Massa Matters – Arrogance! Incompetence! Corruption!: Election 2006 And Dimocrat Obama’s Culture Of Corruption Election 2010, Part III

Eric Massa is the Mark Foley of 2010. In 2006 the Mark Foley scandal clued in Americans who were not paying attention that something was dreadfully wrong in the Republican run congress. In 2010 it is Eric Massa who clues in Americans not paying much attention that something is dreadfully wrong in the Dimocratic run congress. In 2006 the American people threw the bums out. In 2010 the Dimocrats must suffer even greater devastating defeats, doom, death and disaster.

Some Republicans, like Michelle Malkin did not initially get it. Most Republicans, including Michelle Malkin, now do get it and today they demanded action and they got it. What the Eric Massa story is about, what has us jumping up and down, for days now is nicely summarized by commentor PM317:

we all know if Massa was a “Yes” vote on HCR, this whole thing would never have seen the light of day.

Politico published a story today titled Nancy Pelosi aide knew of Eric Massa concerns in October Last October!, but nothing happened until March 2010 because every vote is needed but only when Eric Massa made clear he was a “NO” vote, Eric Massa had to go.

From the moment this story broke open we linked to the allegations which made Eric Massa an unsympathetic figure. We understood immediately that the story is not about Eric Massa, the story is about the Arrogance!, Incompetence!, Corruption! of the Dimocratic congress and the Barack Obama White House and Obamination Dimocratic Party.

Some smart Republicans know we are exactly correct (again) in our analysis. So today, the smart Republicans, the ones with a memory of 2006 did what needed to be done:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s office was notified in October by then-Rep. Eric Massa’s top aide of concerns about the New York Democrat’s behavior, two congressional sources familiar with the matter said Wednesday night. [snip]

According to a person briefed on the call, Racalto was concerned that the lunch followed a pattern by Massa — who is married and has two children — of trying to spend time alone with young gay men with no ostensible work purpose. Racalto, according to this person, also alerted Frank’s chief of staff. The sources spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the political sensitivity of the matter.

The revelation about warnings to Pelosi’s office comes as the House ethics committee closed its short-lived investigation of allegations that Massa groped and sexually harassed several young, male staffers in his office, according to two sources familiar with the decision.

The committee concluded that Massa’s resignation put him outside the reach of any punishment it could impose and would render any findings irrelevant. The decision set up a political battle with House Republicans, who are already targeting congressional Democrats with campaign ads saying they have failed to look deeply enough into the ethical transgressions of their party members.

Republicans signaled Wednesday that they wanted the inquiry to continue, despite Massa’s departure. Senior Republicans in the House said the public deserves to know whether Democratic leaders were aware of the allegations of Massa’s misconduct longer than they have acknowledged and whether they failed to act to protect junior staffers.

GOP leaders cited as precedent the committee’s 2006 decision to investigate claims that Mark Foley, a Florida Republican, sent sexually explicit messages to former male pages. The committee’s decision came after Foley stepped down from Congress. That inquiry also examined how some House leaders ignored claims about Foley’s conduct while others tried to shield his behavior from public disclosure.

Rep. Darrell Issa (Calif.) said it would be only fair for the committee to investigate how Democratic leaders handled the Massa case, given the panel’s decision in the Foley investigation.

The complaints about Massa’s gropes of young staffers began “as far back as January 2009” reported the Washington Post. WHAT DID NANCY PELOUSY KNOW AND WHEN DID SHE KNOW IT? What and when was Obama told? What and when was Rahm told?

Today, the House of Representatives voted to continue the investigation. Nancy Pelousy has many questions to answer which may do to her what happened in 2006:

But she may be facing a moment as flummoxing as the one when Democratic Speaker Thomas Foley lost the vote on the rule to consider the crime and gun control bill in August 1994, or when Republican Speaker Dennis Hastert saw the Mark Foley scandal explode on the last day of the session in September 2006. Both were moments when highly competent and dedicated House speakers saw their majorities shattered beyond repair.

The upstate New York Democrat and Chronicle newspaper correctly notes that with the election fight in Massa’s district The stage has been set for another national referendum on President Obama’s administration and health care reform, again in upstate New York. We know how that referendum will turn out for the boob and his boobettes.

Before the Eric Massa story broke we discussed the Arrogance! Incompetence! Corruption! of the Dimocratic congress. In Part I of this series of articles we began our comparison of the 2006 elections with the 2010 elections.

In Part I we stated that it was not the Iraq war which won the 2006 elections but rather, “In 2006 Americans saw the same type of arrogance, incompetence, and corruption, from Republicans that Americans see in 2010 from Barack Obama and his corrupt Dimocrats.” In Part I we also tied the Obama health scam to the Arrogance! Incompetence! Corruption! that rules Washington today. [We warned at the end of 2008 that a special prosecutor was needed to prevent the Chicago Hydra of Corruption from growing another head at the nation’s capital.)

In Part II we expanded on the allegations of sexual impropriety by Eric Massa (we also discussed David Paterson) and made it clear that the focus should be not on what Eric Massa did but what Nancy Pelousy and the Obama Dimocrats knew and why they failed to act. We also tied the Massa allegations to the health scam scandal with these lovely quotes from Eric Massa:

“I was set up for this from the very very beginning. If you think that somehow they didn’t come after me to get rid of me because my vote is the deciding vote on the health care bill – then ladies and gentleman, you live in a world that is so innocent, as not to understand what is going on in Washington, DC.” “The leadership of the Democratic Party have become exactly what they said they were running against.”

“The entire nation has said, ‘let’s rewrite the health care bill. Let’s find what we can agree on.’ ‘No, no, no, we’re gonna ram this down the throats of the American people and anyone who stands in the way of doing that is gonna be smeared and they’re going to be kicked out of Congress, and we’re gonna have people like Steny Hoyer lying in the press.’”

If they ram this health care bill through which apparently they’re going to do now, because I’m not going to be there to vote against it, then it’s going to rip this country to pieces

The next day, Glenn Beck conducted a bad interview with Eric Massa, which reflected more on the culture clash of different mindsets and the inabilities of Glenn Beck to conduct the type of interview that needed to be conducted, than the actual things said by Massa. The interview was a dud and nothing new was said – except to the many people who had not heard this information before. That is what happened in 2006 when the Mark Foley scandal broke open.

Our first Arrogance, Incompetence, Corruption article appeared on March 4, 2010. On March 5, 2010 we began this series which compares the election of 2006 with the elections of 2010 (not the first time we made this comparison). It was also on March 5, 2010, before the Eric Massa story broke wide open – before Massa made the statements we quoted above about Dimocratic Arrogance! Incompetence! Corruption! – before, when the scandal was limited to the late, sex based attacks on Massa by the Dimocratic establishment, that Joan Walsh made the contrary argument. Joan Walsh wrote:

I predicted Wednesday that Republicans and the mainstream media would soon have a new but typically simplistic partisan line: that recent scandals involving Democratic Reps. Eric Massa and Charlie Rangel and New York Gov. David Paterson would make 2010 what 2006 was for Republicans — the year voters punished the party for its corruption. Throw in oldies but goodies like former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich and former New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer, both Democrats, and I foresaw an avalanche of 2006-2010 comparisons. And I was right.

[snip]

But this is another dramatic case of the double standard the media can’t seem to avoid when it comes to Republicans and Democrats. The big difference between the two sets of scandals is that GOP corruption in 2006 was big-time, it was systemic — and much of it was covered up, ignored and, in some cases (House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, anyone?), perpetrated by congressional leadership. Nancy Pelosi’s team came in and developed ethics standards and investigation protocols that are working in the Rangel case, standards that many Republicans, including House Minority Leader John Boehner, opposed.

If you simply examine the corruption scandals, there is no comparison. (This post by the great Joe Conason is a must-read.)

In our next and final installment in this series (this weekend), we will draw the comparisons for hapless Joan. It’s not about Massa or his Massa-ges of young males’ body parts. It’s about Arrogance! Incompetence! Corruption!

Share

87 thoughts on “Massa Matters – Arrogance! Incompetence! Corruption!: Election 2006 And Dimocrat Obama’s Culture Of Corruption Election 2010, Part III

  1. Another smart Republican move – they have nothing to lose and tons to gain.

    As the minority party they don’t get the earmarks they want most anyway and so the Republicans have a new truly smart politically and good policy tactic: ban earmarks.

    Additionally by banning earmarks the Republicans take away the possibility that Nancy Pelousy and Obama can bribe Republican members to vote for Dimocratic initiatives. It’s truly crafty and shows Republicans are learning to play the game.

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/news/ap/politics/2010/Mar/11/house_gop_adopts_earmark_moratorium.html

    In an election-year appeal to voters frustrated with Washington, House Republicans promised Thursday not to stuff any of this year’s spending bills with pet projects for their districts.

    The promise comes a day after House Democrats banned earmarks to for-profit companies, ending a practice that in many cases created a cozy “pay-to-play” culture involving lawmakers and businesses whose Washington lobbyists often use campaign donations to help assure access. [snip]

    The effort may run into trouble in the Senate, where many lawmakers have made clear they have no interest in House Republicans’ self-imposed moratorium or House Democrats’ ban on earmarks to for-profit companies. That could set up contentious negotiations later this year, when the House and Senate must combine their versions of spending bills.

    Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., plans to schedule a meeting of Senate Republicans over whether to keep seeking earmarks. A member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, which hands out earmarks, McConnell supports the process.

    The House GOP promise is a compromise between lawmakers who oppose earmarks, such as Minority Leader John Boehner of Ohio, and rank-and-file Republicans who had already submitted a round of earmark requests.

    House Republicans promised a one-year pause in earmarks instead of a permanent ban. Boehner said Thursday that suspending earmarks shows Republicans are serious about fixing Washington.

    “We have a real possibility of regaining the majority, and I think a lot of members realize that we have to regain the voters trust somehow,” said Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz. “Earmarks are the most visible thing that we can do because we abused it so badly in the past.”

    Senate Republicans should see the wisdom of the House Republicans on earmarks and try to up the ante and force Dimocrats to follow suite. It’s an instance of good politics and good policy. Of course it blocks Dimocrats’ attempts to bribe members and makes ramming through despised legislation that much harder for Obama’s Chicago thugs harder to pass.

