Mistake In ’08, Part IV – The White Working Class And Health Care

Those poor pot-bellied hicks, with missing teeth and outdated hairstyles, bad eating habits of melted cheese and beer with a Pepsi on the side, are not dumb. They are not dumb at all. They know when they are lied to and they know when they are condescended to as well. The real stupid are the self described “creative class” of Dimocratic snobs who believe all the above stereotypes of the White Working Class.

We have documented our case that (1) the White Working Class along with other core groups of the Democratic Party of FDR have been run out of the party by Barack Obama only to be replaced with a “situation comedy” coalition; (2) the Democratic Party had a chance in 2008 to heal the breach in the FDR coalition caused by Lyndon Johnson’s brave and correct signing of the 1964 Civil Rights Act; (3) Hillary Clinton’s embrace by the White Working Class was the vehicle to heal that breach and Barack Obama would sunder the party to pieces; (4) the elections of 2009 and the Scott Brown election demonstrate the validity of our thesis; and that (5) the Obama Dimocratic Party is doomed to continued failure and the only solution is to reject Obama and his cult in favor of the FDR/Hillary Clinton coalition.

We began this “Mistake In ’08” series of articles to detail how:

“The selection of Barack Obama is an historical mistake which will continue to unravel the Dimocratic Party for generations. Only now are honest Democrats beginning to assess the damage done. “Mistake In ‘08″ is the first installment in a multi-part series which will detail how big a mistake was self-inflicted by Democrats in 2008.”

In Part I of “Mistake In ’08we detailed how the Democratic Party “10-year plan”, which took shape after the 2000 elections, will likely be destroyed this November. In Part II we discussed the power of Hillary Clinton supporters. In Part III we discussed The White Working Class And The Racism Smear.

The shouts of “racist!” arise any time questions are asked about Barack Obama, his cult, or the dangerous course the United States is headed down. Just to discuss the White Working Class is considered “racist!” by the Obama Hopium guzzlers.

White Liberal race-baiters are celebrated and only a few voices on the Democratic Left dare challenge the offensive attacks on the White Working Class and what increasingly has become their political haven and powerhouse, which the unthinking Liberal “creative class” deride as “teabaggers”.

Bob Somersby, who has persistently worked to expose what happened in the 2000 election, is one such usually courageous voice (he fumbled and caved in 2008) who does not disguise his contempt for the race-baiters and bigots of the Establishment Left:

For ourselves, we aren’t inclined to agree with the Tea Party crowd. We don’t share their views about health reform. In a new poll, only 15 percent of Tea Party folk self-identify as Democrats; we vote for the Dems every time. We wouldn’t want to rally alongside a sign which semi-recommended the use of a Browning. On the other hand, anti-war rallies of this past decade featured dumb signs too.

King is a man of the DC elite, and he sometimes acts it. He could have taken his big fat keister down to Capitol Hill that day; as a journalist, he could have asked members of this crowd to explain their thoughts on various topics. What did they think of that Browning sign? What are their views on race—on gay issues? But bigots always think they can know the souls of Those People without having to dirty themselves by entering into their presence. And in every generation, fine members of high elites try to keep themselves free of the rabble.

This was a deeply unintelligent column, written by a man of the DC elite—someone who compliantly swallowed his cohort’s Kool-Aid in the Clinton/Gore years. (Call it the price of membership.) Here’s our question: How many members of that Tea Party crowd would say or write something as unfair, nasty and dumb as this? [snip]

Work like this churns hate in return, and it slows the wheel of progress. And there’s another problem with work of this type:

It makes liberals lazy and dumb.

Dr. King never behaved this way. It’s amazing how people can follow the work of a moral giant without absorbing a single drop of that leader’s revolutionary wisdom.

Those people all look alike, Colbert King said. At their best, they’re rabble. And not only that—they won’t go away! Where have we heard this before?

King’s column made us think of the previous century’s bigots, though not in the manner intended.

Postscript: Frank Rich wrote a variant of this column on Sunday—but then, he always does. Work like his makes liberals dumb.

Somersby was writing about Colbert King and a typically hate filled column by that Hillary Hater. As noted Frank Rich wrote a similar “racist!” shouting article to smear those who reject Obama and his Obamanations.

The “racist!” smears will continue. People who should know better will continue to denounce the Tea Party activists instead of recognizing the genuine expression of anger at the Tea Party core. The mere mention of the White Working Class will be deemed “racist!”. The truly stupid, the intelligentsia who believe themselves to be the “creative class”, will continue to scratch their collective heads and wonder “why won’t the white working class vote for us?” The “creative class” idiots, will mock the White Working Class for “voting against their interests” but the White Working Class is indeed voting for their interests.

Ron Brownstein, who on occasion will fall completely under a Hopium addiction, sometimes goes “cold turkey” and writes with intelligence. Here is Brownstein, off the Hopium, on health care and the White Working Class:

“In a mid-March Gallup survey, 57 percent of white respondents said that the bill would make things better for the uninsured, and 52 percent said that it would improve conditions for low-income families. But only one-third of whites said that it would benefit the country overall — and just one-fifth said that it would help their own family.

In both that Gallup Poll and the latest monthly survey by the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation, nonwhite respondents were much more likely than whites to say that the bill would help the country and their own families. Those responses reflect not only experience (African-Americans and Hispanics are more likely than whites to lack insurance) but also minorities’ greater receptivity to government activism. By meeting a tangible need in these communities, health reform is likely to solidify the Democratic hold on the one-quarter (and growing) minority share of the electorate, especially if Republicans define themselves around demanding repeal.

But whites still cast about three-quarters of votes. And if most remain convinced that health reform primarily benefits the poor and uninsured, Democrats could find themselves caught in an unusual populist crossfire during this fall’s elections.

Imagine that! White people vote! “Three-quarters!” What a revelation!

Even more of a revelation is that White people do not think Obama’s health scam will help them so they are against it – but that to the PINO idiots is “racist!”. Voting for what you perceive as your interest is “racist!” according to the Obama Dimocrats.

Brownstein tries to blame Republicans for what actually is common sense even among those in what remains of the honest Left, that Obama has rewarded the culprits:

“Obama has already been hurt by the perception, fanned by Republicans, that the principal beneficiaries of his efforts to repair the economy are the same interests that broke it: Wall Street, big banks, and the wealthy. The belief that Washington has transferred benefits up the income ladder is pervasive across society but especially pronounced among white voters with less than a college education, the group that most resisted Obama in 2008. Now health care could threaten Democrats from the opposite direction by stoking old fears, particularly among the white working class, that liberals are transferring income down the income ladder to the “less deserving.”

It is not just Republicans that see the culprits getting the money. It is an obvious fact. Is the White Working Class “racist!” because they perceive they will be shunted aside and their tax dollars funneled to Obama’s prize constituents – the very rich? The White Working Class sees the threat – they are not dumb.

“In the Kaiser poll, even fewer noncollege than college-educated whites said that the plan would benefit the country. In one sense, that’s ironic: Census figures show that noncollege whites are more than twice as likely to lack health insurance as whites with a degree. But these working-class whites have grown more skeptical than better-educated whites that government cares about their needs. And the searing recession has only hardened those doubts. In a recent memo, Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg warned that these anxious and alienated voters are approaching a “tipping point” that would send them hurtling toward Republicans in November. House Democrats seem aware of that risk: Of the 34 Democrats who opposed the final health care bill, 28 represent districts with an above-average share of whites without college educations.”

The White Working Class voters might not have actually heard Donna Brazile and David Axelrod throw them to the curb, but they know when they are threatened. When Donna said we don’t have to just rely on white blue-collar voters” the White Working Class understood the threat. When David Axelrod declared “The white working class has gone to the Republican nominee for many elections… This is not new that Democratic candidates don’t rely solely on those votes” the White Working Class voters understands the “back of the bus” condescension.

The White Working Class sensed Hillary Clinton was fair to their interests and she did not condescend to them. The White Working Class rallied to Hillary’s banner at a time that the Dimocratic establishment declared Obama the Mess-iah and their nominee. Now the White Working Class understands that the Obama Dimocratic Party is antithetical to their interests and they are rapidly moving away from the Obama Dimocratic Party because the Obama Dimocratic Party is retrograde to their interests.

Brownstein:

“These trends frame perhaps the Democrats’ greatest political challenge today: convincing economically squeezed white voters that Washington understands their distress. [snip]

Simultaneously, Democrats hope that the approaching Senate debate on financial reform will portray them as advocates for average families — and Republicans as defenders of banking and investment interests that are resisting tougher regulation. [snip]

That could be. But despite a Gallup Poll showing a post-passage bump in support for the health care bill, skepticism that government will ever deliver for them is bred in the bone for many white voters, especially those in the working class. Health care reform won’t win sustained acceptance — or politically benefit the Democrats who finally shouldered it into law — unless it begins to excise those deeply embedded doubts.”

Whatever “bump” in the polls Brownstein referenced is now gone, gone, gone.

The delusions of Dimocratic pollsters and the “creative class” will be shattered in November. The shouts of “racist!” and “racism!” will continue to be directed against the White Working Class because they oppose Obama and his Obamainations. But how can you call “racist!” those that voted for Obama?

Millions of white men who voted for Barack Obama are walking away from the Democratic Party, and it appears increasingly likely that they’ll take the midterms elections in November with them. Their departure could well lead to a GOP landslide on a scale not seen since 1994.”

The White Working Class is not dumb. The White Working Class is moving against the Obama Dimocratic Party because the Obama Dimocratic Party opposes their interests. In 2008 some in the White Working Class were so fed up with George W. Bush and so terrified of the economic situation they either stayed home and did not support John McCain or they actually voted for the flim-flam Chicago man.

Democrats like Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton won because they garnered support from the White Working Class. Obama fooled enough of the White Working Class in 2008, but those days are long gone, gone, gone.

” For more than three decades before the 2008 election, no Democratic president had won a majority of the electorate. In part, that was because of low support — never more than 38 percent — among white male voters. Things changed with Obama, who not only won a majority of all people voting, but also pulled in 41 percent of white male voters.

Polling suggests that the shift was not because of Obama but because of the financial meltdown that preceded the election. It was only after the economic collapse that Obama’s white male support climbed above the 38 percent ceiling. It was also at that point that Obama first sustained a clear majority among all registered voters, according to the Gallup tracking poll. [snip]

Pollsters regularly ask voters whether they would rather see a Democrat or Republican win their district. By February, support for Democrats among white people (male and female) was three percentage points lower than in February 1994, the year of the last Republican landslide.

Today, among whites, only 35 percent of men and 43 percent of women say they will back Democrats in the fall election. Women’s preferences have remained steady since July 2009. But white men’s support for a Democratic Congress has fallen eight percentage points, according to Gallup.

White men have moved away from Obama as well.”

The changes in voting patterns are not theoretical. We have recently witnessed real life demonstrations of the White Working Class revulsion:

“The migration of white men from the Democratic Party was evident in the election of Republican Scott Brown in Massachusetts. His opponent, a white woman, won 52 percent of white women. But white men favored Brown by a 60 percent to 38 percent margin, according to Fabrizio, McLaughlin & Associates polling.

It’s no accident that the flight of white males from the Democratic Party has come as the government has assumed a bigger role, including in banking and health care. Among whites, 71 percent of men and 56 percent of women favor a smaller government with fewer services over a larger government with more services, according to ABC/Washington Post polling.

Obama’s brand of liberalism is exactly the sort likely to drive such voters away. More like LBJ’s than FDR’s, Obama-style liberalism favors benefits over relief, a safety net over direct job programs, health care and environmental reform over financial reform and a stimulus package that has focused more on social service jobs — health care work, teaching and the like — than on the areas where a majority of job losses occurred: construction, manufacturing and related sectors.

The job losses are concentrated in areas of the job market for the White Working Class. Instead of addressing the needs of the White Working Class, the Obama response is “let them eat cake”.

The White Working Class has witnessed the Democratic Party abandon them before.

“In 1994, liberals tried to explain their thinning ranks by casting aspersions on the white men who were fleeing, and the media took up the cry. The term “angry white male” or “angry white men” was mentioned 37 times in English-language news media contained in the Nexis database between 1980 and the 1994 election. In the following year, the phrases appear 2,306 times.

Tarnishing their opponents as merely “angry” was poor politics for the Democrats. Liberals know what it’s like to have their views — most recently on the war in Iraq or George W. Bush — caricatured as merely irrational anger. Most voters vote their interests. And many white men by the 1980s had decided the Democrats were no longer interested in them.

Think about the average working man. He has already seen financial bailouts for the rich folks above him. Now he sees a health care bailout for the poor folks below him. Big government represents lots of costs and little gain.

Meanwhile, like many women, these men are simply trying to push ahead without being pushed under. Some once believed in Obama. Now they feel forgotten.

Democrats in 1994 trashed Bill Clinton and “bubba” and they lost big. In the 1980s the Democrats lost big too because they could not communicate with the White Working Class as well as the “great communicator”. When Democrats do not have barely veiled loathing for the White Working Class, but rather concern, Democrats win. “FDR’s focus on the economy was single-minded and relentless. Hard times continued, but men never doubted that FDR was trying to do right by them.”

Unlike with FDR and Bill Clinton, the White Working Class knows Obama is not trying to “do right by them”. Obama and his Dimocrats think the White Working class is “bitter” and “clingy” and not worth caring about.

Sean Trende asked the question Can The Clinton Coalition Survive Obama? He noted that the winning Republican Bob McDonnell in Virginia essentially recreated the Clinton coalition. The FDR/Clinton Coalition is the only way to win.

But what about the demographics?” shout the “creative clueless”. America will soon be a “majority minority” country so the future is with the “situation comedy” coalition – forget about the White Working Class!

Not quite yet.

“The estimated time when whites will no longer make up the majority of Americans has been pushed back eight years — to 2050 — because the recession and stricter immigration policies have slowed the flow of foreigners into the U.S.”

The prognosticators of future demographic politics must reassess the prognostications. If the “majority minority” America does emerge this century, the White Working Class will still be a significant portion of the population which is to be discarded only by fools. Senior citizens, also discarded by the Obama “situation comedy” producers, will triple by 2050 to 18.6 million. These same “situation comedy” coalition Hopium guzzlers should also realize that the best laid schemes…

“The actual shift in demographics will be influenced by a host of factors that can’t be accurately forecast — the pace of the economic recovery, cultural changes, natural or manmade disasters, as well as an overhaul of immigration law, which may be debated in Congress as early as next year.

As a result, the Census Bureau said the projections should used mostly as a guide.”

The White Working Class is rejected by Obama Dimocrats and the White Working Class will reject Obama Dimocrats this November. Already the supposed health care “victory” which was supposed to become popular continues to sink. Increasingly the Obama health scam is called “a bad thing”. Republicans, the supposed losers, are increasingly viewed as the winners in the current debate.

As Politico notes, the supposed bounce, has bounced away. The lies about Obama opponents continue to be exposed. The ‘they’ll love it once we pass it’ theory of Obama Dimocrats is falling apart with every poll that emerges:

“One week after the passage of historic new healthcare legislation, Americans remain worried about the bill’s effect on costs — both for the nation as a whole and for them personally. A majority of Americans say healthcare costs in the U.S. and the federal budget deficit will get worse as a result of the bill. Half of Americans believe that healthcare costs for themselves and their families will get worse.”

Are all these Americans “racists!”? Or is the White Working Class smarter than Obama Dimocrats believe? The wake-up call gets dialed in November.

Share

180 thoughts on “Mistake In ’08, Part IV – The White Working Class And Health Care

  1. John Harwood, a staunch Obama defender, sounds a warning:

    http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/28/democrats-cheer-now-but-grim-november-may-lie-ahead/?ref=todayspaper

    “Achievement of their decades-long quest for comprehensive health care legislation left Congressional leaders and White House aides jubilant. It broke, at least temporarily, the psychology of failure that threatened President Obama’s administration as it had burdened President George W. Bush’s tenure.

    But the new spring in the steps of Democratic lawmakers has not reversed the likelihood that there will be fewer of them next year. Mr. Obama’s signature on the health care law did not reduce a national unemployment rate that hovers around double digits and is likely to stay there through the November elections.

    What it did was avert the collapse of confidence in Democratic governance that the failure of the president’s initiative would have engendered. That in turn could have triggered losses far worse than Democrats will otherwise endure, by dispiriting liberal true-believers even as independents and angry Republicans turned against them.

    “Our base needed this kick,” said J. B. Poersch, executive director of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. Democratic strategists are not counting on much more of a political dividend than that.

    The Gallup Poll encouraged Democrats soon after Speaker Nancy Pelosi mustered the House votes for a health care victory. Mr. Obama’s approval rating ticked up slightly, to 51 percent, thanks largely to higher marks among independents.

    Americans describing themselves as “enthusiastic” or “pleased” outnumbered those who were “disappointed” or “angry.” Gallup analyst Lydia Saad called it “a clear political victory” for Mr. Obama and his party.

    But government data on the job market quickly tempered the Democratic celebration. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that the unemployment rate in February had risen in 27 states and fallen in just 7.

    Virginia, with three Democratic House seats at risk, shed 32,600 jobs; Pennsylvania, with five Democratic seats in jeopardy, lost 16,000. In Ohio, where five more seats are on the line, unemployment rose to 10.9 percent — above the 9.7 percent national rate.

    Democratic arguments about health care “are going to be eclipsed by a generally foul mood unless unemployment starts to drop,” said Stu Rothenberg, a nonpartisan analyst of Congressional campaigns. Though Republicans need an exceptional gain of 40 seats to take the majority’s gavel away from Ms. Pelosi, “the House is in play,” Mr. Rothenberg said.

    Republicans can expect to win at least half that many merely by tracking historical averages for midterm losses by a new president’s party. But economic hardship and political demographics point toward larger gains.

    Younger and minority voters, so crucial to Mr. Obama’s 2008 breakthrough, typically turn out for midterms at lower rates than seniors, the age group most skeptical of the president’s performance and the country’s direction.

    Older voters have also been most wary of the Democrats’ messy, yearlong drive to overhaul health care — in part, as Republicans keep emphasizing, by curbing Medicare expenditures.

    “The substance is bad, and the process, which they managed to make an issue, is worse,” said Representative Tom Cole of Oklahoma, former head of the House Republicans’ campaign committee. “They have badly overplayed their hand.” [snip]

    On more divisive issues like immigration and capping carbon emissions, weary Democrats in competitive re-election campaigns will want broader political cover to advance Mr. Obama’s goals. Republicans are in no mood to provide it in an election season still tilting their way.

    By winning on health care, Mr. Obama and his party “avoided disaster” in 2010, said the Democratic pollster Mark Mellman. But “this doesn’t change the overall dynamic.”

  2. Prudential too:

    http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jq4y4VraHNPT_G-NnV80IEiW-FkwD9EOJ5E80

    Insurer Prudential Financial Inc. said Monday that it will take a $100 million charge in the first quarter in relation to the recent health care overhaul legislation.

    The life insurance and annuities provider said in a regulatory filing that it will take the charge against earnings in the first quarter.

    Prudential joins a growing list of companies that have said they will take accounting charges because of the health care bills. AT&T said last week it would take a $1 billion charge in the first quarter. AK Steel Corp., 3M Co., Caterpillar Inc., Deere & Co. and Valero Energy have also said they would take smaller charges.

    Prudential said in a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission that the health bill signed into law by President Barack Obama last week and a companion measure he is expected to sign Tuesday will reduce its tax deduction for retiree health care costs beginning in 2013.

  3. Holy Smokes Admin……you sure can write a good post, still reading it, but a light bulb went off with this:

    The shouts of “racist!” arise any time questions are asked about Barack Obama, his cult, or the dangerous course the United States is headed down. Just to discuss the White Working Class is considered “racist!” by the Obama Hopium guzzlers.

    ———–
    What if most of us Hillary supporters, Tea Party People and others…..crank up our deductions at work to the max…. have the least amount of tax taken out by Uncle Baracko, (stow that amount away in our cookie jar for safe keeping) and see how well the O’Government can get by without our white working class racist taxes. How are they going to fund anything if the well runs dry??????
    The Fraud might even have to stay home for date night.

  4. I’m astounded at the willingness of male Democrats to just toss women’s votes away with continued sexism. At another forum that I have frequented since the late nineties, we had a meltdown this week over misogynist language. The guys there just cannot stop calling Palin a “c*nt” and a “b*tch”. They do not understand that those words are the gender equivalent of “n*gger”. One of them explained to men that women get called by the C word that do bad things, whereas African Americans get called by the N word for the fact of their race.

    Now, there is no way in hell that I’m going to vote for Palin or any Republican. And her “don’t retreat, reload” message was about the most irresponsible political rhetoric I have ever heard, in combination with the bull’s eyes on the map of Democratic legislators. That was bad. That was as bad as it bets and she should apologize. But that does not justify demeaning an entire gender.

    I’m not in the middle. I’m a lefty. But the women in the middle are getting really tired of seeing a woman whose family looks like theirs get called every gender-based smear in the book. Those woman, who, if they vote, vote Democratic aren’t going to be turning out to support candidates whose supporters talk like that. And no one in the Democratic party is attempting to dial that shit back.

    So, anyway, I’ve been accused of being a “secret racist”. Never mind that I took an identical stand against Michelle Obama being called a gorilla on PUMA PAC. Never mind that I talk about why bigoted language, including racist language, is destructive. I’m opposed to joking about Palin as a stripper and calling her by the C word, so I’m a racist and teabagger.

    The Democrats are really fucked up right now. This joker has set us back fifty years.

  5. Shadowfax, holy smokes, that is a great idea to crank up the deductions for payroll taxes. Labelling, as from the last post, does not help advance our goals, I am neither a leftie or a rightie.

  6. Howard Fineman (and at least one “Save Obama” Senator) appears to agree with us:

    http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thegaggle/archive/2010/03/30/the-numbers-don-t-lie.aspx

    “A Democratic senator I can’t name, who reluctantly voted for the health-care bill out of loyalty to his party and his admiration for Barack Obama, privately complained to me that the measure was political folly, in part because of the way it goes into effect: some taxes first, most benefits later, and rate hikes by insurance companies in between.

    Besides that, this Democrat said, people who already have coverage will feel threatened and resentful about helping to cover the uninsured—an emotion they will sanitize for the polltakers into a concern about federal spending and debt.

    On the day the president signed into law the “fix-it” addendum to the massive health-care measure, two new polls show just how fearful and skeptical Americans are about the entire enterprise. If the numbers stay where they are—and it’s not clear why they will change much between now and November—then the Democrats really are in danger of colossal losses at the polls.[snip]

    The first week of salesmanship by the Democrats and the president hasn’t done any good. According to the new Rasmussen poll, only 41 percent of Americans think the law is “good for the country,” compared with 50 percent who see it as “bad for the country.” Last week the ratio was 41–49 percent. Sixty percent think the measure is “likely to increase the deficit”—also a figure unchanged from last week.

    Some polling experts suggest Rasmussen’s “house effect” tilts slightly conservative. But if you don’t want to take Scott Rasmussen’s word for it, you’re not going to get much solace from Gallup, still the biggest brand in the business.

    In Gallup’s new poll, Americans by narrow margins agree that the new health-care law will improve coverage (44–40 percent) and the “overall health of Americans” (40–35 percent). In a way, it’s astonishing that sizable minorities could disagree with those two statements, since everyone agrees the law will provide medical coverage to 32 million more Americans.

    But that’s where support, however ambivalent, ends. Americans think the law will harm the U.S. economy (44–34 percent), the overall quality of health care in the U.S. (55–29 percent), and the federal balance sheet (61–23 percent).

    It’s almost as bad when you ask voters how the law will affect them personally. [snip]

    I know that the president and his advisers want to “pivot” to other topics—economic development, jobs, energy, and foreign policy. They’re content, for now, to focus on solidifying their Democratic base. I’m sure that Obama, who plays a deep and patient game, figures that the country—including independents, who won it for him in 2008—will eventually come back, at least by 2012.

