Nashville Superbowl: Sarah Palin Has A Tea Party

At the ironically named Gaylord resort in Nashville Tennessee, Sarah Palin on Saturday night addressed a portion of the Tea Party movement at their “convention”. Viewers saw a smart woman who has been under unfair attacks for well over a year now.

Sarah Palin has been attacked and her children and husband have been attacked. Andrew Sullivan questioned whether Sarah Palin was the mother of her Down Syndrome child, Trig. DailyKooks and LeftTalkers giggled at the ugly charge. The “creative clueless” went so far as to charge that Sarah Palin’s husband had incestuously fathered Trig with his own daughter. Sarah Palin has been denounced as a dope who does not know Alaska from Arugula. Every ugly class based argument of Sarah as some sort of hillbilly from Dogpatch has been marshaled against her. Last night Sarah Palin demonstrated she is sharper than Barack Obama.

Many of the arguments darted at Palin are familiar to Hillary Clinton supporters. Bill and Hillary Clinton too were portrayed by the “creative clueless” fingerbowl set of Washington D.C. and Big Media as Lil Abner types from Dogpatch Arkansas. The sexist and misogynistic arguments arrayed against Hillary Clinton have been recycled in even cruder form against Sarah Palin. We thought of Geraldine Ferraro and the Obama apologist Rachel Maddow and an interview on the Today Show:

Rachel Maddow was besotted with her golden calf Obama from her then perch at the defunct Hillary hating Air America. Geraldine Ferraro however had the historical knowledge which allowed her to see what doe-eyed lovestruck Maddow was too callow or too base to acknowledge. Now Republicans, will have to step up and take over from where Ferraro left off. Sexists and misogynists on the right will have to be confronted from the right as we confronted our fellow Democrats on the Left.

Jeri Thompson is an example of what will have to happen if Sarah Palin is not to be subjected to further sexist and misogynistic attacks:

Jeri Thompson blasted Fox News host Chris Wallace on the Fred Thompson show today, calling his joke that he hoped Sarah Palin would sit on his lap during an interview with him “inappropriate” and “insipid,” and demanding “action from Fox.

Thompson, the wife of the former senator and presidential candidate, told POLITICO’s Jonathan Martin that the remark, to Fox Business’s Don Imus, amounted to misogyny, and that she was tired of seeing it from “these dirty old men” on Fox, a network that she said ought to be respectful of conservative women.

Jeri Thompson must amend her remarks to include all women, like Hillary Clinton, in her campaign against sexism and misogyny.

“Sarah Palin is now part of the Fox family,” Thompson said on the show. “She deserves you all watching her back — and I do not mean it literally.”

Wallace, she said, “owes her an apology.”

“Not only is she a national figure – she deserves the respect that any other man would get in that situation,” Thompson said, saying that her inbox was full of complaints from conservative women over the segment, and that the Palin group Team Sarah, as well as the anti-abortion Susan B. Anthony List, were dismayed by the segment.

“I hope that Fox does something about this, and they actually take this on, because it is not funny,” Thompson said.

The “creative clueless” of the Dimocratic Left we have taken on and denounced. It is good to hear conservatives take on conservatives on behalf of women and womens’ rights.

Jeri Thompson was correct when she said the segment on “nappy-headed hos” Imus show, was not funny. The hypocrites on the Dimocratic Left latched on to the Fox News misogyny but they were silent as Hillary was attacked. Now the hypocrites attack Fox News for what the Democratic Left also did during their season of mute:

WALLACE: We’re going to be down in Nashville with her at the National Tea Party Convention, and I’m excited. First of all, I’m excited to finally meet and interview Sarah Palin. We’ve been chasing her like Captain Ahab and the great white whale for the last year and a half. […]

IMUS: When you interview her, will she be sitting on your lap? (LAUGHTER)

WALLACE: One can only hope. (LAUGHTER)

In September, Wallace went on Mike Gallagher’s radio show and mentioned his upcoming interview with right-wing activist James O’Keefe and said that he wished he was also going to have his partner Hannah Giles — who played the prostitute in the ACORN scheme — on the show because “she’s pretty cute.

The Democratic Left was complicit in the establishment attacks on Hillary Clinton which utilized sexism and misogyny. Unlike Hillary Clinton, Sarah Palin will have allies in Big Media in her fight against sexism and misogyny but the “dirty old men” even at Fox News cannot be relied on. The “dirty old men” of the Democratic Left includes lesbian Maddow and “Tingles” Matthewson MSNBC who employ the sexually charged “teabaggers” epithets, as well as the giggling boys on Big Blogs – who will throw every class based prejudice at Sarah Palin.

We cannot wait for the day when sexists and misogynist on the Democratic Left and the Republican Right, and even in the Tea Party movement, witness the great meeting when girl talk becomes Woman Power. That day is not far off.

The ideal situation, which will cause the sexists and misogynist to die or be killed, would be a Hillary Clinton versus Sarah Palin presidential battle in 2012. The sexists and misogynist will pleasure themselves with dreams of a “catfight” between two strong women. But for an America in desperate need of a philosophical battle, not an orgy of veiled and not so veiled sexual assaults such as Barack Obama waged in 2008, a Hillary Clinton versus Sarah Palin contest will illuminate. First Barack Obama must be forced off the political stage and back to the filth of Lake Michigan where he can extract new sums of money from the Chicago mob. On that first point Hillary Clinton supporters and Sarah Palin supporters can all agree – we have interests which coincide.

While we Hillary supporters prepare in Winter quarters, Sarah Palin supporters take heart from their choice for president.

* * * * *

While Hillary Clinton has to flee to other countries, for fear of breaking out into her trademark riotous laughter, every time she witnesses the TelePrompTer take Obama out for a spin – Sarah Palin is beating Obama like a rented mule who has not learned anything from the years ago attack on the USS Cole through to the first and then eventually successful attacks on the World Trade Center as well as the “shoe bomber” attempt.

The “dirty old men” at MSNBC on Saturday had to abandon the “teabagger” mockery:

Sarah Palin had some pointed advice to President Barack Obama on Saturday night: “Stop lecturing and start listening.”

In her keynote address to the inaugural national “tea party” convention, Palin declared that “America is ready for another revolution” and repeatedly assailed Obama before adoring activists, a seemingly natural constituency should she run for president.

“This movement is about the people,” the 2008 GOP vice presidential nominee said as the crowd roared. “Government is supposed to be working for the people.”

Noting Democrats’ recent electoral losses just a year after Obama was elected on promises of hope and change, she asked: “How’s that hope-y, change-y stuff workin’ out for you?

The “dirty old men” will return no doubt with their “teabaggery” condescension and Obama apologias on Monday all the way through to election night in November.

While narcissism reigns supreme and Obama brags about himself and an unnamed supporter who wants to be buried in an Obama Tea-Shirt, this past week, Palin last night poured hot words at the Tea Party.

[Hillbuzz has the full Palin speech.]

Sarah Palin energized her supporters. Big Media continued the attacks on Sarah Palin. Associated Press led their coverage with a tooth gnashing, fingernail clawed Sarah Palin (Hillary supporters will recall Obama in 2008 attacking Hillary with the not-so-veiled “the claws come out” to play to his misogynist supporters.) Politico led its coverage with this sexist introduction: “After flirting coyly for months, Sarah Palin this weekend launches an aggressive play…

The Big Blog Boys of the Obama fellating Left, wept when they heard the Tea Party would not run third party candidates in 2010. Third Party candidates were the last HOPE for the Dimocratic Left at Nothing Left in fear of November’s elections.

Organizers say they “absolutely do not support a third party.”

Well, that’s that. Any hopes that Democrats will preserve their large congressional majorities in 2010 through a wave of tea party candidates who splinter conservative votes should be dashed.

Sarah Palin praised the Tea Party movement last night. Ronald Reagan came in for cheers, as did her abused by the kooks, son Trig. Those of us who support Hillary Clinton will give Sarah Palin her due and reject and confront those from the Dimocratic Left who attack her on the basis of sexism and misogyny. We have seen enough of that in 2008.


149 thoughts on “Nashville Superbowl: Sarah Palin Has A Tea Party

  1. From Bob Dylan’s “Nashville Skyline” collection of songs, a love song to the “Girl from the North Country”

  2. I just got finished watching the videos on Hillbuzz of Sarah’s speech, and what I saw was a strong female unafraid of a good, honorable fight who has now come out in a most visible way to push fo a call to action against a corrupt, ineffectual federal government. I loved her speech, and would say that she hit it out of the park, not just for a home run, but for a grand slam. Excellent!

  3. Thank you, admin. The words to Revolution fit our political reality today for the most part. I would definitely make one modification to the song… But if you go carrying pictures of Obamamao, you ain’t gonna make it with anyone anyhow.

    Ms. Palin represents a new breed of unelected public figures operating in an environment in which politics, news media and celebrity are fused as never before. Whether she ever runs for anything else, Ms. Palin has already achieved a status that has become an end in itself: access to an electronic bully pulpit, a staff to guide her, an enormous income and none of the bother or accountability of having to govern or campaign for office.
    “Few public figures not in office have leveraged the nexus between media and political positioning as Sarah Palin has,” said the Washington lawyer Robert Barnett (who negotiated, among other things, Ms. Palin’s lucrative deal with Fox News, an arrangement with the Washington Speaker’s Bureau that pays her a reported $100,000 a pop, and a deal with Harper Collins to write her memoir, “Going Rogue,” which has already earned her upward of eight figures).
    Beyond what her Fox-watchers and Facebookers can see, Ms. Palin is quietly assembling the infrastructure of an expanding political operation.

  5. If it comes down to a Palin-Obama fight in 2012, I will of course vote Palin; but I must say that she’s not much of a speaker. I like Ryan more. He does his homework, has clear ideas, and expresses them well.

  6. I disagree with Sarah on a lot, but I find it freaking hilarious how crazy the Village goes over her. Do they even realize how unhinged they look and sound to the average American? Yes, she stood at a podium and harshly criticized Obama and his policies. And the Left never stands at a podium and criticizes Bush and the GOP? I’ve heard a lot worse “reveling in being mean” (as Joan Walsh called it) than anything Sarah ever said – as has most of America.

    The correct way to respond to Palin’s speech, if you disagree, is a measured response pointing out that it’s the same old Reagan conservatism, that she sincerely believes but that really won’t work to solve our problems.

    But they just can’t help themselves. They have to start shrieking and rending their clothes that she is DANGEROUS! and MEAN! and NASTY! STUPID! and OMG SHE IS TEH DEEEEEVIIIIIILLLLLL!!!!

    Keep it up morons. Pretty soon even those who disagree with her will be supporting her just to piss off the shriekers. Not to mention that you are driving the final nails into any credence the public still gave the media.

    Question of the day: What if the media held a witchhunt, and no one came?

  7. In short, unhinged Palin-hate does about as much good for the Left as the shrieking Birthers do for the right. The point isn’t even whether you agree, it’s that it’s a completely losing game. The difference is that wise republicans and their mouthpieces are not touching the birthers with a ten-foot-pole, but the Dems are embracing the Sarah obsession with glee.

    Great, so the right will end up looking sensible to the public, and the left will end up looking like lunatics. The sheer political stupidity of the New Dems never ceases to amaze me.

  8. Some wonderfully moving videos to wake up to.

    Thanks for posting them, Admin and nomobama.

    I am not a Sarah Palin fan, but I respect her right to fight the good fight.

  9. Good article on how Obama gets even Keynes, whose economic policies he supposedly espouses, completely wrong:

    Didn’t Keynes advocate temporary deficit spending in a recession?

    Keynes wanted deficits to be cyclical and temporary. He wouldn’t have been in favor of efforts to raise tax rates in a recession to eliminate deficits. He viewed that as suicidal. He was opposed to the idea that governments should balance the budget during a downturn, and advocated running short-term deficits to spur the economy.

    The type of stimulus he advocated was very specific. He said it should be geared towards increasing private investment. He viewed private investment, as opposed to big government spending, as the source of durable job creation.

    This is what I don’t get about Obama’s economic plan. The private sector drives permanent job creation, period. Yes, I know that state and federal employees need to be retained (though perhaps not so many as we think, and not at wages far above the private sector.) But the entire focus of Obama’s plans does seem to be all about propping up and even expanding govt, jobs, while doing NOTHING to stimulate the private sector.

  10. We must be careful not to let the media define what is acceptable argument and what is not. Too often, they establish the boundaries of the debate, and any discourse that falls outside that realm is deemed ipso facto wrongheaded, irrational, extreme and the like.

    Who the fuck are they to make such judgments? I will tell you exactly who they are. They are like a bunch of high school brats who decide what is cool and what is not, who is in the in group and who is not and half the time they are wrong. They not only want to control the parameters of debate, but they also want to say when the issue is settled typically their way. And they want to attack the out group like in the movie Carrie.

    This analysis explains why they deploy such strategems as sexism against Sarah and Hillary. It also tells why they vilify t people who raise Constitutional objections to his citizenship, after he has posted a false birth certificate, spent $1.7 million in attorney fees to avoid producing the real, and continues to act defensive about the issue. And, it explains why they tried to kill the tea party movement at its inception by labeling them ignorant, racist and nazi until FOX took up the cudgel and gave them legitimacy. Now they are too big to ignore, ergo the attacks will be less direct and more nuanced.

    I used to know an attorney who went to high school in Talahase Florida during the late 1950s. I can only imagine it was a Happy Days kind of environment where the social order was well established and everyone either conformed in which case they were part of the in group or they did not in which case they were pariahs. Then one fine day a Navy family moved into town and the daughter showed up in the high school. She dressed different, wore jewelry and was a direct threat to the established order. The status quo attacked her, but she formed her own in group and eventually they had to accept her.

    The threat passed when she went to New York to pursue a career in acting. Her name was Faye Dunaway.

    If I could see great virtue emanating from the in group who runs big media today, I might be perpared to overlook some of their minor transgressions, but not the ones we are talking about here. But I see no virtue and no honor in these people. None. The only thing I see is a bunch of people like Chuck Todd, who are phony, materialistic and petty vindictive. The welfare of this country, and the fate of the middle class are the furthest thing from their minds. What they fear most is someone who marches into their little glass menagerie and alters the balance of power. That is what Hillary and Sarah would do. It is why they want to destroy them.

  11. I don’t know if that blockquote worked, but I want to say how happy I was to read what you wrote today. It says exactly what I believe. I don’t understand why people like Jeri Thompson say the dirty old men need only be respectful of conservative women. Is she really saying that it is alright to attack liberal or “other” women? I can only think they have not suffered from sexism and misogyny enough, but I also fear what Sarah Palin and her family will suffer before THEY have had enough. And really, besides showcasing how they fear Hillary Clinton it also demonstrates how shallow they are that they will put meager political gain above the best interest of women in general and therefore the country.

  12. What they fear most is someone who marches into their little glass menagerie and alters the balance of power.

    Truer words were never spoken, wbboei. The Village really has little to do with ideology, whether liberal or conservative. It has to do with THEM, and their position as the self-appointed lords of public discourse.

  13. Obama headed into shit territory fast. Look at this overall DISAPPROVAL now at 56%, amazing freefall in the last few days.

    The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Sunday shows that 26% of the nation’s voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty-three percent (43%) Strongly Disapprove which gives Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -17

    Overall, 44% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President’s performance. That matches the lowest level of overall approval yet measured for this president. Fifty-six percent (56%) now disapprove.

  14. I believe that this disrespect of women will only be won if the Village (meaning all Women)start making a stand together. What I would like to see is anytime a male takes a shot at women like that, they get a cream pie in their face. Now you can laugh about that, but how long before that behavior would result in a change. Immediate action is always the best, and no one has ever been hurt by a cream pie, but they really look stupid, and that is the image immediately that must be gotten across.

    Unless we make them look stupid immediately, I think we will take a long time to change.

    Any other ideas out there????

    The apologies comes way too late, and it does not look like anyone gets fired for making those statements.

  15. What you see below is the truth. It is what we are dealing with. Obama is an ideologue. Compromise equates to surrender. The economic condition of the country means nothing. The state of the world means nothing. The hopes, aspiration and vital interests of the American People mean zilch. There is only Obama and his agenda. And it is not even his agenda. It is the agenda of the people who put him in there. That is the one constituency he serves, indeed the only one he cannot disappoint or let down. He will use the power of the State and the Chicago Machine and the Media to pulverize anyone and anything who stands in his path. He is the destroyer of worlds–or the world’s greatest fool–or a very sick man. Time will tell which.

    Dan Perrin @ Red State

    The Trillion Dollar President told flagging Dems at their Party pow-wow yesterday in D.C. that, as the LA Times reports, “trimming goals and postponing hard choices are the wrong approach,” and that “he would press ahead with his healthcare proposal and other pieces of his ambitious agenda.”