  2. Admin:

    as soon as I saw this:

    “Republicans signaled Wednesday that they wanted the inquiry to continue, despite Massa’s departure. Senior Republicans in the House said the public deserves to know whether Democratic leaders were aware of the allegations of Massa’s misconduct longer than they have acknowledged and whether they failed to act to protect junior staffers.”
    ______________________

    After reading further, my suspicions were confirmed. They are after Big Game, Nancy Pelosi.

    Could this be why Paddy Kennedy was shouting the house down at the press corp yesterday?

    The press has remained focused on the Massa saga (imo a lengthy time) Kennedy’s screaming reminders prioritizing important things could have been an attempt to cool the trail leading to Pelosi(?) I really don’t know. What was pretty obvious yesterday was Kennedy’s bizarre behavior over an occurrence as commonplace as
    Obama voting present on serious issues.

  3. http://realclearpolitics.blogs.time.com/2010/03/11/acorn-out-of-ohio/

    Interesting news from the Columbus Dispatch:

    ACORN, the liberal group notorious for allegedly trying to inflate voter rolls through fraudulent practices, has seen its last election in Ohio.

    The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now will permanently surrender its Ohio business license by June1 as part of a legal settlement with the conservative Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions, both sides said yesterday. [snip]

    Yesterday’s settlement is mostly confidential, said Maurice A. Thompson, the conservative group’s attorney.

    “They will surrender their business license by June 1 and cease to operate in Ohio and cease to support or enable other groups to do what they do,” Thompson said.

  4. The whole thing is eerily similar to the Foley /Hastert situation which cost the republicans big time.

  5. No, it’s not reminiscent of Foley. Foley was interested in underage teenagers. Massa’s alleged victims were all adults. At the worst, this is office harassment. Groping people at work is wrong, but it’s not the same thing as attempting to seduce children.

  6. Basement Angel, while Foley’s activities were not proper, what hurt the Republicans was that the Republican leadership knew about Foley’s problems, for a long while, and did nothing about it. That is exactly what Dimocrats are going to have to answer. Dennis Hastert had the Foley explosion occur on the last day of the session so there was added confusion. For the Dimocrats this is happening in the middle of the session in an election year. If indeed Pelousy and Hoyer and the rest knew what was going on but kept Massa on for the additional vote, this is exactly the Foley problem (with the exception that the Republicans at the time did not need a one vote margin to pass legislation they have been working on for a year).

  7. Admin,

    Oh, I am all in favor of investigating gropers. When I’m uncomfortable with is conflating gay relationships with pedophilia. Massa going to lunch with a gay staff member from Barney Frank’s office is not a reason to investigate Massa. Neither is the fact that he lived with young gay staffers. That’s what buzzing me.

    On the other hand, groping is wrong. Period. And that needs to be dealt with upfront, and in no uncertain terms with all political considerations aside.

    I remember talking to someone who knew former California Supreme Court Justice Rose Byrd quite well. He said that she was intimidating to face (he was an attorney who appeared in front of her court several times) because she was never afraid to do the right thing – even when it was costly. The right hated Byrd, but we could certainly use a dose of that kind of willingness right now.

  8. sirmrks
    March 10th, 2010 at 11:45 pm
    Everyone who is mad at the government is part of the “TEA Party” they just dont know it but they will find out.

    its the only option left.
    ***********
    I agree…

    ***********
    Great article(s) Admin…been away a few days, just catching up. I will admit that I am depressed and often have to pump myself up. One of the ways I do this is by reading this blog.I have been reading it since I found it in late 2007 but for some reason could never post until one day, “whola”, it happened. Admin’s fearless and insightful posts and support of Hillary really helps, as does the intellectual thoughts from the posters here. True Americans.

    I worry about my finances that have taken such a huge hit, my “golden years” that are fast approching..but mostly for my children, their futures which are being destroyed by the traitor in the WH and his stooges in the Congress… I worry about this great Country I so love, what it stands for…freedom, and will always stand for, no matter how they try to destroy her… we will fight for her…we will win, because we must…

  9. So now Greta is saying there will be 20% unemployment??? I lived thru that with Jimmy Carter then had to go thru Raygun opening the borders and giving the illegals all the jobs and cut the hourly wage by about 50%. That’s why I love me some Raygun! Here we go again, its seems like a cycle…just like global warming.

  10. Oh, and it’s an Obama drive-by that throws gays back under the bus. You can’t let this info go without knowing that it going to get conflated with pedophilia and make gay Americans look bad to a lot of people.

    Grrrr…..

  11. I wonder why Sestak’s allegations of a job offer by the WH to leave the race in PA is not catching fire.

  12. Pardon me if this has already been posted. Karl Rove commented on the prospects of Hillary Clinton in 2016 in a Politico article today:

    Could Secretary of State Hillary Clinton seek the Democratic nomination in 2016? “She’s an able person,” he said. “If she had won the Democratic nomination in 2008 and been elected … I’d sleep safe at night knowing that the White House was in the hands of somebody whose policies I didn’t agree with but who was capable of doing the job. But 2016 is a long time away — seven years from now.”

    Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/34242_Page2.html#ixzz0hvn8tuqu

  13. Thanks, admin for posting Joe Conason’s article spotlighting Rangel. In this paragraph, he outlines the vacillating ethical duality of the Republicans. An interesting and curious dynamic..

    “When did the Republicans start to worry so much about ethical purity? Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Wash., who replaced Hefley as ethics chairman, was notable only for stalling probes into the truly repugnant misconduct of Mark Foley, R-Fla., Randy Duke Cunningham, R-Calif., and Bob Ney, R-Ohio, as well as his sponsor DeLay. Foley narrowly escaped criminal indictment, while the other two went to prison (where Cunningham will remain for the rest of his life).”

    http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/joe_conason/2010/03/04/rangel/index.html

  14. Basement Angel, what you might be missing, is that what happened to Massa is a form of anti-gay “blackmail”. As we wrote from the beginning, Rahm Emanuel and the DCCC investigate first time candidates and they knew about the Massa rumors at the time he first ran for office. Once Massa got elected he was afforded “protection” as long as he did the bidding of the “leadership”.

    It is no coincidence that Emanuel confronted Massa about his votes in the House gym, naked. The medium was the message.

    Once Massa defied “leadership” the blackmail commenced. Massa knew he had to get out and he did. Recall, when the story first emerged the narrative was that health reasons precipitated the resignation. It was when “leadership” leaks, meant to intimidate first time freshmen who have their own “situations” Emanuel knows about, emerged about Massa’s gropes that Massa reacted by saying his “no” vote was the cause of the problem.

    The Massa “hit” was also meant as a warning to others – that is the point. An investigation into when/what Pelousy and Co. knew in a sense protects other freshmen members in their own particular “situations”.

    You are right that equating gay relationships with pedophilia is a dangerous path and wrong (and to be total pedants, the Foley situation was not pedophilia, it was ephebophilia). It’s not particularly of import that the Foley or the Massa allegations are same sex ones. If Foley was abusing his relationships with girls it would have been wrong and if Massa had been groping women it would be wrong.

    At this point we are not sure that the House ethics committee has grounds to investigate allegations against Massa. Originally the ethics panel said the investigation was over. Only if someone has pressed “charges” against Massa is there logic to pursuing the Massa allegations.

    What the ethics panel must investigate is the Dimocratic leadership. Such an investigation will end more blackmail attempts against those with “secrets” known to Rahm.

  15. I got the blackmail part of it. And I knew pedophilia wasn’t quite the right word but didn’t take the time to look up the right one – I’m in favor of being pedantic in these situations.

    I’m angry because what I’m seeing is gay Americans getting smeared in this mess. Isn’t there something about not trusting Obama? This is really deplorable.

    I’m sorry if I’m being dense. That last paragraph in this last reply packs a wallop. I went to bed thinking last night about your historical explanation. Now I’ll have this on my mind for a few days while I work through it.

  16. Democratic Pollsters Pat Cadell and Doug Schoen have a viscious editorial in the Wash Post tomorrow, saying basically that the Dems either stop the health care madness or face annhilation in November. Headline link at Drudge:

    Health care is no longer a debate about the merits of specific initiatives. Since the spectacle of Christmas dealmaking to ensure passage of the Senate bill, the issue, in voters’ minds, has become less about health care than about the government and a political majority that will neither hear nor heed the will of the people.

    Voters are hardly enthralled with the GOP, but the Democrats are pursuing policies that are out of step with the way ordinary Americans think and feel about politics and government. Barring some change of approach, they will be punished severely at the polls.

    Now, we vigorously opposed Republican efforts in the Bush administration to employ the “nuclear option” in judicial confirmations. We are similarly concerned by Democrats’ efforts to manipulate passage of a health-care bill. Doing so in the face of constant majority opposition invites a backlash against the party at every level — and at a time when it already faces the prospect of losing 30 or more House seats and eight or more Senate seats.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/11/AR2010031102904.html

  17. BTW, Basement Angel, we thought of the book/movie Advise and Consent which if you have not seen you might enjoy. It’s about a confirmation fight over the Secretary of State of a man called Leffingwell and some “homosexual blackmail”. Here’s some fun info from wiki which shows how nothing has changed in Washington (btw, we did not know that the movie’s gay blackmail was based on real life – Wbboei did you know this?). Here’s some wiki excerpts and some video:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advise_and_Consent

    The Leffingwell nomination and the revelations of a Communist past are from the Alger Hiss affair of the late 1940s. The Soviet moon landing ahead of the U.S. draws on the culture shock that stupefied the U.S. when the U.S.S.R. launched the first artificial satellite, Sputnik on October 4, 1957. Brigham Anderson’s homosexual love affair, its exposure, and his suicide, was taken from a nasty political episode. Senator Styles Bridges threatened to expose a homosexual scandal in Senator Lester Hunt’s family. Senator Hunt, from Wyoming, killed himself, showing Drury how rough politics could be. [snip]

    The story details how a U.S. President (unnamed, but much like Franklin Roosevelt and a fictional contemporary of the Eisenhower era) decides to name a new Secretary of State in attempting rapprochement with the U.S.S.R. His nominee is Robert Leffingwell, the darling of the liberal media, establishment and academia. However, Leffingwell is viewed as an appeaser to the Soviet Union by many of the more conservative senators who must vote on his nomination, while others have serious doubts about his character due to past performances before Senatorial committees. Shepherding the nomination through the Senate is Majority Leader Robert Munson of Michigan, who is trying to ensure that the President’s nominee is confirmed while also massaging the egos of his fellow senators, both in the majority and the minority. [snip]

    The sub-committee deems Gelman’s testimony far-fetched, and the chairman, Senator Brigham Anderson of Utah, is about to send the nomination to the full Foreign Relations Committee when a member of the President’s sub-cabinet calls Senator Anderson to tell him that he once was known as “James Morton”. Anderson holds open his sub-committee hearings, an action which enrages the President. The President orders Munson to buy off Anderson, or to possibly find something to make him get out of the way. Munson replies that he can’t conceive of anything that the President could use to threaten Anderson.