    But he’s dug himself a partisan hole with this big bill, and it’ll be interesting to see him try to dig his way out.”

  7. admin: not only is John Harwood a defender of the fool in the WH, John Harwood is also having an affair with Maria Cantwell, who is a senator from WA? (I might have the state wrong)

    NBC is literally and figurtively in bed with the chicago thugs and the dimoncrats

  8. admin:

    this may of interest to you. BTW, my sister-in-law, a physician, tells me this organization is much more pervasive and more respected than the AMA. The membership is much much higher than the AMA.

    “The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) became the first medical society to sue to overturn the newly enacted health care bill . . .. AAPS sued Friday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (AAPS v. Sebelius et al.).

    “If the PPACA goes unchallenged, then it spells the end of freedom in medicine as we know it,” observed Jane Orient, M.D., the Executive Director of AAPS. “Courts should not allow this massive intrusion into the practice of medicine and the rights of patients.”

    “There will be a dire shortage of physicians if the PPACA becomes effective and is not overturned by the courts.””

  9. “including independents, who won it for him in 2008—will eventually come back, at least by 2012.

    As an independent voter now, HELL NO. I didn’t vote for this fool in 2008 as a registered dem. why the hell would I vote for him as an Independent in 2012?

  10. The Democratic National Committee sent me an email today with a request to sign an online petition in support of the Presidents health care plan so I can be a symbolic “co-signer” of the bill. If you sign, the DNC sends you a certificate. The responses are going to be sent to the White House.

    Not only didn’t I sign I decided to send back a very clear response with my thoughts–not exactly the type they were looking for however…

    This looks like some kind of campaign stunt–does the DNC usually do this kind of stuff?

  11. Thanks for that info about Fineman, admin.

    I still remember (as I’m sure we all do) how he and Spitty (Chris Matthews) went on and on with their “Hillary may be implying Obama is a Muslim” nonsense during the primaries. (Apparently, they thought she took too long to respond to what was obviously a stupid question to ask her in the first place). I’ve noticed Fineman has been trying to backtrack a bit lately as well, in an interview with NewsMax (never thought I’d be quoting them LOL) he said “The Media may not believe everything Obama says anymore.”

    Too late, Howard. As far as I’m concerned, the media is Frankenstein, and you own this monster now.

  12. ““The Media may not believe everything Obama says anymore.””

    The more true and accurate statement:

    “The American people no longer believe anything the Obama-media says anymore.”

  13. my last link didn’t make it:
    http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=36241

    Welcome to post-racial America, where those who oppose a piece of legislation must defend themselves against the scurrilous charges of a man who seems much better suited to reviewing “Cats”. (He liked it, by the way.) This was a particularly shameful column, and the millions of Americans who oppose this legislation are owed an apology.

  14. A Democratic senator I can’t name, who reluctantly voted for the health-care bill out of loyalty to his party and his admiration for Barack Obama, privately complained to me that the measure was political folly,
    ******************

    TERM LIMITS, TERM LIMITS, TERM LIMITS!! Give me a freaking break! He knew it was a bad bill for America but he voted for it because of his “party and admiration for the Fraud”? Say no more….

  15. …Now, there is no way in hell that I’m going to vote for Palin or any Republican. And her “don’t retreat, reload” message was about the most irresponsible political rhetoric I have ever heard, in combination with the bull’s eyes on the map of Democratic legislators…

    Oh get over it!

  16. Betty,

    In the 1990s, twice as many Americans died from rightwing terrorism as died from foreign terrorism. That’s real. Those are lives lost and some of them were children. 176 Americans died from conservative violence as opposed to 89 by foreign terrorists. So, no, I don’t intend to get over it.

    The American right needs to dial their rhetoric back. We’ve already had a staggering amount of rightwing violence in this nation and that’s bad. George Tillman is dead and more women with grotesquely awry pregnancies must risk their life and future infertility because of it. That poor guard in DC – what had he ever done to deserve being murdered.

    Listen, I stand up for Palin. I point out that she made it to the presidential ticket without a family name, family wealthy or an Ivy League degree and that puts her in a shrinking pool of people in our increasingly aristocratic nation. And every time they go after her on the rape kit smear or any other of the rumors that the left has cooked up about her, I take a stand. And I do not tolerate sexist rhetoric about her. But that doesn’t mean that in a nation like ours she has any business making jokes about shooting legislators. That was a grotesque mistake on her part and she should deal with it.

  17. basement angel

    I live in Austin and I can tell you the man who flew his plane into the IRS was a registered Dem. I could site you numerous left winged crazy as bat shit murders but really? There is enough to go around for everyone and numerous sites claiming fault on both sides.

    I will side with Sarah.

  18. Admin:

    I agree that Bob Somerby has been a courageous voice in documenting the anti-Clinton and anti-Gore media atrocities for the last 10 years or so; he was my first-read column from 2002-2008. I also agree that he fumbled and caved in 2008.

    His attempt at being an impartial Democrat during the primary was both admirable and misguided, as he applied the same standard to the Clinton and Obama supporters for which he had repeatedly criticized the media for the last 10 years. Specifically, he applied a moral relativism to both sets of supporters, referring to them as “shirts and skins” (as in a friendly game of basketball) and basically stated that each side was fomenting EQUALLY questionable things about the other. This was the same technique that he furiously (and correctly) accused the media of promulgating with respect to Republicans and Democrats – always equating the outrageous actions of Republicans with some lesser “offense” by Democrats. I think that impartial tack was noble but off-target; he put himself in a difficult position. The campaign offenses were not equivalent and even Somerby couldn’t control his unbiased stance when the Obama campaign got hold of Hillary’s RFK quote in June about why she was not quitting; Somerby’s column was scathing.

    I believe that Somerby supported Hillary (and mentioned that he voted for her) in the primary, but much too quickly bought into the narrative that Hillary’s campaign was over; he then prematurely heralded an end to the Clinton-bashing decades and the coming of a new age of fairer Democratic coverage (AKA Obama-worship); we know how the end of Clinton-bashing has turned out.

    Somerby often claims that he doesn’t write about politics, only about the media coverage of politics, which is true. However, he has often been critical of the left-wing press for not speaking up about the “War on Gore” from 1998-2000. Along those lines, it is interesting to note that he didn’t write one word about the media’s silence on the May 31, 2008, RBC meeting in which the DNC broke their rules and awarded “uncommitted” delegates to the fraud without being on the ballot; also, not one word concerning the media silence about the fraud having only 1766 pledged delegates when he declared himself the winner on June 3. Clearly, he was guilty of what he had accused so many others of doing, keeping quiet when it mattered.

    That being said, Daily Howler is still my second-read of the day (after Big Pink). Despite the stumbles in the primary, I think Somerby continues to contribute more than most to exposing the beltway media hacks. It’s unfortunate that he couldn’t be more consistent about the coverage during the primary.

  19. Angel, this is a smear campaign and we all know it. They are AFRAID of the strength of the Tea party and are trying to tear it down with false rhetoric and accusations, including violence (the most peaceful demonstrations I have EVER been part of) and I mean I am a 60’s child. Chicago 68 ring a bell?

    Comments from BP
    *************
    This is absolutely DISGUSTING!!!! I need lilscot to do some grinding about this in the morning.

    I am thoroughly disgusted. Speechless.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_ts1361

    newfrickinname // March 30, 2010 at 1:56 am

    Here’s one passage that blatantly tries to smear tea partiers:

    “With other news of vandalism and harassment from right-wing activists angry about the passage of health care reform, some commentators are already depicting the arrests as a further sign of how conservative activists are promoting violence in their ranks.”

    But this is the one that incensed me:

    “What you’re starting to see in the number of militia groups sprouting up in the last year is a general antigovernment ideology,” Stern says. “The targeting of cops is not inconsistent with that.”

    Are you shitting me? When I was “anti-government” during all 8 of the Bush years, did you see anyone becoming unhinged that I was a radical out to kill cops?????

  20. From my previous comment:

    “The campaign offenses were not equivalent and even Somerby couldn’t control his unbiased stance when the Obama campaign got hold of Hillary’s RFK quote in June about why she was not quitting; Somerby’s column was scathing.”

    Somerby’s comment was scathing against the Obama campaign; I should have clarified that.

  21. gonzotex,

    No, the American right kills many, many, many more people. That is a fact and people need to be willing to own it. Joking about killing people, as Palin did, is not acceptable. Now, I like Palin and I defend her, but that was way out of bounds.

    Click on the link. That I provided. Don’t pretend you know when you don’t.

  22. WTF…Death Panel and Krug sounds shall we say, gleeful?
    ************
    BP
    &&&&&&&&&&

    rationing in all its glory:

    as per liberal economist krug-idiot

    “The Advisory Panel which has the ability to make more or less binding judgments on saying this particular expensive treatment actually doesn’t do any good medically and so we are not going to pay for it. That is actually going to save quit a lot of money. We don’t know how much yet. The CBO gives it very little credit but, but most, most of the health care economists I talk to think that’s going be a really, uh a really major cost saving.

  23. No, the American right kills many, many, many more people. That is a fact

    ************

    NO IT IS NOT A FACT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  24. Don’t pretend you know when you don’t.
    ************

    I ALWAYS KNEW YOU WERE A BOT, SO I WILL IGNORE YOUR SILLY AND WEAK INSULTS…..BY BY

  25. The Media’s Myth of Right Wing Violence
    By Mithridate Ombud (Bio | Archive)
    Wed, 03/24/2010 – 21:52 ET

    There is a disturbing chill in the air according to the leftist media. Threats of violence and rumor of murder are taking center stage instead of reporting legitimate public outrage about the passage of Obamacare. You need not click far online to hear another person refer to Glenn Beck as “dangerous”, yet they can never claim specifically why. Despite their rhetoric, the media refuses to follow up with what makes a man, who has spent hours just this year begging people to remain peaceful, so obscenely dangerous.

    Glaringly obvious in this latest round of reports is that there are no specific examples of alleged threats of violence cited. I can only find one specific threat that caused the FBI to swoop in and ask a speaker to wear a bullet-proof vest on the tip that the speaker would be gunned down by an assassin. But that speaker was Glenn Beck.

    Whether this is a shortcut to 2nd Amendment action, valid concern, or just a bunch of crybaby progressive politicians over reacting to criticism, it’s hard to tell. But Obama’s desire to continue ramming through the most divisive legislation — against his own creed — isn’t helping bring calm to even the most peaceful conservatives. And while the evidence of a violent right is scarce, there’s no limit to liberals attempting to make conservatives look evil.

    Before letting the media continue to perpetuate a stereotype that may not actually exist at all, let me give you the facts that U.S. journalists refuse to cite. Let me show you where real violence comes from, and I don’t even need to mention the millions of babies killed every year by progressives or even the tens of millions of people murdered by their communist heroes.

    It was not the fear of conservative violence that caused Ann Coulter’s speech to be cancelled this week.
    It was a liberal who bit the finger off a man who disagreed with him on healthcare.
    It was Obama-loving Amy Bishop who took a gun to work and murdered co-workers.
    Joseph Stack flew his plane into the IRS building after writing an anti-conservative manifesto.
    It was liberals who destroyed AM radio towers outside of Seattle.
    It’s liberals who burn down Hummer dealerships.
    It was progressive SEIU union thugs who beat a black conservative man who spoke his mind.
    It’s doubtful that a conservative fired shots into a GOP campaign headquarters.
    In fact, Democrats have no monopoly on having their offices vandalized.
    Don’t forget it was Obama’s friend Bill Ayers who used terrorism as a tool for political change. SDS is still radical, with arrests in 2007 and the storming of the CATO Institute in July 2008.
    It was a liberal who was sentenced to two years for bringing bombs and riot shields to the Republican National Convention in 2008.
    It was a liberal who threatened to kill a government informant who infiltrated her Austin-based group that planned to bomb the RNC.
    It was liberals who assaulted police in Berkeley.
    It was liberals who intimidated and threw rocks through the windows of researchers.
    The two Black Panthers who stood outside polls intimidating people with nightsticks were probably not right-wingers.
    Every time the G20 gets together, it’s not conservatives who destroy property and cause chaos.
    I could literally go on and on, but let’s try to have some perspective here. Violence is a product of the fringe, on either side, and it’s sickening to try to use it for political advantage. Those who commit violence in the name of politics deserve political change no more than they deserve leniency in sentencing. Violence furthers no cause. The only call to action that violence has ever motivated Americans to is the retaliation on attackers. Somehow I think the liberals know that very well.

    The media and politicians who are trying to construct a meme of conservative violence as we run up to the 2010 elections should only face the weapon they fear most; the ballot.

  26. It is the Left who promotes riots and violence when they don’t get what they want. Rodney King Riots, Crown Heights Riots, and DNC in Chicago 1968, Obama himself, “If they bring knifes, we will bring guns”, Donna Brazillenut, “riot in the streets if they, the supers, “steal” the election from the Fraud (had to be a joke) . They believe in the “ends justify the means” and let’s not forget all of the Leftist groups dedicated to violence and hate, the SDS, the Weather Underground, the Black Panthers ( lets not mix them up with the Grey panthers Angel )

    A little plagiarism goes a long way…

  27. Left-Wing Violence Exposed

    Bethany Stotts, March 18, 2009

    A new extension of the 1960’s Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) has become more and more active on campuses since its resurrection in 2006. However, the “new” SDS, which is funded by the Movement for a Democratic Society (MDS), is influenced by many of the same 60s radicals who led the Weather Underground.

    “Of the ‘action faction”’members who issued the ‘Weatherman’ treatise on June 18, 1969, were Karen Ashley, Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn, John Jacobs, Jeff Jones, Gerry Long, Howard Machtinger, Jim Mellen, Terry Robbins, Mark Rudd and Steve Tappis,” wrote Cliff Kincaid, editor of Accuracy in Media, and Trevor Loudon, a New Zealand-based researcher and political activist, in a report released on March 12.

    “Of these eleven key Weatherman members, six of them–Ayers, Dohrn, Jones, Machtinger, Rudd, and Tappis–would turn up nearly 40 years later in the MDS or Progressives for Obama network,” they write.

    The fingerprints of Rudd, Dohrn, Machtinger and Ayers were found at the scene of the Weather Underground “Pine Street Bomb Factory” in March of 1971, according to declassified FBI documents.

    “Inspection of the apartment yielded an amount of explosives and bomb making paraphernalia,” states page 384 of the Weather Organization Underground (WUO) FBI file.

    WUO bombs usually contained metal fence staples, the speakers said. “This was an anti-personnel weapon designed to maim and kill people,” argued Kincaid.

    Jim Petra, the first cop on the scene in 1970, described the injuries to other policemen at the station. “The Sergeant took shrapnel which consisted of barbed wire fence post staples through his eyes, throat and brain,” said Petra. “Officer Fogarty took 19 of the staples in his body, miraculously none of them hitting any vital organs but blinding him in one eye, an injury that ultimately led to his retiring on disability.”

    The speakers at the press conference said they were “seeking justice” for Sergeant McDonnell, whose murder case was recently reopened.

    “Since we announced this press conference I’ve heard from parents who have children at the University of Illinois at Chicago and who have been forced to undergo these lectures by Bill Ayers ‘on education’ and they’re horrified,” said Kincaid at the conference. A sampling of what Ayers thinks about education policy can be read here.

    The
    new SDS mission calls for a “broad-based, deep-rooted, and revolutionary transformation of our society” with a “totalist” approach which incorporates oppression studies into their worldview without elevating any one cause above another.

    “On our campuses, we will prioritize workers’ rights, gender justice, affirmative action other and issues [sic] relevant to oppressed members of our communities,” reads the SDS web page. “We commit to changing the function of the university, to ensure that the university is not above the community but an accountable part of it, and to ensure respect for workers’ rights, for freedom of inquiry, and for the rights of students.”

    In practice, the “new” SDS contains many of the old SDS initiatives, including an anti-war stance, socialist (if not communist) connections, and grassroots tactics like protests and sit-ins.

    Loudon, also speaking at the press conference, said that since 2006 the new SDS “had a convention, they got a lot of people on board, and now they have more than 200 chapters in this country that were very active in the election campaign, particularly causing chaos at the Republican National Convention last year.”

    As of this writing, SDS chapters around the nation can be connected to

    • the “Funk the War” protests,
    • a 2007 arrest of protesters in DC,
    • the “storming” of CATO Institute in July 2008, according to an Indymedia article, and
    • more recently, to the University of Rochester and New York University sit-ins calling for the divestment of school resources from Israel.

    The latter call for divestment, new SDS members and other activists argue, is in response to the Israeli invasion of Gaza.

    Bethany Stotts is a staff writer at Accuracy in Academia.

  28. Ya!!!!
    **********

    University of Wyo. cancels William Ayers speech

    CHEYENNE, Wyo. – The University of Wyoming has canceled a speech by former 1960s radical William Ayers after it raised hundreds of objections from citizens and politicians over the man who became an issue in the 2008 presidential campaign.

    In a statement released by the university, UW President Tom Buchanan supported the decision to cancel Ayers.

    “The University of Wyoming is one of the few institutions remaining in today’s environment that garner the confidence of the public. The visit by Professor Ayers would have adversely impacted that reputation,” Buchanan said.

    Ayers was scheduled to speak Monday on the Laramie campus about social justice issues and education. The following day, he was to participate in a teleconference with Wyoming school principals.

    He was invited by the UW Social Justice Research Center, a privately endowed center that studies problems of oppression and inequalities among different social groups in society.

    Having a scheduled appearance canceled is nothing new for Ayers. The University of Nebraska-Lincoln and Boston College canceled him in the past

    UW spokesman Jim Kearns said Tuesday the college had received about 430 e-mails and phone calls since last Friday, with the overwhelming majority against Ayers’ visit. Several GOP gubernatorial candidates also voiced their opposition.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100331/ap_on_re_us/us_wyoming_ayers

  29. The new season of “V” is starting at 10:00 p.m. tonight on ABC. This is the series that has had many overt references to “Hope” and “Change”. The aliens from another planet want to bring “health care” to all along with other Obamaesque references. The question has been will ABC change the tone of the show to be less political? We’ll have the answer tonight.

  30. Too late, Howard. As far as I’m concerned, the media is Frankenstein, and you own this monster now.
    ——————————————-
    Correct. They own the monster and are responsible for the damage he does to the country.

  31. gonzotx,

    In point of fact, the right is responsible for many, many more American deaths than the left. That is a fact. Just Timothy McVeigh and Eric Rudolf alone are responsible for over 150 American deaths.

    I’m not defending violence by anyone, but there is no equivalent on the left. Lefties don’t pack up a bomb and take it to government buildings during the day, nor do they plant them at the Olympics. Eric Rudolf fortunately only killed one person in Atlanta, but he wounded close to 100 – that’s a very big deal.

    The fact of the matter is that from seventies on, you have fewer than 10 Americans dead from left wing violence in total.

    Timothy McVeigh’s attack on ordinary Americans is real and he was responding to the rhetoric that we heard coming out of the likes of Limbaugh in the 90s. The right needs to dial it back – that’s all. You shouldn’t be justifying rhetoric that leads to that many deaths. It’s wrong.

  32. I’m not defending violence by anyone, but there is no equivalent on the left. Lefties don’t pack up a bomb and take it to government buildings during the day
    ******************

    BS…Professor Ayers

  33. The fact of the matter is that from seventies on, you have fewer than 10 Americans dead from left wing violence in total.
    ********************

    DELUSIONAL…AGAIN

  34. admin: not only is John Harwood a defender of the fool in the WH, John Harwood is also having an affair with Maria Cantwell, who is a senator from WA?
    ———————————
    No pictures please.

    The story among lobbyists is if you are going to meet with her in her office say what you have to say in the first 15 minutes because after that her mind is off in the wild blue yonder.

  35. Good Part I. Cannot wait for Parts II and III.

    The Dimocratic Snobs, remind me of clique groups in high school. They fold in. They don’t have a thought of their own. They wait for the power sturcture to tell them what that thought is. And across town are the Rep Snobs, doing the same thing.

  36. ACE
    *******************

    March 30, 2010
    —Maetenloch

    Don’t forget about the job bank at the AoSHQ yahoo group.

    Jamie “Mistress of Disaster” Gorelick now on her way to a 0-3 record of FAIL

    Okay given the scale of her first two FAILs, she’s more like 0 and 2.5. She’s infamous for writing the “intelligence wall” memo that prevented the FBI from investigating Moussaoui and possibly unraveling the 9/11 plot and then later serving on the 9/11 Commission despite a clear conflict of interest.

    Next she moved on to Fanny Mae where she made $26 million over 6 years despite Fanny Mae being hit with a $10 billion dollar scandal. Despite her claims that it was managed safely Fanny Mae’s later insolvency would help take down AIG, Lehman Brothers, and other financial institutions.

    After that she was hired by Duke as a defense attorney while the university was busy railroading the lacrosse team players accused of rape. And then after that she went to work as a lobbyist for Sallie Mae which has been a complete fail since her efforts got Sallie Mae exactly nada and then the recent health care bill completely nationalized student loans.

    So it’s worth googling her periodically to see what’s going to fail next. And based on her track record I figure she’ll soon be running ObamaCare

  37. gonzotx,

    I’m not fan of Bill Ayres but how many people did he actually kill? Numbers and incidents please.

    Nor did I equate McVeigh with the Tea Party activists or with Palin. What I said is that Palin’s “Don’t Retreat, Reload” ad in conjunction with map with bulls eyes on it, in light of the amount of violence that the right unleashed on America in the 90s, is indefensible.

    Timothy McVeigh is for real. Eric Rudolf is for real. Dr. George Tiller and Bernard Slepian are dead. The anthrax attacks in the nation were mailed to media and to Democratic politicians and that killed several people as well. As long as we justify this stuff by saying the left is as bad – when the left is nowhere near as bad – it will continue.

    Here is the article that I linked originally. It contains links to documentation for each of the murders. Take it seriously. People are dead.

    http://www.correntewire.com/domestic_and_foreign_terrorism_during_last_democratic_admin

  38. basement angel
    March 30th, 2010 at 11:41 pm
    gonzotx,

    I’m not fan of Bill Ayres but how many people did he actually kill? Numbers and incidents please.
    *****************

    Really? What a sad little Bot you are! It’s like saying “how many people did Stalin personally kill”?

  39. March 30, 2010
    Caucasian female alert level raised to amber
    Peter Wilson

    The fact that mainstream media coverage of the Muslim terrorist attacks in Moscow was predictable makes it no less craven.

    The Wall Street Journal (the hero of the story) ran the story above the fold, with a dramatic photo of a survivor, correctly identifying the bombers as an “Islamic insurgency.”

    The New York Times likewise put the story on the front page. Their headline, however, reads: “Attack Victims Are Mourned as Russia Weighs Its Response.” So as not to offend anyone, no mention of the identity of the attackers is made.

    A second New York Times story addresses the nettlesome question of who those “attackers” were, but since “terrorist” is the new T-word, the word “bombers” seemed less offensive. A first draft of their headline might have read: “Russia’s Fear of Bombers Is Revived.” But it sounded silly. Everyone fears bombers. If you learn that bombers are around, you want some clues to help identify them. It’s almost a genetically programmed response, like asking how someone died so you know what to look for when it’s your turn. The Times then discovered the appropriate modifier and ran with it: “Russia’s Fear of Female Bombers Is Revived.” That’s right, female.

    The Boston Globe can be relied on to follow the lack of leadership of its big brother, with even greater lack. The Moscow story does not appear at all on the Globe’s webpage, bumped by breaking news: “Unwanted phone charges raising ire.”