    President Obama blames lobbyists — apparently taking a page from the Luntz financial reform playbook — for his failure to launch.

    “It wasn’t me,” is what the Trillion Dollar President’s excuses sound like. He had a super majority in the U.S. Senate — until he and the other delusionals who will not listen made the Dem base so angry they voted a Republican Senator in from Massachusetts. He did not include the GOP in health care reform, energy reform and financial reform — and he is asserting that his Dem-only approach did not have anything to do with his legislative failures.

    In fact, his legislative failures are a result of his political failures. Obama is learning that governing is not like campaigning where you just stand there and speak and the crowds go wild. No. But he is being stubborn (I will not change course) and arrogant (I am right, you are wrong) and until he changes his attitude — train wrecks will be easier for the Dems to overcome than the incredibly damaging Obama Presidency. Especially on health care. But at least the snow in D.C. and the Superbowl provide a helpful distraction for the Dems — they need it.

  16. A Genius at work.I must say Hillary it truly is only you that can solve the greatest political error of our time.The election by fraud of an american President.

    —————————————————-Press Releases: Interview With CNN’s Candy Crowley for State of the Union
    Sun, 07 Feb 2010 08:47:57 -0600

    Interview With CNN’s Candy Crowley for State of the Union

    Washington, DC

    February 4, 2010


    QUESTION: First of all, thank you so much. It’s an honor to have you on this first show. I wanted to talk to you first about the past month. We have seen a would-be terrorist frighten a lot of people on a plane over Detroit, we have gotten Usama bin Ladin’s tape, and we have now been warned by the U.S. Government that it is certain that there will be an attempted attack on the U.S. or on Americans in the next one to six months. Is there a reason Americans should not look at that and think the risk factor is up?

    SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, Candy, first of all, congratulations on your new show. I really wish you well. You have a lot to contribute to Sunday morning television.

    I think what’s fair for Americans to think is that we have had a continuing threat from al-Qaida and related terrorist organizations over many years now. It hasn’t gone away. We have contained it. We’ve worked very hard to do so. But over the last six months, we have seen attacks foiled, people arrested and charged, so that you have to be constantly vigilant. And that’s what everybody working in this government at all levels attempts to do.

    In the last month, because of the high-profile attempt on the airplane, people’s attention became very focused. But a bin Ladin tape is nothing new; it comes and goes depending upon when he decides to do it. But I think it’s really important for people to just go along with their daily lives. I mean, you can’t be deterred or discouraged or fearful about what’s happening, and we just have to do everything we can to keep America safe.

    QUESTION: Can you give me a feel for is the risk higher, is al-Qaida stronger now than a year ago?

    SECRETARY CLINTON: It’s very difficult to make that kind of assessment because they’ve always been plotting against us. I was a senator from New York on 9/11. I was honored to serve the people of New York until I took this job. I thought about it every day. I got intelligence every day, somebody was thinking about that or we picked up information about a plot there. So to me, who has followed this very closely since 9/11, I don’t see them as stronger, but I see that they are more creative, more flexible, more agile. They evolve. They are, unfortunately, a very committed, clever, diabolical group of terrorists who are always looking for weaknesses and openings, and we just have to stay alert.

    QUESTION: If they’re more agile and more clever, are there more of them? And doesn’t that sort of add up to more risk?

    SECRETARY CLINTON: I don’t know if there are more of them. We have certainly degraded their capacity in Afghanistan and Pakistan. We know that. As the President said the other night, we have killed and captured a significant number of al-Qaida’s top leadership as well as people in the Taliban organizations in Afghanistan and Pakistan who cooperate with them.

    We see some new areas of threat emanating from Somalia and Yemen. But whether that’s now in the cumulative greater, or whether because the numbers in Afghanistan and Pakistan have decreased, it’s about the same but with the unfortunate fact that they are committed to killing and destroying innocent people in their own countries as well as around the world, including the United States.

    QUESTION: While we’re in that region, let me ask you about Afghanistan. U.S. troops cannot get out of there unless there is a stable Afghan Government. Hamid Karzai, as of this point, does not have a full cabinet. They are now trying to bring in not just foot soldiers, bring them back into the fold, not just Taliban foot soldiers, but some higher-ups. Do you have any doubt in your mind that Hamid Karzai can get his act together and put together a stable government?

    SECRETARY CLINTON: I think that the strategy that the United States and more than 44 countries are pursuing in Afghanistan obviously requires that we have a good partner in President Karzai and the Afghan Government. That doesn’t mean that we’ll always do what he wants or he will always do what we want, but we do expect to see a level of competency and capacity.

    QUESTION: Have you seen it?

    SECRETARY CLINTON: Yes, actually, there are areas of very positive cooperation. He may not have a full cabinet, but the cabinet members he has are people who many of us view as honest and effective, productive. We work with them on a daily basis – the defense minister, the finance minster – people who are really producing results for Afghanistan.

    I’ve spent a lot of time with President Karzai, most recently about a 90-minute one-on-one conversation in London. I think he has really stepped up since his second inaugural address. He laid out a roadmap there. He is trying to follow that roadmap. But I always remind myself that, what, five or six years into a new nation that has no history of democracy, let’s be realistic about the kind of support that this new government and the president needs. So I think we have to put this into a more balanced perspective. It’s neither as bad or as good, just like most of life and most of the situations I deal with around the world. And I think we have developed a much stronger understanding and partnership in the last year going forward.

    QUESTION: So no doubts that Karzai is the man to pull this together?

    SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, he is the president of the country and I very much respect the authority that he has. He has asked for help, most recently at the London conference, but he also has his own ideas, as do the Afghan people. So in any relationship with any country, think of some of our oldest allies like France or England, you’re not always going to get 100 percent agreement, but you work with the leaders and you work with the people. We’re not yet turning the corner, but we are sort of inching our way forward to being able to do so. So I think, on balance, we are in this with people and countries who are committed to the same outcome.

    QUESTION: Shall we leave the Karzai doubt question on the table?

    SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I mean, I don’t agree with any other single leader in the world. I mean, I don’t – I mean, obviously, we have a lot —

    QUESTION: I just think that’s a little different from are you a little worried that he’s not going to be able to pull this off. And I pursue it only because that’s the only way U.S. troops are going to get pulled out.

    SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, but see, I think that we have looked at President Karzai through a lens that is not rooted in reality. I mean, we do business with leaders all the time, some of whom are great American allies, that have a lot of questions raised about them. But we do an assessment: What’s in the best interest of America? What’s in our national security? What advances our interests and our values? What keeps Americans safe?

    And so why should we take one leader out and put him apart from all the other leaders we deal with and raise all those doubts, instead of saying, look, we’ve got work to do and we’re doing it. We are doing it day by day and I think we are making progress.


    QUESTION: I wanted to bring your attention to something that President Obama said in his inaugural a little more than a year ago: “We will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.” Has Iran unclenched its fist?


    QUESTION: How about North Korea?

    SECRETARY CLINTON: No, not to the extent we would like to see them. But I think that’s – that is not all to the story. Engagement has brought us a lot in the last year. Let’s take North Korea first and then we’ll go to Iran.

    In North Korea, when we said that we were willing to work with North Korea if they were serious about returning to the Six-Party Talks and about denuclearizing in an irreversible way, they basically did not respond in the first instance. But because we were willing to engage, we ended up getting a very strong sanctions regime against North Korea that China signed onto and Russia signed onto and right now is being enforced around the world.

    QUESTION: Did the extended hand of the U.S. help in any way that you can point to?

    SECRETARY CLINTON: It did. Because we extended it, a neighbor like China knew we were going the extra mile and all of a sudden said you’re not just standing there hurling insults at them, you’ve said all right, fine, we’re willing to work with them. They haven’t responded, so we’re going to sign on to these very tough measures.

    Similarly, in Iran, I don’t know what the outcome would have been if the Iranian Government hadn’t made the decision it made following the elections to become so repressive. But the fact is, because we engaged, the rest of the world has really begun to see Iran the way we see it. When we started last year talking about the threats that Iran’s nuclear program posed, Russia and other countries said, well, we don’t see it that way. But through very slow and steady diplomacy, plus the fact that we had a two-track process – yes, we reached out on engagement to Iran, but we always had the second track, which is that we would have to try to get the world community to take stronger measures if they didn’t respond on the engagement front.

    QUESTION: I want to turn to Haiti for a minute. We’re in there with a lot of people. They’re doing a lot of talking, and what they’re finding is Haitians saying we wish the American Government would come in here and take over because they don’t think their government is capable in the post-rescue period of rebuilding Haiti. What’s wrong with that idea?

    SECRETARY CLINTON: Candy, I’m very proud of what not only our country has done, both our military and particularly our civilians and our new USAID Administrator Raj Shah – everybody has just stepped up and performed admirably. So have other countries. This has been a global response. But the fact is there is a legitimate government with authority in Haiti despite the —

    QUESTION: A really weak government.

    SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, the fact is that we were working with them before the earthquake. One of my goals as Secretary of State, which the President agreed with, was for us to work with that government and try to help them implement a national development plan. And we had spent a lot of time on that. In fact, what’s so tragically ironic is that, literally, the night before the earthquake, on PBS there was a – the NewsHour had a long segment about the progress that was being made in Haiti under this very same government. Unfortunately, all of that was upended by the earthquake.

    What we’re doing along with our international partners is to work with the Haitian Government so that there is a mechanism for coordination. They have to be part of it because they have the legal authorities. Unless a government or a bunch of governments is going to occupy Haiti, which would have all kinds of very unfortunate implications, we have to help support the Haitian people and their government. There’s a lot of talk going on, a lot of conference calls flying back and forth, the trip that I made to Montreal for the conference, and I’m confident we’re going to come up with a system.

    QUESTION: UN envoy to Haiti, you may know, is Bill Clinton.


    QUESTION: I’m just curious how that works exactly. Does he give you reports? Does he call up and say, “Hello, Secretary of State?” (Laughter.) And really, who’s the boss here?

    SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, he was appointed, again, months and months ago and was working on the private sector. He had brought hundreds of business people from around the world to sign contracts to employ people in Haiti. And now he’s been asked by Secretary General Ban Ki-moon to continue and enhance his role because of the earthquake.

    He talks to the people who I work with. He doesn’t – it’s not me. It’s Raj Shah and Cheryl Mills and all the other teams.

    QUESTION: He doesn’t say, “Give me the big Kahuna here?” (Laughter.)
    SECRETARY CLINTON: No, I mean, he talks to people who are really working on this 24 hours a day. Obviously, we talk about it, too. We have a special place in our heart for Haiti, having gone there during our honeymoon many years ago. And it’s a place that is captivating. The people are so resilient and they deserve so much better than what they’ve gotten over their history. And I think Bill is committed, as I am, to doing everything we can.

    QUESTION: If you were to say to the American people this country is the most dangerous to Americans and to the U.S., where is that country?

    SECRETARY CLINTON: Candy, in terms of a country, obviously, a nuclear-armed country like North Korea or Iran pose both a real or a potential threat.

    QUESTION: And you’re convinced Iran has nuclear —

    SECRETARY CLINTON: No, no, no. But we believe that their behavior certainly is evidence of their intentions. And how close they are may be the subject of some debate, but the failure to disclose the facility at Qom, the failure to accept what was a very reasonable offer by Russia, France, and the U.S. through the IAEA to take their uranium, their low-enriched uranium and return it for their research reactor. I mean, there’s just – it’s like an old saying that if you see a turtle on a fencepost in the middle of the woods, he didn’t get there by accident, right? Somebody put him there. And so you draw conclusions from what you see Iran doing.

    But I think that most of us believe the greater threats are the transnational non-state networks, primarily the extremists, the fundamentalist Islamic extremists who are connected – al-Qaida in the Arab Peninsula, al-Qaida in Pakistan and Afghanistan, al-Qaida in the Maghreb. I mean, the kind of connectivity that exists. And they continue to try to increase the sophistication of their capacity, the attacks that they’re going to make. And the biggest nightmare that any of us have is that one of these terrorist member organizations within this syndicate of terror will get their hands on a weapon of mass destruction. So that’s really the most threatening prospect we see.


    QUESTION: When you look at the biggest success in the past year for the open hand, where is your – I mean, the Middle East is still pretty much a mess despite some really bright minds over there trying to work it out. We’ve talked about Iran and North Korea and others. Where is there success of specifically engagement?

    SECRETARY CLINTON: Again, I would say that this has been a very successful year for the following reasons. First, it’s almost hard to remember how poorly much of the world viewed the United States when President Obama came into office. And both his election and his persona, combined with the approach we took of seeking to find the basis for engagement on mutual respect and mutual interest, has really created a much more open, receptive atmosphere. We are working in many difficult situations in every continent, but I think we’re being received in a positive way, which gives us a better chance to find common ground.

    Now, I am fairly realistic about foreign policy, and countries don’t just give up what they view as their interests in order to make nice with you. It takes a lot of effort. But I really feel that the engagement was the first stage. We had to change the mindset of not just leaders but of their populations. We are moving toward a new nuclear arms treaty with Russia, something that has been a high priority with us. We have reset our relationship. The Russians have been very positive in discussions about sanctions on Iran and on many other important matters. I’m not sure that would have been predicted a year ago. We do have a very comprehensive engagement with India, with China, with other big countries, from South Africa to Turkey to Brazil, and we are working together on areas of mutual interest or where the United States can be a facilitator.

    So I think that when I look back on this past year, I see a lot of positive trends. Now, this year, 2010, has to be a year of implementing and building on the positive foundation that we’ve built.

    QUESTION: A quick question on healthcare, which seems to be stalled, which – and that’s probably the best we can say about it. Are you getting a little déjà vu watching this? (Laughter.)

    SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, it’s really hard. It is a complex issue that touches everybody about which both people and interests have really strong feelings. But I haven’t given up yet and I know the White House hasn’t given up and I don’t think a lot of the members of Congress have given up, so I’m not sure that this last chapter has been written.

    QUESTION: Have you called anybody on the Hill or have you talked to the White House? Are you dispensing the wisdom of your time trying to figure this out?

    SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, when I’m asked, I am very happy to respond. I mean, it’s not anything I have direct responsibility for, but I’ve had a number of conversations and both in the White House and on the Hill and with others who are playing a constructive role. And I, like I think many Americans, hope that there can be a positive outcome.

    QUESTION: So I want to do a quick lightning round with you. First of all, Colts or the Saints?

    SECRETARY CLINTON: Oh, I don’t answer football questions because, to be honest, I don’t follow it. Now, if my husband were sitting here, he would give you a very long exegesis as to why one team was better than the other, but I’ll just leave it to see what happens at the Super Bowl.

    QUESTION: In between talking about Haiti, he doesn’t say I need you to root for —

    SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, no, because neither of them are our teams. I mean, there’s not a New York team. I mean, so we’re just interested observers.

    QUESTION: Who are watching the game with or are you on the phone with foreign leaders?

    SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, if they call me, I’m on the phone with them. Otherwise, it’ll be my family.

    QUESTION: And finally, just as the mother – recently the mother of a groom, as the mother of the bride, have you found that dress yet?

    SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, if you don’t tell anybody, Candy, we’re still looking. Yeah, and it’s a new status for me being an MOTB, but I’m very proud to have that status.

    QUESTION: Good luck on the search. That’s all I have to say. As you know, it’s —

    SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you. But your son – you didn’t have to go buy a dress, so that’s good. That was not part of —

    QUESTION: Exactly. So no Chelsea dress either.

    SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I don’t have a dress yet, no, and Chelsea doesn’t either. But we’re working on it.

    QUESTION: Well, good luck. And do you think it’s – which is harder, Middle East peace or negotiating this wedding? (Laughter.)

    SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I’d probably call it a draw about now. (Laughter.)

    QUESTION: Well, good luck with both, actually.


    QUESTION: I really appreciate your being here.

    SECRETARY CLINTON: And good luck to you.

    QUESTION: Thank you so much. I appreciate it.

    SECRETARY CLINTON: You’re welcome.

  17. There is a theme which runs through old Hollywood movies of the western genre. It begins with a town where there is no law. A town where drunken cowboys, train robbers and gunslingers rule the roost. A town where law abiding citizens are not safe. After a death or two, the town leaders are moved to hire a lawman (translation: a licensed killer of men) to come to their town and eliminate the problem. One day he rides into town from nowhere. Initially, the lawman is greeted as the salvation of the town. The law abiding citizens are elated. The men give him respect, the women bring him cakes and one of the young ladies takes a romantic interest in him. But as he settles in and begins doing his appointed work, the townspeople see a side of him they did not recognize before. He brings in his cronies and he lays down the law His methods are brutal and violent. Eventually, there comes a point where he becomes the bad guy. The townspeople want him to leave but by now he likes the power and has become entrenched. After the bad guys are driven out of town, he turns his attentions to the townspeople and becomes a dictator. The problem for the townspeople then becomes how to get rid of him.

