With all this sort of deadline busywork, reporters complain they don’t have a minute to do research, call experts, and to put breaking news into context.

    While Auletta’s article, “Non-Stop News” concerns itself with new challenges facing the press and the presidency that are driven by new technology, it does not touch on the lack of coverage of critical issues such as the spreading wars of the Middle East. Nor was that the intent of the article. Yet that is the real media crisis today. Thus, Obama’s photogenic daughters are the subjects of saturation media coverage but the smoldering ruins of bombed-out buildings in Afghanistan and Pakistan are not. This lack challenges Auletta’s comment that the transformation of media “has undermined the imperial Presidency.” It has done no such thing.

    If an imperial Presidency is defined as one in which an autocratic president can pretty much do as he pleases waging wars around the world, all that a more intensive media environment does is to provide him with heightened supporting coverage. Fox News may attack Obama for his management style but it does not dispute his basic imperialist direction, which is a continuation of the Bush-Cheney wars of aggression. Media dissent these days flickers only on the Internet. Thus the White House succeeds in controlling the news—especially as it derives so much help from the mainstream media.


  15. Admin: what you have said in this post is extremely significant. It reflects a continuing pattern of neglect by the Obama Administration for the security interests of the United States. Towit:

    1. first, the lead terrorist who killed 4000 innocent Americans offered to plead guilty in a military tribunal.

    2. second, Obama decided sua sponte (on his own motion) to treat those confessed killers as criminal defendants rather than enemy combatants, thereby jeopardizing the security of this nation.

    3. third, Obama decided sua sponte to try those confessed killers in the City of New York against the advice of law enforcement, and the pleas of its citizens, thereby further jeopardizing the security of this nation.

    4. fourth, Obama decided to play down the terrorist attack which killed our soldiers in Fort Hood by a known Jihadist. He warned us not to jump to any conclusions, thereby further jeopardizing the security of this nation.

    5. fifth, Obama played failed to ensure proper coodination of the security agencies charged with protecting this nation from another jihadist attack as revealed by recent Senate testimony and Charles Krauhammer. In fact, the head of the FBI and others was not even consulted.

    6. sixth, Obama downplayed the significance of the aborted Detroit bomber attack, Mirandized the terrorist before they could elicit critical intelligence information about terrorist activities in Yemen, other terrorists headed for this country and an accomplice, thereby further jeopardizing the security of this nation, while he played golf.

    7. seventh, we now learn that Obama will move the trial from Manhattan. However, the reason has nothing to do with protecting the security of New York from a second terrorist attack. Nor is it being done in response to the advice of trained security experts, or outraged citizens. Rather he is doing this in response to real estate lobbyists.

    Obama is too Chicago to worry about the security of this nation. The pattern is clear and unambiguous. So if we have a crisis at some future time and he tries to cite his belated decision to move the terrorist trial from New York City as evidence that he is security conscious we now know that is a lie, and just another Rezko ploy on his part.


    Nice job Admin.

  16. While Bob Woodward toils away on his book about the Obama White House, let us speculate about what is going on and what will ultimately emerge from his secret deep throat type interviews.

    The really good thing about Woodward is he never ever reveals a source so people with inside information can talk to him freely and safely. That is what Obama must worry about.

    Take Greg Craig for example. Would he spill the beans on Obama? He was White House Counsel and told everybody no leaks. Well, John Dean was White House Counsel and look what happened to him. He sung like a canary. We all know how loyal Craig is. He was disloyal to Hillary so why should he be loyal to Barack who porked him–if he can do it sub silention.

    Believe me there are others with stories to tell, and they can do so with complete annonomity.

    What kind of a picture will emerge of David Axelrod. Again I speculate. But here is what I think the book will show:

    1. Axelrod is a grease monkey, which is to say someone who whores himself out to bring in business contributors. In fact, I have it on good authority that he has wined and dined republican contributors besides big pharma.

    2. Axelrod is a propagandist, worthy of Goebbels. He twists ever fact to suit his agenda. After pushing the health care priority he now tells us he knew the real issue is jobs. He blames others for his mistakes.

    3 Axelrod is a political thug. He shuts out the Republicans on the health care deform bill, and then threatens that they will pay a political price for not supporting the health care deform agenda.

    4. Axelrod is fallible. He let Barack go into Massachusetts and make a complete ass of himself before the voters. Also, he showed congressional dimwits that Obama has feet of clay. Strike one. Strike two. Strike three. Also, he let him go to wonderful wonderful copenhagen to lose the Olympics and stumble on global warming.

    5. Axelrod is a mechanic. He specializes in opposition research, dirty tricks, planting undercover people in opposing organization. In that respect he closely resembles Felix Derjinsky–head of the CHEKA and forerunner to the KGB.

    6. Axelrod is in charge of controlling and threatening members of congress so they bend to his will. Rham Emanuel for all his bravado is strictly hired help. He is controlled by Axelrod–make no mistake about that.

    7. Axelrod has no loyalty. He has a disabled daughter. Hillary helped secure medical help for that daughter. Axelrod reciprocated by attacking her in this campaign in vile ways. He has no honor.

    Based on the foregoing, I shall not scruple to say that Axelrod is a bad man. We shall see soon enough whether the Woodward account agrees with me.

  17. 8. Axelrod is the link to the press. From the earliest days of the campaign he was feeding stories to the press–AP, CNN, NBC, and more recently ABC. He made disparaging remarks toward Hillary in connection with the Bhutto assassination, and he fed the story on the RFK reference to suggest she wanted the same thing done to his boss–he was circulating that tape until he got hit. He was also behind the use of the race card. The man is a vile human being in my opinion.

    The morals of the marketplace tolerate people like him. But the voters ought not to do so–or the candidates he controls. But in the final analysis, he is simply a project manager. He is not the owner.

  18. As the Chinese say there is a ying and a yang to things. Hillary’s strategy of forcing them to engage on Iran is spot on. We need their affirmative support on the one hand with respect to sanctions. But we also need them to stop aiding and abetting Iran financially and with their products. I am told that the riot gear and vehicles used by the Bashijis to crush dissent is supplied by China. If China is to move beyond the Middle Kingdom mentality and be the world leader and partner we need it must step up to the plate on this issue. Nobody on the planet can make that case more convincingly than Hillary.

  19. Apart from Fox, Auletta reports that no president in modern times has received anything comparable to the adulatory news coverage that characterized Obama’s campaign and early months in office. Time magazine, he says, put Obama on its cover six times in the space of eleven months, in part because “the Obama campaign handled the press adroitly.
    Handled them . . adroitly? Give me a break. Big media was bought and paid for.

  20. Auletta makes the point that the emergence of new media is forcing a continuous news cycle, as Internet stories by the volume of their pick-up, push their way into the mass media. Reporters complain they hardly have breathing space to reflect on the meaning of a story but must react swiftly even to just get the headlines to their viewers and readers. “We’re all wire-service reporters now,” Chuck Todd of NBC is quoted as saying.
    If they were reflective people (rather than shills) that would be a problem. Do you really think the world would be better off if ratboy Todd had more time to reflect on the news. He has very little capacity for independent judgment.