    In the paper edition, the Globe tucked the Muslim terrorist attack into the “In the News” bullet points on the left column. It only rated second place on the list however. Number one was: “Nine purported members of a Christian militia group…charged with conspiring to kill police.” No beating around the bush there. A Christian conspiracy ranks above a Muslim mass murder.

    The militia is identified as “Christian” since cop-killing militia groups, it is well known, derive their marching orders from the Bible.

    The Globe’s Moscow story? “Russia blamed Caucasus separatists for the suicide blasts.”

    If I were profiling terrorists using the Times and the Globe as my sources, I’d be on the lookout for Caucasian females.

  40. Ayres didn’t kill anyone. I don’t like the guy. But he didn’t kill anyone. Stalin killed people by the millions. Not killing anyone is much better than killing millions.

    Facts are facts. The truth is the truth.

  41. basement angel
    March 30th, 2010 at 11:58 pm
    Ayres didn’t kill anyone.
    ************
    Put down the Kool-aid…

  42. Gonzo

    It’s very simple – prove me wrong. Three of his associates killed themselves while making a bomb, but he didn’t kill anyone. That is a fact.

  43. basement angel
    March 31st, 2010 at 12:13 am
    Gonzo

    It’s very simple – prove me wrong.
    ***************

    I don’t have to…because I am right and you are a BOT. Probably mj2

  44. The Disturbed Mind of The Left
    By Eric Erickson

    On CNN’s website tonight there is a report that ten people have been shot in Washington, D.C. in two separate incidents that police are not sure are connected.

    Washington has long had the stigma of “murder capital” of the United States though crime has fallen in recent years. Gun violence in Washington has been both epidemic and in the news a great deal in the last few years with the Heller decision and the Supreme Court’s affirmation of a individual right to keep and bear arms under the second amendment.

    One might venture to say that, given Washington’s reputation, the first thought in someone’s mind might reasonably be that this was gang related violence — particularly the parts of the city wherein the violence occurred.

    But nine minutes after the post went up on CNN the first commenter noted:

    We are coming closer and closer to the time that we have to recognize the play on emotions by people hoping to tap into right-wing anger and how it may precipitate violence.

    The commenter, John, is an American working for NATO in Europe. You might think that all John has heard about lately is the evil tea party movement. But if you read who John is you would learn he went to the University of Maryland — not exactly far removed from news about Washington, D.C. and its violence. Let’s ignore that John works for NATO.

    If we assume John’s line of reasoning is reasonable in the current climate, we must then wonder what the media is doing to run people off the rails. After all, during the August health care discussions, seven out of ten acts of documented violence were from leftists against tea party activists.

    More recently, the only substantive arrest after the health care vote was of an Obama donor threatening the lives of Eric Cantor and his wife. Then there is the lack of any documentary evidence that anyone hurled racial epithets at John Lewis — a man known, despite an honorable history in the Civil Rights struggles of the sixties, to use incendiary charges of race for political gain without substance behind those charges — but ample evidence that leftists hurled eggs at tea party protestors convening in Nevada the other day.

    If, however, we don’t want to make that leap, we must instead ask the simple question: why are leftists still so disturbed and hateful? They, after all, spent eight years in anger over George ChimpyMcBushHitlerHalliburton only to win total control of the law making and enforcing aspects of government.

    And yet . . .

  45. Gonzo,

    So you have no evidence he’s ever killed anyone so that makes me a bot? Where is the logic in that?

  46. ZERO FUND OBAMACARE

    By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN

    Published on DickMorris.com on March 30, 2010

    Printer-Friendly Version

    We don’t have to wait until we have a Republican in the White House to rid this nation of the shackles of Obamacare. We can do it next year if we win simple majorities in one or both houses of Congress.

    The Obama health care bill was an authorization measure which established a program and set down its parameters. But authorization bills are not appropriations. Each year the Congress must act on appropriations for each department and agency in the government. If no funds are appropriated, nothing can be spent.

    So if Republicans take the House (where appropriations have to originate) – and especially if they also take the Senate – they will have the capacity to zero fund Obamacare, appropriating not a dime for it in their spending bills. Indeed, they can and should include a specific amendment to their appropriations bills banning the expenditure of any of the funds on Obama’s health care program.

    In the wake of the passage of the health care bill, states are filing lawsuits and talk of repeal is in the air. Both are useful efforts. But litigation takes time and the key challenge – to the constitutionality of the requirement that everybody buy insurance – cannot even begin until it takes effect in 2014. And repeal will obviously be impossible as long as Obama wields the veto from his Oval Office. It would be impossible mathematically for the Republicans to get a two-thirds majority in the Senate and unlikely in the House, so an override is out of the question. Repeal will have to wait until 2013, after Obama’s defeat in 2012.

    But zero funding can happen immediately after the Republicans take Congress. All this makes the elections of 2010 critical. If we can stop this bill from getting off the ground, it will be possible to repeal it when we take over the White House. But if the Democrats keep their majorities, the program will be so entrenched by the time we defeat Obama that its repeal would be unlikely.

  47. There are a lot of debates lately about definitions. We think the debates are needed because we are all trying to sort things out. While most on this website are Democrats we certainly do not identify with the current wolves who identify themselves as Democrats. The quest for definite definitions appears to be a symptom of a larger problem which is “who are we, what are we?” The answers to those questions is one we will be able to answer with just a touch more certainty after November.

    As to what is worse, the Left or the Right, we think the question does not get us anywhere, in the same way that the “is Obama a fascist or a socialist?” don’t get us anywhere. However the questions re socialism/fascism and left/right clearly have some resonance and emotions run high on these issues.

    To us, and we have given it much thought these past few months, these issues should be viewed from a different perspective. The formulation we are slowly working our way through is one of democratic principles versus a totalitarian impulse. That totalitarian impulse, which to us is the real “enemy”, can be found on what is termed the “left” and what is termed the “right”.

    That totalitarianism mindset is what we believe set off the entire Hillary supporter PUMA rebellion against the Democratic establishment. Ordinarily, once a primary winner is determined we would have accepted the results and united. But the totalitarian style “fix” by the Democratic “establishment” which was evident to us during the primaries stuck in the craw and we knew that a greater principle was involved. We cannot unite with people who have destroyed the legitimate democratic process in order to impose their candidate on us.

    Totalitarianism is the enemy. It does not matter, much, that the totalitarian mindset comes from a Hitler (what was he “left” or “right” – he was part of the fascist movement but also a “nationalist socialist”?), or a leftist Stalin or leftist Mao. The killers/criminals, whether they be Tim McVeigh or the near comical Symbionese Liberation Front or the Weather Underground or that Philadelphia group MOVE, that Waco cult, the Klan, Sirhan Sirhan, Lee Harvey Oswald (was he left? as a member of Fair Play for Cuba or right? as an associate of right wingers), the militia movement, Aryan Brotherhood, Black Liberation Army, killers of Malcolm X, FMLN, M19CO, Revolutionary Action Movement, United Freedom Front, Macheteros, or the various Muslim affiliated such as the Blind Sheik. What they all have in common is that they want to impose their judgments on all of us through use of force and/or intimidation of one form or another.

    To complicate matters, sometimes armed struggle is the answer as in 1776. And let’s not forget that the revolutionaries of that era were a minority of the population too. These issues are complicated.

    Where we are slowly working our way towards is that the extremes of the “left” and the “right” both meet at the Totalitarian crossing. That mentality, that mindset, that impulse, is what is objectionable and it does not much matter to us what the ideological veneer of the perpetrator is.

    These are not fully formed thoughts but merely point to how complicated simple definitions can be. We certainly do not want to be the victims of a terrorist attack even if we might happen to agree with the ideological viewpoint and goals of such a group. We certainly don’t want to be the victims of a terrorist attack from groups we disagree with ideologically.

    We’re all trying to sort out these questions, and we should do so civilly and in the spirt of trying to find answers not of having the revealed truth. These questions are difficult and complicated and will only get more difficult and more complicated in days to come. Let’s trust in our fallibility not our infallibility.

  48. wbboei,

    You think the Republicans will be willing to face down the tsunami of special interest money that would fund the campaigns against them if they attempted to take action that would deny the health insurance industry the money they have coming their way?

  49. Admin,

    yeah, the, uhm, apex predators are on the march. I agree with everything you said, but I also think that people have to take responsibility for what happens within their movement. If your movement is producing murder, then you have to consider whether what you are doing is moral. The right has killed a lot of people, in the name of rightwing issues, since the 90s. Even if you go back to the beginning of the sixties, and count all of the lefty violence, you still only have a fraction of the deaths that the right has now accrued.

    It’s so weird because my part in this thread started out with me talking about the brouhaha I caused at Bartcop by complaining about the sexist rhetoric they use against Palin there. They suspect me of being a “secret racist” because I’m “too smart”, I guess, to reveal my real racism. Yet the people making those accusations can’t find an instance of me saying anything that can be construed as racist, and there is also the fact that I busted chops over at PUMA PAC when a Rump Roast sock puppet was calling Michelle Obama a “gorilla”. I said the same the thing to them about racism that I said to the Bartcoppers about misogyny. So the PUMA PAC people think I’m an Obot and the Bartcoppers think I’m a teabagger. What I am is someone who is opposed to bigotry. Very simple.

    we live in a time when it is becoming doubly important to sort out the truth and to understand your own principles. The Audacity of Democracy doc started out because I wanted to make a commercial talking about how I was a FDR/Clinton Democrat because Democrats count the vote. Because Democrats take a stand against all bigotry. I wanted to tie Clinton and FDR together to make the point. We made the doc but not the commercial. I think the documentary may well serve a purpose farther down the line. I think the same thing about the archives here.

    As to violence and the left, I think the media and the Obama camp is making a mistake almost fetishizing the importance of Obama’s safety. Someone at Bartcop linked an article claiming anti-Obama rhetoric is worse than anything we’ve ever seen before in this age. Bullshit. By this time in the Clinton admin, Hillary was being accused in mainstream forums of having murdered Vince Foster. Jesse Helms had advised Clinton not to visit military bases in Carolina because some troop might be tempted to take him out. We haven’t heard any rhetoric approaching that level – something to be thankful for. But there are a whole lot of people who found their identities accusing their workmates who weren’t fond of Obama as racists, and they miss the buzz of moral sanctimony when they cry “j’accuse!” Some of them may well be tempted to act out. We shouldn’t be paving the way for that.

    I’ll close with Ian Welsh:

    The bottom line in America today is that while everyone who isn’t paid not to know [for example], knows how to fix what’s wrong with America (for example, instead of the mess called Health Care Reform, pass single payer), nothing that really fixes anything fundamental will be allowed to occur.

    America is controlled by what economists call rent-seeking behaviour. Virtually everyone important has a revenue stream, and they don’t want anyone to take that revenue stream away. So pharma and insurance companies, who would have been damaged badly by single payer (they would have lost hundreds of billions) made sure that a plan to provide everyone with better health care for a third less than current costs was never even considered.

    The most important game in America today is the contest for control of government, so that government can directly or indirectly give you money. Health care “reform” in which the government decided to force Americans to buy private health insurance or be fined is merely the latest (and most blatant) example. Virtually every industry, from finance to telecom to agriculture is involved in this game. It is in all their interests to make sure the game continues, but they do fight amongst each other for the spoils.

    This game will continue until the US can no longer afford it. Indeed, even now, some industries are taking it on the chin, loosing out to their better connected cousins. For example, the current downturn has seen the prison-industrial complex losing ground. They get most of their money from State governments, and the States simply cannot afford to keep locking up so many people at so much cost.

    This is the downward spiral of a great power in senescence. It ends in collapse, reformation or revolution, when it becomes clear that the rents of the Ancien Regime can no longer be afforded, and too many of those who were bought off are thrown off their dole.

    The Tea Partiers, however misguided they may be in many respects, have been thrown off the dole. Whatever they are called, they will not be going away.

  50. And this is the crux of the matter right here:

    To us, and we have given it much thought these past few months, these issues should be viewed from a different perspective. The formulation we are slowly working our way through is one of democratic principles versus a totalitarian impulse. That totalitarian impulse, which to us is the real “enemy”, can be found on what is termed the “left” and what is termed the “right”.

    That’s it. What drove me away from the Democrats was the game playing – the knowledge that what the voters wanted didn’t matter. All those yahoos screaming, “the rules! the rules!” as if making sure that Iowa and New Hampshire got first crack at the elections is somehow more important than counting the votes. It’s only important if you like the result of the cheat and you’re willing to win that way. But Roosevelt just wanted to make the money and so he manipulated the results so that he personally could benefit. A whole lot of other industries bought in as well.

    We’re looking more and more like Russia to me.

  51. Basement Angel, you quoted Ian Welsh as writing:

    The Tea Partiers, however misguided they may be in many respects, have been thrown off the dole. Whatever they are called, they will not be going away.

    Perhaps that answers why we have respect for the Tea Party activists. Hillary supporters have also in a sense “been thrown off the dole” and are also not going away. Perhaps that is also why we don’t view those of the “left” (or “right”) as “our movement” anymore. It’s not because we are not creatures of the Left, but because we no longer recognize what the Left has debased itself to become – The Establishment – using all the ugly methods establishments employ.

    As to the assassination fetish, we wrote about that and postulated that the assassination talk is necessary for the Hopium guzzlers because they need to believe they and “He” are a “world historic” movement/candidate of importance. Without the hyped assassination talk, they would see themselves as the petty ward heelers they are.

  52. Over at Corrente Wire, we’ve moved away from using the word “progressive” because that is identified with the people who sold us out in the campaign. Petty ward heelers – I like that. I now identify myself as a liberal.

    I’m just stunned at the degree to which people who should know better don’t see the class war that’s going on. For the past nine years, entire industries have been lining up to rob us blind – first the energy industy, then the defense industry, then the real estate industry, then the oil companies, next the banks and now the health insurance. Everybody wants their percentage of the American pay check. How will the progressives survive Obama’s assault on Social Security? As for me, I paid it, I want it. Don’t get fancy.

    Chris Bowers was yammering on today about how he’s realized that we wound up with the health care plan that we did because Obama had a better message. Doh!! That brilliant Obama, just out thinking the entire left before breakfast. One cigarette and vavoom! God, it’s embarrassing. Ninotchka, in the film by the same title, is a Russian engineer on holiday in Paris. She says of her nation in regard to Stalin, “there are fewer communists but better communists”. Obama apologists sound a lot like that to me.

  53. Admin: to understand Obama, one must understand totalitarianism. I can think of no better treatise on the subject than The Origins of Totalitarianism by Hannah Arendt which was published in 1951. She lived through the two great totalitarian movements of the twentieth century and provides vital insight into how they operate. I firmly believe that Obama is a totalitarian, and have always understood that the far right and the far left are both the enemies of democracy, have totalitarian leanings, and before they destroy each other they join hands to destroy the bourgeois or as we call them today the middle class and they despise their sentimental attachment to constitutions, democracy, and individual rights. We saw this in the Weimar Republic in Germany, the Kerensky Government in Russia, and in Red Vienna.

    What I like about the book is the way it “describes the mechanics of totalitarian movements, focusing on Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia. Here, Arendt discusses the transformation of classes into masses, the role of propaganda in dealing with the non-totalitarian world, and the use of terror, essential to this form of government. Totalitarian movements are fundamentally different from autocratic regimes, says Arendt, insofar as autocratic regimes seek only to gain absolute political power and to outlaw opposition, while totalitarian regimes seek to dominate every aspect of everyone’s life as a prelude to world domination. Arendt discusses the use of front organizations, fake governmental agencies, and esoteric doctrines as a means of concealing the radical nature of totalitarian aims from the non-totalitarian world. A final section added to the second edition of the book 1958 suggests that individual isolation and loneliness are preconditions for totalitarian domination.

    National Review ranked the book #15 on its list of the 100 best non-fiction books of the 20th century [1]. The Intercollegiate Studies Institute also listed it among the 50 best non-fiction books of the 20th century [2].” (Wikiopedia)

  54. Chris Bowers was yammering on today about how he’s realized that we wound up with the health care plan that we did because Obama had a better message. Doh!! That brilliant Obama, just out thinking the entire left before breakfast. One cigarette and vavoom! God, it’s embarrassing. Ninotchka, in the film by the same title, is a Russian engineer on holiday in Paris. She says of her nation in regard to Stalin, “there are fewer communists but better communists”. Obama apologists sound a lot like that to me.
    ———————-
    Bowers is a functional idiot. What is that better message he is talking about? Oh, I get it. Rezko redux, i.e. screw your constituents, destroy your party and reward big business.

  55. tim
    March 30th, 2010 at 7:06 pm

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

    LOL. You have quite a few things wrong. Unfortunately.

  56. The article is an attempt to defend the health scam but it shows the way Republicans will break it to pieces at little risk to themselves
    ——————————–
    Agreed. And even though the right portrays this as a government takeover, I see it differently. I see it as an insurance company bail-out and windfall at taxpayers expense and at the expense of seniors who rely on medicare. There is no way to put lipstick on this pig.

    Some big contributors moved from the republican to the democratic column, but it is hard to see how it benefits the party if it causes theme to lose control of congress. The reason one must listen to both sides is because neither one gives you the whole truth, and each will tell you what the other side is trying to hide.

  57. I’m too tired to look it up again, but Palin had a map at her Facebook site with NOT GUNSIGHTS but cross-in-circles NOT on people but on districts which she said had voted for McPalin in Nov 2008 so might be good for ‘targeting’ for picking up House seats for the GOP in 2010.

    ‘Target’, ‘set sights’, ‘take aim’ — these are all common metaphors. Almost ‘dead’ metaphors — people use them forgetting what they originally meant. (Now I guess I’ll get accused of something for using the term ‘dead.’)

    ‘Reload’ is more of a live metaphor because it hasn’t been over-used. Palin does flaunt and epatier her out of the closet stance on guns sometimes. It’s kind of like … publish and be damned.

    Rural people who are into guns for hunting and self-defense (when the nearest 911 is an hour away) get a little, er, defensive at the way they’re treated by the media and city people. So they do tend to flaunt their terms a little.

    But that is very different from any kind of inciting to real violence against real people!

  58. Plus which, the Dems are flapping to make the GOP and TP look bad at the moment — so what else is new?

    If we Liberals don’t believe what the Conservative media says about us — why should be believe what the Liberal media says about Conservatives? (Or what the Corporate aka Mainstream Media says about anybody?)

    Any nut on either side can make a webpage, so any journalist on any side can find any number of nutty webpages to support whatever headline he wants to run that day. Same with Youtube videos. Everyone has video cameras and can find some nut to film, so any journalist can look around on Youtube and find pictures to support his headline of the day.

  59. At book signing: Rove branded ‘War Criminal.’:

    More evidence people are fed up with BOTH Partys and will not be fooled again!

    If you can glean the video of Rove (getting his clock cleaned) from this link, it would be appreciated.

    http://cbs2.com/local/book.signing.karl.2.1598578.html

    TG our girl Hillary is out of the political cesspool that will become more dangerous as we draw closer to the midterms.

  60. Dems are flapping to make the GOP and TP look bad at the moment — so what else is new?
    ————————————-
    It is called rallying the base, which is of course a euphemism. It is predicated on the assumption that those people hate the Republican Party so much–and many of them do, that they would throw their country to the wolves, rather than entertain the minority view–and many of them will. One look at Chris Bowers, all nerdish, smug and delusional tells you all you need to know about these cretans. I think the real poll is the one we see in the television viewing audience. The Obama loving networks are facing the very real prospect of extinction, while FOX which promotes a center right perspective is prospering with three times the audience of CNN and MSNBC. That tells you more about where the head of the American People is at than any polls that Obamalovers (read closet totalitarians) can manufacture. Will these attacks have any impact on the independents who have moved away from Obama, after realizing the terrible mistake they made in 2008? Yes. I think it will help them see first hand what the hard left is like, and but for the grace of god goeth they. At this point, we know who the villains are and it is Obama, big media and nerds like Bower who pollute the internet with their mindless tripe.

  61. In the discrete language of a diplomat, the French President speaking for himself and for other European leaders says this about the Fraud:

    1. He does not listen to their views. (Note: O felt nervous enough about that charge that he had to butt in and deny it).

    2. He does not keep his word to them. (Note: the subtext of the positive spin is he makes a commitment and fails to deliver.)

    They understand that he cannot be trusted, but they are stuck with him until 2012.

  62. Sarkozy Reveals Rift in U.S.-European Relations
    By Major Garrett
    – FOXNews.com

    Instead of explaining whether America listens, the French president talked about what happens when Obama speaks — denying a problem no one asked about — and in so doing revealed a surprising rift in relations.

    Mar. 30: French President Nicolas Sarkozy speaks as President Obama listens at the White House.
    Did it really happen, right there in the East Room? Could such a question be asked just one year after a nearly rapturous Europe welcome to President Obama and his promised era of engagement and mutual cooperation? Could Obama’s word actually be a topic of debate among Europe’s top leaders?

    It appears so.

    French President Nicolas Sarkozy was asked to elaborate on his Tuesday comments in New York that the world needs an America “that listens.”

    Instead of explaining whether America listens, Sarkozy talked about what happens when Obama speaks — denying a problem no one asked about — and in so doing revealed a surprising rift in U.S.-European relations.

    “I speak on behalf of Chancellor Merkel or Gordon Brown and other leaders,” Sarkozy said, doing something world leaders seldom do — speak for others. “Because President Obama, when he says something, keeps his word. His word is his bond. And that is so important. There’s a joke among us, we don’t like surprises. Well, from that point of view, there’s no surprises. When he can, he delivers. When he can’t, he says so.”

    But experts say there have been surprises, unpleasant ones for Europe.

    “Europe is beginning to feel a little concerned that it’s being taken for granted,” said Heather Conley, director of the Europe program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. ” When summit meetings are skipped, when it takes 14 months for the French to have an Oval Office meeting, they are starting to become concerned that maybe allies aren’t as appreciated as they had anticipated from this administration.”

    There are other grievances. European leaders felt cut out of the side-deal Obama cut at the Copenhagen climate talks, depriving them of co-negotiating clout on an issue Europe believes it has defined for more than a decade. France wants less pressure to send more troops to Afghanistan and more action on sanctions against Iran. France also wants what it considers to be a fairer shot at the contract for airborne refueling tankers on behalf of its government-backed aircraft maker Airbus and its U.S. partner Northrop Grumman Corp. Great Britain sees its “special relationship” with the U.S. as a thing of the past. England, Germany and France want more U.S. muscle behind their push for tougher global financial regulations.

    Satisfaction has been hard to find.

    “The call from Europe that youre hearing is ‘C’mon America we need you we need you now more than ever,'” Conley said. “We need allies and this is a value-based partnership. You’re starting to hear concerns that ‘Well this values question, you know, we need to do more work and be more transactional in nature.’ Well, the values proposition is at the center of the U.S.-European relationship and if that begins to shake the whole relationship begins to shake.”

    It is perhaps more than mildly revealing that before Sarkozy could answer whether Obama listened, the U.S. president interrupted.

    “Let me answer the second question, even though that was to Nicolas” Obama said. “I listen to Nicolas all the time. I can’t stop listening to him.”

    But to what purpose?

    Clearly, whatever the amount of listening, the level of consultation and agreement is decidedly less than a year ago. One on need compare Sarkozy’s take on Obama’s America now and a year ago.

    “We cannot afford to have the world’s number one power not being open to the rest of the world,” Sarkozy said Monday at Columbia University. “The world does not stop at the East Coast, the world does not stop at the West Coast.”

    In early April, in Strasbourg, Germany, Sarkozy said just the opposite.

    “It feels really good to be able to work with a U.S. President who wants to change the world and who understands that the world does not boil down to American frontiers and borders,” Sarkozy said.

    “What Sarkozy is saying is ‘Perhaps American listens, but it doesn’t consider enough, before we even get to the question of whether we agree or not,” said Michael Rubin, resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.

    Rubin said the strain in U.S. relations with Europe is emblematic of difficulties elsewhere – namely in Israel, Asia and South America.