    That is the dilema which the country and the party must face the sooner the better. Obama was brought in to do the bidding of certain interests we have talked about before, and you either believe this or you do not. But from the perspective of the electorate, a majority believed saw him as the lawman who would bring order and drive the lobbyists and Iraq subcontractors–the lawless element out of town. He promised them safety, redemption and a quiet peaceful life. He has breached that promise. He has seized the levers of power, brought in his own cronies and continued the old ways. Like the townspeople in the western motif some of the people who brought him in have begun to figure this out. Others continue to see him in a romantic light. The enduring problem is how do we get rid of him within the boundaries of the law.

  18. Just on Fox, according to the pundits the tea party movement is going to work thru the republican party to cull the RINO’s. If thats all they want to do, then what happened to the democrats in the movement. There was some in that movement and I don’t think they would ever go that far right. I do think they are using the Reagan meme to get the Reagan democrats in, but I still don’t think they can retain them especially the talking heads like Rush and Beck keep bombasting Bill and Hillary. The Reagan democrats are the Clinton dems.

    Admin: I guess this is what you are doing in cleaning out the mobsters in the party, we just don’t have a name. The republicans want to clean out the centrists, but I don’t think we are working in that fashion, we want to clean out the far left here. Correct me if I am wrong.

  19. The Obama lovers have every reason to be deathly afraid of Sarah Pailin. She throws a punch more effectively than any pol I’ve seen. I mean what other politician would walk up to podium and ask, straight out, “So, how’s this hopey changey stuff working out for you…” And, everyone in America knows exactly what she means. It’s vicious. It’s brutal.

    Or calling him, “just another charismatic guy with a teleprompter….”

    She is going to slice and dice Obama like a whole set of ginzu knives.

  20. Hwc, what Palin says is brutal and on target – what should have been said during the primary and general election campaigns. Some on the Dimocratic Left however purposefully confuse telling the brutal truth with being a “mean girl”. Via the Confluence, Joan Walsh:

    Wow. This was the Palin we saw at the 2008 Republican convention, the snarling pitbull in shimmery lipstick. I know journalists aren’t supposed to use words like mean and dumb, but I can’t help it. Palin is one of the meanest people on the public stage today. She wallows in it. She loves it! Also? Possibly one of the dumbest. But mean works, and so does dumb. And so do lies, and there were many mean, dumb lies in her speech.

  21. I can’t even begin to say what I will think of people calling Sarah a “mean girl”, OMG, how mean was the “ONE”, dusting off his shoulder, scratching his cheek with his middle finger, calling Hillary “annie Oakley”. The politics Sarah used against Obama last night was the very same politics Obama used against Hillary Clinton in the primary. I think she was wise to use the very same rhetoric as he did.

  22. Why is it that when men use hard ball politics they are political genius’s, when a woman uses them they are called “mean”?

  23. Admin: I went over to Riverdaughter to see what you were talking about.
    Now I have put two and two together and realized that this is the second on one of the 24 hr news stations that the station has used another woman to attack the female politician.
    So the big boys that own the stations and run the stations realize they screwed by all the misogny used against Hillary and Palin, so now the are getting their female pundits to do the work. I for one am not that stupid, I know they still want to say the things they want about women, their just going to have women to do it.

  24. NMF, It is starting all over again, I am so pist off right now I can’t see straight. If the Msnbc and the Fox news thinks we are going to put up with women using misogny against another women who just happens to work for the misognistic network of 08′, forget about it we won’t and we will call you out on it.

    The all boys club is stupid if they think we won’t be able to see thru this.

  25. When Teddy Kennedy said much “meaner” things, the Joan Walsh’s of Big Media called it a “tub-thumper”, a “red meat” speech. A woman does it and she is a “mean girl”. [which by the way is a movie we like and which aired on cable last night]

  26. still waiting, Per your post on the previous thread. Thankyou for your input and you are exactly right. There is no comparison between Hillary and Sarah, however Hillary also near the end of her campaign really came across as a populas as Sarah is/was. I think there is a real yearning for these kinds of politics in America.
    Thankyou for clarifying what Sarah accomplished in Alaska and where to look up more information. I will say that what you said about the democrats in Alaska helped her and then turned on her. This is what the democrats stand for. They use people and then stab them in the back. This is their mission statement.
    Democrats will work with you and get real things done, but when the time comes its a knife in the back. They did this to Hillary.
    Admin: I can’t think of anything that would turn the pundits and the station owner upside down is to have two women run against each other that were dead sit not to let the name calling in the campaigns. What would the talking heads talk about????
    I think both Sarah and Hillary would call out the pundits daily on their misogny. It would be music to my ears.

  27. I’d love to see Hillary and Sarah run against each other. I’d work hard for Hillary, of course, but I’d cheer no matter who won. And I’d really enjoy seeing all the political class and pundits heads explode!

  28. one of the biggest laughs I am having today…is seeing many of the left blogs EXPLODE and go crazy over Sarah might have used notes for her speech…OMG…

    wow…does she get to these people or what?

    this criticism of SP from the same people who do not seem to notice that their ‘guy’, the actual, real, President of the USA, cannot even speak in front of 6th graders without his mandatory teleprompter – the teleprompter that he reads everything from WORD FOR WORD…(he will have whiplash by the end of his term)

    so the usual hypocrites tear into SP bec she referred to her outline notes in a speech vs O, the prez, who reads every single word from a teleprompter, no matter if he is repeating the same speech ad nauseum or in front of 6th graders…

  29. On economic policy, I have never in my life been so frustrated. Trickle down does not work. Tax cuts do indeed, under certain circumstances, increase revenue – but not always and in every circumstance.

    Yes, the rich could indeed pay more taxes, and should. No, a policy that consists of nothing much but class warfare and “soak the rich” is not going to lead to prosperity. California has been doing that for awhile, and it sucks.

    What I long for is not more fervor in whipping up the masses for either faux-populist or slimily pro-business seizures of ideology. What I long for is simple common sense. What works. No, it is not guaranteed to work just because it makes you feel better to punish the wealthy. You can kill an economy that way. No, it is not guaranteed to work just because it allows “competition” and the pure capitalist running free free FREE I tell you! That system can and will be gamed by those with influence.

    I just want an honest assessment of where we are, and what things, comfortable and uncomfortable, need to be done to SOLVE the fucking PROBLEMS. I keep feeling like the only choice I’m given is “govt as corrupt lord and master” or “govt as detached powerless nonentity.”

    I could give a shit about Big or Small, can we fucking discuss EFFECTIVE???? Can we discuss BOTH the govt doing their goddamned job against abuses AND reasonable limits on their power? Or are both parties going to just continue down the lala road of fake dichotomous arguments using kneejerk buzzword terms that no one even agrees on?

    I want them to grow the fuck up, all of them. Just grow the fuck up already.

  30. Palin Derangement Syndrome is pretty entertaining. I think some of their heads might explode.

    I hope that the Obama press secretary fella (what’s his name, the dorky one, Gibbs?) gets asked question after question about Palin’s comments. He’ll lose it entirely.

    I’m guessing that Rachel Maddow has some serious Palin Derangement Syndrome and that Sally Quinn won’t be demanding Palin accept more Georgetown dinner party invitations.

  31. sally quinn creeps me out. must be the barbara stanwyck big valley-esque looks. who the heck is she, anyway? she is one of the favorite guests of imus.

  32. sally quinn creeps me out. must be the barbara stanwyck big valley-esque looks. who the heck is she, anyway? she is one of the favorite guests of imus.

  33. Sally Quinn married the Wash Post publisher Ben Bradlee. She believes that all the problems in Washington is caused by a decline in the proper use of fingerbowls at Georgetown dinner parties.

  34. Here’s the source of the Thomas Jefferson quotes I posted.

    h/ no w
    Satyrblade has good comments of his own in his post.

  35. H4T, Agreed, grow up, our country is going up in smoke and we’re doing the same freaking thing all over again. I am sick of Ronnie Raygun, gun, God and guns, but this administration sucks. I just can’t believe the masses are going for the the God, guns and taxes again. Like you said tricle down did not, will not work. Whatever the hell Bill did work. Lets re-institute his policies minus the throwing out the Glass-Steagle act.

    Words, words and more words and all the same coming out of the same old parties.

  36. Sarah may use the same talking points of the republicans I hate, but her record in Alaska kicking their butts speaks for itself. She has to toe the party line to be on the front line.

  37. 1. Mr. Obama never misses an opportunity to play the race card or some variation thereof in response to legitimate criticism of his eligibility, his character and/or his misdeeds.

    2. Focus group studies have shown that it is counterproductive to play the race card directly, but it still works if it is done with subtlety.

    3. So what does he do to fend off current attacks on his eligibility, his character and his anti-American agenda? He declares “it is okay to attack my politics, but not my religion or my politics.

    4. To most people that sounds reasonable. Why? Because Title 7 prohibits discrimination in employment and Title 9 prohibits discrimination in athletics based on those criteria, i.e. ” race, color, religion, national origin.

    5. Therefore what you are seeing is a master propagandist at work. He is bamboozling you. It is pure sophistry.

    6. He holds the position of president. Title 7 and Title 9 are irrelevant to that job. That position is governed by Article II of the Constitution. Citizenship is a requirement, and his own actions raised that issue. (See above).

    7. Religion is also relevant. Why? Because for 20 years his spiritual advisor was a man who screamed from the pulpit Goddam America, and blamed the world’s sins on white people.

    8. His religion goes to the issue of character. And it shows. Lest we forget, he is the one who has gone around the world condemning America and apologizing to his enemies. There is a nexus between what he believes and what he does.

    9. In sum, Obama’s religion and his citizenship are material and relevant to his job as president. If he does not want people to raise those issues then he should stop this verbal slight of hand crap and do the right thing: resign.

    10. And the American People should not be ashamed to connect the dots.

  38. Hwc, you should work at a diplomatic post. 😉

    Your ever so polite and understated “Quinn married Ben” smooths away so much unpleasantness. Your diplomatic skills steer us effortlessly and so dexterously from the topic of the wife at the time of good ol’ Ben. Sally, we are sure, smiles pleasantly your way now that we don’t relive those awkward memories of Sally’s, um, ‘courtship’ shall we say, of Mrs. Ben’s husband. The courtship after all was so “steerage compartment” but we are assured by Sally’s skill with the finger bowls.

    Thank you from the bottom of our hearts for not mentioning the horrid little details of how Sally, 20 years junior to Ben, climbed to the top of the social ladder – from mattress to mattress. Thank you for your refusal to question how a young attractive woman, who, by the very admission of her employer, had no skills as a secretary yet managed to avoid unemployment and indeed managed, no doubt through pluck and luck, to become the society page writer for the most important newspaper in the nation’s capital – while never before having written a word nor ever before having one of her words published. Caroline sends her thanks too.

    You’ll be invited to the next fingerbowl opportunity for your diplomatic silence. BTW, bring feathers and a tomahawk – Ben will be tickled because it will be a reminder that it was his illustrious ancestor, John Bradlee, who is credited with starting the Boston Tea Party – how ironic is that?

  39. Sally Quinn
    The latest incarnation of The Great Horizontal.

    Pamela Digsby Harriman–you have a successor.

  40. admin:

    Baaaa waaa haaaa haaaa. I can’t stop laughing thinking of Ms. Quinn or, for that matter, Ms. Russert who so much looks up to her.


    I was born on a thousand acres of Oklahoma land
    Nothing grew on the thousand acres for it was gravel and sand
    One day, father started digging in a field, hoping to find some soil
    He dug and he dug and, what do you think?
    Oil, oil, oil
    The money rolled in and I rolled out
    With a fortune piled so high
    Washington was my destination
    And now, who am I?

    I’m the chosen party giver
    For the White House clientele
    And they know that I deliver
    What it takes to make ’em gel
    And in Washington I’m known by one and all
    As the hostess with the mostest on the ball

    They would go to Mrs. Bradley’s
    When they had an axe to grind
    They could always grind their axe well
    At the parties she designed
    Now the hatchet grinders all prefer to call
    On the hostess with the mostest on the ball

    I’ve a great big bar and good caviar
    Yes, the best that can be found
    And a large amount in my bank account
    When election time comes round
    If you’re feeling presidential
    You can make it, yes indeed
    There are just three things essential
    Let me tell you, all you need
    Is an ounce of wisdom and a pound of gall
    And the hostess with the mostest on the ball

    Entertaining vodka drinkers
    Is a job they give to me
    Making nice guys out of stinkers
    Seems to be my cup of tea
    What they really need behind the iron wall
    Is the hostess with the mostest on the ball

    There’s a book of regulations
    As to who sits next to who
    But there might be complications
    When the blue blood’s not so blue
    So the priestess with the leastest protocol
    Is the hostess with the mostest on the ball

    An ambassador has just reached the shore
    He’s a man of many loves
    An important gent from the Orient
    To be handled with kid gloves
    He can come and let his hair down, ooh!
    Have the best time of his life
    Even bring his new affair down
    Introduce her as his wife
    But she mustn’t leave her panties in the hall
    Of the priestess with the leastest
    Nor the hostess with the mostest
    With the mostest on the ball

  42. Sally Quinn sure fits the bill of the Irving Berlin tune.

    With only one modification:

    She is “the priestess with the LEASTEST on the ball”

  43. Wbboei, you are much too uncharitable to Sally. Unlike, Hwc, you will not be invited to the next fingerbowl opportunity. So there!

    You forget yourself and you forget that Sally was in her teens when Ben decided to, um, take her under his wing and protect the little dear. So generous of Ben to think of the little tyke while his own wife stayed home with his two tykes. Just imagine, a powerful busy titan, friend to presidents, of such great blood lines, with so much work on his plate, but still he found time to nurse Sally’s career. Ben deserves a Nobel Prize. But in a way, we suppose that taking his trophy, Sally, home was a prize all by itself.

    We do sometimes wonder though if Sally in her dark moments equates her marriage, um, circumstances, as the cause for her child with Ben being born with defects. Perhaps, we sometimes wonder, as we pluck our pearls, Sally equates “defective” children as some sort of punishment from the fingerbowl god. That would explain Sally’s observations of Sarah Palin and her son Trig. In a way we suppose that maybe Sally equates “challenged” children as a curse from the fingerbowl gods and that leads her to try to instruct the, in her own mind, wayward Sarah. Such generosity from Sally! She is someone all who have fingerbowls should emulate and admire and yes, curtsy to.

    No fingerbowls for you!

  44. Admin: you were one of the prescient few who saw Obama’s acquisition of that 60th vote in the Senate as a curse rather than a blessing. I agreed with your assessment.

    As usual you were right. He has been damaged in two respects:

    1. first, he has no cover for his massive legislative failures. He tries to blame the Republicans, but his own party and the country know that is lame. The problem is him.

    2. second, the funny man who gave him the 60th vote–Senator Franken, is the same man who is now ripping Obama, Axelgrease (hereinafter Grease) and the White House a new one for what? For failure to provide vision, clarity and leadership.

    And so Barack as they say, never wish for anything too much because you may have the misfortune of getting it, towit:
    Moe Lane at Red State today–

    Well, everybody’s turning – Congress is at 18/78 approval/disapproval, which makes you wonder about the four percent who can’t make up their minds – but the Democrats have gone from 45% to 30% in a month, which … well, is this not a pretty graph?

    Particularly that 15 point drop among Democrats, which is not so much a drop as a ‘dive.’ Unfortunately, the nature of graphs such as these cannot convey a sense of a tumbling, end-over-end, unpowered fall; not that I’m suggesting that anything happened in the last month that might have caused a catastrophic engine failure for the Democratic party.

    Moe Lane

    PS: For those Democrats wondering why no-one in their party leadership doesn’t seem to want to embrace this as evidence that Congressional Democrats should embrace the President’s agenda… look at the graph of independent support. It’s been eroding over the last year… and started to steadily erode once the Democrats acquired their super-majority in July 2009. For many Congressional Democrats, this is the only job that they’ve ever known; they get twitchy when people suggest strategies that might end up forcing them to actually have to work for a living.

  45. Admin: I shall assuage my grief over the deprivation of access, influence and finger bowls at those oh so special parties with the certain knowledge that when Sally’s fore bearers came to the colonies on the Mayflower, the ships log records that they booked passage in steerage with the rest of the rats and vermin. Another variation on the timeless theme that I knew her before she was a virgin. I suspect that during the Revolutionary War her people sided with the Tories. If so, then I can only hope that General Dan Morgan paid them a visit, because he took a dim view of traitors or slackers.