    As it turns out, Anderson does have something to hide. While he was in Hawaii on R&R late in World War II, Senator Anderson had a month-long love affair with another man. The novel never uses the word “homosexual,” but it is clearly obvious that Senator Anderson has been struggling with accepting his homosexual orientation throughout his life, despite having a wife and child and being a Mormon. The only evidence of the affair is a picture of the two men together, taken in Hawaii, which Anderson’s maid gives to him along with other items she had cleaned out of the attic. The picture is in a sealed and forgotten envelope, and no one, not even Anderson’s wife Mabel, has any idea about his past homosexual liaison, although Mabel has on occasion complained tearfully that she does not feel loved in their marriage.

    It’s a fun potboiler, even with the gay suicide and the contrived machinations and the silly profile of foolish women. It’s an Otto Preminger film.

  18. We intrigued ourselves with the gay blackmail story from Advise and Consent. We found this out:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lester_C._Hunt

    Lester Callaway Hunt (July 8, 1892–June 19, 1954) was a Democratic politician and dentist from the U.S. state of Wyoming. He served as the 19th Governor of Wyoming from 1943 to 1949 and as United States Senator from January 3, 1949 until his suicide on June 19, 1954. [snip]

    He subsequently served two terms as Wyoming Secretary of State from 1935 to 1943, and two terms as governor from 1943 to 1949. He is credited with the idea for the Bucking Horse and Rider that has been featured on the Wyoming license plate since the 1930s.

    Hunt was elected to the U.S. Senate in 1948, taking office on January 3, 1949. During his tenure in the Senate, Hunt became a bitter enemy of Wisconsin senator Joseph R. McCarthy, and his criticism of McCarthy’s anticommunist tactics marked him as a prime target in the 1954 election.

    Amazing, with all the gay issues surrounding McCarthy and Roy Cohn and David Schine that this occurred. There’s more:

    In July 1953, Hunt’s twenty-year-old son was arrested for soliciting prostitution from a male undercover police officer in Lafayette Square. Republicans learned of this and delivered a blackmail demand in early 1954:[4] Hunt was to retire from the Senate and not run for re-election; furthermore, he was to resign from the Senate immediately, so the Republican governor could appoint a Republican to run as an incumbent. If Hunt refused, Wyoming voters would be informed of the arrest of Hunt’s son. On June 8, 1954, after some vacillation, Hunt announced that he would not seek reelection, citing a kidney ailment.[5] Eleven days later, he shot himself in his Senate office.[1] Although The New York Times attributed Hunt’s suicide to “apparent despondency over his health”,[6] journalist Drew Pearson published a column stating that Senators Styles Bridges (R-NH) and Herman Welker (R-ID) had delivered the ultimatum to Hunt.[7][8]

    Some prominent Wyoming historians[who?] also cite as a possible tipping point to Hunt’s suicide a second issue. Hunt’s suicide was on the Saturday following an incident where Senator Joseph McCarthy accused Hunt of defrauding his state’s government of royalty monies from a Works Project Administration project. The issue arose from Hunt copyrighting the Wyoming Guidebook on his own after the Governor and Legislature failed to act to preserve Wyoming’s intellectual property. Records indicate that all of the quarterly checks of $3.50 issued to Hunt were endorsed and turned over to the state treasurer.[citation needed]

    Republican Edward D. Crippa was appointed to fill the remainder of Hunt’s Senate term.[9] Democrat Joseph C. O’Mahoney won the seat in the general election of November 1954,[10] which tipped the Senate to a one vote Democratic majority.

    This blackmail and eventual suicide in a Senator’s office was fictionalized by Allen Drury in his 1959 best-selling and Pulitzer Prize-winning novel Advise and Consent. Drury transferred the homosexual incident of Hunt’s son to Senator “Brigham Anderson” from Utah, with the blackmailing Senator “Fred Van Ackerman” from Wyoming. In 1962 the novel was made into a movie starring Henry Fonda.

    Hunt’s anti-McCarthyism and his son’s homosexuality are mentioned in Thomas Mallon’s 2007 novel Fellow Travelers. The novel examines the government’s attitude towards homosexuality in the 1950s. Mallon uses Hunt’s suicide to reflect the damage that could result from the persecutions.

    Move on, nothing’s changed.

  19. Hwc, there’s more:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/11/AR2010031102904.html

    First, the battle for public opinion has been lost. Comprehensive health care has been lost. If it fails, as appears possible, Democrats will face the brunt of the electorate’s reaction. If it passes, however, Democrats will face a far greater calamitous reaction at the polls. Wishing, praying or pretending will not change these outcomes. [snip]

    The notion that once enactment is forced, the public will suddenly embrace health-care reform could not be further from the truth — and is likely to become a rallying cry for disaffected Republicans, independents and, yes, Democrats.

  20. admin:

    I don’t think the Democrats even know how close they are flying to the flame right now. This country is not far from open revolt against its government.

    From what I can tell, messenger after messenger has gone to the White House and begged them to listen to the country. The White House refuses.

    This is not about health care legislation. It’s about the people of the United States feeling that their government is no longer recognizable.

    When states are already passing laws to block the major provisions of the health care bill, somebody in Washington better start listening.

  21. I’ve never seen that film, so I’m going to put it on my NetFlix queue.

    And speaking of crazy, gay Republicans, I actually have a beautiful antique brass bed from the estate of Stewart McKinney. LOL Isn’t that weird>

    Oh, admin. I am so glad you’re here. When I first started reading this site seriously, you reminded of MWO. Your function remains as valuable and that is no small thing. Thank you for continuing to do this. We need you and we need your information.

  22. and is likely to become a rallying cry for disaffected Republicans, independents and, yes, Democrats
    ********************

    Tea Party members, if they know it or not…

  23. From BP
    *********

    If this report is true, the parliamentarian’s ruling seems to nix the “Slaughter Solution,” whereby the House would deem the Senate bill passed only after the reconciliation bill is passed by both the House and the Senate.

    So where do Democrats go from here? One possibility is that Harry Reid will fire the Senate parliamentarian.

    If Democrats really think they can get away with such a heavy-handed move in the first place, they might as well replace the parliamentarian with Rahm Emanuel and kill two birds with one stone.

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/did-senate-parliamentarian-just-kill-obamacare

  24. Hwc, it’s Arrogance!

    When Dick Cheney in 2006 said the voters did not matter, that the Bush W. policies would continue, the arrogance infuriated Americans. Dims are doing the same thing.

  25. Basement Angel, you can laugh as you get into bed tonight because McKinney “is credited with coining the phrase “too big to fail” in connection with large banks”. What would he say today? 🙂

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stewart_McKinney_%28politician%29

    Also, in the footnotes to the above article, there is a link to (unknown to us until tonight) Jake Tapper’s “A Brief History Of Gays In Government” which has an entry on McKinney. The first entry is from 1778 when George Washington approves the court martial of of Lieutenant Enslin for “attempted sodomy” (what could that be? 🙂 )

    There’s also this fun item:

    1921 — U.S. Senate Naval Affairs Committee issues “Report on Alleged Immoral Conditions and Practices at the Naval Training Station, Newport, RI” accusing officers under the command of Franklin D. Roosevelt, former assistant secretary of the US Navy, of ordering enlisted men to engage in 11 immoral practices” in order to entrap “perverts” in the military and obtain evidence against them. The report is also one of the first to document gay male cruising areas, including Riverside Drive in New York City.

    Tapper’s article mentions Advise and Consent but does not mention the fiction is based on some real life characters. Jake probably does not know. No mention of Nixon Supreme Court nominees nor of Lyndon Johnson’s pal and the trouble they got into either.

    Amazing the things you find with this internet thing.

    http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=2531627&page=1

    And thanks for the kind words. We all miss MWO.

  26. Bill Gates No Longer World’s Richest Man – Forbes.com: “Indeed, last year’s wealth wasteland has become a billionaire bonanza. Most of the richest people on the planet have seen their fortunes soar in the past year.”

  27. Canadian JanH would like this news, but not the rest of us: 🙂

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100310/wl_canada_afp/canadaeconomyforexus_20100310191857

    The Canadian dollar, or loonie as it is affectionately called here, is likely to soar above parity with the US greenback this year, experts at a Canadian bank said Wednesday.

    Canadian Imperial Bank of Canada (CIBC) chief economist Avery Shenfeld said the Canadian dollar had already gained several cents in recent weeks as the market firms up expectations of an interest rate hike in July.

    If as expected, the central bank “is out in front of the US Federal Reserve by a couple of quarters” in raising interest rates, the Canadian dollar could reach 1.02 dollars versus the US dollar by September, before dipping back to 0.97 dollars by year end,” Shenfeld said.

  28. All the cover stories and lies are coming undone. Desirée Rogers is getting her stab in the back from Barack and Michelle:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/12/us/politics/12rogers.html?hp

    Long before the State Dinner party crashers and the tension with her White House colleagues and the strain in her relationship with the first lady, Desirée Rogers began to understand she was in trouble when David Axelrod summoned her to his office last spring to scold her.

    Ms. Rogers had appeared in another glossy magazine, posing in a White House garden in a borrowed $3,495 silk pleated dress and $110,000 diamond earrings. But if the image was jarring in a time of recession, Mr. Axelrod was as bothered by the words and her discussion of “the Obama brand” and her role in promoting it, according to people informed about the conversation.