    “From an Israeli perspective, the president is acting more like a zoning board member than as the the leader of the free world,” Rubin said, referring to the current fight over Israeli settlements in East Jerusalem. “When it comes to trade, I just returned from South Korea and we have the case in Colombia too where the president doesn’t seem to even want to listen to the history of diplomacy with our allies and the importance of free trade. Unfortunately, we’re in a dynamic now where it pays much more to be a rogue regime than it does to be an ally of the United States.”

    Obama regards the new Israeli settlements as an impediment to peace talks with the Palestinians and feels duty-bound to confront the issue to maintain credibility with Palestinians and the Arab nations Obama’s lobbied to back his approach to the peace process. Obama’s also talked more openly about expanding trade, even as the South Korea and Colombia free trade deals remain stalled, a victim of White House inaction.

    “The United States is getting a reputation basically of a country that cannot be trusted for more than 5 minutes at a time,” Rubin said. “And that’s not the way to build a healthy, stable world.”

    Iran could emerge as the issue that most tests Obama’s commitment to engagement and realism.

    Despite increasing evidence of Iran pursuit of nuclear weapons and ballistic missle technology, Obama on Tuesday repeated that Iran still had time make a lucrative deal with the West.

    “The door remains open, if the Iranians choose to walk through it,” Obama said. “But they understand very clearly what the terms of a diplomatic solution would be.”

    It’s an issue Sarkozy pushed Obama on in their Oval Office meeting, administration officials confirmed.

    “Sarkozy is actually growing increasingly impatient with the slow pace of getting an enhanced pkg of sanctions,” Conleys said. “In February, the French presided over the Security Council and the thought was that that was the best moment to push for some robust sanctions. It didn’t happen. They’re regrouping now. Sarkozy is going to push Obama to get as much forward progress on those sanctions against Iran.”

    Rubin, like other conservative critics of Obama’s approach to Israel on the settlements issue, sees an imbalance in the White House’s conspicuous effort to deny Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu a photograph or press conference last week while still holding out the hope of compromise with Iran.

    “Rogue regimes don’t look at diplomacy as a means of conflict resolution,” Rubin said. “They look at diplomacy as a means of asymetrical warfare. Often times, they’re playing chess, we’re playing checkers and they’re running circles around us.”

    On sanctions against Iran, Obama could only offer the “hope” of action.

    “My hope is that we are going to get this done this spring,” Obama said. ” I’m not interested in waiting months for a sanctions regime to be in place, I’m interested in seeing that regime in place in weeks Do we have unanimity in the international community? Not yet. And that’s something that we have to work on.”

    Based on Sarkozy’s most recent sentiments, it appears there more work to do than just on Iran sanctions.

  63. Hill and Bill on stage at donors for Haiti at the Un in NY Now on C-Span2 live and here on-line at Dipnote.

  64. Bill and Hillary giving their all for their country while Chief ‘Nose in the Air’avoids any one that asks a question about where he is taking our country with his treasonous agenda.

    ——————————————————

    Daily Appointments Schedule for March 31, 2010

    Washington, DC

    March 31, 2010

    ——————————————————————————–

    SECRETARY OF STATE CLINTON

    Secretary Clinton participates in the International Donors’ Conference Towards a New Future for Haiti, co-hosted by the United States and the United Nations with the Participation of Haiti. Secretary Clinton leads the U.S. Delegation, which also includes Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice, USAID Administrator Raj Shah, Assistant Secretary Esther Brimmer, Assistant Secretary Arturo Valenzuela and Counselor Cheryl Mills. For more information, click here.

    8:00 a.m. Secretary Clinton hosts a Breakfast for the Haiti Donors Conference, at the United Nations.
    (POOLED CAMERA SPRAY)

    9:00 a.m. Secretary Clinton participates in the Haiti Donors Conference Opening Session, at the United Nations.
    (OPEN PRESS COVERAGE FOR CAMERAS)
    Secretary Clinton’s opening remarks for the Haiti Donors Conference will be live-streamed on http://www.state.gov at 9:00 a.m. and the entire Haiti Donors Conference will be live-streamed on http://www.un.org/webcast.

    12:00 p.m. Secretary Clinton holds a Bilateral Meeting with U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, at the United Nations.
    (POOLED CAMERA SPRAY)

    12:20 p.m. Secretary Clinton holds a Bilateral Meeting with EU High Representative Catherine Ashton, at the United Nations.
    (POOLED CAMERA SPRAY)

    1:00 p.m. Secretary Clinton attends U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon’s Lunch for the Haiti Donors Conference, at the United Nations.
    (CLOSED PRESS COVERAGE)

    5:30 p.m. Secretary Clinton participates in a Joint Press Availability for the Haiti Donors’ Conference, at the United Nations.
    (OPEN PRESS COVERAGE)

    PRESS BRIEFING SCHEDULE

    1:00 p.m. Daily Press Briefing

  65. BLANKLEY: NOTHIN’ BUT THE FACTS, MA’AM

    realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/03/31/frustrating_stubborn_facts_104987.html

    March 31, 2010
    Frustrating, Stubborn Facts
    By Tony Blankley

    The late, splendid Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan once famously asserted, “Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts.” The senator was wrong. (Of course, for those of us who still believe that objectivity is objective, a fact is still a fact, though the heavens may fall.)

    The key word here is “entitled.” In today’s entitlement-crazy Washington, not only do folks believe that about half the country is entitled to other people’s money and health insurance policies, they feel they are entitled to their own facts to support their claim to their own entitlement to other people’s money and health insurance policies.

    Not only that, they believe they are entitled to their own facts to describe the character and conduct of their political opponents. The Democratic Party collectively smeared scores of millions of American Tea Party participants as racist, homophobic, violent terrorists in the absence of a single verified fact in support of even one such incident being attributable to a single individual. Nor did their media pals even bother with the word “alleged.”

    At a more personal level, two prominent liberal magazines led their readers to believe (as evidenced by multiple reader comments) that in one of my columns last week, I plagiarized Winston Churchill’s most famous speech as my own — despite the fact that I expressly stated immediately before and immediately after the paraphrase that I was paraphrasing Churchill’s “Finest Hour” speech from June 1940. I even stated that I apologized for paraphrasing his immortal words. New Republic did have the decency to correct that misimpression after I wrote to complain. The other magazine I will leave in its obscurity.

    Not only was Moynihan wrong, so was John Adams, who said, “Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence. (“Argument in Defense of the Soldiers in the Boston Massacre Trials,” December 1770).

    Though he may have been correct technically — the facts cannot be altered in the eyes of God — he was wrong to the extent that the facts cannot be altered in the eyes of the public.

    The advocates of the new “thing” that was passed a week ago Sunday and signed into law by the chief executive claimed it would reduce the deficit by $140 billion over the first 10 years. No informed person believes that “fact.” Also, fairly happily, according to Sunday’s Washington Post poll, 65 percent of the public think the new law will increase the budget deficit.

    Still, that leaves 35 percent (or close to 100 million Americans, counting the kids) who either believe the incorrect “fact,” think the law will be budget-neutral or are otherwise confused.

    So, currently, the fact that it will increase the deficit by at least half-a-trillion dollars (probably much more) rather than reduce it by $140 billion is just 65 percent stubborn. It will be interesting to see, seven months from now, how stubborn that fact will be. How effectively the advocates of the non-fact “communicate” to the people — and how effective the rest of us are — will determine whether it will be more or less than just 65 percent stubborn. And remember, American elections tend to be won or lost on the margin. If 30 percent of the voters are motivated by incorrect “facts” to vote, that may well be enough for them to be the winners — who, as many cynics claim — get to write the history.

    Of course, it is not a novelty of our time that there is often a struggle over convincing the public of the truth. As has been said, “A lie is halfway ’round the world before truth has got its boots on.” (Attention liberal journalists: I am not claiming that phrase as my own. It is a loose translation from Virgil’s “Aeneid”: “Fama, malum qua non aliud velocius alium,” which itself was paraphrased by Shakespeare in the introduction of “Henry IV,” Part 2.)

    So, we have a jolly seven-month public match over both economic and political theory — and the honest facts — with the advocates of the monstrosity that we dare not call by its name. (Last week I quite upset more than 800 digital “commenters” at the Huffington Post — and thousands of other friendly, if often obscene and contemptuous, e-mailers — because I used the word “socialism” to describe a government-designed, -taxed, -deeply regulated and -mandated program that will hire 16,000 new IRS agents to make sure we enjoy the benefits the federals require we pay the government to receive.

    We’re in for quite a brawl. (Note to Democratic Party talking-points drafts people: I am using the word “brawl” as a metaphor.) I am not calling for violence against your dainty selves, so you can come out from pretending to be trembling under your desks and bask in the physical safety of debating Republicans, conservatives, Tea Party folks and other fine Americans. After all, when was the last time you saw thousands of us filthy-rich, middle-aged, paunchy white guys from gated communities riot? (With the possible exception of the first day of the 30-percent-off sale for Bermuda shorts at the country club golf shop. “Where are the 40s?”)

    Come out, come out where ever you are, my little pretties. We want to debate the facts, not duck your mud balls. What are you afraid of? Admittedly, the truth may hurt you — but only metaphorically. And, as the phrase goes, the truth will set us (even you) free.

  66. Re CRU email flap:

    The UK set a parliamentary Science and Technology Committee to review the affair and see if there was any substance to the claims of the denialists, and the report of the inquiry has been released.

    On the much cited phrases in the leaked e-mails—”trick” and “hiding the decline”—the Committee considers that they were colloquial terms used in private e-mails and the balance of evidence is that they were not part of a systematic attempt to mislead.

    Insofar as the Committee was able to consider accusations of dishonesty against CRU, the Committee considers that there is no case to answer.

  67. The Obama administration is proposing to open vast expanses of water along the Atlantic coastline, the eastern Gulf of Mexico and the north coast of Alaska to oil and natural gas drilling, much of it for the first time, officials said Tuesday.

    The proposal — a compromise that will please oil companies and domestic drilling advocates but anger some residents of affected states and many environmental organizations — would end a longstanding moratorium on oil exploration along the East Coast from the northern tip of Delaware to the central coast of Florida, covering 167 million acres of ocean. – NYT

  68. Admin-
    admin
    March 31st, 2010 at 1:13 am

    There are a lot of debates lately about definitions. We think the debates are needed because we are all trying to sort things out. While most on this website are Democrats we certainly do not identify with the current wolves who identify themselves as Democrats. The quest for definite definitions appears to be a symptom of a larger problem which is “who are we, what are we?” The answers to those questions is one we will be able to answer with just a touch more certainty after November.

    [snip]

    You really impress me, more and more………

  69. What is funny is that supposedly, Obama was this amazing political genius, even better at triangulating than Bill Clinton.

    The reality?

    He breaks every campaign promise, except for the ones he’s going to break soon…

    He believes that he can compromise every position in order to win centrist Dems and centrist Repubs, while keeping his “base”.

    Yet his base continually struggles to provide him cover for breaking his promises, for being more Bush than Bush. At some point, they eventually say “I can’t do this any more”. The list is long of people who shilled for him in 2008 who now openly criticize him.

    Oh sure, one “victory”, of a small battle that he chose to escalate into World War III, is being painted as “he’s the new Comeback Kid” schtick. NPR and across the MSM spectrum, “new life” and “momentum” are being bandied about, as well as bogus polls about two day polling blips, which have already receded.

    So let’s watch:
    * if he picks up any love or encouragement from Repubs about his embracing offshore drilling and nuclear power
    * HOW much these flip flops will alienate his base.

    They must be rolling their eyes at the “usual suspects” lefty blog sites, wondering what issue he’s going to throw himself into next, that he’ll screw up like health care or flip flop on.

  70. The White House clowns pretend they are “puzzled”:

    http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.e509b6e9e1f2018a580beb4ed30e3ddd.d1&show_article=1

    The White House expressed puzzlement Tuesday at widely-held perceptions that President Barack Obama delivered a calculated snub to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu last week.

    As a row over Israeli settlement building raged, Netanyahu held late-night talks at the White House a week ago, but did not get a press appearance with Obama and the administration failed to even release an official photo.

    He returned home to a torrent of criticism in the Israeli media over his treatment, with some commentators arguing he had been humiliated in a test of wills with Obama over sharp differences on Middle East peace diplomacy.

    “I’m puzzled by the notion that somehow it’s a bad deal to get two hours with the president almost entirely alone,” White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said.

  71. admin
    March 31st, 2010 at 1:13 am
    There are a lot of debates lately about definitions.
    &&&&&

    Agreed, as does Shadowfax does, that admin lays out a compelling argument.

    Definitions are prone to being taken out of context. And different people might have varying connotations as to what a particular term is.

    For instance, the term “socialist” is a perjorative to many, yet to others it implies someone with a conscience who seeks societal justice.

    What we seem to be doing here is to:
    * identify political bad actors (on either side of the aisle)
    * document what they are doing, their agendas, and how they use subversion to attain their goals
    * identify media complicity, who is bought off, who is “joining the administration” after helping select them, who is the de facto “state mouthpiece”

    That’s the short list. We’ll work on filling that out, but our purpose here pretty much seems to be revealing itself to us as we do it.

  72. admin
    March 31st, 2010 at 1:40 pm
    “I’m puzzled by the notion that somehow it’s a bad deal to get two hours with the president almost entirely alone,” White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said.
    &&&&&&

    Without lube??? (that’s what she said).

  73. rgb44hrc, ditto. Admin hits the bullseye when s/he writes “…a larger problem which is “who are we, what are we?” Citizens just flounder when they are not absolutely certain about who we are; and what are we. That is why parties and party labels are to be shelved for future debate; for after the parties iron out WHO they are and WHO they are serving, even if it is self. Surely everyone would agree that it is about saving our country; stopping the spending and deficits, protecting our liberties, and not having our legacies to future generations being buried in debt and with less freedom.
    Be on the offensive, not the defensive. Say it loud. Make them know the facts and do not let them get away with distortions or lies , like O’Reilly did to Al Sharpton about the ‘n’ word videos. Be on the offensive – always; there is no need for any defense for loving your country, standing up for your rights, and kicking their a$$e$ out when they do not govern to please those who they serve. Speak now or forever hold your peace.

  74. Everything I feared would have happen under Obama is happening. Oil drilling is not a fight we should be having under a Democratic Administration. It’s so frustrating seeing everything so sacred get thrown under the bus just to appease the wingnuts. I’m only hoping that liberals will get angry enough and force the Democratic Congress to stop Obama’s shenanigans.

  75. Rgb44Hrc, did you say “broken promise”?

    http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/03/president-obama-drill-baby-drill-.html

    In June 2008, then-Sen. Obama told reporters in Jacksonville, Florida, “when I’m president, I intend to keep in place the moratorium here in Florida and around the country that prevents oil companies from drilling off Florida’s coasts. That’s how we can protect our coastline and still make the investments that will reduce our dependence on foreign oil and bring down gas prices for good.”

    In July 2008, he said, of lifting moratoriums on offshore drilling, that “if there were real evidence that these steps would actually provide real, immediate relief at the pump and advance the long-term goal of energy independence, of course I’d be open to them. But so far there isn’t.”

    But his Republican opponents — Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and perhaps even more so, his running mate, then-Gov. Sarah Palin, with her “drill, baby, drill” chant — used the issue to paint Obama as a stubborn ideologue.

    But by August, then-Sen. Obama signaled that he was willing to support legislation that included off-shore drilling as part of a bipartisan compromise.

  76. filbertsf, his blogger boys (Ambinder for one) are cheering this as a bold, gutsy move. Yeah, Dem president acting like a Republican is a gutsy move in any other age. Right now, liberals who voted for him are still drinking kool-aid.

  77. admin, he is pusillanimous wimpy caving (and craven, oops I already said that) waffle man. The kool-aid people pretend he is taking the issue away from his opponents — what bunch of fools.

  78. blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2010/03/column-is-mandate-constitutional.html

    Is mandate constitutional?
    If the individual health insurance mandate survives court challenges, states’ rights will have withered before our eyes.
    By Jonathan Turley
    The new health care law has states and citizens lining up — but not quite in the way President Obama or Congress had hoped. Across the country, lawsuits are being filed that could have sweeping implications, not just for health care but our constitutional system. To date, 14 states have joined the stampede to the courthouse to challenge the legislation. One of the most contested issues is the so-called individual mandate under which Congress has ordered all citizens to get medical insurance or face fines. Though the federal government has the clear advantage in such litigation, these challenges should not be dismissed as baseless political maneuvering. There is a legitimate concern for many that this mandate constitutes the greatest (and perhaps the most lethal) challenge to states’ rights in U.S. history.

    With this legislation, Congress has effectively defined an uninsured 18-year-old man in Richmond as an interstate problem like a polluting factory. It is an assertion of federal power that is inherently at odds with the original vision of the Framers. If a citizen who fails to get health insurance is an interstate problem, it is difficult to see the limiting principle as Congress seeks to impose other requirements on citizens. The ultimate question may not be how Congress can prevail, but how much of states’ rights would be left if it prevailed.

    Hypocrisy rears its head
    To get to the constitutional question, you first have to strip away the deep layer of hypocrisy in Washington. Many lawmakers now screaming about the sanctity of federalism voted for prior laws that were overturned by the Supreme Court on federalism grounds. Moreover, few of these mostly Republican members uttered a word of support when states opposed federal interventions on medical marijuana and physician-assisted suicide during the Bush administration. The guarantee of federalism was essential to ratifying the Constitution and embodied in the 10th Amendment guaranteeing that “powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” Historically, however, federalism is a constitutional rule honored largely in the breach by Congress.

    For states’ rights advocates, the Constitution is like a contract that is openly violated by one party with impunity. On paper, the states remain sovereign powers, while in reality the federal government appears able to dictate everything from the ingredients of school lunches to speed limits. Congress now routinely collects taxes in order to return the money to the states with conditions on their conforming to federal demands.

    There is no serious basis to challenge the right of Congress to impose a national medical plan on the states. In 2008, this country spent $2.3 trillion on health care — representing 16.2% of our gross domestic product. This is a national crisis demanding a national, as opposed to a state-by-state, solution. Yet, recognizing federal jurisdiction over health care does not mean that Congress is free to use any and all means to achieve its goals. Congress would need to show that the failure of an individual to get medical insurance constitutes an interstate commerce matter.

    To be sure, the Supreme Court has stretched the meaning of interstate commerce to cover such things as the farmers growing wheat for their own consumption. Indeed, many long ago wrote off federalism as a rather quaint and outmoded concept. In Wickard v. Filburn (1942), Roscoe Filburn was growing wheat to feed his chickens, but the Supreme Court still defined the activity as interstate commerce because his crops reduced the amount of wheat on the open (and national) market. However, this was at least a traditional commercial activity. With the newly minted health care law, Congress is effectively ordering a citizen to buy a product and treating the uninsured citizen himself as an interstate problem in the same way Congress regulates endangered species.

    ‘Inference upon inference’
    When Congress has ventured outside of traditional commercial areas, it has run into trouble. For example, in 1990, Congress criminalized certain conduct as part of its Gun-Free School Zones Act. The Supreme Court struck it down in 1995 and held that such laws did not substantially relate to interstate commerce. The court refused to “pile inference upon inference” to find an interstate claim.

    This brings us back to that 18-year-old Virginian. Congress is declaring the failure to insure oneself to be an interstate matter. There is no question that being uninsured contributes to the national crisis in health care. If that 18-year-old has a car accident, it is the public that is likely to bear the costs of his care. However, if the failure to get insurance makes one the object of federal jurisdiction, it is hard to see the why other acts of omission will not be tied to national deficiencies in public health or education or family welfare.

    Though strong arguments can be made for health care reform and the individual mandate, these are matters that should not be decided by mere fiat of Congress but rather by the courts. Federalism was already on life support before the individual mandate. Make no mistake about it, this plan might provide a bill of good health for the public, but it could amount to a “do not resuscitate” order for federalism.

    &&&
    Jonathan Turley, the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University, is a member of USA TODAY’s Board of Contributors.

  79. he is pusillanimous wimpy caving (and craven, oops I already said that) waffle man.
    ——–
    Nope. He just lies, yes…..Obama is a liar, not a waffle man, not a flip-flopper…………just a liar.

    Follow the money, he always governs to the position that will win him power or backing.

    Maybe his Drill Baby, Drill means he has slipped under the covers with oil men?????

  80. admin
    March 31st, 2010 at 2:32 pm
    Rgb44Hrc, did you say “broken promise”?
    &&&&&&&&&

    Apparently, his strategy is to be all over the map, so that there ARE NO promises to break.

    “I was for it, before I was against it, before I was for it, before I reached a compromise that no one liked”.

    Way to lead, baby, way to lead.

  81. RGB,

    I think some education is in order as well. Socialism is an economic system, not a political system. It has definable traits. And someone who is mandating under federal law that citizens turn over a percentage of their income to private enterprise, is not, by definition, a socialist. I think cleaning up the years of political debris, and giving people a working vocabulary, would be a really good thing.

    It’s hard to make moral progress when you don’t have the words to express the ideas that are formulating. When the words are constantly polluted by those who are opposed to moral progress (as has happened with the word socialism), it becomes almost impossible to move ahead.

    I understand what free market economics are, and can define it, whether I agree with all of the basic tenets or not. But not many people can define socialism accurately. Polls constantly find that most of America supports socialist policies though they have no idea that they do.

    But we can’t come to resolutions that allow us to move forward, if we’re all working with definitions that were created to define political realities, rather than political or economic systems.

    What admin is saying that I think is incredibly important is that we have got to find the common ground. The tea party activists and the socialists are all pretty much angry about the same thing, though they would describe what is happening in different ways. With the exception of the Clinton years, our wages have been flat in this nation since 1980. Tea party activist and tenured academic alike have increasingly relied on credit and real estate bubbles to finance a lifestyle being usurped by the movement of vast amounts of our nation’s wealth to an increasingly small number of people. And here we are, in 2010, looking at handing another percentage of our paycheck over to private enterprise, with a significant percentage going to the profit margin that benefits the CEO and the stockholders. What the left and the right are angry about is the devastation of the middle class and it just took another hit with this health care plan. What admin is working on is finding a way to nail down the rhetoric of the common ground so that we can all move forward together.

  82. DON’T MESS WITH…GEORGIA

    Dem. Att. Gen. flouts the will of the people and the pols, and is now in the crosshairs.

    nytimes.com/2010/03/31/us/politics/31georgia.html

    Georgia Attorney General Spurns Suit on Health Care
    =================================

    By ROBBIE BROWN
    Published: March 30, 2010

    ATLANTA — In 14 states across the country, attorneys general have filed lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the recent federal health care overhaul. But here in Georgia, the Democratic attorney general has rejected such lawsuits as “frivolous” and “a waste of taxpayer money.” Now that position has led to calls from Republican lawmakers for his impeachment.

    Thirty-one Republicans in the state legislature signed a resolution Tuesday calling for the impeachment of the attorney general, Thurbert Baker. Mr. Baker is also a Democratic candidate in the race, expected to be closely fought, to succeed Gov. Sonny Perdue, a Republican, who is prevented by law from seeking a third term.

    Mr. Perdue has said he would circumvent Mr. Baker by appointing a “special attorney general” — a pro bono lawyer or legal team to challenge the constitutionality of the health care act on Georgia’s behalf. The governor said he believed the act violated the Constitution by requiring many citizens to buy health insurance from private companies.

    Health care overhaul is unpopular with many Georgians, and Republicans have pressured Democrats to stake clear positions. Mr. Baker has said a constitutional challenge would be expensive and unsuccessful.

    “It’s a disappointing response by some members of our legislature,” he said. “I don’t think it speaks well for the future of this state or the image of Georgia.”