  46. admin:

    You didn’t add the part about Ben Bradlee being a pal of JFK and finding the diary of his sister-in-law in which she wrote about sleeping with JFK dozens of times in the White House and smoking pot in the White House with the President….

    Here’s a wonderful take-down of Ms. Quinn having the nerve to complain about Sarah Palin not putting family first and the whole sordid Quinn tale:

    Who Is Sally Quinnn?

  47. wobbei:

    But, the last laugh on the Stuart Smalley story is that Axelrod doesn’t give a cat’s ass what Franken thinks. Franken became a nobody the day that Scott Brown was elected as did (and it couldn’t happen to a nicer guy) Arlen Spector. Nobody is going to kiss the ass of the 59th vote.

  48. But, the last laugh on the Stuart Smalley story is that Axelrod doesn’t give a cat’s ass what Franken thinks. Franken became a nobody the day that Scott Brown was elected as did (and it couldn’t happen to a nicer guy) Arlen Spector. Nobody is going to kiss the ass of the 59th vote.
    Correct. 100% correct. And that is an opening. Hillary campaigned for Franken. I doubt that Barack did. I am a former Democrat and a former Republican. My only political loyalty is to Hillary and to this country. As far as I am concerned the two are synonymous. Anyone of any political stripe who sees it that way is my friend and ally. That includes Franken. If Hillary decides not to run–I mean when it counts, then I will cast my fate with Newt. He will be the guy–I am convinced of it. They have people who could make Grease look like a dummy. And if we are in bad enough shape as a country as I am afraid we will be, then experience and problem solving ability will be the litmus test.

    Finally, Grease is an idiot. He craves the camera. He forgets the lesson of the Gambino Family. Carlo Gambino stayed back in the shadows, Gotti got out in the spotlight. Carlo died at home in his bed. Gotti died at Joliette Federal Prison.

  49. Ahhch, Hwc, you cut us to the quick. Cease and desist with those memories – after all you don’t want to accidentally bring up the murder and CIA’s Angleton -that’s were the real interest lies after all, not with whom JFK slept.

    Put down that fingerbowl!

  50. Specter is showing all the signs of Alzheimers. Red State:

    Get yourself a glass of something nice before you start in on the article: it’ll heighten the enjoyment.

    Even as he accepted the resounding backing of the Pennsylvania Democratic state committee here Saturday, party-switching Sen. Arlen Specter’s vulnerability was on vivid display as he botched the name of a key Democratic officeholder in his acceptance speech.

    “I’ll be fighting hard for the entire Democratic ticket. Senator Andy. . . Andy . . .” Specter said, before pausing briefly, squinting his eyes.

    “From Chester County,” he continued, losing his train of thought after clinching an emphatic 229-72 U.S. Senate endorsement vote from party regulars just minutes earlier.

    “Dinniman,” the crowd responded almost in unison, referring to the state senator who represents West Chester. One committeeman seated in the audience dropped his head and shook it.

    This should be an entertaining primary: Joe Sestak has 5.1 million dollars to play with, and is inclined to spend it – both because he wants the nomination, and because by now there must be at least a little desire for Blue-on-Blue revenge on Sestak’s part. (snip).

    Moe Lane

  51. admin @8:12

    This is why I eschew fingerbowls. God only knows where they’ve been. Hydrangea scent can cover some nasty microbes.

  52. In Act III of the western discussed above there is dramatic tension which I did not delve into.

    In Act I there was no law and order. Life was just a snort’n sport’n spree.

    In Act II: the law abiding townspeople bring in the sheriff and everyone sees him as their savior.

    In Act III: they see him operate and soon realize he is not what they thought he was.

    But then they realize this they have different interpretations of his actions. Some say what he is doing is no better than what was going on before. Others say, no we must give him more time and he will do right by us.

    More time is given, and then he does something which causes people to revisit the issue. Now they all agree the cure is worse than the disease. The question is what to do about it.

    Some say let’s give him more time and see what happens. If we pull the plug on him now we will all look stupid. Others say no, he has betrayed our values, and it will get worse if we let it go.

    That is where we are right now. His supporters are divided. The independents have peeled off.

    The townspeople who wanted to have law and order do not decide one day that the Sheriff they hired is no good. Rather, they go through a process

  53. He is throwing dims under the bus because he wants a republican house to run against in 2012. Red State:
    Powerless, lackadaisical, aimless remarks by POTUS re the jobless report Friday 5. What is the “hot air” remark? POTUS tries defensive sarcasm at half-speed. And the claims that losing 22k jobs (January estimate) compares well to the losing of 800k jobs last January 2009 is both cynical and ignorant. The long term jobless stats (below) are discouraging and ominous. The confused media reporting of a jobless rate that appears to improve to 9.7% while the month shows a loss of jobs does not help the day’s summary. The economy is glum.

    POTUS has been told by Axelrod that there is a storm building in the Democratic majority. The professional campaign ops are telling their candidates to hold on. What is the pay-off? Have Axelrod and POTUS decided to throw the Democratic majorities under the bus? Have they decided that POTUS improves as a candidate if he is running for re-election against a Republican House and a comatose and Harry-Reidless Senate? Does POTUS welcome the victim of the villainous GOP scenario? Strange, listless performance by POTUS on the weekend of the exuberant Tea Party Convention – the After Obamatantion — in Memphis. Speaking to John Avlon, author, “Wingnuts,” on Sunday 7, re the energy of the Tea Party. Eight million jobless creates the energy for creative politics. Who is Huey Long? Who is Wendell Willkie? Where is Fala?

  54. The Clinton Voters Jump Ship
    Obama’s shrinking base.

    The conventional wisdom is that Barack Obama’s decline in the polls represents a new, unexpected turn against him. But an examination of the results of the recent elections in Virginia, New Jersey, and Massachusetts suggests that what we might really be seeing is a return to the skepticism that significant portions of the electorate have showed about Obama from the beginning of his national career.

    For six months during the 2008 primaries, Obama and Hillary Clinton crisscrossed the country wooing voters. Obama consistently failed to win over important parts of the Democratic base, even after it became clear that he was going to be his party’s nominee.

    “In state after state, we have seen Obama do extraordinarily well in academic and state capital enclaves. In state after state, we have seen Clinton do extraordinarily well in enclaves dominated by Jacksonians.”

  55. Watch this one closely. It may die or it may take on a life of its own. I know a guy who was a member of the 9/11 commission who is a great American, a proven leader and someone who was committed to supporting the Administration even though he was a member of the other party. He did what they all should do and put party affiliation aside and focused on what he believed was best for the country.

    But when the Detroit bomber incident arose he strongly criticized the Administration not for the partisan reasons but because the Administration was not protecting the nation. One of the things he mentioned was that this guy Brennan is a good intelligence officer and is being compromised by this Administration. I gather he knew him in a prior life. That comment may explain why Brennan is trying to implicate the Republicans. He claims he briefed Kit Bond R-MO), who is very credible and maintains this did not happen. Something is rotten here.

    Beyond that however, Erickson is right. Obama has managed to wave a red flag in front of the bull, at a time when he need Republican support. This does not bode well for the cause of bi partisanship–even when you are a messiah like he is.
    Erick Erickson at Red State:

    If Barack Obama hoped to calm people down over the panty-bomber incident, he just failed massively. Sunday morning, White House Counterterrorism Chief John Brenan tried to get the Republicans to share in the blame.

    Not only did it not work, but the Republicans are coming forward to say Brennan is totally full of it and are mad as all get out.

    John Brennan went on Meet the Press and told David Gregory he briefed four Republicans and then said, “I explained to them that he was in FBI custody. That Mr. Abdulmatallab was in fact talking, that he was cooperating at that point. They knew that ‘in FBI custody’ means that there’s a process then you follow as far as Mirandizing and presenting him in front of the magistrate.”

    He then accused the GOP of playing politics with national security.

    There is just one problem.

    The four Republicans have come forward. One said the “briefing” so casual and short that it was not even on a secure phone line and reported no information not already known.

    Perhaps worse for Brennan, Senator Kit Bond (R-MO) said Brennan never mentioned mirandizing the terrorist and, despite Brennan’s assumption that mirandizing the bomber was implied by saying the FBI was holding him, none of the Republicans briefed thought the White House would actually be stupid enough to do that.

    Instead of making the GOP run the other way and drop the issue, the White House just waved a red flag in front of a charge bull.

  56. wbboei, from a comment on that Erickson piece:

    When Brenan accuses Republicans of playing politics with national security all he is really doing is saying No I’m not …you are” like a twelve year old. Does he really want to have this matter settled out in the open…..?
    Shouldn’t someone like him be invisible and not out in the press picking fights with U.S. Senators in public….?
    Who now I ask is the one playing politics ? While I do sometimes expect that politics may be played by an actual politician why then is Brenan trying to do it ?
    Doesn’t he have more important things to do ?

    Why is it every time I turn around there is an Obama official picking a fight with someone but yet somehow the President goes on T.V. and lectures the rest of us about the hostile tone in Washington…?


    This is exactly Obama’s MO from the primaries. Send his nasty little minions out to attack, then stand above the “fray” (that he created) and tut-tut and lecture on how nasty politics is. This STINKS of Axelrod.

    The problem is that while you can get away with running a campaign that dirty way, you cannot get away with governing that way. Senior administration officials have an actual job to do – they are not campaign lackeys. The People begin to find the lack of professionalism and decorum downright embarrassing. You are POTUS. You do not take pot shots at the supreme court, you do not throw the secret service under the bus to protect your wife’s girlfriend social secretary, you do not have the head Intelligence guy pick petty partisan fights for you. This is not a campaign. You are supposed to be governing.

    Getting away with being a classless vindictive low-rent gutter snipe is one thing in a campaign. It is quite another when you are president.

  57. Assume for purposes of discussion that Brennan advised the Republicans that the the suspect was being held by the FBI– but did not tell them he was being Mirandaized. Then later on he claimed they were advised about it:

    1. did Brennan lie about this on his own recognizance? That is a possibility, since he knew what the reaction would be. If it became an issue then he could say they failed to appreciate the ramifications of the FBI holding the suspect, namely that he would be Mirandized. If so then he is a coward.

    2. did Brennan lie at the behest of the Administration? That seems more likely in view of my friend’s statement, i.e. that the Administration was abusing a fine intelligence officer. If so then this was most likely an attempt at damage control. They were already in trouble over the breach of security, fully intended to implement the policy of treating terrorists like American citizens in terms of choice of forum. If so then they are deceitful, and stupid.

  58. HillaryforTexas: thank you. I missed copying that and it is damned important. I agree with you. I think it is door 2.

    By the way, I do not know if I asked. Where did you work in the primary? I was in El Paso. My district director was a former writer for the Boston Globe. The precincts I was assigned to were Hispanic and went over 90% for Hillary. The only place we had trouble was at one of the high school gymnasiums, where the state party officials could not understand that stupid Texas 2 step procedure, and refuse to open the doors at 7 pm-or whenever the appointed time was. The bots were waiting to vote, they tore the door off the gym building door and by the time I got there six squad cars appeared.

    Nice people those bots. You read Pacific Johns report on the voter fraud and intimidation by bots in El Paso. If not, and you are interesting I can post it for your reading enjoyment.

  59. I was here in San Antonio, wbboei – no big problems here. SA went big for Hillary. I can remember one day in a very poor hispanic neighborhood, a lady came to the door soaking wet in a robe – she was in the BATHTUB, but got so excited to see Hillary canvassers at her door, she jumped out and came to get a yard sign.

    I know other cities in TX the Bots were awful, but SA shut them out, pretty much.

  60. What is with The One never wearing a tie now? Does he really think this makes him look like “a man of the people”?

    Is he back on the blow and going for the Miami Vice Don Johnson look?

    Too stupid to chew nicotine gum and tie a tie at the same time?

    What gives?

  61. HillaryforTexas:

    That’s right. You told me before. I asked you about The Dominion.

    It all comes back to me now.

    Is it Randy Travis or Garth Brooks who has the home on the course?

    I prefer the prior generation of country western stars.

    They are gone now and I cannot relate to the current stars.

  62. What is with The One never wearing a tie now? Does he really think this makes him look like “a man of the people”?

    Is he back on the blow and going for the Miami Vice Don Johnson look?

    Too stupid to chew nicotine gum and tie a tie at the same time?

    What gives?
    I think your explanation is the most likely one–too stupid to chew and tie at the same time. But there are other possibilities as well. For example:

    1. He assumes where there are no ties there will be no necktie parties–for pols who govern badly, or-

    2. He believes that a $5000 Saville Row silk suit without a tie– is going casual, or-

    3. He was hard pressed to refuse a corpse man who begged to be buried with Barry’s tie around his neck.

  63. This is exactly Obama’s MO from the primaries. Send his nasty little minions out to attack, then stand above the “fray” (that he created) and tut-tut and lecture on how nasty politics is. This STINKS of Axelrod.
    Axelrod is in real trouble. He knows no more about governing that Obama does. He is a campaign director. He has a revolt on his hands within the party. He made a serious mistake in Massachusetts, Virginia and New Jersey. He failed to get health care passed, and indeed it was his unholy deal with Big Pharma that sunk the ship. He is losing control of the Media. He cannot blame his debacle on the other party because he had 60 votes and could not get it done. So he sends Brennan out on a suicide mission, to bait the republicans and say things that are demonstrably untrue. He is kidding himself. Its Waterloo.

  64. It is too bad that Newt is not in Congress now. He is the right one to confront the lying Obama. He is a faster thinker than Obama. He deals in specifics whereas Obama deals in vague generalities. He is an innovative policymaker whereas Obama steals his material from others. Newt is under control whereas Obama is out of control. If health care is to go on C-Span that is who the Republicans should get to represent their position. Obama would be sliced and diced before he could spit figuratively speaking. I have watched the two of them often enough to know how it would turn out. Hillary won 24 of the 25 debates against Obama and Newt would achieve a similar record against the lying fraud. No doubt about it.

  65. Admin: Here yah go, he quit. LOL!! He even quit at a bar, only in Chicago does this happen.

    By KAREN HAWKINS, Associated Press Writer Karen Hawkins, Associated Press Writer – Sun Feb 7, 10:39 pm ET
    CHICAGO – The Democratic nominee for Illinois’ lieutenant governor dropped out of the race Sunday night, less than a week after winning the nomination, amid a political uproar about his past.

    Announcing his decision at a Chicago bar packed with patrons watching the Super Bowl, a tearful Scott Lee Cohen said the Democrats were not certain they could win with him on the ticket. He said he was stepping down because he did not want to jeopardize the Democratic Party ticket.

    “This is the hardest thing that I ever had to do in my life,” he said before choking up with sobs.

    Since Cohen won the Democratic nomination on Tuesday, it has become widely known that he was accused of abusing his ex-wife and holding a knife to the throat of an ex-girlfriend — a woman who was herself charged with prostitution. He also admits using steroids in the past.

    “For the good of the people of the state of Illinois and the Democratic Party, I will resign,” Cohen said in a rambling remarks made as the Super Bowl halftime entertainment blared in the background.

    The revelations about Cohen’s past came as Illinois was starting to move on from the scandals of ousted Gov. Rod Blagojevich.

    Democratic Gov. Pat Quinn, who inherited the job after Blagojevich’s ouster following federal corruption charges, would have been paired with Cohen on the November ticket. Quinn, U.S. Rep. Danny Davis and Sen. Dick Durbin all had urged Cohen to leave the race.

    Quinn said Cohen had “made the right decision for the Democratic Party and the people of Illinois.

    “Now we can continue to focus our efforts on putting our economy back on track and working to bring good jobs to Illinois,” the governor said in a written statement.

    Surrounded by his sons, his fiancee and her son, Cohen apologized to his family, his supporters and anyone he may have let down.

    “All I ever wanted to do was to run for office and to help the people, not to cause chaos, that was never my intention,” Cohen said.

    Until his nomination, Cohen was a political unknown. Democratic leaders had not considered him a threat to win and didn’t highlight his past during the campaign.

    Cohen’s resignation from the ticket means state party leaders can replace him on the ballot.

    “Now we can move on to find a strong replacement,” said Steve Brown, spokesman for the Illinois Democratic chairman, House Speaker Michael Madigan.

    Cohen, a pawnbroker and owner of a cleaning products distribution company, ran against several veteran politicians, spending $2 million — mostly his own money — on his campaign, more than twice as much as all his opponents combined. He gained strong name recognition with a flurry of advertising featuring people who said they got jobs at employment fairs he held.

    The location and timing for Sunday’s announcement — a heated beer garden at a Chicago bar during the Super Bowl — perplexed some patrons who were trying to watch the New Orleans Saints take on the Indianapolis Colts.