  21. Let me give you a perfect example. When Hillary won New Hampshire big media was caught with its pants down. Their polls said she would lose and it did not happen. So NBC produced Rat Boy Todd, and some imbecile like Russert asked the diminutive oracle to explain how something like this could happen. Whereupon, Ratboy lowered his eyes and hesitated for dramatic effect and everyone in the audience said yeah yeah. And then Ratboy cut loose with the time tested irrefutable answer–it was those white voters and the Bradley effect. Eugene Wright rose from the corners with the rest of the cockroaches and said yes, yes, yes–it is those white people. They vowed to do a recount. At the end of the recount we discovered it wasn’t the white peoplee at all. It was bad polling methodology. This is why I say more time would not help. Todd is a lying whore and that won’t change.

  22. Don’t believe there was ever any intention of having the 9/11 trials in NYC. Watched what happenned with security during the silly summit and kept wondering why would they do this here. Came out of nowhere and then boom whole city shut down for three days. It seemed like a rehearsal.

  23. henry
    January 31st, 2010 at 11:00 pm

    The Obama WH is quite good at playing Liars Poker.

    They jettison everyones panties into a twist until they have them begging, ‘make it stop!’

    Shakedown Artists- extraordinaire.

  24. Admin. you probably saw this:

    Breaking: Adam Andrzejewski Surges to Within 2 Points in Latest Polling (Updated)
    Sunday, January 31, 2010, 4:47 PM
    Jim Hoft
    Illinois Gubernatorial Candidate and conservative Adam Andrzejewski rallied supporters in O’Fallon, Illinois this afternoon.
    It was a standing room only crowd.

    While campaigning in O’Fallon the Andrzejewski team announced that Adam had just received the endorsement of the largest Chicago Polish paper today. And…. It was announced that Adam had surged to within two points in an internal poll conducted by a conservative organization in Washington DC. Andrzejewski was 8 points down earlier in the week in the Illinois race.

    It may have been the endorsement by Lech Walesa that helped Andrzejewski surge in the latest polling. And this is despite the fact that the mainstream Chicago news mostly ignored Walesa’s historic endorsement.

    I’ll post more video from the rally today later today.

    By the way: The mainstream media may not be tuned into Adam Andrzejewski but the internet sure is. And, today I had the great honor of introducing Adam at the rally.

    More… The leader in the GOP race right now is Kirk Dillard who endorsed Obama.

    UPDATE: Race 4 2008 has a great take on Andrzejewski’s surge.

    Keyboard Militia has more on the rally today.

  25. Here is a quote from a closing statement by Edward Bennett Williams in United States vs. Hoffa (1957) which fits Barack Obama to a tee.

    “Now from the mans lips we learn that he lies. Now from the mans lips we learn that he falsifies. From this mans lips we learn that he deceives. What kind of a man is it who while carrying a symbol of truth can lie and deceive and falsify at the same time. You can search back through history to the beginning of time, when Man first began to pay worship to the Supreme being; you can look at every code of human behavior in the history of the world; you can look at every form of religion by whih man paid homage to God, and you will find no religion, no code of morals which condones a lie, deceit or falsehood for any purpose.”

    Adam Andrzejewski was rather clear on that point as well. He stated that Obama lied.

  26. I had coffee with the Arbitrator on Saturday afternoon. We were talking about the way lying no longer seems to carry the stigma it once did. In rural communities it is still verbotten but in the big city it is not. Part of the reason I guess is that most people today are selling something and selling typically includes some degree of puffing. Perhaps people fail to appreciate the difference any longer. But where a president is concerned serial lying is highly problematic because when he needs to tell the truth nobody will believe him. I do not believe anything Obama says unless I can corroborate it. Otherwise I say falso in uno-falso in omnibus.

  27. The leader in the GOP race right now is Kirk Dillard who endorsed Obama
    Typical Illionis Combine behavior.

  28. wbboei, Its not really lying, according to Barack its just politics. It don’t mean anything, its all show, staged and is completely separate from ones true self.

  29. If FObama wants to conjure up the Bush boogeyman, be will only fail.
    People, depending on their political persuasion, will either:
    1) Be reminded that Obama is George Bush lll.
    2) Think of the good old days of George’s administration, and have regrets that FObama ever got elected.
    3) Realize that he is passing the buck again, and in one year’s time, he has only accomplished a massive debt load for America’s future.

    There are no positives to that lame strategy, but it will be fun to watch the repercussions of said strategy.

  30. Someone over at the WSJ has been reading Admin. Hillary’s winning coalition, vs the Boob’s losing coalition, anyone?

    He was a blank slate, and devotees projected onto him what they wanted or wished. In the manner of political redeemers who have marked—and wrecked—the politics of the Arab world and Latin America, Mr. Obama left the crowd to its most precious and volatile asset—its imagination. There was no internal coherence to the coalition that swept him to power. There was cultural “cool” and racial absolution for the white professional classes who were the first to embrace him. There was understandable racial pride on the part of the African-American community that came around to his banners after it ditched the Clinton dynasty.

    The white working class had been slow to be convinced.


  31. kansascity.com/275/story/1717714.html

    President’s ineptness quite clear after a year

    The Kansas City Star

    What happened to the bright dreams, the hope and change? A year ago, fate handed President Obama one of the most tantalizing political opportunities in history.

    His party enjoyed a blowout election. The Republicans were leaderless and devoid of ideas. The Democrats had hefty majorities in both houses of Congress. Obama had stratospheric approval ratings and the support of a nation profoundly fearful of the future.

    And then he threw it all away. He outsourced chunks of his job to a left-wing congressional leadership that has learned nothing and forgotten nothing for the past 35 years.

    What came next was one appalling legislative blob after another: the stimulus package that hasn’t stimulated, the cap-and-trade monster, the health care power-grab.

    When Obama assumed office, he was still something of an enigma. Many asked: Who is this guy?

    Well, now we know a lot more. The bottom line: He isn’t a good politician. Politics is an art, and Obama’s basic competence is highly suspect. He lacks the personal radar an effective politician must have — the instinct to know when you’re on solid ground and when you’re tilting at windmills. Obama has spent a year tilting at windmills.

    The “art of the possible” isn’t static. With steady accomplishments, an effective leader can expand the zone of the possible. A winner draws new adherents, builds coalitions, acquires new strength for the next challenge.

    For a weak leader, the opposite applies: His credibility shrinks, and so do the ranks of his followers. His ability to accomplish anything becomes doubtful.

    This is the vicious circle that now ensnares Obama. He has succeeded mainly in uniting his opposition and dividing his own camp. House and Senate Democrats are openly sniping at one another. The hard left — Obama’s base — is writing him off as inept.