    To pass, the impeachment resolution would require the support of a majority of the 180-member Georgia House, where Republicans hold a majority. That would be followed by a trial in the State Senate, where Mr. Baker could be convicted with a vote of two-thirds of the 56 senators, an unlikely outcome given that Republicans control only 60 percent of the seats..

    The resolution’s author, Representative Mark Hatfield of Waycross, said the state’s Constitution required Mr. Baker to file suits at the governor’s request.

    “By failing and refusing to perform his constitutional and statutory duties, Attorney General Baker has abdicated his authority and has committed an act against the state of Georgia,” the resolution states.

    The highest-ranking Republican to sign it was the majority whip, Edward Lindsey. Most lawmakers have not publicly expressed a view on the resolution.

    Mr. Baker said that the public was encouraged to debate the merits of the health care act, but that attorneys general must decide its constitutionality.

    “It is the law of the land,” he said. “While there may be budgetary and policy differences about the act itself, that doesn’t mean the Congress can’t pass it.”

    Polls show Mr. Baker trailing a former governor, Roy Barnes, in the Democratic primary.

  83. Everything I feared would have happen under Obama is happening. Oil drilling is not a fight we should be having under a Democratic Administration. It’s so frustrating seeing everything so sacred get thrown under the bus just to appease the wingnuts. I’m only hoping that liberals will get angry enough and force the Democratic Congress to stop Obama’s shenanigans.
    _________________________________________
    Like they did on health care??????????????????????????????? Trust me. They love him too much to ever get angry with him. And love is blind.

  84. He breaks every campaign promise, except for the ones he’s going to break soon…
    ——————————–
    Lenin had no problem with that. As he said “promises are like pie crusts–made to be broken.” And that was the only promise Lenin ever kept. Obama on the other hand keeps his promises, but only to the people who can make him or break him. And that would be the global capitalists who put him in there.

  85. MORE ON FRANK RICH AND COLBERT KING RACE BAITING

    Can’t anyone level honest criticism at Obama, without race being drawn into the picture?

    Ummm, I guess not.

    What is good is the backlash against these fomenters.

    realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/03/31/the_racism_smear_104995.html

    March 31, 2010
    The Racism Smear
    By Mark Davis

    A year ago April 15, I looked out onto a crowd at Dallas City Hall as the tea party movement launched. On this year’s Tax Day, I will again MC the proceedings, this time at QuikTrip Park in Grand Prairie.

    We will again welcome speakers who will share passions, strategies and yes, probably even some anger – all designed to give voice to the belief that America is headed in a very wrong direction in terms of government overreach.

    Some people with some very loud media megaphones believe that I will be conducting the equivalent of a Klan rally. This is a lie, and their slanders – driven by their political bigotry – cannot stand.

    I don’t particularly care if some idiot on the street misreads the tea party vigor and invents in it a fictional sinister motivation. But when a succession of people who analyze things for a living weave such vast falsehoods, it is simultaneously sad and infuriating.

    Frank Rich of The New York Times and Colbert King of The Washington Post are among the columnists willingly checking their honesty – or their brains – at the door to throw political mud. Either these people are too ignorant to know their charges or false, or they don’t care and spit their bile anyway.

    King wrote last week of looking at “angry faces” at tea party rallies and finding them “eerily familiar,” resembling protesters seeking to prevent a black University of Alabama enrollee in 1956.

    Rich peppered his column with Third Reich imagery, eventually backing up his claim of racism with comparisons to those who opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

    Leaving aside for the moment that much opposition to that measure came from Democrats, it cannot be said plainly enough today: These men and their numerous partners in this smear should be ashamed – if nothing else, for logical flaws beneath a fifth-grader.

    Their argument is: (A) This movement is filled with vocal people displeased with the way things are going; (B) I can find examples in history of people whose vocal displeasure was fueled by racism. Hence, (C) these people must be fueled by racism.

    OK, boys, let’s see how you like it: (A) You are fans of ObamaCare; (B) Castro is a fan of ObamaCare, so, (C) you are communists.

    Logic and basic human decency prevent me from making that connection seriously. I would like to believe that if these craven critics actually attended one of the tea parties, their testimony would change. But I doubt it. Theirs is a screeching born of panic, the need to demonize a movement rather than debate it.

    Is the occasionally tasteless sign, T-shirt or voice found at the occasional rally? Of course. But they are but a tiny fraction of the hateful scope of hate heaped on President George W. Bush after the 2000 election or during the Iraq war.

    Don’t take my word that the tea party critics are full of it. Come to QuikTrip Park on April 15. You will find people looking for leaders who will reduce spending, reduce taxes and obey the Constitution. And they don’t care what color those leaders are. If the crowd is overwhelmingly white, it’s not because tea partiers have a problem with people of color. It’s because so many people of color have a problem with limited government. Anyone in that crowd will gladly make the case to any skeptic of any color.

    I have no problem with anyone who disagrees with the tea party movement’s politics. Tell me such limited government is too risky. Tell me ObamaCare is a great idea. Tell me taxes need to be raised. We’ll have a lively chat.

    But tell me the tea partiers whom I have come to know and admire are racists, and you are a liar.

    &&&
    Mark Davis hosts a radio talk show in Dallas-Fort Worth and is a free-lance columnist for The Dallas Morning News.

  86. APPARENTLY, FLORIDA AND ALL ITS SENIORS ARE NOT SO IN LOVE WITH OBAMACARE: READ THE POLLS

    miamiherald.com/2010/03/29/1554311/poll-bill-mccollum-widens-lead.html

    Poll: Bill McCollum widens lead on Alex Sink in governor’s race
    A new poll showed that Republican Bill McCollum’s front-running status against Democrat Alex Sink in the race to become Florida’s next governor has strengthened.
    BY MARC CAPUTO
    Herald/Times Tallahassee Bureau
    Attorney General Bill McCollum’s decision to sue the federal government over healthcare reform looks like a political winner, according to a new poll showing that he has widened his lead over state Chief Financial Officer Alex Sink in the race for governor.

    The Mason-Dixon Polling & Research survey released Monday shows that 51 percent of registered Florida voters approve of McCollum’s lawsuit, while 39 percent are opposed.

    As the state appears to lean toward the right, the Republican McCollum draws 49 percent support compared to 34 percent who would vote for Sink, a Democrat, according to the poll of 625 registered Florida voters.

    “The lawsuit probably gave McCollum a little lift and has put him in a strong position, but there’s more going on here,” said Mason-Dixon pollster Brad Coker.

    Coker said the numbers that “jump out at me” are those that show McCollum is winning support from 24 percent of Democrats, while Sink only draws 3 percent of Republican support.

    “Also, there’s no gender gap. That’s a problem for Sink,” he said. “A Democratic woman can’t win without the strong support of women.”

    The poll indicates that McCollum would beat his Republican primary challenger, Sen. Paula Dockery, by 64 percent to 9 percent.

    McCollum appears to be picking up momentum. The last time Mason-Dixon polled the race, in June, McCollum had a 6 percentage point lead. Now he’s up 15 percentage points.

    Voters have begun to view McCollum in a better light, with 39 percent saying they have a favorable view of the attorney general — a 10 percentage-point increase since the last Mason-Dixon poll. In that time, Sink’s numbers haven’t moved, with 24 percent of voters expressing a favorable view of her.

    “The poll is further evidence Alex Sink has failed to gain traction with Florida voters,” McCollum spokeswoman Kristy Campbell said, “and her allegiance to the Democrats’ failed tax-and-spend agenda and support for big-government healthcare is a huge liability going into November’s election,”

    Part of Sink’s political difficulty lies in the fact that she’s not as well known as McCollum, a career congressman who has run in three statewide campaigns. Sink has only run once, in 2006.

    “That’s the choice in this race: Another Washington politician like Bill McCollum, or a business leader like Alex Sink, the only candidate for governor with a comprehensive business plan to revive, remake and reform Florida’s economy,” said Sink’s campaign spokeswoman, Kyra Jennings.

    Sink, who has avoided high-profile stances on healthcare reform, recently has been touring the state promoting a jobs initiative.

    Coker said Sink’s strategy is a wise one, considering that 47 percent of voters polled said job creation is their top issue. The second-most important issue — closing the state’s budget gap — garnered 15 percent support. Affordable healthcare ranked third, at 12 percent.

    The poll shows that independent voters — crucial swing votes in Florida elections — are moving toward the right, but they’re not supportive of every Republican position. Overall, thanks to the backing of independents, 50 percent of Florida voters support the Democrats’ economic stimulus plan, while 42 percent oppose it. Men and Republicans are the strongest opponents, and Democrats and women the major backers.

    Still, there are doubts about the beneficial effects of the stimulus package. A near majority — 49 percent — believe the stimulus will not create or save a significant number of jobs. Only 32 percent believe it eventually will create jobs and only 9 percent say it has created or saved a significant number of jobs.

    Other issues in the poll:

    • Floridians, by a 48-39 percent margin, oppose the Republican-backed legislation to link teacher pay to student test scores.

    • About 50 percent of voters want to weaken the state’s class-size amendment — not enough to win at the ballot box because constitutional amendments pass only if approved by 60 percent of voters.

    • By a 5 percentage-point margin, voters disapprove of Gov. Charlie Crist’s plan to buy $536 million worth of U.S. Sugar lands in the name of Everglades restoration. But 66 percent of voters support other Everglades projects, while just 26 percent favor the U.S. Sugar deal.

    The political questions were added by the pollster to a larger, confidential survey commissioned by a business interest pursuing legislation unrelated to education, healthcare, energy or the environment.

  87. Ambinder, Bower, Marcos, et. al. The same names show up every time. In 2008 they made a market in lies and in making that market they became bit players in a larger drama. Petty ham actors of that ilk never want to leave the stage. So what they do is they bend their principles to avoid confronting the hard reality which is that Obama has now broken the core promises which he professed to hold and has shown himself to be in the hip pocket of capitalists. That is the reality they cannot confront. They have legions of deluded people who turn to them for inspiration and they cannot let on that the messiah aint what he said he was, and their professed values are an empty shell. These three clowns run the high church of Obama, and have much in common with Jim and Tammy Faye Baker in terms of misleading their parishioner for personal gain.

  88. This is a comment on the fly. Have been on vacation, and now there’s no time to respectably catch up with admin and comments. I have received the following email. There is no documentation for the content, but the sender has been reliable in the past. For what it’s worth:
    Info for anyone interested.
    Fox news this Sunday 9:00 Pm Eastern…..
    This Coming Sunday– Set Your DVR This Sunday at 9:00 PM eastern. Maybe this is why the White House has been discounting FOX. Sounds like this could be History in the making – someone may go down – either Obama or Fox News. It may be that Fox has been holding this information back due to the sensitivity of it and out of courtesy. But, Obama has taken on Fox and it appears they are ready to spill the ugly beans of truth about the background of this individual who has had an extremely radical past.This Sunday Fox news, is going to air a very important documentary about Barack Obama, Sunday night at 9 P M Eastern.The report will go back to Obama’s earlier days, showing even then his close ties to radical Marxist professors, friends, spiritual advisers, etc. It will also reveal details about his ties to Rev. Wright for 20+ years, I.e., how he was participating with this man, and not for the reasons he stated.The report has uncovered more of Obama’s radical past and we will see things that no one in the media is willing to put out there. It will be a segment to remember.Mark your calendar and pass this on to everyone you know: Sunday night, 8 PM CT; 9 PM ET. Democrat or Republican, this report will open your eyes to how YOUR country is being sold down the road to Totalitarian Socialism. If you care about the direction of our country, pass this notice on to everyone you know.

  89. Not much outrage at DailyKaos, but on HuffPo, an honest opinion.

    huffingtonpost.com/morgan-goodwin/our-generation-screwed-ov_b_519625.html

    Our Generation Screwed Over by Obama’s Offshore Drilling Plan
    ===================

    “It’s like a kick in the face” says Jonathan Ruiz of Florida International University. Jonathan campaigned for Obama for fourteen months, and now he’s livid about today’s announcement by the administration to open half the east coast to offshore drilling.

    “I was born near Florida’s Emerald Gulf Coast,” says Graham Penniman of University of Central Florida. “The memories that I have on those beaches brings me so much joy, that every night I fall asleep thinking about the moons’ reflection across the water. To imagine my beach any other way destroys my heart.”

    Why are these Florida university students mad? They are being sold out by the Obama administration in a misguided attempt to curry political favor. From the New York Times:

    “The proposal — a compromise that will please oil companies and domestic drilling advocates but anger some residents of affected states and many environmental organizations — would end a longstanding moratorium on oil exploration along the East Coast from the northern tip of Delaware to the central coast of Florida, covering 167 million acres of ocean.”

    Youth, the millennial generation so inspired by Obama to vote in record numbers, have the most to lose from the expansion of drilling. Even some coastal governors and senators will be angry about the announcement because of the small amount of oil and huge environmental risks. If white-haired governors and senators are worried, what about young people who are thinking about protecting this coastline for us and our children, long after the tiny amounts of energy have been extracted?

    Obama inspired our generation to turn out to the polls, and he can do it again if he moves to actually inspire us. But youth across the South East have longer memories than this short-sighted political thinking. Under this proposal the first lease sales for drilling would be held in 2012, a year that Obama will be hoping to connect with us and convince us he stands for our interests. If young people don’t believe him, they aren’t going to be inspired to vote. That’s not change we can believe in.

    We aren’t going to take this. A protest is planned for an event in Florida today where Newt Gingrich will be promoting drilling. Never mind that he needs to entice people to come with free “Drill Here Drill Now Pay Less” bumper stickers to the first 1000 RSVPs, this event shows how dangerously aligned the Obama administration is getting to the industry-cheerleading GOP.

    Let’s really listen to Megan Maloney at the University of Central Florida when she says, “As a young America citizen I am fearful for my future because of Obama’s decision of pursuing more offshore drilling off our coasts.” And Keziyah Lewis of Florida State University points to the DOE report on the cost of actually extracting that energy to say “obviously offshore oil drilling just doesn’t make sense when you compare the cost of infrastructure, research, etc, to the amount of fuel that is attainable, it’s like throwing money down the toilet.”

    President Obama, Ken Salazar and the rest of your teams, hear us loud and clear: young people oppose offshore drilling.

    “I understand that they want to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, but why not reduce our dependence on oil all together. Our tax dollars are being used to drill for something that will just disappear. It is a triple negative; we use oil to run the machines that drill for that oil that we then use to fuel our lives. What kind of generation will we be viewed as if we destroy our oceans just because we want a year or two of independence from other countries? We need to stop worrying about only ourselves and think about our children and grandchildren, how is this going to effect them, what are they going to do when all our oil is gone? Why are we investing in something that can just disappear when we can put our money towards something that can last a lifetime.” Amanda Glaze, University of West Florida

  90. rgb44hrc
    March 31st, 2010 at 3:48 pm
    APPARENTLY, FLORIDA AND ALL ITS SENIORS ARE NOT SO IN LOVE WITH OBAMACARE: READ THE POLLS

    “… sink, a Democrat,…”
    ——————–
    If you make the word DIMOCRAT, then those are words to live by

  91. FOLLOW UP TO KOCH’S POSTING

    Even some rough words for Hillary, but mostly for Obama.

    nypost.com/p/news/national/how_koch_doin_great_IlAdjWkslHY7DJe0jg0FQN

    How’s Koch doin’? Great
    =====================

    Posted: 4:45 AM, March 31, 2010
    Michael Goodwin

    Ed Koch is on fire. Here are a few of the bombshells he dropped yesterday.

    President Obama “wants to make Israel a pariah state.”

    Hillary Clinton is a “disappointment” and didn’t deserve the standing ovation she got from a leading Jewish group.

    Sen. Chuck Schumer has been silent on America’s tilt toward the Palestinians because he is “afraid of Obama.”

    Anything else? Only that Clinton won’t answer his letters when he asks directly whether the United States is prepared to defend Israel from Iran.

    And Obama isn’t neutral in the Mideast. He’s pro-Arab.

    As I said, bombshells.

    I called the former mayor after reading a fascinating column he wrote for RealClearPolitics.com. He accused Obama of “humiliating” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Washington, and said it is “unimaginable that the president would treat any of our NATO allies, large or small, in such a degrading fashion.”

    Koch also said Obama, by putting pressure only on Israel, was ignoring efforts by Israeli governments to make a two-state deal with Palestinians.

    “Each Israeli concession has been met with even greater demands, no reciprocity and frequently horrific violence directed at Israeli civilians,” he wrote.

    Koch is absolutely right. Obama and Clinton intentionally treated Netanyahu like dirt, then made sure the world knew.

    It wasn’t just bad manners. It was flashing a green light for Israel’s enemies.

    By broadcasting his wavering support, Obama made it more likely there will be a new war. He also undermines efforts to get Iran to stop its nuclear program and makes it more likely Israel will undertake military action.

    Yet Koch didn’t just criticize American policy. He went after Schumer and his rubberstamp, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, among others, for not standing up to the president. He elaborated during my call.

    “It’s their silence,” Koch said to me yesterday. “I can’t figure out where they are. Take Anthony Weiner. You’d think he’d be jumping up and down. But there’s nothing.”

    He said he’s gotten hundreds of responses to the column, with the vast majority sharing his shock at Obama’s “dangerous” policies. He mentioned growing concern that the US will abandon Israel at the United Nations by abstaining from Security Council condemnations, instead of issuing its usual veto.

    “At the UN, it’s always been up to the United States,” he said. “Great Britain, France, the whole European Union, they’re afraid of the Arabs because of oil contracts. They don’t have the courage to support Israel.”

    Clearly, he struck a nerve. After I called Schumer’s office to get a response to Koch’s criticism, Koch and I both got unsolicited calls from a major supporter of Israel who defended Schumer for working behind the scenes. This New Yorker, who asked not to be identified, said Schumer was “indispensable” in trying to head off the American-Israel confrontation.

    Koch, in a second conversation, said he also got a call from Schumer and accepted his explanation that he could get more done by working quietly. “But where is everybody else in Congress?” Koch asked. “Are they all working behind the scenes?”

    The answer is no. They’re content to stand mute while a president who is from their party reverses 50 years of American policy and endangers the one democracy in the region.

    It is odd but true: The fact that most Jews in Congress are Democrats is proving to be a liability to Israel.

    Silence is not a virtue. There is an obvious split in the administration, with Obama and Clinton the pro-Arab hawks, and Vice President Joe Biden and adviser Dennis Ross advocating a more Israel-friendly policy.

    The time to influence the outcome is now, with reasoned arguments — in public. That’s how critics would challenge a Republican president making the same mistake.

    Later, Schumer’s office issued a one-sentence statement in response to my request. It signals he will go public if his private efforts fail to change Obama’s policy:

    “If the administration continues along this line, everyone in the New York delegation will have no choice but to speak out.”

    Remember that promise. Koch certainly will.

  92. holdthemaccountable
    March 31st, 2010 at 4:07 pm
    —————————–
    Fascinating. Let us hope there is something to it.

  93. ANOTHER TAKE ON WHY OBAMACARE ISN’T SELLING: IT IS AN ILLEGITIMATE CHILD

    washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/Dems-break-spirit-of-law-when-enacting-law-89554657.html

    Dems break spirit of law when enacting law
    =============================

    By: Noemie Emery
    Examiner Columnist
    March 31, 2010

    What happened to the victory lap Obama was supposed to be taking? What happened to the spike in the polls for both him and for health care, for his acclamation as being a man who could govern, and his party, as being able to lead?

    What happened to being allowed to “move on,” once health care was done with? What happened to his coronation — as some bloggers had it — to being our cooler and new FDR?

    Well, there was a small spike in the ratings, but it came from his base, which now “strongly approves” as opposed to being indifferent, but the independents who turned against him last summer are angry and not turning back.

    He and health care are still underwater, and the ratings for health care itself are abysmal. He is bleeding among the middle class that elected him, and that the health care bill had been drawn to win over.

    Outside his base, he polls less like FDR than like FDR Jr. He is tied for re-election with an unnamed Republican, and 54 percent of poll respondents think he won’t make it.

    Far from being cowed, his opponents are pumped, and the public supports them. A CBS poll says 62 percent of respondents want Republicans to go on fighting the measure. A Rasmussen poll says 55 percent want the act repealed altogether. It wasn’t supposed to work out in this manner. But work out in this manner it has.

    To see why, let’s amble down memory lane, to the autumn of 1973. Under siege and suspicion for illegal activities, Richard M. Nixon was asked to turn over his infamous tapes to the Ervin Committee and Archibald Cox.

    Nixon offered a written synopsis, which he would, of course, edit. Cox refused. Nixon decided the only way out of his quandary was firing Cox. He did (after two attorneys general resigned in defiance) and quite justly cooked his career.

    It wasn’t illegal, but it was illegitimate, in that it violated the sense of the law, the spirit of justice and the sense of propriety that holds cultures together. Nixon was toast, and Robert Bork, who fired Cox in the spirit of duty, was tainted forever. People unmoved by Ted Kennedy’s rantings could not overcome their aversion to that.

    The passage of health care is not the same thing as obstruction of justice, but it has a connection, in nature and kind. Before Scott Brown appeared, the bill, while unpopular, was headed on a legitimate path to enactment, by passing the House and the Senate, and going into a conference committee, after which the revised version would be sent for final affirmation to the Senate and House.

    After Brown, this couldn’t occur as the Senate would kill it, so it had to sneak by — against the popular will and by bribes, threats and buy-offs — through a loophole for which bills of this import were not intended. Big bills aren’t supposed to squeak by on a simple majority, and under proper procedure, it would not have happened.

    It followed the law, while it shattered its intent. The whole country knows it’s a fraud.

    As a result, it’s a “law” that the country feels little respect for and feels morally free to resist. It is a law with an asterisk, a law with a stench, a law few regard as conclusive or binding.

    Spit on the law and the public, and the public will seek ways to use law to deny you. This fire will burn a long time.

  94. holdthemaccountable
    March 31st, 2010 at 4:07 pm
    This is a comment on the fly. Have been on vacation, and now there’s no time to respectably catch up with admin and comments. I have received the following email. There is no documentation for the content, but the sender has been reliable in the past. For what it’s worth:
    &&&&&&&

    Will Fox have an interview with the person who forged Obama’s birth certificate, and the official who took a bribe to let the new born infant into Hawaii??

  95. OBAMA’S PYRRHIC VICTORY

    Howard Fineman: “I say this even though I was one of those who always said that Obama would get a bill passed—and that, politically, he personally had no choice but to get it done if he wanted to have a successful presidency. But his reputation as a can-do guy was purchased at a very high political cost.”

    Here’s the whole blog

    blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thegaggle/archive/2010/03/30/the-numbers-don-t-lie.aspx

    The Numbers Don’t Lie
    Howard Fineman
    A Democratic senator I can’t name, who reluctantly voted for the health-care bill out of loyalty to his party and his admiration for Barack Obama, privately complained to me that the measure was political folly, in part because of the way it goes into effect: some taxes first, most benefits later, and rate hikes by insurance companies in between.

    Besides that, this Democrat said, people who already have coverage will feel threatened and resentful about helping to cover the uninsured—an emotion they will sanitize for the polltakers into a concern about federal spending and debt.

    On the day the president signed into law the “fix-it” addendum to the massive health-care measure, two new polls show just how fearful and skeptical Americans are about the entire enterprise. If the numbers stay where they are—and it’s not clear why they will change much between now and November—then the Democrats really are in danger of colossal losses at the polls.

    I say this even though I was one of those who always said that Obama would get a bill passed—and that, politically, he personally had no choice but to get it done if he wanted to have a successful presidency. But his reputation as a can-do guy was purchased at a very high political cost.

    The first week of salesmanship by the Democrats and the president hasn’t done any good. According to the new Rasmussen poll, only 41 percent of Americans think the law is “good for the country,” compared with 50 percent who see it as “bad for the country.” Last week the ratio was 41–49 percent. Sixty percent think the measure is “likely to increase the deficit”—also a figure unchanged from last week.