    “It’s a way to grab some headlines I guess,” said 53-year-old Rick Kokonas wearing a New Orleans T-shirt.

    Cohen was arrested in 2005 on domestic battery charges for allegedly pushing his then-girlfriend, Amanda Eneman, against a wall and holding a knife to her throat. The charges were dropped when she failed to show up for a court date. He has denied the allegations and called that relationship tumultuous.

    Eneman had issued a statement Saturday through her attorney saying that, based on her observations and Cohen’s behavior during their relationship, she “does not believe that he is fit to hold any public office including that of lieutenant governor.”

    Cohen said Eneman’s statement did not affect his decision.

  66. Geez, its getting hot for Blago, his lawyers just keep quitting on him. Sounds like Rezko is talking, all this since the senate seat was lost in MA.

    Tribune staff reporters

    In the wake of one of the most sweeping public-corruption indictments in Illinois history, former Gov. Rod Blagojevich faces a legal landscape in which his former friends are turning against him, his wife remains in the cross hairs of federal prosecutors and his team of attorneys is again in disarray.

    In short, his plan to fight charges that he ran state government as a criminal enterprise for most of the decade has become a seemingly steep uphill climb.Late Friday afternoon, Blagojevich lost a leading criminal-defense lawyer for the second time since his December arrest, as veteran attorney Terence Gillespie said he was bowing out, citing a conflict of interest. Gillespie was hired months ago to assist in the defense of indicted Springfield power broker William Cellini, so when prosecutors on Thursday added Blagojevich’s case to Cellini’s pending indictment, it forced Gillespie’s hand.

    “I never had imagined the Cellini matter would be joined up with the Blagojevich case,” Gillespie said.

    Attorney Edward Genson, Gillespie’s partner, left the case this year amid Blagojevich’s publicity blitz, saying he could not continue because the former governor was not listening to his advice.

    The move once again leaves the ex-governor in legal limbo and in need of a top-flight trial lawyer.

    It comes on the heels of Thursday’s indictment and disclosures that three of his former chiefs of staff — onetime Blagojevich friends John Wyma and Alonzo “Lon” Monk as well as John Harris — are expected to cooperate with the government.

    In addition, former top fundraiser and Blagojevich insider Antoin “Tony” Rezko has started providing prosecutors with detailed information about what prosecutors have termed the “Blagojevich Enterprise.” And former Deputy Gov. Bob Greenlee is cooperating as well.

    Their testimony will be key as the government tries to provide an insider’s view of how the top aides allegedly brought in campaign cash and kickbacks by trading everything from appointments to boards and commissions to the awarding of state business and even the appointment of a U.S. senator.

    Legal experts said Thursday’s indictment made it clear prosecutors are far from finished investigating the case.

    “I think this is a highlight, but this indictment is by no means the end of this,” said former prosecutor Ronald Safer, now a defense lawyer who once fielded federal subpoenas on behalf of the governor’s office.

    “There’s a whole infrastructure in state government that supported what’s in these allegations, and I think prosecutors will continue to investigate that,” he said.

    Unlike some recent corruption cases that centered on the somewhat esoteric legal theory that the public is entitled to honest services from elected officials, the Blagojevich charges included “old-fashioned, use-your-office-to-put-money-in-your-pocket graft,” Safer noted.

    The indictment said one of the ways that happened was that co-schemer Rezko steered bogus real estate contracts to Blagojevich’s wife, Patricia. Investigators had long probed whether such work was a way for insiders to provide the former governor’s family with illicit cash.

    Sources have said the grand jury spent significant time recently looking at such deals, and the indictment made it clear Patricia Blagojevich remains in legal jeopardy.

    Many have speculated the government has not yet charged Patricia Blagojevich in a strategic move to offer Rod Blagojevich the chance to spare her by pleading guilty and avoiding a trial. Others have said they think sparing Patricia Blagojevich could be viewed as a good public-relations move because prosecutors do not want to appear to be threatening to take both parents from the Blagojevich children.

    Safer said he believes any offer to cut the former governor’s wife a deal would be made only after Patricia Blagojevich was charged. It may be that prosecutors still are building that part of the case.

    Former prosecutor Dean Polales agreed, saying that to charge her, prosecutors would have to show she was a knowing participant in a corrupt act. Just receiving the money from Rezko isn’t enough, he said.

    “Paying somebody to do a job and giving them benefits and making their lives easier out of friendship isn’t a crime,” Polales said.Polales, who now focuses on white-collar criminal defense at Ungaretti & Harris, said Patricia Blagojevich was highlighted in the indictment because it is important to prove the governor was receiving favors as part of his alleged corrupt relationship that allowed Rezko to have vast influence inside Blagojevich’s administration. He said investigators are still likely looking for evidence to determine whether Patricia Blagojevich knew of that arrangement and that the payments to her were part of the deal.

    He also said the chances are “slim to none” that the government could compel Patricia Blagojevich to testify against her husband “unless the government can make a showing that they participated in a crime together. Otherwise, their private conversations are presumed confidential … [and] one can’t be compelled to testify against the other,” he said.

    The indictment touched briefly on many of the allegations in December’s criminal complaint that saw Blagojevich rousted from his home and arrested by FBI agents. But sources have said the grand jury is not finished exploring some of those areas and will hear from more witnesses in the coming weeks.

    Of most notable interest to authorities may be Blagojevich’s final alleged attempt to sell the U.S. Senate seat vacated by President Barack Obama. Officials say Blagojevich was approached by an associate of U.S. Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-Ill.) who offered $1.5 million in campaign contributions in exchange for Jackson’s appointment to the seat.

    Blagojevich is accused of telling his brother, Robert, who led his campaign fund and who also was indicted Thursday, to tell Oak Brook businessman Raghuveer Nayak to begin the fundraising effort in exchange for Jackson’s appointment. Neither Jackson nor Nayak have been accused of wrongdoing.

    Nayak is a longtime supporter of Jackson and Blagojevich who traveled with the congressman’s father, Rev. Jesse Jackson, to India and once was a partner with the congressman’s brother, Jonathan. A Nayak-sponsored fundraiser was held for Blagojevich just days before his arrest.

    Nayak also has offered to cooperate with federal prosecutors.

  67. Is it true Gov. Patterson is resigning tomorrow, maybe??? I saw this on a blog! Someone says he was Spitzerized!

  68. Change You Can Believe In

    Monday, February 08, 2010
    By Ken Connor

    On January 24, 1995, President Bill Clinton delivered his State of the Union address to a Congress that looked radically different than the body of representatives that the president faced only one year earlier.

    Motivated by Newt Gingrich’s Contract with America and their disdain for “HillaryCare,” the American people had catapulted the Republican party to the majority position for the first time since 1954.

    In his opening remarks, the president made a point to let the American people know that he had gotten the message loud and clear. With his declaration that the “era of big government” was over, President Clinton showed that he “got it”:

    “If we agree on nothing else tonight, we must agree that the American people certainly voted for change in 1992 and in 1994. And as I look out at you, I know how some of you must have felt in 1992. I must say that in both years we didn’t hear America singing, we heard America shouting. And now all of us, Republicans and Democrats alike, must say: We hear you. We will work together to earn the jobs you have given us. For we are the keepers of the sacred trust, and we must be faithful to it in this new and very demanding era.”

    The American people had sent a clear message to the Democrats in 1994, one that could not be ignored and could not be misinterpreted. The people were unhappy with the course of their government and were calling for change. President Clinton went on to participate in some very successful bipartisan policy initiatives including balancing the budget and reforming welfare.

    Contrast Mr. Clinton’s response with President Obama’s posture in the aftermath of the recent electoral upset in Massachusetts―a race that many have interpreted as a referendum on the Democrats’ health care plan and the Obama administration in general.

    In the face of a humiliating defeat for the Democrat party, the president seems incapable of admitting that he and his colleagues on Capitol Hill might have misinterpreted their “mandate” from the people.

    He appears unwilling to consider the possibility that the American people reject his brand of “change.” Instead, he has decided that his steadily declining approval rating and the historic election of a Republican in Massachusetts is a symptom of the people’s ignorance and confusion:

    “After nearly a century of trying―Democratic administrations, Republican administrations―we are closer than ever to bringing more security to the lives of so many Americans. The approach we’ve taken would protect every American from the worst practices of the insurance industry. It would give small businesses and uninsured Americans a chance to choose an affordable health care plan in a competitive market. It would require every insurance plan to cover preventive care…. Still, this is a complex issue, and the longer it was debated, the more skeptical people became. I take my share of the blame for not explaining it more clearly to the American people.”

    That’s right, folks. The president’s inability to explain himself clearly is the only reason we’re still discussing this whole health care reform thing. It’s not because of the nearly $1 trillion price tag, the closed-door back-room negotiations, the fuzzy math, or the constitutional infirmities inherent in the various proposals worming their way through Congress.

    It’s not because we have substantive, and as yet unaddressed, concerns about the treatment of the unborn, the disabled, and the elderly under a system administered by neo-Malthusians and their “comparative effectiveness” model.

    And it’s certainly not because we’re skeptical that the same people who have bankrupted Social Security and Medicare could run a lemonade stand, let alone a full 20% of the American economy, without running it into the ground.

    It’s just that we don’t “get it.” We’re just confused from too much Fox News and not enough MSNBC.

    Here’s a news flash, Mr. Obama: It’s you who are confused. You have drastically underestimated the intelligence of the American voter. In the face of your big-government schemes designed to “fundamentally transform America,” the people―Democrats and Republicans alike―are recoiling in horror.

    If you continue to ignore the voice of the people, it’s likely that the next time you stand before our nation’s representatives to deliver a State of the Union speech you will find yourself facing a sea of newly-elected Republican faces, much as your Democratic predecessor did in 1995.

    A strong majority of the American public has decided that it doesn’t want the kind of change you are trying to shove down its throat, and no amount of rhetorical flourish is going to change its mind.

  69. wbboei, it is George Strait who lives here in The Dominion. He also has a big rodeo facility/arena nearby, and hosts the annual team roping classic there. He’s been dear friends for years with a local ranching family who also owns Chevy dealerships. George doesn’t do national ads, but often appears in local ads chatting in a field with his buddy about the virtues of Chevy trucks. He hosts local charity auctions for kids charities, too. Just a very nice, down-to-earth guy.

    Another favorite of mine, actor Tommy Lee Jones, also lives here (though not in the Dominion – he lives on an estate in the old part of the city, in Terrell Hills.) There is a creaky old (but very nice) bar downtown called Liberty Bar where he shows up of an evening on occasion.

  70. Wbboei ….I believe that if the R’s run Newt he will lose….even to Obummer. Just my opinion.

    confloyd….I ususally agree with your posts, however, I disagree with your comment that Clinton dems were reagan Dems. I certainly was not….by a long shot. I don’t think Reagan was a good president at all….but that’s a whole other conversation. I have been a dyed in the wool dem my entire life.

    I had assumed…incoreectly apparently…..that Hillary supporters on a site like this would be people who shared her commitment to the issues she fights for.

    I am increasingly aware and disappointed to see that is not the case. I really am part of an ever shrinking minority, I guess. I can no longer watch Fox. I had stopped watching CNN during the campaign and stopped the NYT. Lou Dobbs is now also shifting from center to right and I have turned him off as well.

    I strongly believe in universal health care, choice and gender equity. I believe strongly in fiscal restraint but also believe that there are important places for the federal government such as medicare and social security.

    I like Sara Palin and watched her interview. I even voted for McCain / Palin. That was a lesser of 2 evils choice and we had a Dem congress for balance.

    I DO NOT think she has the knowledge to run this country. Of course, neither does Obummer, and look how bad that is. For the first time I heard Sara speak about choice in a way that showed she would impose her values on the rest of us. I will not vote for her again. Being a reformer is not enough.

    Bill Clinton succeeded because he wasdeeply commited and extremely intelligent and well educated in addition to being personable. Being personable andd meaning well is just not enough, in my opinion.

  71. Here is the latest mailing from the Dim Senatorial Committee. It’s disgusting. They are encouraging their filthy little miscreants to have fun “captioning” Sarah Palin:

    Received this email from the DSCC this morning:
    Dear XXXX,

    Did you read about last weekend’s “tea party” convention in Nashville? Attendees paid $549 apiece for a weekend of activism and education capped by the main attraction: a speech by everybody’s favorite half-term former Alaska governor, Sarah Palin. For her efforts, Palin received more than $100,000 in speaking fees – and the adoration of legions of fans.

    In honor of the tea party convention, we came up with a way for you to tell us what you think she’s saying. Just click on the link below, fill in the speech bubble, then submit it to us. We’ll post the best creations at

    Be creative! Sarah Palin wants to be the voice of the tea party movement. Let’s help.

    These people have nothing to offer but hate. I noticed that the Cheeto and DU are gleefully referring to the appearance as “Palin’s hand job.”

    The Dems are going to drive more and more people away from their party in sheer disgust. Even those who might have sympathy with their (supposed) policies are going to be too revulsed by who these people are to want anything to do with them.

    They are fast forming the public impression that a vote for any Democrat is a vote for allying yourself with a puerile, adolescent, hateful, misogynist, spoiled, condescending pack of out-of-control little nasty frat boys and their snickering cheerleader squad.

    It’s reaching the point where voters are going to say to the Democrats, “Fuck policy – I just DON’T LIKE YOU.”

  72. Carol, re: the Reagan Democrats being Clinton Democrats, many are looking at the big electoral picture, not their own beliefs. So yes, it is in many ways the same group – more moderate, very patriotic Dems who are fiscally conservative, who were attracted to both Reagan and Clinton. The fact that you yourself are not in that group doesn’t change that that demographic is indeed in play, and abandoning the Dem party in droves.

    Many times our observations here are not an expression of our own ideology, but a realistic assessment of how and why voters vote. I try to distinguish between “this is what I want personally” and “this is my analysis of the electorate, and how they will react”. The truth is that Reagan left office with approval ratings only slightly behind Bill. He and Bill remain the two most popular presidents in recent history, who appealed across party liines. The fact that you or I might find that puzzling or appalling doesn’t change it.

  73. Re: my assessment at 9:29, I was thinking on an interesting analogy this week. I am in need of a new car. So we went and looked at several models both used and new at various dealers here in town.

    There was one in particular that was wonderful – fuel efficient, room for the big dogs, well-priced, etc. We walked off the lot in about 2 minutes, and I commented that I would never EVER buy that model from that dealer, no matter how nice it was. Why? Because the dealership was sleazy. The salesmen were unctious and pushy and dripping weasel words. In short, the whole place just made my skin crawl.

    This is the scenario the Dims are creating in the electorate. “I do not care what a good deal you are offering, I can’t bring myself to do business with you.”

  74. I ma not saying that the Reafn dems are not in play. However, there is a new phenomenon at work also. Dems like myself…hard core party working Dems….who were Clinton supporters ….are walking away. This has not happened before to my knowledge.

  75. Ok, I understand your point, Carol. Yes, long-time party activists walking away is new. That’s a separate issue from the Clinton/Reagan Dems abandoning. Both exist. As admin often points out, the boob is losing from all sides of the coalition.

  76. Wbboei ….I believe that if the R’s run Newt he will lose….even to Obummer. Just my opinion.
    As things now stand you are right. But if our economic situation continues to deteriorate–which is more probable than not, and if our security is breached–which is likely, and if the jobless rate is above what it was when he took office–which is inevitable, and if he suffers big defeats in 2010 which are predictable, and if continues to behave like an ideologue– which is his nature and if the fires from Chicago singe his heels or any combination–which they will, and if in short his deficiencies become apparent to the people who hired him namely the independents–as they are now, and if despite all that the dimocrats ignore reality and run him again then the electorate is likely to say anybody but Obama and we need solutions and experience now. Then and only then Newt would be viable. The reason I mention his name as the likely candidate is because when I look at the fundamentals I fear that is very likely the situation we will be facing as a country by 2012. I have no illusions about Newt, but by then getting rid of Obama may be a matter of national survival literally.

  77. Carol: the current poll validates your position on Newt, based on where we are today. (Note: It is by Zogby so the margin of error is 10% on methodoloy and 20% on political bias, so take it for what it is worth.) If Newt emerges as the candidate and the country is in trouble then I believe the party and country would turn to Hillary. That is my operating assumption.

    1. Poll: Data About Palin, Romney, Gingrich Revealed

    A recent Newsmax Media-Zogby poll showed former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin leading the Republican field as the party’s preferred candidate for president in 2012.