    The sense of disarray was only reinforced by his State of the Union speech.

    Let’s give a cheer or two for the proposed cut in the capital gains tax for small businesses and the spending freeze plan — while noting that the latter applies to only a small part of the budget, doesn’t begin until next year and comes only after spending was recklessly accelerated. Obama wants to “freeze” outlays at stratospheric, stimulus-package levels.

    If Obama is serious about two of his main points — a second stimulus package and his renewed call for Congress to pass health care reform — then he has learned nothing from the last year and the political earthquake in Massachusetts.

    Despite its enormous cost, last year’s stimulus package has failed to live up to expectations. So, his response is: Do it again?

    On health care, he offered no suggestions to deadlocked Democrats as to how they should pass a bill disliked by most Americans. The House can’t pass the Senate bill and the Senate couldn’t pass the House bill. Obama’s advice: Keep trying what isn’t working.

    Like Jimmy Carter, Obama squandered much of his political capital in his first year. Before last week’s speech, it was possible to argue that it wasn’t too late for him to adopt a new approach and move toward the center. Now it’s clear he has no such intention.

    A big clue to Obama appeared long before his election, when he was still a senator.

    He’s stubborn. With the tide indisputably turning in Iraq, he remained opposed to the troop surge and claimed it was bound to fail. When he took office, the economic landscape was completely transformed. But he refused to put off health care and cap-and-trade, even though voters thought the economy was a much higher priority.

    He has another problem, most evident in his handling of foreign policy.

    He sold out the Czechs and Poles on missile defense to appease Russia — and got nothing in return. He stuck with “engagement” on Iran, missing an opportunity to voice full-throated support for the Iranian opposition. In dealing with China, he shrank from the topic of human rights.

    The question raised by French President Nicolas Sarkozy — “Is he weak?” — must be answered in the affirmative.

    The media portrait of Obama during the campaign made much of his cool, unflappable temperament. But that ignored his most telling qualities. Stubborn and weak is not what you want in a president. No wonder he’s already talking about the prospect of a single term.

  32. weeklystandard.com/articles/ideologue

    The Ideologue
    Barack Obama’s no Bill Clinton.

    BY Fred Barnes
    February 8, 2010, Vol. 15, No. 20

    President Obama’s greatest need is to escape the ideological grip of congressional Democrats and the liberal base of the Democratic party (they’re one and the same). But he either doesn’t recognize this or, as a conventional liberal himself, isn’t so inclined. This self-inflicted difficulty has put Obama in worse political straits than President Clinton faced after the Republican landslide of 1994.

    Certainly there was nothing in Obama’s State of the Union address last week to indicate he understands the fix he’s in or has devised a credible way to get out of it. His message, though he didn’t put it in quite these words, was that he’d rather fight for unpopular liberal policies than switch to broadly appealing centrist ones.

    A bad omen for Obama and Democrats was the pleased-as-punch response of Capitol Hill’s top Republican, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. “It makes my job a little easier than if he were moving to the middle and picking up people,” McConnell says. “I naïvely thought he was going to do a course correction.”

    McConnell characterizes the Obama strategy as: “Ignore the public, we know what’s best, full speed ahead.” The practical effect is to yield the political high ground to Republicans. “He can call us the party of no till he’s blue in the face,” McConnell says. “It depends on what you’re saying no to.”

    When the president had lunch with television anchors at the White House the day of the speech, he minimized his political distress. Were the rate of unemployment two points lower, he’d be in fine shape, Obama suggested. That’s probably true. And if pigs had wings they could fly.

    Since the Republican Senate victory in Massachusetts on January 19 and the collapse of Obama’s domestic agenda, the parallels between Obama now and Clinton in 1994 have come into sharp focus. The president, by the way, told the anchors Republican Scott Brown won because he was the better candidate, not because he made opposition to Obama’s policies the centerpiece of his campaign.

    To save his presidency after his stiff rebuff in the midterm elections, Clinton lurched to the political center. He adopted a strategy of “triangulation” that involved painful compromises with Republicans, who had captured the House and Senate. It worked. Clinton glided to reelection in 1996, defeating Republican Bob Dole by 7 points.

    Though it’s rarely acknowledged, Clinton’s most significant successes in the White House were all in conjunction with Republicans: the North American Free Trade Agreement in 1993, welfare reform in 1996, and balanced budget legislation in 1997 that included a cut in the capital gains tax rate from 28 percent to 20 percent that spurred the financial boom and budget surplus of his second term.

    For Clinton, creating daylight between his presidency and liberal Democrats was easy. They hadn’t been responsible for his election in 1992, nor was he ideologically tethered to them. In Obama’s case, separating himself would be hard. The liberal base was instrumental in his election, controls both houses of Congress, and may retain its majority after the 2010 midterms as well. As a politician, Obama is a creature of modern liberalism.

    Even if Obama wanted to, it would be awkward for him to negotiate legislative deals with Republicans while liberal Democrats control Congress. And it would be regarded as a betrayal if he vetoed a Democratic bill. I can’t recall a recent example of a president vetoing a measure passed by his own party. Obama’s veto threats in the State of the Union weren’t taken seriously by Democrats or Republicans.

    At the core of Obama’s trouble is a misreading of the 2008 election. He and Democratic liberals interpreted it as a mandate for an era of liberal lawmaking and governance in a newly minted center-left America. And they set out to create that era with sweeping initiatives on health care, energy and the environment, and the economy.

    They were wrong, as everyone but the most unswerving or fogbound liberal now understands. America is a center-right country politically and has been for decades. Pushing a liberal agenda for a year has cost Obama dearly. His public approval has fallen at a record rate (for a first-year president), and so has support for his policies.

    He is clinging to the one advantage his party retains, its strength in Congress. “To Democrats, I would remind you that we still have the largest majority in decades and the people expect us to solve some problems, not run for the hills,” Obama declared in the speech. Sorry, Mr. President, but dozens of Democrats in Republican-leaning districts or red states are already in full flight, either deciding to retire or abandoning your agenda.

    Obama is giving aid and comfort to the Republican counterstrategy. As in 1994, Republicans say they’re ready to cooperate with the president when they can, oppose him when they can’t. So McConnell, for one, is willing to go along with Obama’s puny budget freeze. But Obama has offered Republicans much else that might be risky to oppose.

    To salvage Obamacare, Democrats buttonholed several Republican senators last week with schemes for tweaking the bill. The senators declined to negotiate, telling the Democrats, “Call McConnell.” Under McConnell’s leadership, Senate Republicans are united in preferring to start over, from scratch, on health care reform. So far, McConnell hasn’t gotten a call from the White House or any Democrat.

    To boost his recovery after the Republican landslide of 1994, Clinton found a useful foil, the new House speaker, Newt Gingrich. When Gingrich overreached, Clinton was the beneficiary. Obama desperately needs a foil, but his attempts to turn McConnell and Republicans into one have failed. Instead, he’s become their foil.