    Some polling experts suggest Rasmussen’s “house effect” tilts slightly conservative. But if you don’t want to take Scott Rasmussen’s word for it, you’re not going to get much solace from Gallup, still the biggest brand in the business.

    In Gallup’s new poll, Americans by narrow margins agree that the new health-care law will improve coverage (44–40 percent) and the “overall health of Americans” (40–35 percent). In a way, it’s astonishing that sizable minorities could disagree with those two statements, since everyone agrees the law will provide medical coverage to 32 million more Americans.

    But that’s where support, however ambivalent, ends. Americans think the law will harm the U.S. economy (44–34 percent), the overall quality of health care in the U.S. (55–29 percent), and the federal balance sheet (61–23 percent).

    It’s almost as bad when you ask voters how the law will affect them personally. There is lots of doubt and some considerable belief (or hope) that the new law won’t affect them at all. But respondents who said the measure would affect them generally fear what that change would be. They think the measure would adversely affect “the health-care coverage you and your family receive” (34–24 percent); “the quality of health care you and your family receive” (35–21 percent); and the “costs you and your family pay for health care: (50–21 percent).

    I know that the president and his advisers want to “pivot” to other topics—economic development, jobs, energy, and foreign policy. They’re content, for now, to focus on solidifying their Democratic base. I’m sure that Obama, who plays a deep and patient game, figures that the country—including independents, who won it for him in 2008—will eventually come back, at least by 2012.

    But he’s dug himself a partisan hole with this big bill, and it’ll be interesting to see him try to dig his way out.

  96. basement angel
    March 31st, 2010 at 1:10 am
    Gonzo,

    So you have no evidence he’s ever killed anyone so that makes me a bot? Where is the logic in that?
    **************

    Your rantings and flawed logic.

  97. 1% CARNAHAN

    Among Republicans polled in Missouri, Carnahan, the Dem is losing 84% to 1%, and lost their earlier lead.

    interact.stltoday.com/blogzone/political-fix/political-fix/2010/03/poll-health-bill-fallout-boosting-blunt-over-carnahan/

    03.30.2010 11:57 am
    Poll: Health bill fallout boosting Blunt over Carnahan
    ========================

    By Bill Lambrecht
    Post-Dispatch Washington Bureau

    WASHINGTON — Those shouts you hear from Jefferson City might be Robin Carnahan encouraging President Barack Obama to do a better sales job with the nation’s newly minted health insurance laws.

    A poll released today by Public Policy Polling, a Democratic-aligned firm in North Carolina, showed Rep. Roy Blunt with 45 percent and Carnahan with 41 percent in the likely November contest for the Senate seat opening with Sen. Christopher “Kit” Bond’s retirement.

    The survey of 495 Missourians, conducted Saturday and Sunday, has a 4.4 percent margin of error. Four months ago, Carnahan polled 1 percent more than Blunt in a survey by the company.

    The results this time around reflected broader trends working against Democrats.

    The new health insurance law enacted after a year-long fight in Congress is decidedly unpopular in Missouri, opposed by a 54-37 percent margin. That opposition has unified the GOP to an unusual degree: Among Republicans, Blunt led Carnahan 84-1 percent.

    “I can’t ever remember a poll when we found somebody only getting 1 percent from the other party,” said Public Policy pollster Tom Jensen, noting that Carnahan was getting 12 percent of Republicans in the previous poll.

    “That really shows how on the same page Republicans are,” he added.

    The survey also turned up a disquieting finding for the Blunt campaign — just 25 percent had a favorable opinion of the veteran congressman, as opposed to the 38 percent who viewed Carnahan favorably. Both Senate aspirants had high negative ratings; Blunt 41 percent and Carnahan 43 percent.

    The poll reflected the potent anti-Washington sentiments showing up around the country these days: 55 percent said they trusted Jefferson City politicians to deal with Missouri’s problems while just 13 percent said they would put their trust in politicians in Washington.

    Jensen summed things up thusly: “I continue to think that this is going to be the most hard-fought race in the country and could go either way.”

  98. Gonzo,

    I havent’ranted about anything nor have I insulted you. What I have not done is toe any party lines and that’s why you’re uncomfortable. But getting this nation out of the mess it’s in is going to involve all of us being uncomfortable. Instead of simply reacting to what I’m saying with hostility, why don’t you think about it?

    The fact of the matter is that the right has murdered a lot of Americans over the past three decades and the same cannot be said of the left. That is a fact of history. As long as the right continues to engage in apocalyptic rhetoric, then ordinary Americans, the kind that worked in the Murrah Building in OKC, are not safe. Think about that. What McVeigh did was load up a truck with explosives and drive it to a government building during the day, when it was packed with people at work. What Eric Rudolf did was pack up an explosive and drop it off as Olympic Park hoping to kill a huge number of people. Fortunately, he failed and only killed one.

    Do you really want to be someone who ignores the genesis of such actions, and how do you propose preventing them in the future if you refuse to understand how they happened in the first place?

    We are a nation in crisis. We have our second god-awful president in a row and we really needed a good president. Now the question is, how do we create a new political reality that allows us to elect someone effective and not have our system hijacked, as it has been for the past few elections, by our highly refined and targeted marketing agencies?

  99. A Democratic senator I can’t name, who reluctantly voted for the health-care bill out of loyalty to his party and his admiration for Barack Obama, privately complained to me that the measure was political folly, in part because of the way it goes into effect: some taxes first, most benefits later, and rate hikes by insurance companies in between.
    ——————–
    Oh come on Howie. You have no journalistic principles. Nothing to hold you back from telling us who he is. How can we evaluate the credibility of his statement if we do not know who he is? As things now stand we have only your word for it that he is a senator. And Howie, your word ain’t credible.

  100. basement angel
    March 31st, 2010 at 12:13 am
    Gonzo

    It’s very simple – prove me wrong. Three of his associates killed themselves while making a bomb, but he didn’t kill anyone. That is a fact.
    &&&&&&

    So Ayers is considered “clean”, because while his friends were working with bomb-making activities, he just happened to be out shopping for weed or fuses when the bomb went off?

    Sounds like a pretty extremist group to me.

  101. basement angel

    During his quest for the presidency, there WERE some strange, untimely deaths. Well documented here. Sure, it’s innuendo, and the cover ups have been effective.

    But to say that most of the hate and killing is only coming from one side of the political spectrum is not believable. We saw the intimidation used to select Obama.

  102. MORE RESISTANCE TO OBAMA’S FRANKENBILL

    latimes.com/features/health/la-me-whitman31-2010mar31,0,2099550.story

    California should seek to block healthcare plan, Whitman says
    ==============

    The GOP candidate concedes that as governor, she couldn’t force the attorney general to do so but says she would strongly encourage him to.

    &&&
    By Cathleen Decker
    March 31, 2010

    Republican candidate for governor Meg Whitman said Tuesday that California should move to block the newly signed national healthcare plan because it would deepen the state’s budget deficit, even if some elements were acceptable to introduce down the road.

    Whitman was asked by an attendee at a Redondo Beach campaign event whether as governor she would “force your attorney general to file suit” against the reforms, as more than a dozen attorneys general in other states have said they would.

    “The answer to that is yes,” said Whitman, drawing the most sustained, and loudest, applause of the hourlong event.

    When questioned by reporters afterward, however, she conceded that she would not have the power as governor to demand such a move from the independently elected attorney general.

    “I wouldn’t order him to; I would strongly encourage him to,” she said. “I don’t think you can actually order the attorney general.”

    Whitman also said that part of the problem with obtaining insurance in the state is that “right now, there is truly a limit on the number of insurance companies that are allowed to sell insurance in California.”

    That, she said, has meant that a minimal number of companies exert outsize power over premiums. She cited the case of Anthem, whose requests for rate hikes of up to 39% for individual insurance unleashed anger at the industry.

    But state officials said there is no such limit; all companies that agree to California’s standards of coverage can be approved.

    Whitman appeared to be referring to a GOP proposal to allow out-of-state companies to sell policies in California under the rules that apply in the states where they are based. Opponents argue that would negate consumer protections that exist in California and some other states, and lead insurance companies to set up shop in the least-demanding states.

    The billionaire former head of EBay and the front-runner for the GOP nomination in June’s primary, Whitman said two parts of the hotly contested federal legislation were valuable: bans on refusing insurance coverage for those with preexisting conditions and on the practice of canceling consumers once they become ill.

    But, she added, those elements should not take effect until other pieces are in place, such as electronic record-keeping and fraud elimination. She also objected to the requirement that all Americans buy health insurance. That was the mechanism that was to, in effect, finance the coverage of the sick and those with preexisting conditions.

    To snickers from her audience of South Bay Republicans, Whitman noted that it was the likely Democratic nominee for governor, Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown, who has declined to challenge the healthcare bill in court. (Most of those who have announced plans to sue are Republicans).

    “This will create another $3-billion unfunded mandate for California at a time when we can least afford it,” she said, referring to projected increases in healthcare spending for the poor.

    Before an enthusiastic crowd of several hundred, Whitman repeated her campaign themes. She defended her proposals for targeted tax cuts aimed at luring business to the state, saying that “we can’t actually afford an across-the-board tax cut right this very minute.”

    Her opponent in the Republican primary, Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner, favors such a cut.

    She also defended herself against Poizner advertisements that criticize her on the subject of illegal immigration. Whitman said she was “100% against amnesty ” — despite seeming to advocate a “path to legalization” for the undocumented last year. But she refused to second Poizner’s proposal to deny education and healthcare to illegal immigrant children.

    “I can’t go that far,” she said. “I don’t think children should be held accountable for the sins of their parents.”

  103. Chris Van Hollen, Harvard Boy, US Representative 8th Congressional District Maryland, Chairman of the Democratic National Congressional Committee and he belongs in the stupid hall of fame.

    1. Example 1: So the Coakley vs. Brown MA SEN race is for Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat, right? Apparently Chris Van Hollen forgot this fact when he stated: “Why would you hand the keys to the car back to the same guys whose policies drove the economy into the ditch and then walked away from the scene of the accident?”…into a ditch and then walked away“? A DITCH? Really? REALLY?I’ve been accused of speaking without thinking before, but Van Hollen goes into the HOF for this one. Ted Kennedy. ”Into a ditch and walked away”.

    2. Example 2: playing the race card against opponents of Obama care. Thereafter, there have been a threatening phone call to an Ohio congresswoman, shots fired into the office of a Jewish Congressman, and now the office of another congressman has been ransacked. This fool fails to realize that words have consequences, and if you incite racial violence you are likely to get what you pay for.

  104. It had to be something like this . . . . . This guy Livini sounds like Neville Chamberlain–I have here a piece of paper which Mr. Hitler has signed promising peace in our time>
    ————————————————————————–
    OBAMA VS. ISRAELI REGIME

    By DICK MORRIS

    Published on TheHill.com on March 30, 2010

    Printer-Friendly Version

    Why is President Barack Obama so obviously humiliating Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu? Why is Secretary of State Hillary Clinton negating everything she said when she represented New York state and piling on the Jewish state?

    They want Netanyahu out. Specifically, they want him to feel such pressure that he dumps his right-wing coalition partners and forms a new government with the center-left party Kadima, headed by former Prime Minister Tzipi Livni. Livni, who thinks nothing of trading land for peace, no matter how flawed the peace might be, will then hold Netanyahu’s government hostage and force it to bend to the will of Washington and sign a deal with the Palestinians that cedes them land in return for a handful of vague vapors and promises, none of which will be kept.

    On March 3, Livni said, in a Knesset debate, that since Netanyahu took control “Israel has become a pariah country in the world.” She is trying to use Obama’s and Clinton’s rejection of Netanyahu’s course to force her way into the government. And Obama and Clinton are intent on helping her do so by publicly humiliating Netanyahu.

    Netanyahu insists that he’d be happy to negotiate a peace accord. But, as he told me last year, “I just don’t have a peace partner with whom to negotiate.”

    The Palestinians are expert at playing “good cop/bad cop” with Israel. The good cop — the Palestinian Authority — wants to negotiate a peace deal and insists on signs of Israeli good faith in order to do so. Meanwhile, the bad cop — Hamas — fires missiles at Israel from Gaza, land Israel ceded to the Palestinians in order to promote the peace process earlier in the decade.

    Any peace deal with the Palestinian Authority will not be binding on Hamas, and the pattern of Gaza will likely play out again: First, Israel cedes land to the Palestinian Authority. Second, Hamas seizes the newly ceded land through elections or military action. Third, Hamas refuses to recognize the peace deal and uses the newly acquired territory as a base from which to launch further attacks against Israel.

    Insanity is defined as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome each time.

    When Hillary Clinton and President Obama explode in indignation against Israel for building apartments in East Jerusalem, they deliberately miss the point: There is no reason for Israel to catalyze peace negotiations when there is no single entity that is both committed to peace and speaks for the entire Palestinian people. Without a peace partner, negotiations are either a trip to nowhere or a slippery slope to more Gaza-like concessions that do nothing but strengthen the enemies of Israel without providing any advancement to the cause of peace.

    The merits of building in East Jerusalem or the need for a moratorium on all settlement construction are quite irrelevant as long as a substantial body of Palestinian opinion wants a war with Israel and the prevailing political authority in Gaza insists on the Jewish state’s eradication.

    So why are Obama and Clinton so intent on raising the profile of the construction issue and publicizing it? One suspects an effort is afoot to link Israeli resistance to the peace process with the ongoing loss of American lives in Iraq and Afghanistan, if not to the global terrorism of al Qaeda.

    Gen. David Petraeus told the Senate Armed Services Committee that “Arab anger over the Palestinian question limits the strength and depth of U.S. partnerships with governments and peoples [in the region] . Enduring hostilities between Israel and some of its neighbors present distinct challenges to our ability to advance our interests in the area of responsibility.” In other words — blame Israel.

    And ultimately, the administration’s agenda may be to explain its withdrawal of support for Israel by blaming its stubborn insistence on housing construction. One can well see the Obama administration learning to live with an Iranian nuclear weapon, all the while blaming Israel for fomenting Iranian hostility by building housing.

    Meanwhile, through American aid to Gaza, the Obama administration is helping Hamas to solidify its position in Gaza and lengthen its lease on political power — the very power it is using to torpedo the peace process.

  105. basement, thanks for all the sensible ‘progressive’ things you’ve been saying about issues.

    I don’t think this ‘body count’ thing really helps. The Dims are making crazy charges against the Tea Party people, Palin, the GOP, and probably us too.

    Really, neither side as a movement has done much murdering. Just isolated nuts. The closest thing to threats by leaders sfiak was some black Congressmen in 2008 saying that if Obama didn’t get the nomination there would be ‘blood in the streets’. Dunno if they meant it literally, but it was taken as a threat of some real windowbreaking etc.

    Many rightwingers who are into guns enjoy fantisizing about revolution but those who try it are not organized. (Exception some anti-abortionists.) Some leftwingers enjoy gangsta rap.

    Gangsta rap people can break windows and run away. The rightwing bombers are suicides or soon caught. That’s no way to run an organized revolution. Patton’s fans are forgtting his advice.

  106. I meant to say, either Patton’s fans are forgetting his advice, or they are just fantisizing — I expect the latter.

  107. RBG,

    I didn’t say he was clean. I said I don’t like the guy but that he didn’t murder anybody – and that is a fact of history. The other fact of history is that rightwing American terrorists killed over 160 Americans during Bill Clinton’s presidency. And rightwing terrorism against Americans continued through out the Bush presidency. The right needs to take that seriously because they are doing something wrong when there are continual murders based on their rhetoric.

    Now, the left engaged in irresponsible behavior during the sixties and seventies but killed only a handful of people. That’s not acceptable, but it’s also a fraction of the number that the right committed.

    I’m not defending Obama in the least. he is a thug who ran a thug’s campaign. I’ve documented the caucus fraud and the illegalities that transpired during various elections. I’ve talked to the FBI about the photographs they have of parking lots in Iowa filled with cars with Illinois plates the night of the caucus. I am very clear as to what went wrong in the Democratic primary, and who is responsible for it and because of that, I’m no longer supporting the Democratic party. I didn’t vote in 08 and that’s a public record.

    American wages haven’t risen in 30 years. Higher education has gotten phenomenally expensive – even state schools matriculate students with over $100k in debt. Healthcare is so high that employers have to be out of their minds to think about hiring someone over 40. The unemployment rate is close to 20% if you factor in people who are only working part time. The banks are holding millions, literally, of mortgages that should be in foreclosure because they are hoping to reinflate the real estate bubble that has left our economy devastated.

    In the face of this kind of devastation, history must be looked at with an objective eye. Everybody has to grow up, leave behind the political rhetoric of our past, and deal with what’s happening. George W. Bush broke the world and Obama is continuing virtually every corrupt policy of his as well as creating his own new ones. We can’t fix what’s wrong with this nation if only the left/liberals/Democrats deal with what went wrong. Just as Obama’s supporters are refusing to acknowledge what he is, so does the right continue to do so on their behalf.

    Look it in the eye. Own it. Rightwing rhetoric left 168 Americans dead from terrorism in the 90s. Once you can say that without fear, you can really become part of the solution that we all need.

  108. rgb44hrc: in reference to Bill Ayers bombings:

    Leader of the 1960s and 70s domestic terrorist group Weatherman
    “Kill all the rich people. … Bring the revolution home. Kill your parents.”
    Participated in the bombings of New York City Police Headquarters in 1970, of the Capitol building in 1971, and the Pentagon in 1972

    Currently a professor of education at the University of Illinois
    Ayers was an active participant in Weatherman’s 1969 “Days of Rage” riots in Chicago, where nearly 300 members of the organization employed guerrilla-style tactics to viciously attack police officers and civilians alike, and to destroy massive amounts of property via vandalism and arson; their objective was to further spread their anti-war, anti-American message. Reminiscing on those riots, Ayers says pridefully: “We’d … proven that it was possible — we didn’t all die, we were still there.”
    [snip]
    In his 2001 book Fugitive Days, Ayers recounts his life as a Sixties radical and boasts that he “participated in the bombings of New York City Police Headquarters in 1970, of the Capitol building in 1971, and the Pentagon in 1972.” Of the day he bombed the Pentagon, Ayers writes, “Everything was absolutely ideal…. The sky was blue. The birds were singing. And the bastards were finally going to get what was coming to them.” He adds:

    “There’s something about a good bomb … Night after night, day after day, each majestic scene I witnessed was so terrible and so unexpected that no city would ever again stand innocently fixed in my mind. Big buildings and wide streets, cement and steel were no longer permanent. They, too, were fragile and destructible. A torch, a bomb, a strong enough wind, and they, too, would come undone or get knocked down.”

    In a 2001 interview, Ayers expressed his enduring hatred for the United States. “What a country,” he said. “It makes me want to puke.”

    All told, Ayers and Weatherman were responsible for 30 bombings aimed at destroying the defense and security infrastructures of the U.S. “I don’t regret setting bombs,” said Ayers in 2001, “I feel we didn’t do enough.”
    [snip]
    ___________________________________________________________________

    Do I remember correctly that in one of those bombings that a family had members killed or maimed? On hotair an article said that Ayers/Dorhn were being looked at for a bombing in San Francisco.

  109. Short Termer,

    Timothy McVeigh killed about 160 people. Taking the time to look at how that happened might be a lot more worthwhile. Ayres rebellion was rooted in the Vietnam war that was killing thousands of young men his age on a monthly basis. What motivated McVeigh to do much more damage than anything Ayres even attempted? It’s a tough question, but it’s worth asking.

    That’s what I’m getting at here. We’re not going to move forward as long we’re pretending that the left is as violent as the right. And somehow or the other, the left and the right have to get together. It’s the middle class which is getting killed by the policies of both parties. Just as the left had to change their rhetoric to prevent an escalation in violence in the 70s, so does the right now.

  110. I’m so tempted to say, “Rhetoric doesn’t kill people, guns kill people.”

    If the people you stir up have bricks, bricks may be thrown. If they have guns, guns may be fired.

  111. The McVeigh vs. Ayers argument makes no sense.

    The left is extremely violent. I have never felt threatened by anyone on the right while the left, especially the radical black left including Jeremiah, Farrakhan and the black libetation theology crew have admitted they want to get whitey.

    And yes, I’m white. But before the 2008 (s)election and the gangbanging of HRC followed by the attempted media murder of Palin and anyone who doesn’t kowtow to Squat, I have developed a real respect for the republicans I once felt so alientated from.

    Why don’t you give it a rest? You have your POV and it seems many of us here have an opposite one.

    C’est la vie.

  112. admin
    Just watched V. Parallels with The promise of free health care and youth indoctrinalization kind of scary. Can’t wait to read your take.

  113. basement angel
    March 31st, 2010 at 7:00 pm
    Short Termer,

    Timothy McVeigh killed about 160 people.
    ****************

    To cite Tim McVeigh as a “right winger” is very much apples and oranges. He was a very disturbed individual that was probably an undiagnosed paranoid schizophrenic. He was a loner, that by many accounts was a virgin at his death, who’s weak and disturbed psychic’s was manipulated by Terry Nichols, his platoon leader in the army.Very much an Ayers type character, without the daddy big bucks. He was a practicing survivalist while in HS for God’s sake. Not your run of the mill middle class right leaning Tea party member.The two have nothing in common.
    Bill Ayers in the meantime, is not in jail because daddy warbucks paid big time lawyers to make sure his American home grown thug son didn’t find out the joy of turning your back on Sampson, his new cell mate, and to this day, takes great pride in the destruction and murders he was very much responsible for as anyone, and continues to warp thousands of young impressionable minds everyday…again thanks to daddy’s trust fund. We will never know the extend of the destruction and ruined lives he is personally responsible for, but we do know he would do it again and kill many more if he could. Your rantings on “prove” he killed anyone is childish at best.

    Your argument that he was just responding to the Vietnam war is laughable. We all were responding to the “war”. I protested in Milwaukee and Chicago with the other millions of kids, including 1968. I know what went on. I will never forget. And while I was protesting, my brother and cousins and other poor white males were fighting for their lives in the rice paddies of hell. While asshole feedwithasilverspoon Ayers was busy KILLING American police and plotting the demise of 25 million innocent Americans, my brother lost his life. So don’t give me your sad, ridiculous to read, tormented view on Ayers. He is a fucking monster
    ********************
    Eyewitness to the Ayers Revolution

    An interview with Weathermen insider/FBI informant Larry Grathwohl on whether to believe Obama when it comes to Bill Ayers.

    October 28, 2008 – by Bob Owens When Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn led the domestic terrorist group Weather Underground in 1969, a chance meeting led Army veteran Larry Grathwohl into joining the group. Grathwohl served as a courier, running messages between the group’s leadership (called the “Weather Bureau”) and individual cells that were to carry out attacks.

    Grathwohl was also an informant for the FBI.

    In an interview from the 1982 documentary No Place To Hide that recently surfaced, Grathwohl discussed what the Weathermen intended to do after overthrowing the U.S. government, including what they would do with those Americans who refused to embrace communism.

    I asked, “Well what is going to happen to those people we can’t reeducate, that are diehard capitalists?” And the reply was that they’d have to be eliminated.

    And when I pursued this further, they estimated they would have to eliminate 25 million people in these reeducation centers.

    And when I say “eliminate,” I mean “kill.”

    Twenty-five million people.

    I want you to imagine sitting in a room with 25 people, most of which have graduate degrees, from Columbia and other well-known educational centers, and hear them figuring out the logistics for the elimination of 25 million people.

    And they were dead serious.

    Twenty-six years later, I caught up with Larry Grathwohl, and asked him about the Weathermen, their leaders then and now, and what he thinks about the relationship between Bill Ayers and Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama.