    “The president is a person, not a product,” he was said to tell her. “We shouldn’t be referring to him as a brand.”

    The confrontation that day between Ms. Rogers, the White House social secretary, and Mr. Axelrod, the senior adviser to President Obama, put at odds two longtime Chicago friends of the first family. And it foreshadowed a deeper, wrenching conflict that would eventually cost Ms. Rogers her job and tear at the fabric of the close-knit inner circle around Mr. Obama. [snip]

    For Ms. Rogers, associates said the episode proved a searing experience that has soured her on Washington. She believes she was left largely undefended by the White House, by her colleagues, including Mr. Axelrod, Robert Gibbs and even her close friend, Valerie Jarrett. And while she is unwilling to discuss her story publicly, several associates shared her account in the belief that her side has been lost in the swirl of hearings, backbiting and paparazzilike coverage.

    “As she put it, ‘They never lifted a finger to help me set the record straight,’ ” said one of the associates, who insisted on not being identified to avoid alienating the White House. “She didn’t get any help from Gibbs, no help from Axelrod, no help from Valerie Jarrett. Nobody came to her defense.” [snip]

    She was ordered to stop attending splashy events and showing up in fancy clothes on magazine covers. When Michelle Obama learned one day that Ms. Rogers was on a train heading to New York to attend an MTV dinner, the first lady told her longtime friend to cancel, associates said. [snip]

    And even her decision to finally resign leaked before she could secure a new job. [snip]

    Mr. Gibbs, the White House press secretary, had already canceled a proposed photo shoot of Ms. Rogers wearing an Oscar de la Renta ball gown in the first lady’s garden, officials said. Michelle Obama’s new chief of staff, Susan Sher, more closely scrutinized Ms. Rogers’s public activities, to her aggravation.

  29. Poor Desiree. Ask me if I’m going to shed a tear. There are better people than her wedged under the Obama bus.

    I wonder if these idiots will ever figure out that everyone who associates with Obama gets stabbed in the back?

  30. My godfather was active in democratic politics in the 40’s 50’s and 60’s. He knew LBJ and JFK personally. He told my dad that LBJ was a very talented politician and in some ways perhaps they were a little alike. He never had much use for JFK however who was one of my heroes as a kid and still is. But if you read this article, and ignore the bitter experience of Viet Nam–then you can get an accurate sense of why he felt that way about Johnson. I remember passing out those stick on signs LBJ for the USA back in 1964 when he was running against AuH2o aka Goldwater. This Henniger is a sharp cookie apart from his jab at Hillary care. What people understand is that Obama care is pro big business whereas Hillary care was pro American people. The bottom line is that Obama is a dangerous dilatante whereas Johnson was a pro which is accurate on both counts:
    ———————————————————————————–
    Why Obama Is No LBJ
    Critics who want Obama to be like Lyndon Johnson misunderstand the political skills that produced LBJ.
    By DANIEL HENNINGER
    Wall Street Journal Editorial Page
    March 11, 2010

    After a very, very long year, we are at crunch time for President Obama’s health-care offensive. Before the bloody showdown in the red zone over this epic, let’s take a time out to express a smidgen of admiration:

    Barack Obama is all in with health care. He has bet the ranch, his presidency, his party and by the way, the American system of medical care. Some might call it the audacity of hope.

    Seized with the idea of transforming American health care, Democrats are dizzy with historic images from past liberal dreams. Twice at the health-care summit, Mr. Obama noted waiting “50 years” for this moment, meaning FDR’s failure to nationalize medicine in 1939.

    But now, with the bill’s wheels stuck deep in Beltway mud, some Democrats are saying Mr. Obama ought to act more like the American presidency’s greatest tow-truck operator, Lyndon Baines Johnson. They want Mr. Obama to muscle health care through the way the political master steamrolled the Great Society to life.

    Daniel Henninger says that critics who want Obama to be like Lyndon Johnson misunderstand the political skills that produced LBJ.

    Podcast: Listen to the audio of Wonder Land here.

    Right, just like that.

    Barack Obama as LBJ is a metaphor worth pondering if one wants to understand Mr. Obama’s difficulties with this project, and his presidency. The more useful comparison, though, isn’t to LBJ’s tortured 1960s presidency but to the famed Senate Majority Leader who in 1957 got a civil rights act passed.

    Then and now, the job was getting the deal done.

    From that January until Aug. 2, Johnson engaged in a mind-boggling effort of legislative politics, a story told across hundreds of pages in Robert Caro’s “Master of the Senate.” Johnson had to overcome the threat of a killer filibuster by the Old South Democratic bloc—led by the brilliant Richard Russell of Georgia—and the animosity and suspicion of northern liberals. Passing the bill, which enhanced voting rights for black Americans, was a remarkable legislative achievement. No civil rights legislation had passed since 1875.

    Many possible comparisons between that effort and now are evident, few favorable to now.

    The Civil Rights Act of 1957 was about four pages long, not the gargantuan health care’s 2,000 pages; the more famous 1964 act was also relatively brief.

    The civil rights acts, however monumental, were legal documents, with straightforward goals. The health-care bill is a sprawling economic document. Civil rights legislation was hard to do but easy to understand. ObamaCare is hard to do and even harder to understand.

    The 1957 Civil Rights Act had several very powerful forces in play. The health-care bill put innumerable powerful forces in play, across several complex industries.

    LBJ spent his relentless energies and skills over seven months mostly on finding the means to assemble difficult Senate alliances (securing a bloc of Western-state senators by promising them, in secret, long-sought federal dams). This Congress has used up its energies with fights over endless policy detail. The “filibuster-proof” Senate let them think the institution’s internal politics didn’t matter. It always matters.

    The notion of doing anything this big without some opposition support is simply outside the Senate’s nature and experience, and would have been alien to LBJ’s understanding of how politics works. “Another factor which must be considered,” LBJ said during that bitter fight, “is the future relationships which Senators will have with their fellow Senators.” At Mr. Obama’s health summit, Harry Reid all but called Lamar Alexander a liar. Reconciliation could damage the institution of the Senate for years.

    LBJ in his arguments used the reality that public support for civil rights legislation then—and opposition to filibustering it—was building. The opposite on both scores is true now for health care.

    Most relevant for this moment: The Civil Rights Act of 1957 was “incremental.” LBJ decided he had to prove it possible to pass notable, if partial, civil-rights legislation—”break the virginity,” is how he put it. This meant abandoning two big provisions in the bill, enraging some, but not all, of the Senate’s liberals. In short, jam-breaking compromise, of which there’s been little with ObamaCare. I’m guessing the one person in the White House who has read Caro’s book is Rahm Emanuel, the incrementalist.

    When he reached the White House, LBJ did not compromise on the 1964 Act. The path to that bolder legislation had been prepared earlier. ObamaCare’s precedent is HillaryCare. That isn’t a path; it’s a minefield.

    The idea that Obama should become LBJ, even in the glare of modern media, reveals how other-worldly our politics has become. Only a dilettante would believe a Barack Obama can walk in off the street and be LBJ. To read Caro’s account of the hours, years, effort, savvy and muscle memory Lyndon Johnson built over a career to become “LBJ” is to know why Washington “doesn’t work” anymore.

    A final irony. Johnson’s victory with the 1957 civil rights bill broke the Southern Democrats’ long hold on the region in obvious ways. In recent years, moderate Senate Democrats like Blanche Lincoln, Mary Landrieu and some House members have begun to defeat Republicans. For a 2,000 page health-care bill, an alliance of northern liberals is about to break them again.

  31. Unions Not Corporate America are the biggest beneficiaries of the recent decision by the Supreme Court, whereas Obama in his typical fashion led us to believe us otherwise.

    Question: How do you know when Obama is lying?

    Answer: Whenever his mouth is moving:
    ————————————————
    By STEVEN J. LAW

    When President Obama delivered his tongue-lashing to the Supreme Court in his State of the Union address—accusing the justices of opening “the floodgates for special interests”—he didn’t mention the No. 1 beneficiary of the Court’s Citizens United decision. Nor did Sen. Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) when he excoriated the campaign finance case as a victory for “corporate America.”

    The unmentioned winners massively outspend any corporation on politics. By their own admission, they dropped roughly half a billion dollars in the 2008 elections, overwhelming any group representing business.

    Despite enjoying access to the highest reaches of the federal government, many of this group’s leaders avoid detection of their lobbying simply by removing their names from official lobbying databases. One of the group’s most powerful executives referred to its legislative shopping list as “payback” in return for lavishing financial support on politicians. And if that weren’t enough, the group even represents thousands of foreigners.

    So what is this political powerhouse that Washington politicians dare not mention by name? Organized labor.

    The central ruling of Citizens United v. FEC allows corporations to engage in independent advocacy during elections. This applies equally to labor unions. And unlike corporations, unions are far better positioned to take advantage of the ruling because they have virtually no other restraints on their capacity to engage in political action.

    Public companies have to deal with earnings targets, investment analysts, ratings agencies and dividend-hungry shareholders. That’s why most corporations spend little or nothing on politics and can be expected to do the same going forward.

    Labor unions, on the other hand, can spend whatever they want on elections with no accountability at all. The AFL-CIO regularly imposes special fees on union members to fund their political programs. Last year the country’s largest union, the SEIU, passed a resolution setting quotas for its local affiliates to cough up “voluntary” contributions to its political action committee, and requiring that shortages be made up from general treasury funds. This fund-raising scheme has been challenged in a complaint to the Departments of Labor and Justice as a violation of federal election law.

    Unions also aren’t held to any financial performance standards. SEIU chief Andy Stern admitted last year that he had taken out tens of millions of dollars in loans to pay for campaign ads, saying: “We maxed out the credit card and now we’re paying it off.” What corporation could get away with that?

    Given the unions’ capacity for dominating political spending, should Congress curtail organized labor’s free speech rights? Absolutely not. The First Amendment applies equally to unions as it does to business.