    Let’s give Obama credit for intellectual honesty. He believes in his agenda. Speaking at a House Republican retreat in Baltimore last week, Obama insisted, “I am not an ideologue.” But he sure can pass for one. And despite his travails, Obama brims with self-confidence. He told Democrat Marion Berry of Arkansas, a seven-term House member, that Democrats today have a unique advantage they lacked in 1994—“me.” Berry doesn’t agree. He’s retiring.

  33. Stubborn and Weak, is an interesting combination, as I would think if you are stubborn you would stay the course.

    I think he is stubborn with American, and weak with the International community, which he thinks we have so terrible mistreated.

    So really, he is two faced.

  34. Our real President never stops giving of herself.Ih
    ope that this country will recognize that she is our only hope for a stable peaceful world and the
    Hocus Potus is impeached soon and removed from the



    12:00 p.m. Secretary Clinton hosts a Swearing In Ceremony for Ambassador to Brazil Tom Shannon, at the Department of State.

    Special Briefing

    1:00 p.m. Deputy Secretary of State Lew briefs the Press on the President’s Proposal for the FY 2011 State Department Budget, On Camera and On the Record, in the Press Briefing Room, at the Department of State.

  35. politicsdaily.com/2010/01/31/illinois-senate-governor-primary-tuesday-is-obama-state-up-for/

    h and w stuff

    Great article by Sweet who talks about Obama’s Illinois being up for Grabs. It was up on AOL for only a short period of time before it was pulled.

  36. h/w

    Pentagon to rank global warming as destabilising force

    US defence review says military planners should factor climate change into long-term strategy

    The Pentagon will for the first time rank global warming as a destabilising force, adding fuel to conflict and putting US troops at risk around the world, in a major strategy review to be presented to Congress tomorrow. The quadrennial defence review, prepared by the Pentagon to update Congress on its security vision, will direct military planners to keep track of the latest climate science, and to factor global warming into their long term strategic planning.

    More than 30 US bases are threatened by rising sea levels. It ordered the Pentagon to review the risks posed to installations, and to combat troops by a potential increase in severe heatwaves and fires.

    The review’s release coincides with a sharpening focus in the American defence establishment about global warming – even though polls last week showed the public increasingly less concerned.

    The CIA late last year established a centre to collect intelligence on climate change. Earlier this month, CIA officials sent emails to environmental experts in Washington seeking their views on climate change impacts around the world, and how the agency could keep tabs on what actions countries were taking to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

    The CIA has also restarted a programme – scrapped by George Bush – that allowed scientists and spies to share satellite images of glaciers and Arctic sea ice.

    That suggests climate change is here to stay as a topic of concern for the Pentagon.

    The Pentagon, in acknowledging the threat of global warming, will now have to factor climate change into war game exercises and long-term security assessments of badly affected regions such as the Arctic, sub-Saharan Africa, and South Asia.

    Military planners will have to factor climate change into war game exercises and long-term security assessments of badly affected regions such as the Arctic, sub-Saharan Africa, and South Asia.

    “The leadership of the Pentagon has very strongly indicated that they do consider climate change to be a national security issue,” said Christine Parthemore, an analyst at the Centre for a New American Security, who has been studying the Pentagon’s evolving views on climate change. “They are considering climate change on a par with the political and economic factors as the key drivers that are shaping the world.”

    Awareness of climate change and its impact on threat levels and military capability had been slowly percolating through the ranks since 2008 when then Senators Hillary Clinton and John Warner pushed the Pentagon to look specifically at the impact of global warming in its next long-term review.

    But the navy was already alive to the potential threat, with melting sea ice in the Arctic opening up a new security province. The changing chemistry of the oceans, because of global warming, is also playing havoc with submarine sonar, a report last year from the CNAS warned.

    But not all defence department officials have got on board, and Parthemore said she believes it could take some time to truly change the military mindset.

    Parthemore writes of an exchange on a department of defence list-serv in December 2008 about whether global warming exists. It ends with one official writing: “This is increasingly shrill and pedantic. Moreover, it’s becoming boring.”


    If that’s the worst negative ending they could find for this article … someone in 2008 complaining about a listserv thread!

  37. Said Obama, “One of our former colleagues is right now running for governor on the Republican side in Illinois. In the Republican primary, of course, they’re running ads of him saying nice things about me. Poor guy.”

    This is in that article of Illinois is up for Grabs at the very in end. I guess it rubs me the wrong way his sense of humor that we should find it laughable that he frauded and tricked the voters into electing him, and now that his first year has turn out so poor and the superdelegates are paying for it, that it is funny. I don’t think he really cares about the job he does, only that he managed to win the election. He does not care how he governs, and he think it does not matter to the voters.

    I wonder how many people at the end of their Unemployment, losing their homes, not sure really where they will go, or if they can feed their children, feel the same.

  38. SoCal Gal and I worked simultaneously to boost Scott Brown in the MA victory. Now, Chuck DeVore is running against Barbara Boxer in CA. SoCal Gal send this urgent request:

  39. Vivian Norris de Montaigu
    February 1, 2010

    Hillary Clinton Understands the Link Between Security and Poverty

    Last Friday, Secretary of State Hilary Clinton spoke to an audience of mostly uniformed men (and the odd woman) at the Ecole Militaire in Paris, hosted by IRSEM (the Institute for Strategic Research at the Military School). Her approach to European Security was one of the most forthright and clear I have heard in a long time. She links European security to US security on almost all levels and reinforced the historical and cultural links between the two parts of the world (read the text of the speech here).

    Secretary Clinton referred to five major points in her talk:

    I. First, the cornerstone of security is the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all states. 

    II. Security in Europe must be indivisible. 

    III. We will maintain an unwavering commitment to the pledge enshrined in Article 5 of the NATO treaty: that an attack on one is an attack on all. 

    IV. We are committed to practicing transparency in our dealings in Europe–and we call on other nations to do the same.
    V. People everywhere have the right to live free from the fear of nuclear destruction.

    But what I found the most interesting was the Question and Answer period following her talk. Professor Gloria Origgi, of the CNRS, asked a very important question about the links between Security and Poverty. Dr. Origgi made a reference to Secretary Clinton’s admiration and support for Prof. Muhammad Yunus, the Nobel Peace Prize winner for his pioneering work in Microcredit along with the women of the Grameen Bank for the Poor in Bangladesh. She also reference Obama’s Mother, Ann Dunham, who spent many years working with Microcredit and women in rural villages, especially in Indonesia. And she drew parallels between our cultural similarities in Europe and the US as to how we view women and women’s place in the world.

    Secretary Clinton was very pleased to talk about how alleviating poverty, specifically by targeting women and girls, is one of the fastest and most sustainable ways to fighting terrorism and ensuring security. It was fascinating to listen to Secretary Clinton, a woman who has dedicated her life to serving her country both at home and internationally, talk about non-militaristic answers to problems of Security in front of an audience of mostly male members of NATO, and other militaries.