    Pajamas Media: You stated in your interview in No Place to Hide that you wanted us to “imagine sitting in a room with 25 people, most of which have graduate degrees, from Columbia and other well-known educational centers, and hear them figuring out the logistics for the elimination of 25 million people.” A lot of people have now had the opportunity to listen to you, and contemplate the horrors these people planned. Can you recall who these people are by name, and who the ringleaders of this plan were?

    Larry Grathwohl: Conversations regarding this occurred in Cincinnati, Detroit, Flint, and Buffalo. Participants included Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn, Mark Rudd, Linda Evans, Jeff Jones, and many others.

    Pajamas Media: Was this merely an academic matter to them, or were they serious about killing 25 million Americans that would not bend to their political will?

    Larry Grathwohl: I suppose you could consider this a purely academic discussion in that the Weathermen never had the opportunity to implement their political ends. However, I can assure you that this was not the case. There was an absolute belief that they, along with the international revolutionary movement, would cause the collapse of the United States and that they would be in charge. Nixon was of great concern and how his end would be conducted. This may sound absurd in today’s context, but the Weatherman believed they would succeed.

    Pajamas Media: Did they ever devise a cover story to explain to the rest of America how roughly one in ten disappeared?

    Larry Grathwohl: When I suggested that this might be a difficult proposition they looked at me like I had three heads. They would be in charge! They would be in control! Who would oppose them? Lambs to the slaughter I guess.

    Pajamas Media: Were any of those Weathermen involved in concocting this plan particularly excited or enthusiastic about the death camps, or was it merely a means to an end?

    Larry Grathwohl: Of course they were enthusiastic as it was representative of the success of “the revolution.”

    Pajamas Media: Scattered news accounts on the Internet note that you were instrumental in foiling Weather Underground attacks in February of 1970, in Detroit. The Weathermen built two bombs targeting the Detroit Police Officers’ Association (DPOA) building and the 13th Precinct. Were the goals of these attacks symbolic property damage as were some other Weathermen attacks, or were these targets selected to kill police officers?

    Larry Grathwohl: The instructions I received from Billy Ayers was that the bombs to be used in Detroit must have shrapnel (fence staples, specifically) and fire potential (propane bottles). The intention was to kill police officers.

    Pajamas Media: One of the Detroit bombs was to be placed on the side of the DPOA building, and the blast was likely to cause damage to the adjacent Red Barn Restaurant, which had mostly African-American customers. Who ordered the attack, and what did he say when you told him that innocent civilians would be killed?

    Larry Grathwohl: When I objected to Billy Ayers that more innocent people would be killed in the restaurant, he replied, “Innocent people have to die in a revolution.” Billy also acknowledged during a criticism session in Buffalo that Bernadine placed the bomb at the Park Police Station which resulted in the death of Police Officer McDonnell.

    Pajamas Media: Bill Ayers came out of hiding around 1980, became an college professor, and has served on numerous boards and foundations. Do you think he’s changed in his radicalism?

    Larry Grathwohl: Has Billy changed? I hardly think so.

    Pajamas Media: If conditions permitted, do you think Ayers would still engage in violence to further a political agenda?

    Larry Grathwohl: He has acknowledged his support of anti-American groups and stated he felt that the Weathermen hadn’t done enough.

    Pajamas Media: Do you consider Bill Ayers an attempted mass murderer?

    Larry Grathwohl: I’m not certain Billy is a mass murder; his ego just wants him to be in charge. Note that Billy never does anything that involves risk. He has no problem allowing his women to do the evil task, Diane Oughton and even Bernardine, but never him. As for what he might do, hasn’t he said he doesn’t rule out the possibility of future bombings? [Ayers said he didn’t “want to discount the possibility” in this New York Times article from September 11, 2001. — Ed.]

    Pajamas Media: Would you let your children attend a college or university class taught by Ayers or his wife, Bernadine Dohrn? What would you tell parents who have had their children exposed to Ayers’ academic programs, like the Small Schools Workshop?

    Larry Grathwohl: As for Billy’s ideas on education, isn’t it apparent? Reading, writing, and arithmetic aren’t important! Radicalism is what’s important. Fits right in with the Billy Ayers view of creating mindless soldiers to follow his commands — where best to lay the foundations of a revolution than with the young?

    Pajamas Media: Do you think there is there any way that Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama could not have known that Bill Ayers was a domestic terrorist? Is there any reason that the American people should accept Barack Obama’s newest excuse about his relationship with Bill Ayers, where Obama claimed that he thought Ayers was “reformed”?

    Larry Grathwohl: If we are to believe Mr. Obama, he just didn’t know Billy was as radical as he apparently is. Really? Just like he didn’t know the Rev. Wright was as radical as he is? Obama is a politician and he wants me to believe that he never discussed politics with the Rev Wright or Billy Ayers?

    Mr. Grathwohl concluded the interview with a question of his own.

    “Have you seen the [Bill] O’Reilly attempts to interview Billy? He called the police to ‘protect’ him! Doesn’t surprise me a bit: Billy needs others to stand up, not him. He’s too important! Do you think his new book [Race Course Against White Supremacy, co-author Bernardine Dohrn] has something to do with his position? I bet we hear a lot from Billy and Bernardine after the election. Especially if Obama wins.”

    Bob Owens blogs at Confederate Yankee.

    comments
    ***********

    25 million is only the initial elimination. As history has demonstrated, it will take a continuing flow of victims to maintain this ideology. Killing millions of others is vile and unimaginable, but the communist ideology of the 20th century has done the unimaginable killing over 100 million of its own people. Neither are justifiable, but there is an increased insidiousness in this betrayal. Soviet children were taught in school, that a hero was one who would even turned in his own parents. To a normal American it is unimaginable to sit in a room discussing these issues, but we must not be naive to reality of the wickedness of some people. Whatever can be said of McCain, this is one thing that McCain “gets”. And any president of the United States of American must “get” this, above all else. In America, we were taught in schools that a hero was one who fought against this oppression. What are children taught now?

    The cowardice of bullies. You can see it in Billy’s favorite student.

    Only special enlightened people like Billy and Bernadine and their pals with the advanced degrees from elite institutions are qualified to select for mass killing and re-education.
    It is especially poignant that only Larry Grathwohl, the ordinary shmoe, even brought up “trivial issues” like responsibility for the economy, management, and administration. Grathwohl is very perceptive when he notes that Billy Ayers would rather send his women to do the dirty work.

  114. Unreal: Father of fallen Marine forced to pay court costs of Phelps scum that picketed his funeral

    posed at 9:57 pm on March 30, 2010 by Allahpundit

    “Court costs” aren’t the same as “legal costs.” Legal costs include attorneys’ fees; typically each side pays its own way unless the plaintiff’s suit is held to be frivolous, in which case legal costs may be awarded to punish him/her. Court costs are merely administrative costs, but they follow different rules — and as you’re about to see, they can add up. Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 39:
    The following rules apply unless the law provides or the court orders otherwise:
    (1) if an appeal is dismissed, costs are taxed against the appellant, unless the parties agree otherwise;
    (2) if a judgment is affirmed, costs are taxed against the appellant;
    (3) if a judgment is reversed, costs are taxed against the appellee;
    (4) if a judgment is affirmed in part, reversed in part, modified, or vacated, costs are taxed only as the court orders.
    Snyder won at trial but, as I expected at the time, the case was eventually overturned on appeal on First Amendment grounds. (Ed wrote about it recently.) Lose an appeal and you pay the other side’s court costs — unless “the court orders otherwise.” Why didn’t the court order otherwise in this case given (a) Snyder’s financial circumstances, (b) the fact that the legal question at stake is serious enough to warrant the Supreme Court taking the case, and (c) the manifest indecency of picketing a dead soldier’s funeral? Well, funny thing. They’re not saying:
    The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ordered Snyder on Friday to pay Phelps. A two-page decision supplied by his attorneys offered no details on how the court came to its decision.
    The decision adds “insult to injury,” said Sean Summers, one of Snyder’s attorneys.
    Snyder is also struggling to come up with fees associated with filing a brief with the U.S. Supreme Court, his attorneys said.
    The idea behind the federal rule, I assume, is that the courts don’t want to dissuade people from filing potentially meritorious appeals due to fear of court costs. Which makes sense, except that unless your lawyer’s working pro bono, your legal costs will be vastly more expensive than your court costs. So why have a “loser pays” rule for the latter but not the former? And if the worry is that court costs are such a burden that they’ll discourage good appeals from being filed, isn’t it likely that they’ll discourage a few good lawsuits from being filed in the trial court too? If I have to worry about being soaked at the appellate level if I lose, maybe I decide that it’s not worth my while to sue in the first place.
    Bill O’Reilly’s already said that he’s going to pick up the tab here, but if you want to donate to Snyder, here’s the website. The Supreme Court case should be fascinating, essentially a sequel to the famous “Hustler” case regarding the scope of the First Amendment in suits alleging intentional infliction of emotional distress. Snyder’s almost certainly going to lose, alas, but for legal junkies, it’s a treat.

  115. Dead Marine’s father ordered to pay protesters’ legal costs

    ——————————————————————————–

    Not a short read…but a real slap in the face to the entire family..hell a slap in the face to all vets and those who have lost loved ones in combat…………

    The father of a Marine whose funeral was picketed by the Westboro Baptist Church says an order to pay the protesters’ legal costs in a civil claim is nothing less than a “slap in the face.”

    “By the court making this decision, they’re not only telling me that they’re taking their side, but I have to pay them money to do this to more soldiers and their families,” said Albert Snyder, whose son, Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder, was killed in action in Iraq in 2006.

    Members of the fundamentalist church based in Topeka, Kansas, appeared outside Snyder’s funeral in 2006 in Westminster, Maryland, carrying signs reading “You’re going to hell,” “God hates you” and “Thank God for dead soldiers.”

    Among the teachings of the church, which was founded in 1955 by pastor Fred Phelps, is the belief that God is punishing the United States for “the sin of homosexuality” through events such as soldiers’ deaths.

    Margie Phelps, the daughter of Fred Phelps and the attorney representing the church in its appeals, also said the money that the church receives from Snyder will be used to finance demonstrations. But she also said that the order was a consequence of his decision to sue the church over the demonstration.

    “Mr. Snyder and his attorneys have engaged the legal system; there are some rules to that legal engagement,” said Phelps, a member of Westboro who says she has participated in more than 150 protests of military funerals.

    “They wanted to shut down the picketing so now they’re going to finance it,” she said.

    The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday ordered that Snyder pay more than $16,000 in costs requested by Westboro for copies of motions, briefs and appendices, according to court documents.

    In a motion filed in October, Snyder’s lawyer, who is representing him for free, asked the court to dismiss the bill of costs, or, alternatively, reduce the 50-cent fee per page or charge Snyder only for copies that were necessary to make their arguments on appeal.

    “We objected based upon ability to pay and the fairness of the situation,” Sean Summers said.

    The mostly pro-forma ruling is the latest chapter in an ongoing legal saga that pits privacy rights of grieving families against the free speech rights of demonstrators, however disturbing and provocative their message.

    Snyder’s family sued the church and went to trial in 2007 alleging privacy invasion, intentional infliction of emotional distress and civil conspiracy. A jury awarded the family $2.9 million in compensatory damages plus $8 million in punitive damages, which were reduced to $5 million.

    Westboro in 2008 appealed the case to the 4th District, which reversed the judgments a year later, siding with the church’s claims that its First Amendment rights had been violated.

    “The protest was confined to a public area under supervision and regulation of local law enforcement and did not disrupt the church service,” the circuit court opinion said. “Although reasonable people may disagree about the appropriateness of the Phelps’ protest, this conduct simply does not satisfy the heavy burden required for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress under Maryland law.”

    The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case to address issues of laws designed to protect the “sanctity and dignity of memorial and funeral services” as well as the privacy of family and friends of the deceased.

    The justices will be asked to address how far states and private entities such as cemeteries and churches can go to justify picket-free zones and the use of “floating buffers” to silence or restrict speech or movements of demonstrators exercising their constitutional rights in a funeral setting.

    Both Phelps and Snyder’s attorney said they were surprised that the 4th District chose to weigh in on the issue of legal costs when they could have waited until after the Supreme Court hearing.

    Phelps believes the ruling bodes well for her side.

    “It is a good harbinger of the fact that the Supreme Court will remind this nation that you don’t have mob rule. The fact that so many people hate these words does not mean you can silence or penalize them. That’s supposed to be the great liberty that we congratulate ourselves on protecting in this nation. We strut all around the world forcing people to give all the liberties we supposedly have,” she said.

    Phelps anticipated that a Supreme Court ruling in the church’s favor would be unpopular, but she said Westboro’s members viewed the potential outcome in Biblical terms.

    “When the Supreme Court unanimously upholds the 4th Circuit, it’s going to put this country in a rage, and we will be expelled,” she said. “But whenever it was time for an epic event in the Bible, the thing that happened right before is the prophets were removed from the land, and that’s what’s going to happen to us. … We’re going to sprint to the end of this race.”

    Snyder claims he is unable to pay any legal costs in the case and is attempting to raise funds on his son’s site, http://www.matthewsnyder.org/. He is equally optimistic that he will prevail before the Supreme Court.

    “The American people keep my spirits lifted a lot and give me hope. I think most of the country is on my side on this issue,” he said. “Too many people have died to protect our rights and freedoms to have them degraded and spit upon like this church does.”
    __________________
    Bacon and Eggs: A Days Work For The Chicken. A Lifetime Commitment For The Pig

  116. It’s not about being right or left leaning, it’s about manipulation and control…Narcisstic, power seeking, soulless, and probably, and eventually, paranoid and certifiably insane “leaders” controlling their bots to fill the empty caverns of their minds that were warped in some long ago, not to believed abusive childhood. Fantasy’s that can never be filled,to make up for the lack of anything remotely humane. Human feelings that they are never to possess, as if in some warped Machiavellian play to be repeated over and over again until the inevitable happens, and they are put out of their misery… and the world takes a long deep breath, only to find the next days headlines another Pasha takes it’s place, to repeat the horror’s upon mankind for their lack of humanity. Doesn’t matter where it initially comes from. It’s the dynamic of the manipulation of those weak,dependent,empty, dysfunctional followers, to do the dirty work for the likes of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Ayers, Jones, , Nichols….on and on and on….

  117. It’s the dynamic of the manipulation of those weak,dependent,empty, dysfunctional followers….

    —————
    I often wonder how much I was manipulated by the MSM before Hillary ran for Pres. and I finally dared to go outside of this media stream to get the news. I am still shocked at how many obots still don’t dare to step outside MSNBC, CNN, NYTimes and alike to hear what is being force-fed to them daily and what they depend on as news. Maybe what I really miss is the bliss of thinking I was ‘in the know’.

  118. news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20100331/pl_mcclatchy/3466074

    Environmentalists scoff, GOP shrugs at Obama’s drilling plan
    ===========

    By Margaret Talev and Kevin G. Hall, McClatchy Newspapers Margaret Talev And Kevin G. Hall, Mcclatchy Newspapers – Wed Mar 31, 6:23 pm ET

    WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama’s announcement Wednesday that he’ll lift bans on new drilling for oil and natural gas off much of the U.S. coastline drew criticism from environmentalists and halfhearted welcomes from Republicans, even as Obama called it only one part of a broad strategy to reduce foreign oil dependence and enact climate-change policy.

    His administration will allow further study and new drilling to proceed from Delaware to Florida , starting with leases off the Virginia coast, as well as off the oil-rich eastern Gulf of Mexico . Some sensitive areas would be protected, including Alaska’s fish-rich Bristol Bay , a decision that conservationists applauded, while other waters off north Alaska can be considered. No expanded drilling is being considered off the West Coast below Canada .

    “This is not a decision that I’ve made lightly,” Obama said at Maryland’s Andrews Air Force Base , near the capital. He was staged beside the “Green Hornet,” a Navy fighter jet designed to run on a fuel mix of half biomass. He also discussed administration policies to make automobiles more fuel efficient and to develop “clean coal” and alternative energy supplies.

    Obama said his plan “is part of a broader strategy that will move us from an economy that runs on fossil fuels and foreign oil to one that relies more on homegrown fuels and clean energy. And the only way this transition will succeed is if it strengthens our economy in the short term and long term. To fail to recognize this reality would be a mistake.”

    The policy’s framework fits Obama’s governing style: To accomplish a liberal goal, in this case climate change legislation, take a centrist stance that may appeal to enough Republicans to win some bipartisan support, or at least justify action without bipartisan support.

    Sen. Lindsey Graham , R- S.C. , part of a bipartisan team working on compromise climate-change legislation in Congress , said of Obama’s remarks, “I intend to answer the call by working with my Republican and Democratic Senate colleagues to put our nation on a pathway to energy independence and a cleaner environment.”

    Conservationists warned of risks to beaches, seafood, polar bears, whales and other wildlife.

    Frank Tursi of the North Carolina Coastal Federation called Obama’s calculation to get a climate change bill that reduces greenhouse gases by supporting more development of domestic fossil fuel “a delicious irony. He’s now allowing increased production of the very substance responsible for the emissions.”

    “I would say that this comprehensive approach is a lot less ‘drill, baby, drill’ and more ‘drill where it’s responsible, promote efficiency, invest in clean energy and create jobs of the future,’ ” White House Deputy Press Secretary Bill Burton said. “I know that doesn’t fit on a T-shirt quite as well, but that’s a lot more about what President Obama thinks is the right direction for this country.”

    Today, the U.S imports 53 percent of the oil it uses, most from sources other than the Mideast. Most natural gas used in the U.S. comes from North America .

    Some Democrats in Congress disputed the notion that offshore fuel expansion could make a real dent in dependence on foreign oil. Sen. Ted Kaufman , D- Del. , said, “It is a simple fact that the United States has only a tiny percentage of world oil reserves — 3 percent — while we consume 25 percent.”

    However, Pulitzer Prize-winning oil historian Daniel Yergin , the chairman of IHS Cambridge Energy Research Associates , said reality was more complicated.

    Experts don’t really know how much oil and gas is available off the Atlantic coast, he said, because the last estimates are decades old, when technology was less advanced.

    Hurricane Katrina, meanwhile, showed in 2005 how resilient modern offshore infrastructure is, Yergin said. Environmentally conscious countries such as Norway drill offshore without calamity. He said U.S. fears about offshore production stemmed from the Santa Barbara, Calif. , oil spill more than four decades ago. A lot has changed since then in terms of technology and capabilities.

    “Look how much oil we produce from the Gulf of Mexico today. Look how much natural gas. Our economy depends on it. When was the last spill in the Gulf of Mexico ?” Yergin said.

    For U.S. oil and gas producers, the most attractive part of Obama’s announcement concerned the eastern Gulf of Mexico , some 125 miles off Florida’s western coastline, because of its proximity to existing infrastructure, said David Dismukes , the associate director of the Center for Energy Studies at Louisiana State University in Baton Rouge .

    Industry estimates suggest there’s at least 25 trillion cubic feet of natural gas in the eastern gulf, a little more than the 22 trillion cubic feet the U.S. consumes annually. There’s also an estimated 4 billion barrels of recoverable oil, a bit less than a tenth of the 50 billion barrels thought to be available in the entire gulf, Dismukes said.

    He said there were estimates of about 4 billion barrels of oil and 37 trillion cubic feet of natural gas off the Atlantic coast.

    Last year, the U.S. consumed 18.69 million barrels per day of petroleum products refined from crude oil.

    Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell , R- Ky. , called Obama’s announcement “a step in the right direction” but said he’d wait to see whether the administration completed promised studies, approved permits, opened areas for production and stopped court delays. Many other Republicans and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce said Obama’s decision didn’t go far enough.

    Obama had called for expanded offshore drilling during his presidential campaign, but he correctly anticipated that some environmental activists would strongly disagree with him.

    “Is this President Obama’s clean energy plan or Palin’s ‘drill, baby, drill’ campaign?” Greenpeace Executive Director Phil Radford said in a statement, referring to former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin’s infamous chant as Arizona Republican U.S. Sen. John McCain’s presidential running mate in 2008.

    Defenders of Wildlife President Rodger Schlickeisen voiced concerns that even seismic testing could hurt fisheries and wildlife areas including the Chesapeake Bay and North Carolina’s Outer Banks , and that whales and polar bears could be harmed.

    Oil markets shrugged off the promise of future supply, settling up $1.39 to $83.76 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange .

    “Where are the Republicans out there talking about how crude is going to go down” when drilling is allowed, “because oil certainly isn’t reacting to it today,” said Michael Masters , a hedge fund manager who’s testified repeatedly before Congress that big inflows of investment dollars are driving up oil prices, not supply shortages. “It’s not a supply and demand issue. … Crude is detached from the fundamentals.”

  119. Dick Morris on Fox thinks that Obama’s off shore oil drilling plan may be the start of the Clintonizing of Obama…

    Is this possible? For those of you with much more insight into this isn’t that going to be very hard for Obama to do? He’s no Bill Clinton, plus, even in my limited knowledge, the times and political atmosphere aren’t the same as back in the 90’s..and Obama’s policies are far more devisive than anything Bill put forth..

  120. JON STEWART HAS IT ALL BACKWARD

    Saw a couple of minutes of the Daily Show, and Stewart’s schtick was that Obama was working too hard and getting too much done. That “first he finally won on health care after 14 months, then didn’t rest, announced “historic” treaty with Russia, then still didn’t rest, appointed a whole bunch of recess appointments.

    Okay, ha ha. But
    a) health scare bill is the opposite of “getting it done” and “getting it right” on health care
    b) supposed Obama got rolled by Putin
    c) Obama opposed recess appointments before he was for them.

  121. Good analysis–

    Posted by Erick Erickson (Profile)
    Wednesday, March 31st at 7:03PM EDT
    26 Comments
    [Editorial Note: I’ve had a lot of requests for a transcript of my monologue on the radio this morning. Well, here you go.]

    “You cannot sustain a free republic when the citizens who are expected to comply with the law have no understanding of what the law is or how their government works without paying the gnostics to enlighten them and the people who write the law do not know what is in the law.”
    Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the Constitution states, “Congress shall have the power to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.”

    Insurance contracts are not within the stream of interstate commerce. That’s why when you buy insurance for your house, your car, or your health you deal with state insurance commissioners, not a federal insurance czar.

    Congress does not really regulate insurance contracts. They are contractual obligations at the state level, not goods and services in the stream of commerce. So can Congress then force you to buy a product not in interstate commerce to regulate interstate commerce, when insurance regulations are clearly within the purview of the states?

    As Leon Wolf noted the other day, “Just to speak the concept aloud is to be struck dumb by the breathtaking arrogance of Congress in passing this bill, and the disregard for the Constitutional limits on their power. Of course, States (being entities of general powers as opposed to enumerated powers) might certainly decide to do this, if that is their prerogative, but there is absolutely no justification to be found within the Constitution for the breadth and scope of this action.”

    Think about that. This is part of the problem we have these days as we keep talking past each other on issues. The left seems to think that Congress can do whatever the heck it wants to do on any issue. What they forget is that Congress actually only has 18 things it is allowed to do under the constitution. That’s it. It is not so general as to give Congress plenary power to do anything it wants. It never has. I’m willing to say that a lot of things Congress does it should not be doing under the Constitution, but the Supreme Court has let them slide. We have let them slide. It has been a bipartisan affair.

    When we have a Constitution that says Congress can do only 18 specific things and we decide instead that Congress can do anything it wants to, we have a problem. Why? Because we also have 50 states — 57 if you voted for Obama — and the states can do virtually anything they want to you or for you because the federal government is a limited government of limited powers, but the states have plenary powers outside those 18 things set aside for Congress.