    At the same time, however, Congress should take steps to protect the free speech rights of union members who don’t support their leaders’ political agenda, and to ensure the integrity of union political activism. As lawmakers evaluate appropriate responses to the Citizens United decision, these proposals should be on the table:

    • Require secret ballot elections, supervised by the National Labor Relations Board, to approve political spending.

    • Strengthen “pay-to-play” reforms to prohibit government employee unions from spending money to elect politicians who will oversee their labor contracts.

    • Allow union members to deduct from their dues all union lobbying and political expenditures, as calculated by an independent auditor.

    • Get the government out of the business of automatically deducting union dues from paychecks and require an affirmative check-off for union political spending.

    • Prohibit unions that are under the influence of organized crime—as determined by the Department of Labor’s inspector general—from ingratiating themselves with politicians by spending money on elections.

    There is a great deal of hyperventilating on Capitol Hill these days about the power of corporations. There is conspicuous silence about organized labor. Coincidentally, unions give nine out of 10 election dollars to the party that currently runs Washington. If Congress attempts to inhibit corporate political speech while treating unions with kid gloves, that’s not reform. It’s just another special-interest payback.

    Mr. Law is chief legal officer and general counsel of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

  32. just a quick note, I’m here in New Delhi, its hot, humid and sticky.

    Just dropping in to catch up, miss you guys, back on 25th March.

    I see the usual Democrat stupidity is off and running off the cliff.

  33. MoonOnPluto, the further the distance the easier it is to see the mess. From New Delhi D.C. must be a sore sight.

    Wbboei, did you know the gay blackmail/suicide storyline in Advise and Consent was based on real life? We wrote about it here and had never heard this story and wondered if you or anyone else had heard of it:

    http://www.hillaryis44.org/2010/03/11/massa-matters-arrogance-incompetence-corruption-election-2006-and-dimocrat-obamas-culture-of-corruption-election-2010-part-iii/#comment-283073

    HWC, had you heard of this ever before?

    Maybe Lil Ole Grape?

  34. Steven J Law was quoted:
    “Public companies have to deal with earnings targets, investment analysts, ratings agencies and dividend-hungry shareholders. That’s why most corporations spend little or nothing on politics and can be expected to do the same going forward.”

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

    Huh? — really? Some interesting math behind that I expect.

  35. Re: Rose/Pelosi video upthread:
    [paraphrase] Massa has cancer. Perhaps his judgment is clouded.
    ——————–
    Yeah. Maybe like that of our late Chappaquidick Chauffeur.

    You’d warned us repeatedly of Obama’s lifelong tactic of destroying competitors for the purpose of securing his victory. However, that fact is just now sinking to the core of my being … what an incredibly vile little man. And after Michelle’s remark (“I almost said President Clinton” followed by peals of her own laughter) in Hillary’s presence, I believe I’ll add her in as of the very same stripe. With that remark, I fear she has sent a most unwelcome and unfortunate signal to those who share her ethnicity.

  36. holdthemaccountable
    March 12th, 2010 at 7:03 am
    ————–

    Yep, I saw that video of MO.. if she is not mean, she is ignorant and lacks sophistication. Did you also hear her rubbing it in that Hillary was doing a fantastic job SoS in the Obama admin? She does not realize that it may not offend Hillary, but it offends all of us who are her supporters and we were 18 million+ at one time and at some level still continue to be.

  37. This is comment from Althouse blog on the Desiree Rogers’s article in NYT:

    Chip Ahoy said…

    DA : He’s a person, not a product. Got that?

    DR: Yes. I got it.

    DA: Then repeat it. So I’m sure you got it.

    DR: The president’s a person and not a product

    DA: That’s right. Not a product.

    DR: Not a product.

    DA: Yes! Now keep saying that.

    DR: Not a product. Not a product. Not a product.

    DA: Yes! Great! You’ve got it.

    DR: Question. When did he start being a person and not a product?

    DA: Goddamnit he was always a person. Now get this straight, always a person and never a product.

    3/11/10 10:46 PM

  38. Our Girl just never stops her hard work and and love of country while HUCUS POTUS is on the run making Tele speeches then takes no questions and avoiding the mess he leaves behind.Hiding and fjying on AF ONE is costing the country millions of dollars to keep this monk in seclusion and safe from criticism.
    Take a look at Hillary s agenda.

    ——————————————————

    ags: Daily Appointment Schedule, Daily Schedule, Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State, State Departmentby stacyx
    .Busy day:

    9:45 a.m. Secretary Clinton meets with Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice, at the Department of State.

    11:00 a.m. Secretary Clinton attends a National Security Council Meeting with President Obama, at the White House.

    3:00 p.m. Secretary Clinton delivers Remarks in Honor of the 15th Anniversary of the UN World Conference on Women in Beijing, at the United Nations.

    4:00 p.m. Secretary Clinton attends a Bilateral Meeting with UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, at the United Nations.

    8:00 p.m. Secretary Clinton delivers Opening Remarks of the Documentary Play “Seven,” in New York City.

  39. For all of my depressed freinds.Take a look at what the media is up to and take heart.FOX and MSNBC can no longer avoid giving credit where credit is due and right the wrongs that they create about her and have failed like a Toyota recall.

    —————————————————

    The Washington Post has an interesting article about Secretary Clinton’s management of the State Department. It is largely very positive. Here is an excerpt:

    But a little over a year into her tenure as secretary of state, allies and detractors alike say Clinton has made a vigorous effort to widen her circle, wooing and pulling into her orbit the agency’s Foreign Service and civil service officials, many of whom said in interviews that she has brought a new energy to the building.

    “We have had other secretaries of state who have cared deeply for the institution,” said Patrick F. Kennedy, undersecretary for management and a senior Foreign Service officer. “None who have done as much internal outreach.”

    To be sure, Clinton has her share of critics who take aim at her operating style, complaining that she has ceded too much of her power to special envoys and that she has been in a global campaign mode of relentless image-building, intense travel and international media cultivation. Her job-approval ratings top President Obama’s.

    [snip]

    hose interviewed inside and outside the agency say Clinton has done a good job of heading off the historical tensions between career employees and quadrennial political newcomers by relying on the counsel of senior Foreign Service operatives and reaching out in general.

    She has walked the halls and popped into offices unexpectedly, created an electronic “sounding board,” and held seven internal town hall meetings to listen to gripes about everything from policy to cafeteria food to bullying in the workplace. She installed six new showers that joggers requested, is taking steps to remedy overseas pay inequities and instituted a policy that allows partners of gay diplomats to receive benefits. She became a heroine to the Foreign Service when she went to bat to get funding for 3,000 new Foreign Service positions for State operations and the U.S. Agency for International Development — the first boost of this magnitude in two decades.

    [snip]

    Clinton had one condition that eclipsed all others as she considered Obama’s offer to be secretary of state: She demanded hiring authority at the department. To Team Clinton, this meant every political job — about 200 — from the most senior level to the 20-something researchers. Historically, it is the president who fills these political positions, and no one can recall a Cabinet secretary in recent memory requesting and receiving this kind of hiring latitude….

  40. I think the public would have supported ramming through a bill worth passing. The public overwhelmingly supports public health care. If the Dems had said we are going to let you into the congressional pool, give you access to Medicare and expand Medicaid, not only would they have solved the health care “crisis”, they would have bent the “cost curve” for health care, and they would hae adopted policies supported by the public. This health insurance plan is the MA plan, but notice the pres. et. al. never mention MA. That’s because it’s costing a fortune and has caused premiums to skyrocket. I think the Republicans have dirt to add to health reform, and I know the public agrees with me because they have NEVER allowed the Republican Party to reform health care. I think the Democrats plan amounts to NOTHING more than a bailout to insurers. But it didn’t have to be that way. They were more concerned with placating insurers, and thinking they could dupe the public, than offering a legitimate policy. It should fail, not because it’s a Democrat only proposal, that’s what winning elections is all about. It should fail because it’s a terrible policy. And, anyone who thinks a Hillary policy would be this big bonanza to the insurers or would not include a major expansion of public health care is absolutely off the mark. Indeed, this current bill was the 1990’s Republican alternative to Clinton care. So that is what we are down to. Democrats offering Republican ideas.

  41. MJ, thanks for that observation. I did not realize that. I guess for me, when is the right time to try to put together a health care bill, especially in this economic situation? I think HRC would know the answer to that. The post before yours shows how she goes out and wins the support of people who work for her, and she would probably say they worked with her. I think the same is true of the American people. She would be out there listening at town halls, and work together to get the health care through that would be the best for the people and what they want. She also would make sure we can afford it.

    I also hear a lot of talk about how much this will cost. I don’t see yet an estimate, and having worked with the government numbers, I have little faith that they really understand the numbers either. It took me years to figure out some areas, and many times it was more a case of giving them the number they wanted, rather than the real number. I fear that is what we will get from the Budget people. After all they have already stood up once, and they are probably suffering for it. How can you run anything, if you have no confidence in the numbers. That is how we run this country.

  42. Re: gonzotx
    March 11th, 2010 at 10:38 pm
    sirmrks
    March 10th, 2010 at 11:45 pm
    Everyone who is mad at the government is part of the “TEA Party” they just dont know it but they will find out.

    its the only option left.
    ***********
    I agree…
    ___________________________________________________________________

    Agreed.

    I read somewhere some time ago about how The Chap. Chaffeur stuffed some piece of legislation with dozens, if not hundreds, of admendments that even he did not agree with; and then objected to them in order to eat up time, to frustrate others, and to defeat the bill. I suspect that is what the Republicans will do with this monster.

  43. The Coffee Party, on the other hand, has immediately been embraced by CNN:

    Meet the People who are percolating the Coffee Party
    …Meet these members of the Coffee Party Movement, an organically grown, freshly brewed push that’s marking its official kickoff Saturday. Across the country, even around the globe, they and other Americans in at least several hundred communities are expected to gather in coffeehouses to raise their mugs of java to something new.They’re professionals, musicians and housewives. They’re frustrated liberal activists, disheartened conservatives and political newborns. They’re young and old, rich and poor, black, white and all shades of other.Born on Facebook just six weeks ago, the group boasts more than 110,000 fans, as of Friday morning.