    If we spent as much time and money and effort as we put into defense budgets into fighting poverty, a lot of wars would have been stopped before they began. If we focus more on women and girls and their role in creating a better world (as Sec. Clinton said they did at Davos) then the snowball effect will insure a better and more secure future for all of us.


  40. Investigate why there’s no investigation: Emanuel investor fraud suspect

    January 31, 2010

    Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel is under fire by investors and a groundswell of progressives for allegedly stonewalling promised changes, including investigations into Freddie Mac’s defrauding Americans.

    Jane Hamsher and Grover Norquist wrote to Attorney General Eric Holder on January 23rd, 2010 requesting an investigation of Rahm Emanuel’s role on Freddie Mac’s board during years when executives laid out a plan to defraud investors, and the White House’s subsequent role in preventing an investigation.” (FireDogLake)

    Wall Street Journal reported that “liberals are directing their anger less at Mr. Obama than at the man who works down the hall from him. Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, they say, is the prime obstacle to the changes they thought Mr. Obama’s election would bring.” (Wallsten, P; Chief of Staff Draws Fire From Left as Obama Falters, Walls Street Journal, Jan 26, 2010). According to the Wall Street Journal report Tuesday, Emanuel told a liberal strategy group in August their plan to run advertisements against conservative Democrats “balking at Mr. Obama’s health-care overhaul” was “F—ing retarded,” according to participants cited by the paper.

    The petition telling Attorney General Eric Holder to investigate Rahm Emanuel includes: “We write to demand an immediate investigation into the activities of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. We believe there is an abundant public record which establishes that the actions of the White House have blocked any investigation into his activities while on the board of Freddie Mac from 2000-2001, and facilitated the coverup of potentially criminal actions until the 10 year statute of limitations has run out. (See: http://firedoglake.com/2009/12/23/jane-hamsher-grover-norquist-call-for-rahm-emmanuel’s-resignation/)

    “To make matters worse, the administration is pushing for an $800 billion bailout of Fannie and Freddie while the organizations lack an Inspector General and basic oversight.

    “Before the White House commits any more money to Fannie and Freddie, the Justice Department should begin an investigation into the cause Fannie and Freddie’s conservatorship, into Rahm Emanuel’s activities on the board of Freddie Mac (including any violations of his fiduciary duties to shareholders), into the decision making behind the vacancy of Fannie and Freddie’s Inspector General, and into potential public corruption by Rahm Emanuel in connection with his time in Congress, in the White House and on the board of Freddie Mac.

    “We also call for the immediate appointment of an Inspector General with a complete remit to go after this information.”

    The petition for signing is at:




    Obama will have a YouTube session today 1:45PM.

    This won’t be filtered by the White House. But don’t worry, Google-owned YouTube will be doing the filtering for them.

    Supposedly, one of the biggest questions will be about taxing reefer, and the Prez is bound to disappoint by JUST SAYING NO.


    Obama to Field Questions Posted by YouTube Users

    Published: January 31, 2010
    On Monday, President Obama is scheduled to sit down in the library of the White House residence for his first interview since his State of the Union address.

    The interviewer? The United States of YouTube.

    In a first-of-its-kind group interview, Mr. Obama will read and watch questions submitted by YouTube users and answer them in a live Webcast. “It’s a way to give people access to the president that feels more participatory,” said Macon Phillips, the Obama administration’s director of new media.

    YouTube, which is owned by Google, will allow people both to submit questions and to vote for their favorite ones, “so we get a stronger signal about what the crowd is interested in,” said Steve Grove, the head of news and politics at YouTube and a former reporter for The Boston Globe.

    The Webcast is also an example of the White House trying to bypass the traditional media, coming at a time when Mr. Obama is looking to regain popular support after a drop in the polls and the loss of a Senate seat in Massachusetts that cost Democrats their supermajority.

    Sessions like Monday’s Webcast “are the 21st-century equivalent of Roosevelt’s fireside chats,” said Andrew Rasiej, founder of the Personal Democracy Forum, an annual conference and blog about politics and technology. Kevin Sullivan, a White House communications director in the Bush administration, said answering questions from citizens is a “smart supplement” to traditional interviews, but added, “It doesn’t replace taking questions from professional journalists.”

    The president has not held a formal news conference at the White House for six months.

    Every modern presidential administration strives to talk directly to the public and avoid what many call, not always kindly, the “filter” of the media. In his third month in office, President Bill Clinton said to journalists: “You know why I can stiff you on the press conferences? Because Larry King liberated me by giving me to the American people directly.”

    Presidents can now bypass even a talk show host, thanks to the Internet. The Obama administration maintains an active YouTube channel, for instance, with more than 650 videos uploaded in its first year. Many are excerpts from presidential events; but others are more offbeat, like last week’s clip titled “The Making of Presidential Football Helmet.”

    “You can find more success getting information to where the American people are as opposed to forcing them to come to where you are in order to get it,” said Bill Burton, a deputy White House press secretary. “Given that less and less folks get their information through the traditional news media, this is a unique opportunity for a participatory exchange that is directly with the American people.”

    Mr. Obama has answered online questions before, during a town-hall-style Webcast last year. But in that case, the most popular questions were screened and sorted by White House staff members. This time, the White House is providing only the cameras; YouTube is sorting the questions, through an in-house tool called Google Moderator.

    The administration also holds regular question-and-answer Webcasts with policy officials on WhiteHouse.gov. After the State of the Union address last Wednesday, Mr. Phillips and three officials stayed online until 11:15 p.m. fielding questions from Web users.

    White House aides say the videos and Webcasts are a powerful “force multiplier” for the administration’s persuasion efforts, even though the audience for a typical YouTube video is in the thousands, rather than the millions that a presidential event draws on television. The cumulative effect, they say, is critically important.

    Monday’s Webcast stemmed from discussions between the White House and YouTube about a collaboration around the time of the State of the Union. There is no direct financial gain for YouTube, since the Webcast will not carry any advertising. But it will be a showcase for YouTube’s push into live, streaming video. (Google has based a new team of six engineers in Washington to “improve products to help connect citizens to government directly,” said Ginny Hunt, a public sector product manager for the company.)

    Mr. Grove will act as the intermediary on Monday afternoon, narrowing the thousands of submitted questions (11,700 as of Sunday evening) down to a list of about 100 of the most popular ones, some written and some in video form, and choosing from them as the half-hour conversation progresses.

    Mr. Grove said he intended to ask some questions that “might not usually make it to a president.”

    Memorably, Mr. Obama said a question about whether the legalization of marijuana would stimulate the economy was among the most popular questions in advance of his online meeting last year.

    “I don’t know what this says about the online audience,” Mr. Obama said at the event, chuckling before explaining that because “this was a fairly popular question, we want to make sure that it was answered.” (He answered no.)