    And a breakdown of demographic and other data from the survey offers some interesting insights on current Republican thinking about GOP candidates in the next presidential election:

    Sarah Palin, who grabbed 22.2 percent of the vote in the poll, is more popular in the East than anywhere else in the country. Interestingly, she has been described as a Western and Southern candidate, but our Zogby poll found that 25 percent of Easterners supported her. The West, in fact, gave her the lowest figure — 20 percent.
    Palin is not as strong with 65-plus voters — her percentage there dropped to 19.7 percent. She seems to be popular with younger voters, with 23 percent of those between ages 18 and 29 supporting her.
    Newt Gingrich came in at 12.4 percent, but he seems to skew with stronger support among males, 14 percent, while female Republican voters gave him 11 percent.
    Palin skews favorably with women, with 23.3 percent of Republican women supporting her compared to 21 percent of Republican men. She also does very well in the 55-to-69 demographic group, where 24 percent of Republicans back her. That number drops dramatically to just 14 percent in the 70-plus group.
    Mike Huckabee seems to be a favorite of black Republicans, garnering 24.2 percent of the vote, more than any other candidate in the field.
    Palin draws exceedingly well with born-again and Evangelical Christians, pulling a strong 28.4 percent of their vote. She also gets strong support from less educated voters — 28.6 percent of those who said they did not have a college degree voted for her, while those with a college degree gave her just 18.5 percent.
    Mitt Romney had consistently strong poll numbers across all demographic groups. Interestingly, although he is a Mormon, he led the pack among Catholic voters, even beating out Palin, 23.6 percent to 21.1 percent.
    Romney also seems to be very favorably viewed by Jewish Republicans, gaining a remarkable 32 percent of their support.
    Geographically, Palin is very strong in small cities, 27.4 percent, and rural areas, 27.8 percent. Romney, on the other hand, is very strong in large cities, with 22.8 percent of the vote, and in suburbs with 22.3 percent.
    Other possible GOP candidates included in the poll were Scott Brown, Jeb Bush, David Petraeus, and Tim Pawlenty.

  78. wbboei, I don’t think the current GOP voters will choose Newt. I peruse the R blogs a lot, and the consensus seems to be that they admire his intellect, and appreciate his usually spot-on analysis, but he’d be a disaster as a candidate. I see mostly groans when the idea of his running is broached. A lot of “I love ya, Newt, but please stay behind the scenes.”

    As an avid student of politics, the sea changes in the GOP are fascinating to me. The rank and file are going to remake their party, and are not going to be swayed by their political insider poobahs. Even Palin would have no luck trying to control them top-down. The leadership is scrambling to catch up with the people now. If they take their cues from the folks, they may pull off re-branding themselves after Bush. If they try to seize control of, rather than cooperate with, this new republican spirit, they will lose. It’s really interesting to watch.

  79. I had assumed…incoreectly apparently…..that Hillary supporters on a site like this would be people who shared her commitment to the issues she fights for.

    I am increasingly aware and disappointed to see that is not the case. I really am part of an ever shrinking minority, I guess. I can no longer watch Fox. I had stopped watching CNN during the campaign and stopped the NYT. Lou Dobbs is now also shifting from center to right and I have turned him off as well.

    I strongly believe in universal health care, choice and gender equity. I believe strongly in fiscal restraint but also believe that there are important places for the federal government such as medicare and social security.
    Carol: I do not know why you say people on this blog do not support Hillary’s positions. Time and again we post and rally around the positions she took in the primary. If you are talking about universal health care, many of us accept the concept but not the bill that was put forward because we strongly disagree with the payoff to big pharma, the draconian provisions and the dirty deals that were done to secure dimocratic support. As Admin put it universal health care died in August 2008.
    As far as gender equity, todays blog, and hundreds of others that preceded it have raised that point. In fact, this blog has been the lone voice pushing that issue since the earliest days of the campaign. Ditto with social security.

    Can you explain your position further please. Obviously there is something I am missing.

  80. A little gossip this morning…

    Exerpt from Cindy Adams column in the NY Post

    “Now, anyone mentioned the so far mumbled-about-only-behind-sealed-doors possibility that in this coming Supreme Court draught Our Father Who Art in the White House could . . . would . . . might . . . nominate Biden to the bench? The idea being to get Hillary as VP. To shore up his poll numbers. Let nobody say he’d even throw Michelle under the bus so’s to keep his government housing job. Let nobody say that. However, let somebody say that since his support has eroded with working-class Democrats, and that’s Hillary country . . . is all I’m saying.”

  81. Wbboei,

    People saying they would be happy to vote for Newt or Sara and other conservatives whose agenda is OPPOsed to much that Hillary stands for consistently.

  82. HillaryforTexas: watch the opening scene in The Gladiator. Organization is what counts. The RNC, Steele, RNCC, McConnell are as you say scrambling and out of touch. Newt is not in that category and never has been. He is closer to the grass roots, even though he has ties to Wall Street, as we saw on his pro bank position of mark to market. He has Dick Army and some other people you may not have heard of working with the tea parties giving them organization which they need. So is Horowitz. I believe the tea parties should retain their independence but vote against Obama. If they try to go field their own candidates, they may siphon off enough dimocratic votes to save Obama’s sorry ass. Once Obama is thrown out, their position should be anti incumbent in all cases unless there is clear cogent and convincing proof that the incumbent puts country before party.

  83. I do not know that anyone is saying they would be happy to vote for Newt. I have taken the point position on that issue and all I have ever said on that subject is I would vote for him over Obama. That is an act of desperation aimed at saving the country. I know him and his history, so I am a very reluctant sale, until you put his alongside Obama. Also, he provides the right foil for Hillary to run. The trick here is to get back to the democratic party we had prior to Obama.

    As far as Sarah is concerned, the support you see here for her should give you some encouragement inasmuch as she endured some of the same slings and arrows as Hillary did and is still fighting. I think it is that fighting spirit and refusal to be silenced by the elites and the good old boys that animates many of us. Granted, you disagree with her on some substantive positions, and her concept of gender equity is obviously not one you would embrace. I understand that. But in other respects she is fighting a battle with courage that many of us find admirable.

  84. IF Newt runs. And I do believe he is heavily considering it…wouldn’t he serve as nothing but a spoiler (think edwards) put in the race by the GOP to take votes from Palin?

    she is the front runner at this point in time. as for those of you who think she is not “smart enough” to be president. I say BS

    I think she is brilliant…she may not use the words you are conditioned to hearing from politicians but
    i do believe she is a brilliant woman with a backbone of steal like hillary has. Does she have things to learn yet…. of course! I heard bill clinton say once that you can never have enough education prior to entering the white house as president. that it was a education while being president.

    Personally… this is most of what matters to me to qualify someone to be president.

    what matters is what vision do they have for our country? What do they believe in? How quick are they on their feet? how dedicated are they to doing the best for this country and how good do they listen to the people?? How strong minded are they so they don’t begin listening to the “wrong” ideals along the way?
    Are they capable of using Sticks and Carrots effectively and wisely?

    I believe both/either of these women (hillary/palin) would make our best president this country has seen since the founding fathers.

    I have to say when i hear someone say she isn’t “smart enough” as only spewing more DIM talking points
    NOT FACTS. and I feel like that comment is 100% misogynistic.

    Personally….. I would love to see a Clinton/Palin Ticket above all others.

  85. djia

    If you ready my comments, you will see that I never said that she wasn’t smart enough. I think Palin is very bright. I also think all women and their rights need to be defended.

    However, neither Palin, Bush or Obummer have the knowledge that a candidate like Hillary has. I don’t believe that vision is enough for the job. Hillary has a knowledge of history and international policy that is extensive as well as extensive knowledge of domestic affairs.

  86. carol

    I never mentioned you or what you wrote, i was not referring to you. only to those who DO use that talking point.

    I also believe Hillary has more knowledge on foreign affairs and in that arena she would be the winner
    hands down. She has the time and experience in the white house and abroad. she has more than any boob in the white house currently. I have no argument against hillary, just to be clear.

    But I believe Palin is more wise on those issues than people give her credit for. but i do believe she has a ton to learn too… she has 3 years to study up, she is smart as a whip and will do just that.

    3 years from now it will be a very different landscape than the one before us today.

    in that landscape… I would love to see a ticket
    that has hillary as president and Palin as her VP
    that is who palin needs to learn from.

    but should she win president in 2012, I believe she has what it takes to do a much better job for us than the current boob in Chief.
    or for that matter many of the other boobs waiting in line for the job.

  87. oh and of course i don’t believe “vison” is the only thing that matters.

    obviously its complex and i would have to type way too much to list everything that matters and why.

    but, given the marxists vision we have in the WH today
    vision is ultra important. but so is backbone to stick to that vision and keep the country on that track

    I believe Palin has a good vision, and has the backbone to keep America on the right track during
    her time in the WH should she get there.

    Now having said that, I feel I must clarify that I don’t see vision and ideals as always the same thing necessarily. is where they want to go, ideals is how they want to get there.

    I don’t agree with Sara on all things… NOR do I agree with Hillary or the democrat party (the original dem party that is) or the GOP’s 100%

    I try to find someone who is as close to my own as possible.

    I am now a independant as of 2 weeks ago I switched from democrat to INDY which is where i really was all along my entire life as i have always voted for the candidate not the party. and at times have voted GOP
    over Dem

    With each election my voter slip has always had check marks for both parties all the way down the line.

  88. The problem with voting person over party is that we are ruled by politcal parties. Until or unless there is strong independent party with strong third party candidates… affiliation is very important. That is why McCain took positions that weren’t really his….like on choice….because he had to work with in his party. The party can have a very corrupting influence. Look at how a good candidate like gillibrand has been bullied into line on several votes.

  89. “However, neither Palin, Bush or Obummer have the knowledge that a candidate like Hillary has. I don’t believe that vision is enough for the job. Hillary has a knowledge of history and international policy that is extensive as well as extensive knowledge of domestic affairs.”

    On this point, I very much agree.

  90. Here we go again…

    Monday, 8 February 2010

    Obama to hold healthcare summit

    US President Barack Obama will hold a televised, summit-style meeting to discuss healthcare reform with both Democratic and Republican lawmakers.

    Speaking on CBS News, he said the discussions would aim to explore the “best ideas”, “step-by-step”.

    Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell said “shelving” the bill would be best to reach consensus.

    Mr Obama has made healthcare a centrepiece of his presidency but has so far failed to get a new law enacted.

    The loss of a Senate seat in Massachusetts in January to Republican Scott Brown deprived the Democrats of their filibuster-proof 60-seat majority in the Senate.

    “If we can go step-by-step through a series of these issues and arrive at some agreements, then procedurally there’s no reason why we can’t do it a lot faster than the process took last year,” Mr Obama said in an interview broadcast in peak time just before the annual Super Bowl American football match.

    Cutting costs

    The president insisted that it was crucial for the US economy to tackle the healthcare issue to rein in costs over the long-term. “If we can start bending the cost curves on healthcare, that’s the most important thing we can do to deal with the deficits long-term,” Mr Obama said.

    Last week, the US president unveiled a budget which included a forecast of a $1.6tn deficit for the 2010 fiscal year and a shortfall of $1.3tn in 2011. He said he would seek specific answers from Republicans on how they would propose to lower costs, extend coverage to the uninsured and revise insurance rules which currently block those with pre-existing conditions from getting coverage.

    The half-day meeting will take place on 25 February, after a congressional break between 15 to 19 February. The move comes after complaints that Mr Obama’s efforts have been too partisan and secretive.

    Republicans welcomed the debate, but suggested that the only way to reach agreement would be to scrap the existing bill. “If we are to reach a bipartisan consensus, the White House can start by shelving the current health spending bill,” Mr McConnell said.

    House Republican leader John Boehner, of Ohio, said Americans had rejected what he called the “job-killing, trillion-dollar government takeover” healthcare bills passed by the House and Senate.

  91. The problem with voting person over party is that we are ruled by politcal parties. Until or unless there is strong independent party with strong third party candidates… affiliation is very important. That is why McCain took positions that weren’t really his….like on choice….because he had to work with in his party. The party can have a very corrupting influence. Look at how a good candidate like gillibrand has been bullied into line on several votes.
    I have a friend who was president of a local union which was part of the IWPPU (the International Pulp and Paperworkers Union). His local and others broke away from the parent union and formed their own labor organization. They did this because they were dissatisfied with the International Union. They felt it did not represent their interests, was too cozy with management, and was engaging in self dealing at the expense of the membership. They drafted their own constitution, appointed officers and commenced bargaining. They held their own conventions. He told me that after a few years, they were behaving just like the union they separating from. He left the union for that reason. Power corrupts.

    That said, I believe that the value of a third party is to keep the other two parties from stealing everyone else blind. They have a duopoly now and will fight to kill it through their big media allies. I also believe we MUST have public financing of elections, and the Supreme Court is wrong in the line of decisions including the most recent one, even though a con law professor like Bambi does not understand it. I think the public at large needs to understand where Obama’s money came from–and in effect who is buying our democracy, silencing our voices and to what specific end.

  92. Obama to hold healthcare summit
    Poor judgment on Obama’s part. He needs to put this issue aside and focus 100% of his attention on jobs. He thinks he can box the Republicans in here using his friends at big media. But it will not work because he has the albatross of the old health care deform bill around his shoulders, and it keeps that inflammatory issue right in front of the public. If he ends up agreeing to Republican solutions then it is their victory not his. The idea is as old as Sun Tzu–the power to destroy is always greater than the power to create, and where they are trying to create a monster I am glad it is that way.

  93. From the uk.

    A new Marist poll shows Obama’s approval at only 44%, and this among registered voters (no attempt to screen for likely voters):,%202010%20USA%20Poll%20Release%20and%20Tables.pdf

    There isn’t currently even a single poll in the RCP average showing Obama over 50% job approval, but several show approval somewhere in the upper 40’s. His approval/disapproval in the RCP average is also his worst ever, as the positive effects of his State of the Union speech have now worn off and then some.

    This is the real danger zone for Obama. If his approval/disapproval ends up essentially tied somewhere in the upper 40’s and stays there, or if his approval is in fact south of his disapproval, he and his party are officially in big trouble. Note that many of the polls are actually inflating Obama’s standing since they include all adults or all registered voters, when the real population to be concerned about are likely voters (who happen to be the least Obama-friendly group of the three). Put together Obama’s growing unpopularity, the abysmal ratings of the congressional Democrats even among Democratic Party supporters, and anger over the direction of the country, and you have a November bloodbath in the making. The Republicans aren’t exactly the popular party either, but they don’t need to be for the purposes of the mid-terms; they just need to be the guys who are against what is happening in Washington.

  94. Admin, wbboei and djia:

    Glad to see you all stepping up for Sarah Palin. My take is that she is the antithesis of an ideologue. Whether I agree with her on every topic is irrelevant. My test is, do I believe what she says? The only answer I’ve been able to come up with is: YES. I believe her when she says that she cares about America, that she cares about Americans, and that she cares about American prosperity. Equally important, I believe her when she says she will do her part to ensure that America is successful. I believe her because throughout her career she has proven that she is capable, intelligent and trustworthy.

    Being pro-Sarah does not automatically translate to being anti-Hillary. They are both pro-America. They are both pro-defense. They are both pro-capitalism. They both favor a person’s choice to practice religion as they see fit. They both are most assuredly two of this country’s staunchest believers/supporters of a woman’s immutable right to be anything she chooses.

    It seems that all too often we allow the majority of talking heads and the minority of politicians to herd us into the collective thought that choice is the ultimate litmus test for a candidate. Our country survived 20 combined years of Ronald Reagan and both Bush’s and, guess what, women still have choice. I’m sure someone will correct me if I’m wrong but I don’t recall any of the above sponsoring, advocating or proposing legislation that would undo what is done in this regard. And please don’t use the excuse that the President appoints Supreme Court judges; remember the 20 years mentioned above? Need I say more?

    There isn’t possibly enough bandwidth for any of us to deal with a change of the status quo in this area. Just as there is no tolerance for a President that chooses health care as his signature issue during a time of two wars and great economic uncertainty, voters would not tolerate any office holder that did the same with choice.

    If Hillary does not run for President in 2012, why wouldn’t every American woman immediately throw her support behind Sarah Palin? More to the point, until you know what Hillary will do in 2012, why aren’t you supporting her NOW?

  95. Oh, admin, do I have a page for you – Noam Chomsky on the teabaggers:

    Now, I link to this page at Progressive Alaska rather than the video itself, because of the poll in the upper right hand corner.

    It’s so weird that these people see fit to endorse what it is Chomsky is saying, correctly, about people needing answers and the teabag movement providing them with answers – crazy answers but answers – while engaging in some misogynistic elitism on the same page.

    I’m a lefty through and through, but the cluelessness in the American left right now is just staggering.