    The Coffee Party is billed by many as an answer to the Tea Party (more than 1,000 fewer fans), a year-old protest movement that’s steeped in fiscal conservatism and boiling-hot, anti-tax rhetoric.This new group calls for civility, objects to obstructionism and demands that politicians be held accountable to the people who put them in office.
    snip
    “President Obama is stifled by a dysfunctional Congress. When he was on the campaign trail, he used the word ‘we’ a lot. He cannot do this alone. He needs our help,” she said. “Americans are waking up across the board. … Not everyone is cut out to be an activist. But everyone can do something.”
    snip
    But the direction Oxford has seen the Tea Party take recently has him concerned. He can’t help but think it’s being hijacked by social conservatives and the far right, he said, and as a gay man who’s committed to gay rights, it may not be his cup of political tea.So he’s pulled up a chair at the Coffee Party to see what it can offer. Next to him is a college Democrat leader wearing a T-shirt that reads: “I’ll hug your [picture of an elephant] if you kiss my [picture of a donkey].”
    snip
    “I am looking for a group of informed thinkers who might be able to impact the obstructionism we now have in D.C.,” she said. “I’ve gotten really disillusioned with the lack of change that’s happened. … There are a lot of people looking for something different. We have a lot more in common than we realize.”
    http://www.cnn.com/2010/LIVING/03/12/coffee.party.people/index.html?hpt=C1

  44. The vile little man is pouring Roundup on genuine grass roots.
    Seek and destroy.
    It’s the obama way.

  45. Here:

    http://www.wbur.org/npr/123670612

    I’m quite sure Hill would have passed any expansion of public health care with the stimulus, which would have been the easiest time. This is a very rich country. We can afford health care even the Dem’s crappy plan. The point is do we want to waste money bailing out the insurers when the feds can do it cheaper and better or not? That’s the underlining issue in the health insurance reform debate. The Dems and the Repubs are essentially on the same side. The only reason the repubs oppose the private insurer bailout now is because they have a political imperceptive to not help the Dems pass anything. Look, the insurers have not spent a dime trying to kill this thing, rather they have lobbied to shape the bill. They want this bill. This is not a liberal policy.

  46. I think the public would have supported ramming through a bill worth passing.
    ————————
    Agreed.

  47. Perhaps I agree she could at got something through with the stimulus, but now any one talking about it has to address jobs and funding it. The honeymoon is over, and it was wasted. It is like he did not know how to perform.

  48. DAVID BROOKS: OBAMA, THE MISUNDERSTOOD GENIUS

    Brooks is at it again, with his pedantic, “I know so much more than you”, talking to the reader like they are children, approach. It’s his usual “Didactic fanatisticism is the driving force multiplier in the new gestalt movement of governmental paternalism”. Thanks, David, you are sooooo smart.

    On the other hand, how smart can he be if he’s caught dead writing these ditties?

    “He is inadequate on the greatest moral challenge of our day: the $9.7 trillion in new debt being created this decade. He has misread the country, imagining a hunger for federal activism that doesn’t exist. But he is still the most realistic and reasonable major player in Washington.”

    “Take health care… Obama has pushed this program with a tenacity unmatched in modern political history; with more tenacity than Bill Clinton pushed his health care plan or George W. Bush pushed Social Security reform.”

    “Obama has been the most determined education reformer in the modern presidency.”

    nytimes.com/2010/03/12/opinion/12brooks.html?ref=opinion

  49. The following is from the WashPo article by Pat Caddell and Doug Schoen who are both very level headed people. Pat worked for President Carter, and Doug was and presumably still is a partner with Mark Penn–but not the boy wonder Penn was billed as at one time. This excerpt sums up what I believe binds us together as Hillary supporters on this blog:

    “At stake is the kind of mainstream, common-sense Democratic Party that we believe is crucial to the success of the American enterprise.”

    To which I would add, if the bad guys, i.e. the Obama supporters, aka win the civil war then the party is kaput and the playing field will then be ceded to the Republicans. A one party system cannot work. Without checks and balances the competition for power which drives politics becomes monopoly and you end up with dictatorship. So it is quite true what they say–a common sense centrist democratic party–which is NOT what we have today is critical to the American Enterprise.

  50. I have not spoken too much about Michelle Obama. The one time I did hold forth on the subject, and marshaled evidence to show that she has a strong animus against white people. I think that evidence is conclusive and I do not propose to dwell on it here. What I would like to point out at this juncture is that despite Tweetie’s sexual fantasies about a menage a toi with Barack and Mo, I find her to be ugly below the surface. This latest quip is part of a pattern of statements she has made toward Hillary, and it confirms my suspicion about a blackmail scenario. That is the way Chicago works. Consider the following evidence and see if you agree with me:

    1. ” If you cannot manage your own house how can you manage the White House.” (during the primary campaign)

    2. ” I do not know if I could vote for Hillary is she becomes the nominee” (during the primary campaign)

    3. ” I love to call you Secretary Clinton” (at a womens conference last year–which Hillary invited her to)

    4. ” I almost called you President” (at a recent awards ceremony which Hillary invited her to).

    Only a petty vindictive boor accepts an invitation to a public event twice and each time insults the host. Add that to her racism and the only plausible conclusion is that Michelle is an ugly person, and an embarrassment to this country.

  51. From wbboei
    March 12th, 2010 at 2:39 am
    article by Stephen J. Law
    “Last year the country’s largest union, the SEIU, passed a resolution setting quotas for its local affiliates to cough up “voluntary” contributions to its political action committee, and requiring that shortages be made up from general treasury funds.”
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    In Massachusetts, SEIU members were told to vote for Coakley, but they resented it and were seen out on the street in significant numbers campaigning for Brown. Does campaign money control elections? — I think the people are not so easily manipulated anymore.
    XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
    • admin
    March 12th, 2010 at 3:21 am

    Wbboei, did you know the gay blackmail/suicide storyline in Advise and Consent was based on real life? We wrote about it here and had never heard this story and wondered if you or anyone else had heard of it:
    http://www.hillaryis44.org/2010/03/11/massa-matters-arrogance-incompetence-corruption-election-2006-and-dimocrat-obamas-culture-of-corruption-election-2010-part-iii/#comment-283073
    HWC, had you heard of this ever before?

    Maybe Lil Ole Grape?
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Right after WW2 Alan Drury began working for UP and his beat was the Senate. He kept a diary on his observations of senators as well as senate procedures plus backroom shenanigans, but he didn’t begin writing fiction till about 10 years later(I think) Adv and Consent won a Pulitzer for fiction.
    XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
    MJ …… “This health insurance plan is the MA plan, but notice the pres. et. al. never mention MA. That’s because it’s costing a fortune and has caused premiums to skyrocket.”
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    They also don’t seem to want us to remember that the plan came from the then-Governor Mitt Romney who still thinks he can govern a country after he failed at governing MA!

  52. To Pelosi: you are evading the issue. The question is not whether Massa is a sick individual. The question is whether he is right. And if you want to say he is sick, then show me your medical credentials to make that kind of diagnosis.

  53. Admin: no I was not aware of that.

    Back in the days when liberal democrats were working people, as opposed to wealthy people for whom it is more a matter of lifestyle there was a US Reprenentative from Washington named Marion Zioncheck. He was a true reformer in the Robert LaFolette tradition and there was alot of that in the Seattle area in those days. His philosophy was summed up in a statement he made with is at once poignant and profound:

    My only hope in life was to improve the condition of an unfair economic system that held no promise to those that all the wealth of even a decent chance to survive let alone live.

    He was a hero to my parents and vicariously to me. He was a close friend of Senator Magnuson who we knew and was the Dean of the Senate. Marion did some unorthadox things along the way and on one occasion dumped a truck load of manure on the front porch of J Edgar Hoover who kept a dossier on the private lives of all the public officials in Washington so he could blackmail them if he wanted to. I do not know what exactly they had on him. Possibly it was something sexual. What I do know is he jumped out of the 5th story building of the Arctic Building in Seattle to his death in 1936. Some say he was pushed by prior to his death he was acting irrationally. When I was young and more idealistic than I am now, my parents used to say that is what happens to a good man who really tries to change a corrupt system.

  54. The point is do we want to waste money bailing out the insurers when the feds can do it cheaper and better or not? That’s the underlining issue in the health insurance reform debate. The Dems and the Repubs are essentially on the same side.

    excellent analysis. That is the core of the problem. That and the ability to negotiate better rates.

  55. Carol, I agree, so how did so many voters not realize this, and now do still not seem to realize it if they still think O is doing a good job.

  56. DAVID BROOKS: OBAMA, THE MISUNDERSTOOD GENIUS
    ——————————
    Brooks belongs in the rubber room with a toy duck. This kind of drivel is too much. The key sentence however is that Obama is INADEQUATE and that statement trumps all the temporizing he does to cover it up. Reasonable minds could differ as to whether he is a genius, or a dumbshit. But there is one thing we cannot deny, and that no one who lives in the same world as most of us can deny and that is this: he inherited a number of problems, that is quite true. But rather than solving them he has made them worse. His priorities have been upside down. He has no sense of the moment or the zeitgeist. Rather than batten down the hatches in a storm, he has flung them wide open and sailed into the eye of the storm with reckless abandon. And as the water floods into the engineroom and rises above the gunnels he says full speed ahead damned the voters. Genius should be made of sterner stuff.

  57. The Chamber of Commerce is using the Soros strategy to target vulnerable dims. You can be sure the unions will be doing the same thing against people like Michelle Bachman and Marcia Blackburn.
    ——————————————————————————
    Chamber of Commerce To Spend Big Bucks Targeting Vulnerable Dims

    After a year of pitched battle with the Obama White House over health care reform, the Chamber is now priming for a the 2010 midterm cycle in which executives say they pro-business lobby will spend close to $200 million, more than double its spending in 2008.

    print email share recommend (0)
    Scott Brown’s upset victory in the Massachusetts Senate race marked a triumph not only for Republicans in a blue state but also for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

    After a year of pitched battle with the Obama White House over health care reform, the leading business group is now priming for a the 2010 midterm election cycle in which executives of the pro-business lobby expect to spend close to $200 million on political campaigning — more than double its spending in the 2008 elections.

    Neither party’s national committee nor any one labor union tosses around that kind of cash. A new arm, Friends of the Chamber, is explicitly modeled on “Organizing for America,” the grassroots group that backed the last Obama campaign.