    Critics may scoff at Monday’s Webcast, which is scheduled to begin at 1:45 p.m. Eastern, as a forum for soft-ball questions. But Mr. Grove disagreed, pointing to the submissions themselves — about jobs, government reform, education, and myriad other topics — as proof.

    “I don’t think our users are giving the president any more of a break than the White House press corps,” he said.

  42. Said Obama, “One of our former colleagues is right now running for governor on the Republican side in Illinois. In the Republican primary, of course, they’re running ads of him saying nice things about me. Poor guy.”
    To me it says they are both part of the Illinois Combine. What else can he mean by the word colleagues. Two dirty politicians separated only by the pretense of party label. Two politicians serving one god–not the people of Illinois but the corrupt business interests who run the show. I think the opponent is right–what is needed here is a forensic audit and the right governor. Otherwise corruption will prevail and continue to menastesize throughout the country as it is doing now through the corrupt DNC and the west wing mob.

  43. wbboei, Its not really lying, according to Barack its just politics. It don’t mean anything, its all show, staged and is completely separate from ones true self.
    Connie. I accept the fact that politics involves a certain amount of puffery. But when you totally misrepresent your core beliefs and who you are to the American People you cross a line form puffing and political speak into downright lying. If we are to accept that as politics as usual, then how can we possibly evaluate candidates and have a functional democracy? How is the electorate to judge politicians except by their words, as corroborated or negated by their prior record.?

  44. It may have been the endorsement by Lech Walesa that helped Andrzejewski surge in the latest polling. And this is despite the fact that the mainstream Chicago news mostly ignored Walesa’s historic endorsement.

    I’ll post more video from the rally today later today.

    By the way: The mainstream media may not be tuned into Adam Andrzejewski but the internet sure is. And, today I had the great honor of introducing Adam at the rally.

    Gee, ignoring a candidate, how novel an idea? I love Lech Walesa and don’t believe he would support him JUST because he is of polish decent. He must be a good one.

    Admin: that SNL video was priceless. Sooo Scott Brown visually. Nanacy and Barney were right on too. Scott and his crew must have been laughing their butts off. I believe after his acceptance speech and say, early career choice’s, he has a bit of humor.

  45. djia
    February 1st, 2010 at 1:58 pm
    AP: U.S. President Barack Obama bows to Tampa Mayor Pam Iorio at MacDill Air Force Base on Thursday, Jan. 28, 2010 in Tampa, Fla.

    Bowing is okay. But if he got him coffee, that would be racist?


    admin at the top of the article wrote:
    By that measure, Friday’s event (face-to-face session w/ House Repubs) was a home run.

    As admin states, BigBoy blogs are always reporting how shrewd and politically adroit Obama is, how the latest speech or ploy is “another feather in his cap”. And yet his rating continue to languish, and the country feels less and less inclined to support an Obama plan.

    He can’t afford too many more “home runs” like this.

  47. AmericanGal
    January 31st, 2010 at 5:00 pm
    Obama’s New Strategy: Blame the Other Guys

    Ahem…”New strategy”???

    That’s all he’s ever had: “blame the other guys”. He’s barely lifted a finger in his entire life, getting ahead only by guilt and blame.

    Hardly new.

    Ah, but what may be new is that the same old David Plouffe is back in town, with the same old campaign game.

    Never govern, always campaign. You can make promises, and you don’t have to answer with results.

  48. Jesus, Mary and Joseph and the donkey too. He really is making a hash of it all………

    President Barack Obama will propose on Monday a $3.8 trillion budget for fiscal 2011 that projects the deficit will shoot up to a record $1.6 trillion this year, but would push the red ink down to about $700 billion, or 4% of the gross domestic product, by 2013, according to congressional aides.

    The deficit for the current fiscal year, which ends on Sept. 30, would eclipse last year’s $1.4 trillion deficit, in part due to new spending on a proposed jobs package. The president also wants $25 billion for cash-strapped state governments, mainly to offset their funding of the Medicaid health program for the poor.

    This WSJ article fails to mention the plummeting of FY 2010 federal tax receipts the WSJ reported just a few weeks before:

    Year-to-date federal government revenues totaled $487.78 billion, compared to $547.38 billion for the first three months of fiscal 2009. Individual income-tax receipts totaled $207.73 billion, compared to $255.29 billion. Corporate tax revenues were at $33.93 billion, down from $50.37 billion.

    Last August, the AP reported that federal revenues were on pace to drop 18%, the worst since 1932.


    Bailing out of the banks that were too big to fail was not in itself bad…it was the lack of oversight, the blank check, that was the problem.

    Running a deficit is not bad in itself, especially in this type of economic environment. But when the guy “in charge” is inept and prone to doling out favors to contributors, you start worrying about throwing them the keys to the Ferrari.


    Obama unveils $3.83T budget with massive deficits

    Martin Crutsinger

    President Barack Obama sent Congress a $3.83 trillion budget on Monday that would pour more money into the fight against high unemployment, boost taxes on the wealthy and freeze spending for a wide swath of government programs.

    The deficit for this year would surge to a record-breaking $1.56 trillion, topping last year’s then unprecedented $1.41 trillion gap. The deficit would remain above $1 trillion in 2011 although the president proposed to institute a three-year budget freeze on a variety of programs outside of the military and homeland security as well as increasing taxes on energy producers and families making more than $250,000.

    Echoing the pledge in his State of the Union address to make job creation his top priority, Obama put forward a budget that included a $100 billion jobs measure that would provide tax breaks to encourage businesses to boost hiring as well as increased government spending on infrastructure and energy projects. He called for fast congressional action to speed relief to millions left unemployed in the worst recession since the 1930s.

    After a protracted battle on health care dominated his first year in office and led to a string of Democratic election defeats, the administration hopes its new budget will convince Americans the president is focused on fixing the economy.

    Republicans complained about Obama’s proposed tax increases and said the huge projected deficits showed he had failed to get government spending under control. But administration officials argued that Obama inherited a deficit that was already topping $1 trillion when he took office and given the severity of the downturn, the president had to spend billions of dollars stabilizing the financial system and jump-starting growth.

    Obama’s job proposals would push government spending in 2010 to $3.72 trillion, up 5.7 percent from last year. Obama’s blueprint for the 2011 budget year, which begins Oct. 1, would increase spending further to $3.83 trillion, 3 percent higher than projected for this year.

    Much of the spending surge over the past two years reflects the cost of the $787 billion economic stimulus measure that Congress passed in February 2009 to deal with the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. The surge in the deficits reflects not only the increased spending but also a big drop in tax revenues, reflecting the 7.2 million people who have lost jobs since the recession began and weaker corporate tax receipts.

    “Having steered the economy back from the brink of a depression, the administration is committed to moving the nation from a recession to recovery by sparking job creation to get millions of Americans back to work,” the administration said in a statement accompanying its budget.