  96. It is interesting to note that Costa Rica now has elected a woman. The superpower that the USA has NEVER elected a woman President or Vice-President. Why? After over 220 years, is it not about time????? How HISTORIC that would be.

    RUN, Hillary, RUN!!!! Dare to compete. Our country needs you.
    RUN, Sarah, RUN!!!! Dare to compete. Our country needs you.

  97. Agreed AllOutIn 10. After all, for those who think a WOMAN could not handle the job, the question of HOW COULD SHE DO WORSE? begs to be answered.

    Also, person over party is the way to go, if one wants his/her vote to have any weight. Independent voters are the ruling party now and I doubt very seriously if it will ever change. Being a registered Independent voter helps keep them honest, both sides.

  98. John Murtha has passed away. Never recovered from a botched gall bladder operation. Was he not under investigation for something???

    Carol, I too NEVER like Reagan. If you read this blog I usually call him Raygun which is a slapdown. I lived thru the trickle down and when open the doors to the mexicans and that caused the wages to go down. Four years of Carter toped with 8 years of Raygun was enough for me. I was glad how everything turned out during the Clinton administration.

    You should also see that I have started worrying myself about Palin since she is campaigning for Rick (transtexashighway) Perry. YUK!

  99. Wbboei, What do you think about handgate?? This is so stupid I imagine the bots over on the daily kooks dreamed that one up. I love her response too.

  100. John Murtha has died, sad. Rest in peace

    Wanna bet how long it takes Obama and Pelosi to try and hijack another Democrat death and funeral.

  101. moononpluto
    February 7th, 2010 at 11:50 am
    Obama headed into shit territory fast. Look at this overall DISAPPROVAL now at 56%, amazing freefall in the last few days.
    Moon, Here’s a quote from your link:

    “Overall, 46% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President’s performance. Fifty-four percent (54%) now disapprove.”

    Ha, ha. I thought he got a bump from his State of the Onion speech, but apparently, the bump was small and very short-lived.

  102. Murtha and Pelosi were buddies weren’t they?? I thought Murtha came out for Hillary in the end, but I haven’t seen or heard much from since the inauguration. A botched gall bladder is hard to do these days as it is a simple operation. I imagine his age and state of health caught up with him.


    Penn Jillette has some good observations about Obama’s disparaging comments on Las Vegas.

    Excerpts from the link toward the end are quite good:

    Obama, please remember, it was those stupid, very hopeful people who took the over on a stupid point spread on Obama with a stupid hope to help our country, which includes stupid Vegas.

    The gamble Obama took with his run for president and the gamble that the American people took on him sure weren’t taken at good odds. It wasn’t putting everything we had on red in roulette, or “don’t pass” in craps, or carefully counting cards in blackjack.

    Obama’s presidency is more than all of us putting our whole future on 00 in roulette. It was more like putting everything we had on one slot pull at the stupid Elvis impersonator slot machine in the stupid Elvis casino for the stupid hillbillies who are filled with hope.

    Maybe the Vegas jokes in the Beltway should stay in the Beltway.

    Here’s the link:

    Obama’s ‘stupid’ jab at Vegas

  104. I was able for a while to stomach Fdl,but they are just as crazy as the orange kooks now. They are raging against Palin.


    Not content to have a staged showdown with Repubs, he’s under the impression that the last one bolstered his image, so more of the same.

    Notice that he really is not interested in hearing the Republicans’ opinions, who would like to start from scratch. So it’s obvious that he just wants them there to play the role of stick-in-the-muds, to put a face on “obstructionism”. He also apparently thinks they will be patsies and that he’ll come out smelling like lavender water.

    Also, note that the Times says that the White House viewed the previous session as “a critical success for Obama”:

    “Mr. Obama’s announcement came after he surprised his rivals in late January by requesting that a session with House Republicans be open to cameras. That meeting produced a spirited 90-minute question-and-answer session with the president that many in the White House viewed as a critical success for Mr. Obama.”


    Obama Plans Bipartisan Summit on Health Care

    Published: February 7, 2010

    WASHINGTON — President Obama said Sunday that he would convene a half-day bipartisan health care session at the White House to be televised live this month, a high-profile gambit that will allow Americans to watch as Democrats and Republicans try to break their political impasse.

    Mr. Obama made the announcement in an interview on CBS during the Super Bowl pre-game show, capitalizing on a vast television audience. He set out a plan that would put Republicans on the spot to offer their own ideas on health care and show whether both sides are willing to work together.

    “I want to come back and have a large meeting, Republicans and Democrats, to go through systematically all the best ideas that are out there and move it forward,” Mr. Obama said in the interview from the White House Library.

    Mr. Obama challenged Republicans to attend the meeting with their plans for lowering the cost of health insurance and expanding coverage to more than 30 million uninsured Americans. Republican leaders said they welcomed the opportunity and called on Democrats to start the debate from scratch, which the president said he would not do.

    The move by Mr. Obama comes after weeks in which the administration has appeared uncertain about how to proceed on his top domestic priority since Republicans captured the Senate seat previously held by Senator Edward M. Kennedy. House and Senate Democrats had been increasingly at odds over what the bill should say, how to move ahead tactically and, in some cases, whether to continue at all.

    The idea for the bipartisan meeting, set for Feb. 25, was reached in recent weeks, aides said, as part of the White House strategy to intensify its push to engage Congressional Republicans in policy negotiations, share the burden of governing and put more scrutiny on Republican initiatives.

    Mr. Obama’s announcement came after he surprised his rivals in late January by requesting that a session with House Republicans be open to cameras. That meeting produced a spirited 90-minute question-and-answer session with the president that many in the White House viewed as a critical success for Mr. Obama.

    In making the gesture on Sunday, Mr. Obama is in effect calling the hand of Republicans who had chastised him for not honoring a campaign pledge to hold health care deliberations in the open, broadcast by C-Span, and for not allowing Republicans at the bargaining table.

    Nancy-Ann DeParle, the director of the White House Office for Health Reform, briefed Democratic Congressional staff members in a conference call ahead of the interview, with Katie Couric.

    Separately, some Congressional staff members expressed concern that Mr. Obama’s meeting would simply prolong an already tortuous process. And Democrats still face steep challenges in reconciling the differences between the House and Senate bills.

    Some House Democrats are firmly opposed to a proposed tax on high-cost employer-sponsored insurance policies, which they think will hit some middle-class workers and violate Mr. Obama’s campaign promise not to raise taxes on Americans earning less than $250,000 a year.

    The president offered a number of questions that his party would have for the Republicans.

    “How do you guys want to lower costs? How do you guys intend to reform the insurance market so that people with pre-existing conditions, for example, can get health care?” he said. “How do you want to make sure that the 30 million people who don’t have health insurance can get it? What are your ideas specifically?”

    The question for Mr. Obama is how much — if at all — he is willing to give on some of the concepts Democrats have already agreed on, or if he is using the meeting to lay the groundwork for another effort by Democrats to push the legislation through without Republican votes.

    Mr. Obama did not indicate what he was willing to give up in the negotiations, nor did he chart a specific legislative strategy for moving a bill through Congress. Democrats in the House and Senate were hoping to resolve their differences in the bill, aides said, and present a unified health care plan in time for the meeting.

    Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, said in a statement that he welcomed the bipartisan meeting on health care and called on the president to begin the dialogue “by shelving the current health spending bill.”

    “The fact is Senate Republicans held hundreds of town halls and met with their constituents across the country last year on the need for health care reform, outlining ideas for the step-by-step approach that Americans have asked for,” Mr. McConnell said. “And we know there are a number of issues with bipartisan support that we can start with when the 2,700-page bill is put on the shelf.”

    When asked by Ms. Couric if he would agree to discard the bill and start over, the president said he would not. The starting point, aides said, would be with the proposals that passed the House and Senate.

    It remained an open question whether the meeting could lead to real consensus on health care, or whether it would serve only to allow Democrats to frame a political argument against the Republicans going into the midterm campaign.

    Republicans were involved in the health care discussions for months last year in the Senate Finance Committee, but differences with Democrats were never resolved.

    The bipartisan meeting on health care could give Mr. Obama an opportunity to display the command on health care issues he showed at the meeting with Republicans. The administration believes that the public is supportive of many of the provisions in the bill — particularly taking away the insurance bans for pre-existing conditions — but that the debate was overshadowed by a messy legislative process.

    Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the Republican leader, said he was looking forward to the bipartisan discussion. But he joined Mr. McConnell in calling for a fresh start to the health care debate.

    “The problem with the Democrats’ health care bills is not that the American people don’t understand them — the American people do understand them, and they don’t like them,” Mr. Boehner said in a statement. “The best way to start on real, bipartisan reform would be to scrap those bills and focus on the kind of step-by-step improvements that will lower health care costs and expand access.”

    In the interview on Sunday, Mr. Obama said he did not regret pursuing health care in the first year of his presidency, even though he intends to place a higher priority on job creation this year.

  106. wbboei
    February 7th, 2010 at 8:25 pm
    Specter is showing all the signs of Alzheimers. Red State:

    Arlen: “Vote for me because you feel sorry for me. Vote for me because I am a ‘Democrat’ now.”


    I don’t know if Jackson Diehl of WashPo was a supporter of Obama in 2008…probably. Anyhoo, he appears to see Obama running away from the Big Scary World. Good thing Sec. of State HRC is not afraid…

    He also points out that the void at the top in the US is creating angst and uncertainty in hot spots around the globe.

    The second to last paragraph sums it up nicely:

    “Yet there’s also a disquieting aspect to Obama’s retreat. It’s not just Zapatero who has trouble gaining traction in this White House: Unlike most of his predecessors, Obama has not forged close ties with any European leader. Britain’s Brown, France’s Sarkozy and Germany’s Merkel have each, in turn, felt snubbed by him. Relations between Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu are tense at best. George W. Bush used to hold regular videoconferences with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and Afghan President Hamid Karzai. Obama has spoken to them on only a handful of occasions.”

    The url has lots of links to specific events where Obama is a no-show.

    Obama’s retreat from the global stage

    By Jackson Diehl
    Monday, February 8, 2010

    Is a wounded Barack Obama withdrawing from the world?

    Europeans could be excused for speculating as much. The White House announced last week that the president would not attend a U.S.-European Union summit planned for Madrid in May, forcing its cancellation. The spurned host, Spanish Prime Minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, also failed to get a meeting with either Obama or Vice President Biden during a two-day visit to Washington.

    Zapatero claimed he had “no problem” with the rebuff. But that was not the reaction back home. “Obama Turns His Back on Europe,” said Spain’s El Pais. “Obama’s No-Show Disappoints Europe” said Germany’s Der Spiegel.

    Israelis and Palestinians also have reason to wonder. Obama’s 70-minute State of the Union made no mention of Israel or a Middle East peace process. Shortly before the speech, Obama told an interviewer he had overestimated his administration’s ability to renew negotiations between recalcitrant Israelis and Palestinians.

    Then there are the leaders of Iraq. Two of them — Kurdish regional president Massoud Barzani and Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi, a leader of the Sunni minority — have visited Washington in the past two weeks. Both told me they were deeply worried about whether the Obama administration would remain committed to a stable and democratic Iraq. That’s partly because Obama’s public rhetoric has centered on U.S. troop withdrawals, rather than any vision for the future of the country. “I understand you are totally focused now on withdrawing the troops by 2011,” said Hashimi. “But what will come after that?”

    So are all these people right to be upset? Is Obama reacting to political trouble at home by turning his back on foreign affairs?

    The White House could fairly argue that he is not. Though he skimped on foreign policy in the State of the Union and has been visibly focused on domestic affairs since Scott Brown’s election to the Senate, Obama’s diplomacy still looks reasonably vigorous. His envoys are busy trying to round up votes for a U.N. Security Council resolution imposing stiff sanctions on Iran. Obama has a visit to Australia and Indonesia scheduled for next month, and a summit meeting on disarmament is being prepared for Washington in April. A new strategic arms treaty with Russia is nearing completion.

    In the Middle East, envoy George Mitchell labors on to persuade Israelis and Palestinians to talk to each other, despite the president’s stated discouragement. As for Iraq, Biden was there just two weeks ago, when — for the second time in the past three months — he worked to avert a crisis that could wreck the upcoming elections.

    Still, it’s not wrong to detect a presidential step back. Partly it is sensible — as he did domestically, Obama piled too much on his foreign policy agenda his first year. The prospects are not good for an early Israeli-Palestinian peace, so the president is right to let an envoy manage it. Obama visited Europe six times in 2009, often for meetings that produced few results. His advisers are rightly trying to use his travel time more wisely this year.

    Yet there’s also a disquieting aspect to Obama’s retreat. It’s not just Zapatero who has trouble gaining traction in this White House: Unlike most of his predecessors, Obama has not forged close ties with any European leader. Britain’s Brown, France’s Sarkozy and Germany’s Merkel have each, in turn, felt snubbed by him. Relations between Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu are tense at best. George W. Bush used to hold regular videoconferences with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and Afghan President Hamid Karzai. Obama has spoken to them on only a handful of occasions.

    Obama’s personal popularity in many parts of the world remains strong. Zapatero told The Post’s editorial board that “in Spain, [Obama’s] election was experienced as if it was an election in our own country.” But in his first year the new president did not make the same connection with the leaders of America’s principal allies. Now he is sending the message that he is cutting back his time for them. Maybe, as Zapatero diplomatically put it, this will be “no problem.” But I doubt that’s what the Spaniard was really thinking.

  108. Nobody I know puts any trust whatsoever in CNN. They have blown it. Prior to the primary they retained marketing strategists to attach words like polarizing and untrustworthy to Hillary and got their talking heads to repeat them over and over to their audiences, with the same mind numbing repetition as they had used the words weapons of mass destruction to build public support for the Iraq War. When they covered the tea parties, they would tell their reporters to focus on the most outrageous or stupid individual in the group, stick a microphone in their face and tar the whole group with that smear. And it was Gerghen who tried to slip a high inside fast ball past Scott Brown and to their chargrin he knocked it out of the stadium. They deserve to fail. The only thing that saves them is their foreign coverage. But their political news programs have no traction. What we do not need is another butboy for this administration and that is all they are. Especially now that they have run off Lou Dobbs.

    3. Fox News Has Best January Ever

    Fox News had all 13 of the top cable news shows in total viewers for the fifth month in a row in January, and had the best January in its history.

    Fox was up 22 percent in total viewers in January compared to January 2009, and up an extraordinary 51 percent in the key 25-to-54 demographic.

    CNN was down 34 percent in total viewers in January compared to the previous year, and MSNBC was down 26 percent.

    Fox dominated its rivals in covering the major political event of the month, Republican Scott Brown’s victory in the Massachusetts special election for Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat, reported.

    Fox was also helped by Sarah Palin, who joined the network as an analyst and drew 3.95 million viewers for her first appearance on “The O’Reilly Factor” on Jan. 12.

    For the month, Fox averaged 2.94 million prime-time viewers, compared to 946,000 for CNN and 838,000 for MSNBC, according to Nielsen.

    CNN topped MSNBC in weekday prime-time viewers during January for the first time in six months, helped by its comprehensive coverage of earthquake-ravaged Haiti.

    And MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann slipped to third in his time slot behind Bill O’Reilly on Fox and HLN’s Nancy Grace.


    Obama’s ineptly crafted gargantuan stimulus package is about to drive schools over “the funding cliff”.

    With Federal Stimulus Money Gone,
    Many Schools Face Budget Gaps

    Published: February 7, 2010

    Federal stimulus money has helped avoid drastic cuts at public schools in most parts of the nation, at least so far. But with the federal money running out, many of the nation’s schools are approaching what officials are calling a “funding cliff.”

    Congress included about $100 billion for education in the stimulus law last year to cushion the recession’s impact on schools and to help fuel an economic recovery. New studies show that many states will spend all or nearly all that is left between now and the end of this school term.

    With state and local tax revenues still in decline, the end of the federal money will leave big holes in education budgets from Massachusetts and Florida to California and Washington, experts said.

    “States are going to face a huge problem because they’ll have to find some way to replace these billions, either with cuts to their K-12 systems or by finding alternative revenues,” said Bruce Baker, an education professor at Rutgers University.

    The stimulus program was the largest one-time infusion of federal education dollars to states and districts in the nation’s history. As the program took shape last year, Education Secretary Arne Duncan and other officials repeatedly warned states and districts to avoid spending the money in ways that could lead to dislocations when the gush of federal money came to an end.

    But from the start, those warnings seemed at odds with the stimulus law’s goal of jump-starting the economy, and the administration trumpeted last fall that school districts had used stimulus money to save, or create, some 250,000 education jobs.

    Now the new studies point to the problems likely to beset thousands of school districts when the federal money runs out.