    The well-funded and deeply entrenched pro-business lobby spent heavily on GOP candidates in 2008. But during the transition and winter months, chamber executives met frequently with Obama aides and supported the administration on the bank bailouts, the stimulus package and high-level nominees.

    Over the past year, the uneasy relationship between the White House and the chamber has steadily eroded, with the business group’s opposition to health care and climate change legislation triggering an all-fronts backlash from the administration.

    In the Scott Brown race, the chamber bankrolled a TV ad blitz to get him elected. That campaign served as a trial run, and it illustrates how big-money political campaigns feed off each other.

    “We went in with our first half-million,” R. Bruce Josten, executive vice president of the chamber said. “You know [how] this game is played – it’s an action/reaction game. The next day — I believe it was, I think it was the SEIU, it was one of the major unions — went in with a $400,000 buy. The next day another union went in with another buy. By the next day the political parties have gone in with buys, all leading up in that one last week to an election.”

    This fall, the chamber says it will operate in at least 22 states, targeting vulnerable Democrats like Sens. Michael Bennett in Colorado and Blanche Lincoln in Arkansas. But because incumbents win at least 90 percent of the time, the Chamber is most focused on open seats.

    “What we’re now seeing is these corporations are able to give money to the Chamber of Commerce and they’re able to do it anonymously,” Fox News contributor Kirsten Powers said. “If that’s the case and you have an organized grassroots push, I would expect that it’s going to be very successful.”

    The chamber says it will first educate, then seek to “activate’ the 6 million members of its grassroots arm to do things: contact lawmakers, hand out literature, man phone banks, give money. Chamber executives claim their “activation rate” is equal to that of Organizing for America, even though the latter organization boasts twice as many members.

  58. I guess it bears repeating:

    James Roosevelt, who was chair of the Rules and Bylaws Committee that decided to dock Michigan and Florida half of their delegates and award 4 of the delegates Clinton won in Michigan to Obama, as well as all of the uncommitted delegates, is the CEO of a health insurance company – Tufts Healthcare. Okay? Got that? The guy who made sure that Obama had the necessary to delegates to win the nomination – even to the point of assigning delegates another candidate won to him arbitrarily – is the CEO of a health insurance firm.

    And what Roosevelt wants in a health insurance reform, is a reform that relies entirely upon private insurers. He does not want a public option. He wants a plan like Massachusetts has: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/04/09/healthcare_lets_build_on_what_we_know/

    I’m thinking he considers Barack Obama a man of his word.

  59. A most interesting editorial, not from Fox News or Rush Limbaugh, but
    from Mortimer Zuckerman of U. S. News. The tide is turning.

    Mortimer Zuckerman is the Editor in Chief of the U S News and World
    Report and was a supporter of Barack Obama during his run for
    the Presidency. This is a staggering appraisal of the President’s
    first year in office- coming from someone who supported President
    Obama.

    In a January 20, 2010 editorial, the Editor in Chief of U.S. News &
    World Report, Mortimer Zuckerman, had this to say:

    “Obama’s ability to connect with voters is what launched him. But what
    has surprised me is how he has failed to connect with the voters since
    he’s been in office.

    He’s had so much overexposure. You have to be selective. He was doing
    five Sunday shows. How many press conferences? And now people stop
    listening to him… He’s lost his audience. He has not rallied public
    opinion. He has plunged in the polls more than any other public figure
    since we’ve been using polls. He’s done everything wrong. Well, not
    everything, but the major things… I don’t consider it a triumph. I
    consider it a disaster.” And that’s what his friends are saying about
    him.

    As the boy president occupied the White House on January
    20, 2009 it was predictable that his presidency would last a year, at
    most, because the things he promised and the things he stood for were
    so uniquely un-American. Looking back over his year in office, any
    reasonably precocious fourth grader could make a cogent argument in
    opposition to nearly everything he’s done. In fact, his policies have
    been so extreme and so far outside the mainstream that he was destined
    to achieve the most spectacular fall from grace of any American
    president in history. It was easy to see him serving out the final
    three years of his term as a virtual exile in the White House… afraid
    to venture out among any but the most rabid partisans.

    Seeing his most ambitious initiative, healthcare reform, die in the
    flames of the Massachusetts Massacre, Obama made a hastily-planned
    “sortie” to Ohio for yet another Bush-bashing, self-aggrandizing stump
    speech on job creation. It was vintage Obama… full of left wing
    hyperbole and planted questions from the Kool- Ade drinkers in the
    hand-picked audience… but there were just two things wrong with it: 1)
    Almost everything he said was either wrong or an outright lie, and 2)
    He is so overexposed that no one in the television audience really
    wanted to see him.

    Obama Kool-Ade drinkers in the media, and elsewhere, like to describe
    Obama as a “very bright man, a true intellectual (compared to George W.
    Bush and Sarah Palin, of course).” If that is the case, why has he
    demonstrated such a great inability to learn from his failures? The
    strident words and the in-your-face attitude of his Ohio speech were
    proof that he has totally misread the meaning of the Scott Brown
    victory inMassachusetts.

    Whatever hopes and dreams he had for his time in the White House,
    whatever grandiose plans he had for transforming the United States from
    a constitutional republic with a free market economy into a socialist
    dictatorship with a centrally planned economy, were all lost on
    Tuesday, January 19, 2010… one day short of a full year in office.
    Yet, he appears to have learned nothing from the experience.

    Comedian George Gobel once asked, rhetorically, “Did you ever get the
    feeling that the world was a tuxedo and you were a pair of brown
    shoes?” In the context of 21st century American politics, and assuming
    that he has any capacity at all for honest self-examination, Obama must
    be feeling today very much like a pair of brown shoes at a black tie
    soiree.

    When a politically naïve and totally inexperienced young black man,
    with a glib tongue and an exceptional ability to read words
    convincingly from a teleprompter, announced that he was ready to serve
    as President of the United States, liberals and Democrats saw it as a
    perfect opportunity to expiate whatever white guilt they may have felt…
    which was apparently considerable among those on the political left.
    It didn’t seem to bother them that, as one pundit has remarked, “every
    time he walks into a room he is the least experienced and the least
    qualified man in the room.” Nevertheless, his friends in the worldwide
    socialist movement and the international banking community figured out
    how to smuggle hundreds of millions of dollars in illegal campaign
    funds into the country, the black community rallied to his banner, and
    American liberals and the mainstream media jumped on board the
    bandwagon. Together, they made it happen for him. But now, just one
    year later, Obama appears destined to become the unhappiest man in
    American politics…

    What we do know about Obama is that, since his teen years, he has been
    mentored by, gravitated toward, and surrounded by the most dangerous
    sort of America-hating socialists, communists, and Marxists… from Frank
    Marshall Davis and Saul Alinsky to Weather Underground terrorists Bill
    Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, toRev. Jeremiah Wright, George Soros, and
    countless radical left college professors.

    What destines Obama for the top spot on the list of unhappiest American
    politicians… aside from the failure of his economic recovery program,
    the failure of his radical cap-and-trade proposal, his failed attempt
    to give labor bosses unprecedented power to intimidate blue collar
    workers, and his ill-fated attempt at healthcare reform… is the fact
    that he carries on his shoulders the hopes and aspirations of every
    black child in America. It is unfortunate that, because he is so far
    outside the American mainstream, and because he carries so much hatred
    in his heart for the country he seeks to lead, his failures will be
    viewed by generations of black children, not as the failure of a black
    socialist attempting to bring down a constitutional republic, but
    simply as the failure of a black man.

    A man can fail in the eyes of his countrymen and still be dearly loved
    by those closest to him. But in Obama’s case, his wife and his two
    daughters will be there to suffer every agonizing step of his fall
    along with him. And for the rest of his life, each time he looks into
    their eyes, and into the eyes of black people everywhere, he will see
    the crushing disappointment that his ill-fated attempt at national
    transformation has caused them.

    He will be the country’s unhappiest man, living the rest of his life
    knowing that his daughters know that the whole world sees him as a
    failure. He is simply the wrong man, in the wrong job, in the wrong
    country, at the wrong time in history.

  60. jbstonesfan: the mort zuckerman appraisal I posted at 1:32 above may be useful to you in getting some of his other supporters to see the light.

  61. Congressional black caucus met with Obama y’day.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/11/AR2010031104908.html

    Yea, but he is a racist, dontcha all know?

    For older CBC members, many of whom remember receiving calls from inveterate gabber and advice-seeker Bill Clinton during his presidency, Obama’s more distant style has involved adjustments. Asked whether he has received a call from the president since his inauguration, Payne looked up at his office ceiling and answered slowly: “I can’t remember.”

    Some caucus members talk wistfully of the last Democratic administration, where the late commerce secretary Ron Brown could relay CBC concerns to Clinton. “We knew Ron had the president’s ear, and he had status,” Payne said.

    But Obama, the real first black president, should be better than that racist hick couple from Arkansas, right?

    Several CBC members and aides talk derisively of an oft-quoted Obama phrase: that a “rising tide” for America will “lift all boats.” They see it as rhetoric intended to justify why the administration has not focused on their communities at a time when unemployment among African Americans has climbed to 16.5 percent. “I can’t pass laws that say I’m just helping black folks,” Obama told the American Urban Radio Networks. “I’m the president of the United States. What I can do is make sure I’m passing laws that help people, particularly those who are most vulnerable.”

    Many in the 42-member, all-Democratic CBC passionately disagree. African Americans and Latinos “bear the brunt of this economic recession,” said Maxine Waters (Calif.). “We must not shy away from targeted public policy that seeks to address the specific and unique issues facing minority communities.”

    If Obama hears Waters’s point, it is from a distance. Friends of hers say she has had no phone calls from the president and no consistent contact with other administration officials despite her position as a subcommittee chairman and a key player on the House Financial Services Committee. Before Thursday’s meeting, neither she nor the CBC as a group had met with the president to discuss the jobs bill.

    Hmm kay, when he is talking about lifting boats, mabbe he means his own boat???