    The administration’s $100 billion proposed jobs measure would be lower than a $174 billion bill passed by the House in December but far higher than a measure that the Senate could take up as early as this week.

    Obama’s new budget attempts to navigate between the opposing goals of pulling the country out of a deep recession and getting control of runaway budget deficits.

    On the anti-recession front, Obama’s new budget proposed extending the popular Making Work Pay middle-class tax breaks of $400 per individual and $800 per couple through 2011. They were due to expire after this year. The budget also proposes making $250 payments to Social Security recipients to bolster their finances in a year when they are not receiving the normal cost-of-living boost to their benefit checks because of low inflation. Obama will also seek a $25 billion increase in payments to help recession-battered states.

    In a bow to worries over the soaring deficits, the administration proposed a three-year freeze on spending beginning in 2011 for many domestic government agencies. It would save $250 billion over the next decade by following the spending freeze with caps that would keep increases after 2013 from rising faster than inflation.

    Military, veterans, homeland security and big benefit programs such as Social Security and Medicare would not feel the pinch. Federal support for elementary and high school education would get a big increase as would the Pell Grant college tuition program which would see an increase of $17 billion to just under $35 billion, helping an additional 1 million students.

    The administration said it was proposing the largest funding increase in the history of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, a $3 billion increase to $28 billion plus an additional $1 billion if Congress agrees to some major changes in the law.

    The administration would also provide an additional $1.35 billion for the president’s Race to the Top challenge, a federal grant program in which 40 states are competing for $4 billion in education money included in last year’s stimulus bill. Obama hailed the results of this effort in his State of the Union speech.

    The New York Times reported Monday the administration was seeking a sweeping overhaul of the No Child Left Behind law that will call for broad changes in how schools are judged to be succeeding or failing.

    In Obama’s new budget, the Department of Homeland Security would get an additional $734 million to support the deployment of up to 1,000 advanced imaging airport screening machines and new baggage screening equipment to detect explosives. Those increases represented a response to the Christmas Day bombing attempt on an airliner landing in Detroit.

    The president’s budget seeks a $33 billion increase in a supplemental appropriation this year for the military and $159.3 billion in 2011 to support Obama’s boost strategy to deal with the terrorist threat in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

    NASA’s mission to return astronauts to the moon would be grounded with the space agency instead getting an additional $5.9 billion over five years to encourage private companies to build, launch and operate their own spacecraft for the benefit of NASA and others. NASA would pay the private companies to carry U.S. astronauts.

    Obama’s budget repeats his recommendations for an overhaul of the nation’s health care system even though prospects for passage of a final bill have darkened given the loss of a Democratic Senate seat in Massachusetts in a recent special election, depriving Obama’s party of the votes needed to break a Republican filibuster.

    Presidential press secretary Robert Gibbs insisted Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union” that the push for health care was “still inside the 5-yard line” but Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell said the public was overwhelmingly against the bill and the administration should “put it on the shelf, go back and start over.”

    In addition to the freeze on discretionary nonsecurity spending, Obama is proposing to boost revenues by allowing the Bush administration tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 to expire at the end of this year for families making more than $250,000 annually, which the administration projects would raise $678 billion over the next decade. Tax relief for those less well-off would be extended.

    The new Obama budget will also include a proposal to levy a fee on the country’s biggest banks to raise an estimated $90 billion to recover losses from the government’s $700 billion financial rescue fund. Those losses are expected to come not from the bank bailouts but from the support extended to General Motors and Chrysler and insurance giant American International Group as well as help provided to homeowners struggling to avoid foreclosures.

    Also on the deficit front, the president has endorsed a pay-as-you-go proposal that passed the Senate last week. It would require any new tax cuts or entitlement spending increases to be paid for, and he has promised to create a commission to recommend by year’s end ways to trim the deficits. Administration officials briefing reporters on Sunday declined to say when the commission would be appointed.


    Now what could possibly be the common factor among all these excited Republicans and all these scared Dems??? I just can’t figure out what single thing they have in common…


    Patrick McIlheran

    2010: A year for surprises

    Ted Kanavas, who last week said that he won’t run for re-election to the state Senate, also says he’s not just clearing his schedule to run against U.S. Sen. Russ Feingold.

    People have mentioned Kanavas, a Brookfield Republican, as a possibility to take on the 18-year incumbent Democrat. “Which is flattering,” said Kanavas, though he swears it’s a possibility he’s spent no time contemplating.

    This would make him perhaps the only member of the Wisconsin Republican Party not to have spared it a thought.

    “I make decisions one at a time,” he said, and for now, it’s all about cutting back to his permanent gig of selling software. He says he’s glad for the chance to have served just a bit over two full terms, and he never planned to stay in the Legislature forever.

    This is refreshingly non-careerist if he means it, and I have no reason to think he doesn’t. Still, newspapers are supposed to probe. So:

    “You never say never,” said Kanavas. For now, the Legislature’s in session. There will be time later to think about running for something bigger, he said, maybe once bigger names make up their minds.

    “The person who’s going to do it is Tommy Thompson,” said Kanavas. Indeed, that man who was elected governor four times has rivaled Brett Favre in his love of comeback talk, now saying he’s got one good race left. He toyed like this with other races – governor in 2004, Senate against Herb Kohl in 2006 – but suddenly, this may be the year.

    It’s a sign of how quickly things have changed that running against Feingold is starting to look less like duty and more like opportunity. Feingold, until recently considered a lock for a fourth term, is now being talked about by national handicappers as beatable.

    Pollsters have been asking. One in October pegged Thompson as the surprise 43%-39% winner over Feingold in a hypothetical matchup. Last week, pollster Scott Rasmussen tested a Feingold-Thompson race and found likely voters going for Thompson, 47% to 43%. Independent voters favored Thompson 53% to 36%.

    Then again, it’s only January and just a poll. Feingold beat Thompson 50% to 41% in a poll in November. That was by a firm that consults for Democrats (Rasmussen is independent), and, interestingly, it matched Feingold against the two Republican candidates actually running against him, Watertown businessman and West Point alumnus Dave Westlake and Madison developer and liberal-annoyer Terry Wall. It found Feingold only drawing 47% and 48%, respectively, against them.

    That’s less than 50% from a friendly pollster before Obamacare got jammed through the Senate, before Massachusetts went Republican, against two candidates who, for all their real merits, could have been named Guy 1 and That Other Guy.

    It also was before Feingold’s series of “listening sessions” this month wherein skeptical constituents packed rooms to denounce Obamacare, which Feingold supports. “No one can believe you,” and “I do not want this health care thing pushed through” were typical comments at recent sessions, while Feingold has been replying that citizens are misinformed, that “when they look at this in the end, (they) are going to say, ‘Wow.’ ”

    Yeah: “You’ll thank me for this later” is always a winning line.