    One study, which Dr. Baker wrote with David Sciarra and Danielle Farrie of the Education Law Center in Newark and which is to be presented on Monday at a conference at Teachers College of Columbia University, examines how 11 states have used their education stimulus money. The 11 states received amounts from the stabilization fund ranging from $234 million (Nebraska) to $2.5 billion (New York).

    Nine of the 11 states had already allocated most of that money for this school year and last, the study found, leaving a third or less of their federal money available for the 2010-11 school year.

    Another bigger study, also to be presented at the conference, found that some states facing pressing financial problems last year as the stimulus program emerged decided to use 100 percent of their education stimulus money almost immediately.

    Of the 20 states in the study by Michael A. Rebell, a professor at Teachers College, and two colleagues, Jessica Wolff and Dan Yaverbaum, six of them — Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, New Jersey and Washington — had allotted all of their education stabilization money to schools for this school year and last, leaving zero to spend on the school term beginning this fall.

    The two new studies based their findings on data supplied by the states last year to the federal Department of Education on their applications for stimulus money, as well as on other financial reports that have allowed the scholars to document states’ actual expenditures on public schools. Professor Rebell’s study also involved phone interviews with state and local school officials in the 20 states, he said.

    The new studies align with results of a broader, 50-state survey on the stimulus program carried out by the National Conference of State Legislatures. The conference’s survey, based solely on an examination of the states’ stimulus applications, found that 20 states said when applying that they intended to spend 100 percent of their stabilization funds in the 2008-9 and 2009-10 school years.

    The 20 states were Alabama, Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Utah, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin.

    But Dan Thatcher, who conducted the conference’s survey, said that Idaho, and perhaps others among the 20, had reconsidered those plans, deciding to reserve some stimulus money for the coming school year.

    On average, according to the conference’s survey, states allotted 38 percent of their stabilization money to the 2008-9 year and 48 percent to the current school year, leaving only 14 percent for the school term that begins this fall.

    About $65 billion of the $100 billion in education stimulus money went to states in three pots: $39.5 billion as part of a stabilization fund intended to bolster the finances of state public education systems, $13 billion for the federal program for poor students known as Title I, and $12.2 billion for students with disabilities. Congress directed the rest of the $100 billion to smaller initiatives, including $4.3 billion to a school improvement grant program the Obama administration calls Race to the Top.

    Professor Rebell’s study examined in some detail how school districts have used the stimulus money they received under the federal programs intended for poor and disabled students. Many districts have chosen to spend much of the money they received for students with disabilities on things like lift buses, handicap-accessible vans and renovated bathrooms.

    “This was a godsend, and the investment will last for years,” Professor Rebell said. “In most cases, districts didn’t put people on the payroll that they would now have to lay off.”

    But many school systems have not been so prudent in their use of Title I money.

    “The need to spend these funds quickly has led districts to add large numbers of temporary staff positions,” Professor Rebell’s study says. “In most states that we studied, some school districts appear to have spent a considerable amount of their Title I funds to save jobs formerly paid for through state and local funding that were threatened as a result of cuts in that funding.”


    In a Message to Democrats,
    Wall St. Sends Cash to G.O.P.

    Published: February 7, 2010
    WASHINGTON — If the Democratic Party has a stronghold on Wall Street, it is JPMorgan Chase.

    Its chief executive, Jamie Dimon, is a friend of President Obama’s from Chicago, a frequent White House guest and a big Democratic donor. Its vice chairman, William M. Daley, a former Clinton administration cabinet official and Obama transition adviser, comes from Chicago’s Democratic dynasty.

    But this year Chase’s political action committee is sending the Democrats a pointed message. While it has contributed to some individual Democrats and state organizations, it has rebuffed solicitations from the national Democratic House and Senate campaign committees. Instead, it gave $30,000 to their Republican counterparts.

    The shift reflects the hard political edge to the industry’s campaign to thwart Mr. Obama’s proposals for tighter financial regulations.

    Just two years after Mr. Obama helped his party pull in record Wall Street contributions — $89 million from the securities and investment business, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics — some of his biggest supporters, like Mr. Dimon, have become the industry’s chief lobbyists against his regulatory agenda.

    Republicans are rushing to capitalize on what they call Wall Street’s “buyer’s remorse” with the Democrats. And industry executives and lobbyists are warning Democrats that if Mr. Obama keeps attacking Wall Street “fat cats,” they may fight back by withholding their cash.

    “If the president doesn’t become a little more balanced and centrist in his approach, then he will likely lose that support,” said Kelly S. King, the chairman and chief executive of BB&T. Mr. King is a board member of the Financial Services Roundtable, which lobbies for the biggest banks, and last month he helped represent the industry at a private dinner at the Treasury Department.

    “I understand the public outcry,” he continued. “We have a 17 percent real unemployment rate, people are hurting, and they want to see punishment. But the political rhetoric just incites more animosity and gets people riled up.”

    A spokesman for JPMorgan Chase declined to comment on its political action committee’s contributions or relations with the Democrats. But many Wall Street lobbyists and executives said they, too, were rethinking their giving.

    “The expectation in Washington is that ‘We can kick you around, and you are still going to give us money,’ ” said a top official at a major Wall Street firm, speaking on the condition of anonymity for fear of alienating the White House. “We are not going to play that game anymore.”

    Wall Street fund-raisers for the Democrats say they are feeling under attack from all sides. The president is lashing out at their “arrogance and greed.” Republican friends are saying “I told you so.” And contributors are wishing they had their money back.

    “I am a big fan of the president,” said Thomas R. Nides, a prominent Democrat who is also a Morgan Stanley executive and chairman of a major Wall Street trade group, the Securities and Financial Markets Association. “But even if you are a big fan, when you are the piñata at the party, it doesn’t really feel good.”

    Roger C. Altman, a former Clinton administration Treasury official who founded the Wall Street boutique Evercore Partners, called the Wall Street backlash against Mr. Obama “a constant topic of conversation.” Many bankers, he said, failed to appreciate the “white hot anger” at Wall Street for the financial crisis. (Mr. Altman said he personally supported “the substance” of the president’s recent proposals, though he questioned their feasibility and declined to comment at all on what he called “the rhetoric.”)

    Mr. Obama’s fight with Wall Street began last year with his proposals for greater oversight of compensation and a consumer financial protection commission. It escalated with verbal attacks this year on what he called Wall Street’s “obscene bonuses.” And it reached a new level in his calls for policies Wall Street finds even more infuriating: a “financial crisis responsibility” tax aimed only at the biggest banks, and a restriction on “proprietary trading” that banks do with their own money for their own profit.

    “If the president wanted to turn every Democrat on Wall Street into a Republican,” one industry lobbyist said, “he is doing everything right.”

    Though Wall Street has long been a major source of Democratic campaign money (alongside Hollywood and Silicon Valley), Mr. Obama built unusually direct ties to his contributors there. He is the first president since Richard M. Nixon whose campaign relied solely on private donations, not public financing.

    Wall Street lobbyists say the financial industry’s big Democratic donors help ensure that their arguments reach the ears of the president and Congress. White House visitors’ logs show dozens of meetings with big Wall Street fund-raisers, including Gary D. Cohn, a president of Goldman Sachs; Mr. Dimon of JPMorgan Chase; and Robert Wolf, the chief of the American division of the Swiss bank UBS, who has also played golf, had lunch and watched July 4 fireworks with the president.

    Lobbyists say they routinely brief top executives on policy talking points before they meet with the president or others in the administration. Mr. Wolf, in particular, also serves on the Presidential Economic Recovery Advisory Board led by the former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul A. Volcker.

    Mr. Wolf was the only Wall Street executive on the panel and became the board’s leading opponent of what became known as the Volcker rule against so-called proprietary trading, according to participants. Such trading did nothing to cause the crisis, Mr. Wolf argued, as the industry lobbyists do now. (The panel concluded that the crisis established a precedent for government rescue that could enable big banks to speculate for their own gain while taxpayers took the biggest risks.)

    Mr. Wolf and Mr. Dimon, who was in Washington last week for meetings on Capitol Hill and lunch with the president, have both pressed the industry’s arguments against other proposed regulations and the bank tax as well — saying the rules could cramp needed lending and send business abroad, according to lobbyists.

    Both men are said to remain personally supportive of the president. But UBS’s political action committee has shifted its contributions, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. After dividing its money evenly between the parties for 2008, it has given about 56 percent to Republicans this cycle.

    Most of its biggest contributions, of $10,000 each, went to five Republican opponents of Mr. Obama’s regulatory proposals, including Senator Richard C. Shelby of Alabama, the ranking minority member of the Banking Committee.

    The Democratic campaign committees declined to comment on Wall Street money. But their Republican rivals are actively courting it.

    Senator John Cornyn of Texas, chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, said he visited New York about twice a month to try to tap into Wall Street’s “buyers’ remorse.”

    “I just don’t know how long you can expect people to contribute money to a political party whose main plank of their platform is to punish you,” Mr. Cornyn said.

  111. I am sorry, I did not know that the Murtha news had been posted. I thought at one time he supported HRC. My mind is getting foggy.

  112. rgb,

    I cover several school districts as well as the county legislature and the expected cuts are mind-numbing.

    Parents are outraged that programs will be cut, residents are afraid their property taxes are going up and school staff are terrified they’re going to lose their jobs.

    It’s getting so bad that in one district an employee who was riffed (reduction in forces) threatened his direct supervisor and the entire district was put in lockout for the whole day coz the employee had access to all buildings.

    On another note, two of the county’s weekly newspapers went out of business over the past few days and one that I’m working for, which has been published for over 100 years, is skating close to the edge.

    Things are bad out there.

    BTW – RIP John Murtha.

  113. wbboei, Hillbuzz boyz have figured out how to counteract that tag “polarizing” because that is now what they are tagging Palin with. LOL!! Its hilarious, best of all it fits Sarah. Its a pic of Palin and a Polar bear. Its quiet a good way to stamp out the media’s tags on a candidate.

  114. Basil9, Now you know according to the WH, the unemployment numbers and the economic news is getting better. People are actually going back to work, whats a mata with you don’t ya know that!!! LOL!!

  115. Hillary gave a great interview. As for Palin,a nice , smart lady, but not someone I would want as Pres….sorry.

  116. I’m with you, jbstonesfan. Palin has bee treated quite badly by the media, like Hillary, but I think Hillary is way ahead of her when it comes to presidential qualifications. But that’s just my opinion.

    BTW, Murtha was a Hillary backer.

  117. My guess since the schools are running out of money, he wants to gets that jobs bill thru to protect the schools again. Thats all fine and good but if he would of used the money to produce real jobs the schools would have done just fine without the stimulus. Doing the stimulus the way he did it was totally backwards and now they want more money which they will piss away without creating one single job. He will continue to have to save jobs instead of creating them this way. He needs to go and go fast, how will we last 3more years.

  118. You just can’t compare Sarah to Hillary, there is no comparison, but I do think Sarah is good because she is sticking it to Barry everyway possible. She is now also sticking to big media with her new notes on her hand that says “hi mom”. LOL! SHe is not afraid of the big bad Wolfe Blitzer.


    President Obama the scold
    2/8/10 4:46 AM EST

    For a president who ran on uplifting themes like change and hope, Barack Obama spends an awful lot of time scolding Americans about how he hopes they’ll change.

    He has advised parents to “replace that video game with a book and make sure that homework gets done.” He has urged members of Congress not to read blogs or watch 24-hour cable news. And he’s challenged lobbyists, lawmakers, bankers, journalists, insurance companies and other heads of state to do a better job.

    He’s prodded people to get off the couch, eat healthier and exercise more. He’s even suggested Americans buy stocks, U.S.-made cars and energy-efficient light bulbs, while cautioning them not to max out their credit cards.

    At times, having Obama in the Oval Office is like having a really powerful Dr. Phil around.

    But lately, Obama’s tsk-tsking has gotten him into some trouble. At the very moment he’s trying to recover his declining popularity and revive his party heading into the November elections, even some Democrats worry that he risks coming off not as the inspirational figure who galvanized the electorate in 2008 but as the embodiment of a dour Democrat that turns off some voters.

    Dee Dee Myers, a former White House press secretary under President Bill Clinton, pointed out that, while Obama has long promised to tell people the truth even when it hurts, he needs to strike a balance.

    “Part of what people liked about him during the campaign is that he talks to the American people like they’re grown-ups — you don’t have to pretend that you can eat ice cream and lose weight in order to be president,” Myers said. “He did that during the campaign by appealing to hope. … I think little of that has been lost.”

    Added Democratic strategist Paul Begala, another Clinton veteran, “You got to be careful about that stuff, or you become a scold.”

    Obama drew criticism for his unusual finger-wagging at Supreme Court justices as they sat in the House chamber during his State of the Union address. He also used the speech to once again press Congress to go public with its earmarks. And Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, Obama’s fellow Democrat, recently told him to “lay off Las Vegas” when Obama urged fiscal restraint by explaining, “You don’t blow a bunch of cash on Vegas when you’re trying to save for college.”

    The White House says Obama’s admonitions, whether to the Supreme Court about campaign finance law or to Congress about pork-barrel spending, are simply part of his drive to change the ways of the capital.

    “A central part of the president’s vision for bringing change to Washington is fulfilling one of his earliest campaign promises: telling people not just want they want to hear but what they need to hear,” said Josh Earnest, White House deputy press secretary.

    “That may ruffle the feathers of some entrenched Washington, D.C., insiders, but it’s critical to the president’s pursuit of the priorities of the American people that have been ignored inside the Beltway for too long,” Earnest said.

    Still, Democrats have begun to suggest Obama curb the public lectures about his agenda and focus more on private wrangling, with Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) recently insisting the president “needs to press harder” if he wants to get health care done.

    And Republicans predictably roll their eyes at the steady flow of advice coming from the top of the country’s organizational chart.

    “Nobody wants a national nanny,” said Republican strategist John Feehery. “It’s really annoying, and people don’t want to hear it.”

    Rep. Tom Price, a Georgia Republican, thinks Obama has just taken a Democratic trait to a new level. “They want to tell you exactly how to eat, where to live, what light bulbs to purchase, what car to purchase, what house to purchase — down to the minute detail,” Price said.

    But to some extent, it’s an approach that comes naturally to the former University of Chicago law professor, even if it might not always be effective. “The fatherly scold doesn’t work well, at least in part because he’s one of our youngest presidents,” said presidential scholar Stephen Hess of the Brookings Institution.

    Age hasn’t stopped the president, who, at 48, is at ease urging the Obama way — on a range of issues — onto those a lot more experienced than he is. He is at once Americans’ president and their additional dad, teacher, preacher, nutritionist, life coach and financial adviser.

    “What you’re now seeing is profit-and-earning ratios are starting to get to the point where buying stocks is a potentially good deal if you’ve got a long-term perspective on it,” Obama told a CNBC interviewer last March.

    “If you are considering buying a car, I hope it will be an American car,” Obama said last May.

    Americans expect some of this from Obama. During the campaign he talked of the need to make sacrifices for the environment, including turning down the thermostat, and promised to “lead by example.”

    “We can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times,” he said at one point.

    Obama’s comments often include a heavy dose of “we” and a side of empathy. In a Father’s Day essay in Parade Magazine last year, Obama wrote, “We need to turn off the television and start talking with our kids and listening to them and understanding what’s going on in their lives.”

    Later, at a White House event, he used his relationship with his daughters to explain that sometimes dads have to give up things they enjoy, like sitting around watching ESPN.

    “I like watching the highlights,” Obama said. “But sometimes instead of watching the third, fourth, fifth time, ‘SportsCenter,’ I just watch it once so that I can then spend time with the girls.”

    When it comes to the ways of Washington, Obama is full of scolding. He shames members of Congress for partisanship. He maligns lobbyists for their influence. He shuns politics even as he advises Democrats how to keep their jobs.

    “I think if everybody here — excuse all the members of the press who are here — if everybody here turned off your CNN, your Fox, your — just turn off the TV — MSNBC, blogs — and just go talk to folks out there, instead of being in this echo chamber where the topic is constantly politics,” Obama told Senate Democrats last week.

    One of Obama’s favorite roles is playing the nation’s public editor. His criticism of cable news “chatter” is now routine. But, recently, he widened his media critique to include “our friends with the pads and the pencils.”

    As his chief speechwriter, Jon Favreau, recently told The New Yorker, Obama is on a mission “not just to change politics in Washington but to change the culture of Washington, and the media is part of it.”

    Still, Obama’s technique has an impact.

    After Obama told Senate Democrats to turn off the computer and the TV, Reid said he took the president’s advice.

    “Mr. President, you’ve told me, suggested: Don’t pay any attention to the blogs, don’t listen to talk radio, don’t watch cable TV,” said Reid. “And I follow that advice pretty good.”

Comments are closed.