  62. What destines Obama for the top spot on the list of unhappiest American politicians… is the fact that he carries on his shoulders the hopes and aspirations of every black child in America.–Mort Zuckerman
    ——————————————
    He is right of course and that is why many of us said at the time if we are going to have a black president let us at least be sure that he is the right one, because if he fails it will lead to disillusionment.

    On the other hand, the globalist got exactly what they wanted from him: a politician with no core values–in effect an empty shell, into which they could pour their toxic mixture of disenfranchising the electorate, looting the middle class and moving the economy away from private enterprise to state capitalism. Meanwhile Obama’s hatred for America, which is also noted in that article, and shared by Soros, will be repaid in kind by the American People most of whom feel very different about that subject than he does. I think it is more probable than not that he will be a one term president. But not if big media has anything to say about him. They love him with a love that is more than a love and that won’t change one iota.

  63. basement angel, There yah go….now we know who cheat Hillary out of the nomination….the insurance lobby…probably where Obama got all his money for the exception the money he got from Bush’s friend the Saudi’s….

    I am sick of Massa, he is not Mark pedophile Foley!

  64. Admin-

    [snip]…what happened to Massa is a form of anti-gay “blackmail”. As we wrote from the beginning, Rahm Emanuel and the DCCC investigate first time candidates and they knew about the Massa rumors at the time he first ran for office. Once Massa got elected he was afforded “protection” as long as he did the bidding of the “leadership”.

    It is no coincidence that Emanuel confronted Massa about his votes in the House gym, naked. The medium was the message.

    Once Massa defied “leadership” the blackmail commenced. Massa knew he had to get out and he did. Recall, when the story first emerged the narrative was that health reasons precipitated the resignation. It was when “leadership” leaks, meant to intimidate first time freshmen who have their own “situations” Emanuel knows about, emerged about Massa’s gropes that Massa reacted by saying his “no” vote was the cause of the problem.

    The Massa “hit” was also meant as a warning to others – that is the point. An investigation into when/what Pelousy and Co. knew in a sense protects other freshmen members in their own particular “situations”.


    I’m glad you spelled this one out (for me too), I was still stuck on, “…gee, that’s pretty weird that Rahm would go postal in the shower and Massa would just leave his job that easily.”

    What scumbags.

  65. Thanks Wbboei-I know some here do not care for Mr. Zuckerman, but I think he is a genuis and when he choses to speak, I listen very carefully.

  66. This may have already been posted. I haven’t had time to read up thread. Since I’ve been away from TV for a couple of days, I’m not sure if this is new info.

    From The Plumline:

    Two More House Dems to Vote NO

    Dem Rep Ben Chandler, a prominent Blue Dog of KY who voted NO last time but has since been undecided, will vote against the Senate Bill.

    Dem Rep Luis Gutierrez of IL an influential member of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus who voted YES last time is also a NO vote. He said on MSNBC that the immigration language in the bill was enough to say he can’t support it.

    These new NO votes from the Blue Dog and Hispanic caucauses underscore how fragile and thinly stretched the coalition Pelosi is trying to assemble really is.

  67. holdthemaccountable
    March 12th, 2010 at 10:33 am
    The Coffee Party, on the other hand, has immediately been embraced by CNN:
    ********************

    I don’t see them as viable. Just retreads of the Fraud coalition. Facebook and emails, that’s about it. I don’t see 2 million people marching to celebrate or fight for his failed policies. All Bullshit. This boat ain’t floating Baaarck….

  68. pm317
    March 12th, 2010 at 3:08 pm
    wbboei, I will one up you with this song (from LJ at NQ
    —————————
    That video certainly shows what a prevaricator Barack is. It is more than hypocrisy–it is a lie, and not just one lie, but one lie after another. Lies portrayed as truth by his big media echo chamber.

    In the fulsomeness of time, most people will realize that the color of Barack is not black, or white, but green. And the sole beneficiary of his efforts is not the American People, or the democratic party, but Barack himself.

    And when that realization finally hits home, what will be left of the country and the party? And who will be around to pick-up the pieces. Let us hope it is Hillary.

  69. HEALTH CARE REFORM; IT’S SUCH A GREAT PROPOSAL, THAT DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES ARE RUNNING AWAY FROM FASTER THAN USAIN BOLT

    thehill.com/homenews/campaign/86375-democratic-candidates-dont-want-to-mention-it

    Democratic candidates distance themselves from healthcare reform
    =============================================
    By Aaron Blake – 03/12/10 06:00 AM ET

    Hardly any Democrat running for Congress seems to want to talk about healthcare.
    &&&

    Of the 26 leading Democratic House candidates contacted by The Hill, only one would commit to voting for the Senate healthcare bill if and when it comes to the House floor.

    Out of the more than two dozen Democratic challengers and open-seat House candidates, only 10 commented for this story. Eight outright declined to comment.

    Eight more didn’t respond to several days’ worth of requests via phone and e-mail.

    The only candidate to say unequivocally that he would support the Senate bill, which could be voted on in the House next week, is a primary-care physician running to face Rep. Jim Gerlach (R-Pa.).

    Dr. Manan Trivedi said it’s important to get the ball rolling on reconciliation.

    “The answer is yes,” he said flatly.

    That was about as direct as the answers got — though another Democratic candidate, Arkansas state Sen. Joyce Elliott, said she was “inclined” to support the bill.

    The campaigns of Trivedi’s and Elliott’s primary opponents — businessman Doug Pike and Arkansas state Rep. Robbie Wills, respectively — did not respond to multiple requests for comment over the course of the week.

    “I most definitely think that we need to just bite the bullet and get with this process to get some kind of healthcare legislation in place,” said Elliott, who is running for the seat being vacated by retiring Rep. Vic Snyder (D-Ark.).

    Elliott and others cited the unsettled nature of the bill for their deferred judgment.

    In order to press forward with the reconciliation process, House members would have to vote on the bill passed by the Senate last year. But different factions of their party are requesting various guarantees, particularly when it comes to abortion funding language and cost-cutting measures.

    That left Democratic candidates some wiggle room when pressed for their position on the bill. And they used it.

    Dr. Ami Bera is running against Rep. Dan Lungren (R-Calif.) and was added to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee’s (DCCC) Red to Blue program for top candidates this week.

    He said people are skeptical of additional government control, but he’s not committing either way.

    “We’ll have to see what they actually end up with,” Bera said. He added that the healthcare bill the House voted on in November didn’t sufficiently rein in costs.

    “What’s currently being discussed probably does not adequately address that either.”

    Maureen Reed, a medical doctor running against Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), said Congress “needs to pass something.”

    But like Bera, she said costs are a major concern.

    “My worry about these bills is they require the infusion of another trillion dollars over many years’ time,” she said. “We need the trillions that are already in healthcare to be better spent.”

    Reed’s primary opponent, state Sen. Tarryl Clark, said that the Senate bill is flawed but that the country can’t wait any longer.

    “Clearly, for America’s sake, we need to make some changes,” she said.

    Not everyone stressed cost containment, though. New Hampshire open-seat candidate Ann McLane Kuster said she would like to see a public option included.

    have been pushing Senate Democrats to include a public option change in the reconciliation process.

    “I’m not going to engage in hypotheticals about what the version is,” Kuster said. “I’m just going to say that I support a bill with a strong public option and see how that emerges.”

    Florida state Sen. Charlie Justice said: “While I’m very much in favor of doing some healthcare reform, I hesitate to say I’m definitely in favor of a specific resolution.”

    Former Washington state Rep. Denny Heck, the Democratic front-runner to replace retiring Rep. Brian Baird (D-Wash.), would only lay out a series of policy goals and declined to delve into the details of the Senate bill.

    He echoed a line frequently used by the candidates — that something must be done.

    “I have to say that I’m encouraged by the seriousness with which I sense this thing is all being taken of late,” Heck said. “[Health and Human Services] Secretary [Kathleen] Sebelius was beating the doing-nothing-is-not-an-option drum. I think that’s the right message.”

    Spokesmen for open-seat candidates Jon Hulburd in Arizona and Lori Edwards in Florida said their candidates weren’t ready to talk details either.

    “All we’ve said on healthcare is that we’re concerned about how the system currently works, and we need a bipartisan solution and see what they can do to fix the problems we can all agree on,” said Hulburd campaign manager Ruben Alonzo.

    Edwards campaign manager Clay Schroers said: “It’s all well and good to pass a bill that expands coverage, and that’s great, but if we’re expanding coverage at such a rate that we can’t pay for it, then the future’s going to be just as troublesome.”

    Those declining to comment for this story included: former Delaware Lt. Gov. John Carney; Illinois open-seat candidate Dan Seals; Indiana state Rep. Trent Van Haaften; Nebraska state Sen. Tom White; Franklin County, Ohio, Commissioner Paula Brooks; Pennsylvania special-election candidate Mark Critz; Bethlehem, Pa., Mayor John Callahan; and former Marine Capt. Rob Miller in South Carolina.

    Those who didn’t respond to multiple messages were: Pike; Wills; Palm Springs, Calif., Mayor Steve Pougnet; Kansas state Rep. Raj Goyle; Louisiana state Rep. Cedric Richmond; Tennessee state Sen. Roy Herron; Pennsylvania state Rep. Bryan Lentz; and Washington businesswoman Suzan DelBene.

    On its website, The Hill is tracking which way members of Congress are leaning on the bill. Recently, vulnerable Reps. Michael Arcuri (D-N.Y.) and Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.) signaled they would switch their votes from yes in November to no on the Senate bill.

  70. I think he (Zuckerman) is a genuis and when he choses to speak, I listen very carefully.
    ———————————–
    True. Plus he runs the only one of the three weekly news magazines I have any respect for–US News and World Report. His editorials have been brilliant, and he has an uncanny ability to put things in their proper context for people who do not always see the broader picture. I admired him very much for that. He lost me for a time when he supported Barrack over Hillary, and I got more incensed when as owner of the New York Daily News his political writer Michael Goodwin accused Hillary of wanting BO assassinated. Goodwin has since said Hillary would have made a better president. In fairness, the love for Obama was pervasive throughout the media in those days, with the obvious exception of FOX. Now at least Zuckerman and Goodwin have the courage to say what is true namely that Barack is a failure. That is more than we can say for the rest of big media.

Comments are closed.