    Feingold also discounted listening-session anger in Pewaukee and Mequon as being in Republican places, but he’s catching that flak elsewhere, too. Those quotes were from sessions, reported in the press as largely hostile, in Brown County (where Obama won 54% of the vote two years ago) and Jackson County (Obama: 60%). That’s the sound of shifting terrain.

    So Feingold’s vulnerable. Voters still distrust the GOP, but a year of stimulus, clunker-cash and Obamacare has left them distrusting Democrats at least as much. That’s why Thompson’s old-hand status may haunt him if he did run, but if ever there were a year for never-been-elected outsiders like Wall and Westlake to run against an entrenched incumbent with $9 million to spend, this might be it.

    “I think any Republican has a chance this year,” said Kanavas. Funny, how fast things can change.

  51. I listen to a talk show host here in S. Fla who leans right , but the guy is rationale unlike Rush and Hannity. He compliments Bill compared to Obama and states Hillary would have been much better as well.
    He did state that economic forecasters are predicting an upturn in jobs/economy going into the 2011 and 2012 election cycle and thinks this will help get Obama re-elected as it’s always “the economy stupid”.

  52. Janh, i think not, i think there is a double dip on the horizon, its going to get worse this year, bank on it.

  53. I listen to a talk show host here in S. Fla who leans right , but the guy is rationale unlike Rush and Hannity. He compliments Bill compared to Obama and states Hillary would have been much better as well.
    He did state that economic forecasters are predicting an upturn in jobs/economy going into the 2011 and 2012 election cycle and thinks this will help get Obama re-elected as it’s always “the economy stupid”.

    I do not buy it.

    The Republicans do not understand Obama.

    They do not.

    They did not understand who he was in the primary.

    And they don’t understand who he is now.

    They see no distinction between a pragmatic liberal and a hard core ideologue.

    They think Obama will move to the middle if not now then after 2010 losses.

    That is what Moe Lane thinks.

    That is what a pragmatic liberal like Bill Clinton does.

    But it is not what a hard core ideologue like Obama will do.

    Obama is a hard core ideologue. He believes in New World Order. Bad people pulling the stings.

    I find these economic projections for 2011 to be pie in the sky at this point.

    I think he will be held responsible for the devastating losses in 2010.

    I think intra-party doubts will be raised over his leadership, coattails, response to crisis.

    I think people will say that if there is a partial recovery it will be inspite of him.



    Execution “Likely” for Sept. 11 Mastermind

    The Obama administration said Sunday it would consider local opposition when deciding where to hold Sept. 11 terror trials and pledged to seek swift justice for the professed mastermind of the attacks.

    “Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is going to meet justice and he’s going to meet his maker,” said President Obama’s press secretary, Robert Gibbs. “He will be brought to justice and he’s likely to be executed for the heinous crimes that he committed in killing and masterminding the killing of 3,000 Americans. That you can be sure of.”

    Objections from New York City officials and residents have intensified since the Justice Department announced late last year it planned to put Mohammed and other accused Sept. 11 conspirators on trial in federal court in lower Manhattan. In its new budget, the Obama administration is proposing a $200 million fund to help pay for security costs in cities hosting terrorist trials.

    White House aide David Axelrod said New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and other city officials have changed their minds after initially supporting the decision for trials in the city, citing logistics and costs.

  55. his WSJ article fails to mention the plummeting of FY 2010 federal tax receipts the WSJ reported just a few weeks before:

    Year-to-date federal government revenues totaled $487.78 billion, compared to $547.38 billion for the first three months of fiscal 2009. Individual income-tax receipts totaled $207.73 billion, compared to $255.29 billion. Corporate tax revenues were at $33.93 billion, down from $50.37 billion.

    Last August, the AP reported that federal revenues were on pace to drop 18%, the worst since 1932.
    That is the critical factor. That will create another downturn. If you talk to the investment fund managers none of them are optimistic about what lies ahead. Also, as someone reported last night on No Quarter comment by Sassy you get this:

    LD, from what I have read, analysts expect the GDP to be at 2.5% or less for the year.
    To drive down unemployment by 1% this year, the economy would need to grow by 5% for the entire year.
    No one thinks that will happen, leaving unemployment at 10%.


    Sorry, I am taking this one over to red states who are laboring under the delusion that Bambi will move to the middle.

    GAME ON!!
    Posted by marshablackburn (Profile)
    Monday, February 1st at 2:46PM EST
    On Friday, President Obama was invited to speak at our House Republican conference. The invitation was extended by Republican leadership in an attempt to engage the President in an open dialogue about his policies. I had the opportunity to ask him a question about health care reform. I wanted to know three things: First, had he reviewed Republican proposals for reform, second, what lessons had he taken from the failure of other public option plans like TennCare, and third, when and how did he anticipate sitting down with Republicans to go over our proposals?

    The president took his time in answering my question. He told me politely that he had reviewed our proposals and rejected them. The President completely avoided any discussion of TennCare, just as Secretary Kathleen Sebelius had earlier this summer. The President also failed to respond to where and how Republicans might sit down and go over our proposals with him.

    Unfortunately, it seems that our ideas are welcome, so long as they conform to his preconceived idea that the only path to better health care is through a government bureaucracy. Tennesseans know that just won’t work.

    My question was roundly criticized by liberal pundits. In criticizing me for highlighting Republican proposals, they assumed that we had never advanced them when we held the majority. They conveniently forgot that the House passed many of these free-market approaches to health care reform in 2005 and 2006.

    The Wall Street Journal was on hand for my exchange with the President. Despite the President’s evasive and incomplete answer to my question, they quote him as saying that he is “game” to sit down with Republicans and go over our proposals. They quote me too, “GAME ON!”

    Cross posted at Marsha Blackburn.com

  57. FWIW,

    The county legislature I cover has been saving its pennies for a rainy day and that’s about to happen.

    Luckily for us, we’re one of the few NYS counties that won’t be hit that hard coz of (believe-it-or-not) fiscal restraint on the part of the repub controlled body.

    Not to bore you with figures but the 2009 sales tax revenue decreased almost 9% over 2008 and 2010 is expected to be worse.

    2009 Delinquent taxes rose almost 30% over ’08.

    Not to mention the decrease in state aid for everything from schools to health care and the fact the highway budget is in free fall, it’s not a pretty picture.

    20% of county residents received some type of social services last year, almost double the usual numbers.

  58. A link to articles about huge cutbacks everywhere from NYC to Nevada.


    globaleconomicanalysis dot blogspot dot com/2010/01/massive-layoffs-coming-in-nyc-nevada.html

  59. ?

    Rasmussen shows Obama got a SOTU approval bump


    While the Gallup poll, so far shows little movement to President Obama since his State of the Union address, Rasmussen shows a big bump for Obama among Democrats after the speech: from 25-42 strongly approve-strongly disapprove to 33-40. Obama’s overall approval rating also jumped from 46-53, to 50-50. These are the highest ratings for Obama in 4 months.

    More @ link

Comments are closed.