    Over time though, we have evolved legally without amending the constitution according and we have flipped around this notion and now Congress can do everything and states can do very little, except when they can do a great deal from crime to education to fixing roads to general welfare issues. That goes against our constitutional set up. Consequently, we have gone beyond a point where you can sit down and read the constitution and really understand what the heck Congress can and cannot do. And this is coupled with burgeoning statism at the local, state, and federal level with little restraint — elections being nearly irrelevant given gerrymandering, campaign finance laws, and the extremely high re-election rates even when 89% of the country says we should throw the bums out.

    We have reached a point where we have to rely on men and women in black robes and lawyers to tell us what we can and cannot do. A society begins to breakdown when the average citizen can no longer understand what his government can and cannot do without relying on men and women in black robes and lawyers all of whom have as many opinions to that question as there are opinions.

    Then you cross into the territory where we have already arrived. A Congress can pass a 2,700 page piece of legislation to do something Congress arguably cannot do by making states do it, which is arguably unconstitutional. The legislators who voted on this 2,700 page piece of legislation, when asked, have no clue what is in the legislation.

    You cannot sustain a free republic when the citizens who are expected to comply with the law have no understanding of what the law is or how their government works without paying the gnostics to enlighten them and the people who write the law do not know what is in the law.

    We have, because reasonable societies in order to maintain their society have to have it, a doctrine in our courts that says “ignorance of the law is no defense.” That means, simply put, that you cannot go into court and say “I did not know it was against the law” when you breach the law.

    Well, when those who are writing the law are ignorant of what the law is, how then can we expect the citizens to know what the law is? And if we cannot expect the Congress to know what the law is that they are writing and we cannot expect the citizens to know what the law is they are following, how then can we have law itself? The legal costs of doing business become the legal costs merely of living, but while we may get universal health care coverage, we will not get universal free legal representation to help us navigate our lives — at least not until we are arrested for running afoul of the laws, rules, and regulations neither the Congress nor we know exist nor understand in any meaningful way.

    How then can we have a constitutional structure that we all agree on when none of us can sit down and read it and understand it? We have reached a level of constitutional gnosticism where we have to have special knowledge to understand the way the world works and liberty is consequently in jeopardy. One must go to law school to acquire the knowledge to understand the way the world works and even after acquiring that knowledge, it is still up for debate based on ideology shifting with the whims of a majority where rights become more about action and less about restraint.

    This is not sustainable for a free society. A free society cannot work if its citizens cannot understand or work under society’s laws without hiring lawyers to live their lives for them.

    That leads to Obamacare. When Nancy Pelosi was asked where in the constitution the power was for Congress to enact Obamacare, her response was, “You’ve got to be kidding me.”

    Well, we are not kidding. We want to know where Congress gets its power. Article 1, Section 8 — which one of those 18 things gives Congress the right to force us to buy insurance that is outside the stream of interstate commerce? And if Congress can force us to buy products outside the stream of interstate commerce, why then can’t Congress force us to buy products inside the stream of commerce?

    Here now we arrive at the troubling conclusion. If Congress can force us to do things outside of its powers, then it very clearly can force us to do things inside its powers. And if Congress can compel us to do things, why then do we have a thirteenth amendment prohibiting slavery?

    Isn’t the logical conclusion of all of this, however radical some might suggest it is, that we then become slaves to the government? If Congress can compel us to do things we do not want to do merely because Congress says we must in the name of the national interest regardless of those 18 clauses in Article 1, Section 8, then are not we slaves to Congress — or more simply put, slaves to a tyrannical majority?

    And Congress is not compelling us to do things such as avoiding the commission of crimes or filing and paying taxes. Congress is ordering us to buy a product Congress says you must have if you want to live. There is very literally no opt out other than death. A Congressional majority says I must take an action — not just refrain from acting, but actually act in a way Congress demands. It is “you go buy insurance. You go buy this type of light bulb. You go buy this type of food. You go get this type of job, whether you want it or not. You work in a certain way. You don’t get to choose.” Congress makes a determination of what benefits interstate commerce and compels you to act accordingly.

    I don’t buy slippery slope arguments generally, though a lot of conservatives do. But I can at least see where the slippery slope ends should we slip down it. If Congress can compel us to take actions for our own good, whether or not we agree and that are outside the jurisdictional powers of Congress, then Congress can compel us clearly to buy things inside interstate commerce that we do not want to buy. And if Congress can compel our actions in that way, then Congress can compel our actions ad infinitum.

    At some point the thirteenth amendment becomes meaningless because we do become slaves to government. Instead of government working for us, government becomes our master. And once the buck is passed to unelected bureaucrats who stay long after we have voted out the politicians who imposed this legal regime on us, even the basic right to control our destiny is removed from our hands.

    It no longer is “We the People” in the preamble to the Constitution, it becomes “We the Congress” or “We the Majority.” And our free society dies by that dreaded tyranny of the majority the left so long decried and now embraces to advance its own agenda in ignorance and defiance of the rights of men and women to understand how their world works without paying the Gnostic Gospel’s price for that special, fundamental, very basic right to know.

  122. #
    AmericanGal
    March 31st, 2010 at 11:20 pm

    Dick Morris on Fox thinks that Obama’s off shore oil drilling plan may be the start of the Clintonizing of Obama…

    Is this possible? For those of you with much more insight into this isn’t that going to be very hard for Obama to do? He’s no Bill Clinton, plus, even in my limited knowledge, the times and political atmosphere aren’t the same as back in the 90’s..and Obama’s policies are far more devisive than anything Bill put forth..
    ————
    I agree with you and think Morris is blowing smoke…
    If the Fraud wanted to move to the center to pull in independents and centralist Dems that might have strayed, Drill Baby, Drill is the last thing that would convince them to support the messiah. Crap and Trap, Hell Care Bill and backroom deals are not going to be forgotten, and Drilling is a Repug desire, not so much for Centralists.

  123. That Morris is suckered in by an Obama ploy to pretend being a centrist is for Morris to live with. He should know better.

    Obama probably realizes that he has burned his bridges with Repubs. The Republicans have absolute Kelvin zero trust in him (and with good reason, seeing how the terrible health *insurance* ahem “reform” bill got rammed through with not one Republican vote).

    But I don’t think he is trying to actually reach out across the aisle. He just wants MSM idiots to write about and talk about how he is trying to reach out but that the Republicans are soooo hostile and uncooperative.

    However, the American public has seen his lies, promise-breaking and arm-twisting, so the media can spin their shit all night long, but who is listening? CNN is dropping off into oblivion, MSNBC, were they ever really on the map? NYT is now considered yellow journalism, state mouthpiece. The only good thing left is Will Shortz’s crossword puzzles.

    This is why people haven’t bought hook line and sinker the media and Obama spin about how wonderful the health care bill is.

    This is why the Tea Party is making headlines, because it is widespread and occupies the center, despite attempts to portray them as a false front for Republicans.

    People are not happy with the direction the country is going, even Lefties are wondering when an effective job stimulus program will be put into place, and he languishes at 46% approval and 50% disapproval despite incessant media brainwashing attempts.

  124. rgb44hrc: 100% correct. He is not fooling anybody. Graham by the way is an idiot. Question: why are the republican idiots often named Graham? That is a question for the ages.
    ——————————————————
    Hot Air Headlines) Does he really think that this is sufficient to peel off cap-and-tax opposition? Let’s do some strategic bolding:

    The Obama administration’s plan adopts some drilling proposals floated by President George W. Bush near the end of his tenure, including opening much of the Atlantic and Arctic Coasts. Those proposals were challenged in court on environmental grounds and set aside by President Obama shortly after he took office.

    [snip]

    The first lease sale off the coast of Virginia could occur as early as next year in a triangular tract 50 miles off the coast that had already been approved for development but was held up by a court challenge and additional Interior Department review, officials said.

    But as a result of the Obama decision, the Interior Department will spend several years conducting geologic and environmental studies along the rest of the southern and central Atlantic Seaboard. If a tract is deemed suitable for development, it is listed for sale in a competitive bidding system. The next lease sales — if any are authorized by the Interior Department — would not be held before 2012.

    Let me put it another way: the White House is implying the promise of jam tomorrow – in reality, it’s just a study to revisit the denial of jam yesterday – in exchange for jam today. Only the jam today is actually a swarm of angry wasps. Try again, Mr. President. Start with rescinding your interference with the Bush drilling permits, and expect to give up more. A lot more: your opponents are not interested in indulging the Greenies’ quaint, somewhat primitive religious sensibilities.

    Moe Lane

  125. The Fraud only wants to pass the oil drilling in a ploy to get the Repubs to support cap and trade and screw the American people more and fill the coffers of the Gores, Soros, and like. It is all smoke and mirrors.

    He knows it will be held up in the courts. Mitch is right, and right to be skeptical

  126. Shadowfax
    March 31st, 2010 at 11:15 pm

    Maybe what I really miss is the bliss of thinking I was ‘in the know’
    *******************

    I know, and also the smugness that “we” were right.

    A lifetime ago…

  127. gonzotx

    Maybe what I really miss is the bliss of thinking I was ‘in the know’
    *******************

    I know, and also the smugness that “we” were right.

    A lifetime ago…
    ————-
    Yea, it’s lonely out here without a party…but at least all PUMAs are in the same boat…even if they don’t want to be. 🙂

  128. What’s the deal with the RNC covering up the strip/bondage club?? Can you really spend 2,000. on food at a strip club. I thought the religious right did not do things like that. I thought they were solidly God, Guns and Country…they did manage to sneak in a little hanky panky while they are saving our country from the socialist/republican President!

  129. “Let’s trust in our fallibility not our infallibility.”

    You just summed up the U.S. Constitution in one sentence.

  130. “Let’s trust in our fallibility not our infallibility.”

    Objection counselor: infallibility not in evidence.

    That grammar assumes we HAVE some infallibility.

    What he means is, “Let’s trust in our fallibility, not pretend we are infallible.”

  131. OBAMA CARE: AN ENORMOUS, BUDGET BUSTING WHITE ELEPHANT

    A white elephant is an idiom for a possession of which its owner cannot dispose and whose cost (particularly cost of upkeep) is out of proportion to its usefulness or worth.

    The term derives from the sacred white elephants kept by Southeast Asian monarchs in Burma, Thailand[1], Laos and Cambodia. To possess a white elephant was regarded (and is still regarded in Thailand and Burma) as a sign that the monarch reigned with justice and power, and that the kingdom was blessed with peace and prosperity. The tradition derives from tales which associate a white elephant with the birth of Buddha, as his mother was reputed to have dreamed of a white elephant presenting her with a lotus flower, a symbol of wisdom and purity, on the eve of giving birth.[2] Because the animals were considered sacred and laws protected them from labor, receiving a gift of a white elephant from a monarch was simultaneously both a blessing and a curse: a blessing because the animal was sacred and a sign of the monarch’s favour, and a curse because the animal had to be retained and could not be put to much practical use, at least to offset the cost of maintaining it.

    EXAMPLES OF WHITE ELEPHANTS–

    The U.S. Navy’s Alaska-class cruisers were described as “white elephants” because the “tactical and strategic concepts that inspired them were completely outmoded” by the time they were commissioned – the Japanese heavy cruisers that they were designed to hunt down had already been destroyed.[3]

    Bristol Brabazon, an airliner built by the Bristol Aeroplane Company in 1949 to fly a large number of passengers on transatlantic routes from England to the United States.[4]

    Concorde, a supersonic transport built by Aérospatiale and British Aircraft Corporation, intended for high-speed intercontinental passenger travel. Only fourteen production aircraft were built, though it was planned that development costs were to be amortized over hundreds of units:[5] the British and French governments incurred large losses as no aircraft could be sold on commercial terms.[6] Concorde flew the transatlantic route for over two decades, and it did at least make a big operating profit for British Airways.[7]

    SS Great Eastern, a ship designed by Isambard Kingdom Brunel. She was the largest ship ever built at the time of her launch in 1858, and had the capacity to carry 4,000 passengers around the world without refuelling, but was not a commercial success. Her hold was later gutted and converted to lay the successful 1865 transatlantic telegraph cable, an impossible task for a smaller vessel.[8]

    AND LEST WE FORGET . . . OBAMACARE—THE GREATEST WHITE ELEPHANT OF THEM ALL

    A plague on the House of all those who voted for it.

  132. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/technology/climategate-scientists-vindicated-in-investigation/article1519115/
    ‘Climategate’ scientists vindicated in investigation
    Committee said no evidence to support charges that the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit or its director, Phil Jones, had tampered with data
    The first of several British investigations into the e-mails leaked from one of the world’s leading climate research centres has largely vindicated the scientists involved.

  133. Morris: Obama’s Efforts to Sell Healthcare Will Backfire
    Tuesday, 30 Mar 2010 08:49 PM Article Font Size
    By: John Rossomando

    The Obama administration’s effort to sell its healthcare initiative to the general public will backfire and contribute to Republicans regaining control of Congress, longtime political analyst and Newsmax contributor Dick Morris tells Newsmax.TV.

    Morris, author of the upcoming book “2010: Take Back America: A Battle Plan” , believes Americans will be hit hard by sticker shock from rapidly increasing health insurance premiums over the next seven to eight months as a result of the universal coverage provisions. He says premium increases will fan the flames of discontent with Obama and the Democrats, and benefit Republicans in November.

    Editor’s Note: See the Newsmax.TV interview with Dick Morris below.

    Should the GOP regain control of Congress it could use the appropriations process to stop Obamacare dead in its tracks, Morris tells Newsmax.TV.
    “We have a tremendous weapon ̶ defunding,” Morris says. “If we win a simple majority in Congress in the elections in Nov. 2010, we could simply zero appropriate for all aspects of his bill, and he can’t enforce it with no money. And his veto power would be impotent against that.

    “He could veto the budget where we zero fund it and we wouldn’t have a federal budget, but ultimately he can’t make Congress spend money. You can’t push a string.”

    The political commentator devotes an entire section of his new book to what he sees as the legislation’s unconstitutionality.

    Morris tells Newsmax.TV in a wide-ranging exclusive interview that the lawsuits that have been brought by 13 states against the healthcare reform plan have significant merit. States such as Florida have challenged the law as unconstitutional, arguing it violates the 10th amendment that reserves all powers to the states not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution.

    When it comes to the individual mandate, he says the government can tell ordinary citizens they need to pay “$10,000 and we’ll give you health insurance,” but it cannot demand an individual buy health insurance from a third party.

    “They can require driving insurance because it’s a precondition of a privilege, which is operating a motor vehicle, but just simply for being alive, you can’t be required to get health insurance,” Morris said. “Liberals justify it from the interstate commerce clause, but number one is that health insurance can’t be sold interstate, so how could it be interstate commerce and secondly, the people aren’t buying the policies, so not only isn’t it interstate, but it’s also not commerce.”

    The healthcare reform law’s mandate that states cover those making up to 133 percent above the federal poverty line under Medicaid themselves as a “total violation of the concept of the 10th amendment,.” Morris says.
    “States have powers, states have rights that can’t simply be legislated away by unfunded mandates from Washington,” he said.

    Morris points to the fact southern states such as Texas have far smaller budgets than northern states such as New York to illustrate the budgetary impact of including those making significantly in excess of the poverty level in Medicaid. He says Texas has a far smaller budget compared with New York because it only accepts those making 27 percent above the federal poverty level in its Medicaid program compared with the latter’s 150 percent.

    “This is why New York has a 9 percent income tax and Texas doesn’t have any,” Morris said. “By requiring 133 percent to cover everybody, you are really forcing taxes up in the Sunbelt states, which will eliminate the competitive edge, and I think that may be one of Obama’s objectives.”

    When asked by Newsmax.TV about Fox News’ senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano’s analysis that Obamacare legal challenges could take many years, especially for individual mandate provision that doesn’t take effect until 2014, Morris said he thinks individual mandates likely will not be subject to a ruling until 2015 after it comes into force.

    However, he sees a more immediate opportunity to challenge the state Medicaid requirements because they are already in place.

    Morris also tells Newsmax.TV in the interview:

    Republican Florida Gov. Charlie Crist’s continuing support for Obama’s $832 billion stimulus package and his having said he would have voted for the legislation had he been in the Senate during a recent debate with former Fla. House Speaker Marco Rubio is enough reason to reject his Senate bid because the legislation starts imposing unfunded mandates on the states starting next year.
    Obama’s Israel strategy aims to topple the Netanyahu government and bring former Israeli Prime Minister Tzippi Livni back to power by making Israelis feel Benjamin Netanyahu is unwelcome in Washington. Livni is widely believed to be more willing to compromise with the Palestinians on a peace deal than Netanyahu.

  134. strategy

    By GREG WESTON, QMI Agency

    .When this week’s foreign ministers windfest turned into Hurricane Hillary, the worst wreckage in its wake may have been Stephen Harper’s already shaky aid plan to help save the world’s women and children.

    Straight-talking U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton came to the Gatineau Hills to talk Arctic development with her counterparts from Canada, the U.K. and the other G8 countries.

    Instead, she made headlines on Afghanistan and abortion, and kicked the PM where it hurts in the process.

    Rewind to January, when Harper announced Canada would champion a new multinational aid plan to enhance the health of mothers and children in the developing world.

    The scheme is supposed to be Harper’s signature initiative at the summit of the G8 leaders, including U.S. President Barack Obama, being hosted by the PM in June at a resort north of Toronto.

    It must have seemed like a good idea at the time.

    Last month, Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon let it slip that the Conservative plan would not support contraception or abortion — “it does not deal in any way, shape or form with family planning.”

    As aid organizations lined up to denounce the plan as fatally flawed, Harper threw his foreign minister under the bus, and said contraception would not be excluded.

    Still, no one dared talk about abortion.

    Then along came Hurricane Hillary.

    In an interview with CBC this week, Clinton’s reaction was blunt: “I think we should be beyond arguing about family planning. Rich women in every culture have access to it; it’s poor women who don’t. … It should be just obvious and available.”

    On abortion: “I’m perfectly respectful of people who have religious objections to either family planning or abortion, but their religious objections should not, in my view, determine what women who don’t share the same views can do going forward.”

    While Clinton’s own government notably doesn’t fund abortions in the U.S., her comments don’t bode well for Harper’s plan for mothers in developing countries.

    And if other leaders agree with Clinton — or just decide to avoid a brawl over abortion at the June meeting — Harper’s signature plan for poor moms and kids will be one embarrassment for the shredder.

    On the other hand, Clinton may have done Harper a favour on Afghanistan, where Canada’s combat role is due to end in 2011.

    In an interview with CTV’s Tom Clark, Clinton said: “We would obviously like to see some form of support continue. … The military could switch into a training role instead of a combat role.”

    Later on CBC, she went even further when asked about Canada’s plan to pull troops right out of Afghanistan, as the Harper government now seems to be promising.

    “It’s up to Canada to decide how you deploy your forces. But I’m not going to sit here and say we’re happy about it, because … I wouldn’t be telling you the truth.

    “We would love to have Canada stay in this fight with us.”

    What will happen to Canada-U.S. relations if we don’t stay in Afghanistan remains a matter of speculation.

    In the meantime, Harper isn’t going to lose any points at home for standing up to the Americans, especially over an increasingly unpopular war.

    greg.weston@sunmedia.ca

  135. LOL! Good points!

    “They can require driving insurance because it’s a precondition of a privilege, which is operating a motor vehicle, but just simply for being alive, you can’t be required to get health insurance,” Morris said. “Liberals justify it from the interstate commerce clause, but number one is that health insurance can’t be sold interstate, so how could it be interstate commerce and secondly, the people aren’t buying the policies, so not only isn’t it interstate, but it’s also not commerce.”

  136. Yay for Hillary, still loud and clear for abortion.

    Still, no one dared talk about abortion.

    Then along came Hurricane Hillary.

    In an interview with CBC this week, Clinton’s reaction was blunt: “I think we should be beyond arguing about family planning. Rich women in every culture have access to it; it’s poor women who don’t. … It should be just obvious and available.”
    On abortion: “I’m perfectly respectful of people who have religious objections to either family planning or abortion, but their religious objections should not, in my view, determine what women who don’t share the same views can do going forward.”

  137. On another subject, but still with Hillary in the lead, from a Jewish website “Forward” (= “Kadima”):

    Heeding Hillary’s Words
    The Hour
    By Leonard Fein
    Published March 31, 2010, issue of April 09, 2010.

    For a wisp of a moment, it seemed as if the two-state solution had been taken off life-support. Still bedridden, to be sure, but no longer leaning at death’s unlocked door. The ideological one-staters had been emboldened by the rising numbers of tired two-staters who had abandoned the cause not out of conviction but out of hopelessness. Endorsement of and commitment to a two-state solution had come to seem more like a mantra than a program.

    And then, Hillary Clinton entered the hospital room and without flinching proceeded to provide mouth-to-mouth resuscitation to the patient. The secretary of state was not alone in her effort, but she was uniquely on target. Press reports of Clinton’s speech at AIPAC’s annual conference emphasized her caution to Israel regarding new housing and new settlement construction, the importance she attaches to “confidence-building” measures. But underlying that line of argument, providing the rationale for it, were her prepared references, throughout her text, to Israel as a democratic and Jewish state.

    That is the heart of the two-state matter, whether viewed from a security perspective or an ethical perspective. And this is just one of the ways in which she showed that she truly gets it: “As Defense Minister Barak and others have observed, the inexorable mathematics of demography are hastening the hour at which Israelis may have to choose between preserving their democracy and staying true to the dream of a Jewish homeland. Given this reality, a two-state solution is the only viable path for Israel to remain both a democracy and a Jewish state.”

    The Clinton remarks were embedded in repeated reassurances of America’s commitment to Israel and, given the tensions in the relationship that have lately emerged, these were more than mere window dressing.

    The reasonable expectation was that when, later the same day, it came time for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to address the 7,000-plus AIPAC attendees, he would offer at least some conciliatory remarks, make an effort to smooth over the ruffled feathers, help get the proximity talks back on track.

    No such luck. There wasn’t an ounce of give in the prime minister’s remarks, which were followed by two days of uncommonly intense negotiations — both directly between President Obama and Netanyahu and also with their staffs — at the end of which there were more questions than answers.

    Both Netanyahu and American Jews now have some homework to do. Friends of peace, which necessarily means friends of a two-state solution — as improbable as a two-state solution seems these days, no other solution is even plausible — were quick to celebrate Netanyahu’s Bar-Ilan speech last June, in which the prime minister for the first time acknowledged the prospect of a Palestinian state: “In my vision of peace, there are two free peoples living side by side in this small land, with good neighborly relations and mutual respect, each with its flag, anthem and government, with neither one threatening its neighbor’s security and existence.”

    But there is no reason at all to conclude that Netanyahu actually advocates two states. Very little in his rhetoric and nothing at all in his behavior indicates such advocacy. At AIPAC, he could not bring himself to utter even a tepid endorsement of a Palestinian state. That is, alas, who he is. There is nothing to celebrate.

    Obviously, Netanyahu is entitled to his views. Israel is a sovereign state, and he is the head of its raucous government. So be it.

    But let the prime minister not interpret the applause and the standing ovations bestowed on him at AIPAC as an accurate reflection of the disposition of America’s Jews. The AIPAC audience is obviously not representative of American Jewry — nor is there compelling reason to believe that it is representative even of the many American Jews who want and even need Israel to be a vibrant democracy and a cordial home to Judaism in all its parts.

    A poll of American Jews and their views on the Middle East conflict, including America’s role in resolving the conflict, was commissioned by J Street in the aftermath of the dustup during Vice President Joe Biden’s visit to Israel. From the results, we learn that American Jews, by a 4-1 margin (82%-18%), support the United States playing an active role in helping the parties to resolve the conflict, and by a 63%-37% margin, those who support American activism say they would continue their support even “if it meant the United States exerting pressure on Israel to make the compromises necessary to achieve peace.”

    We may rest assured that Obama’s people have studied the J Street poll. And we may fervently hope that the Netanyahu people have, as well.

  138. Obama Wants Israel’s Netanyahu Out
    Wednesday, 31 Mar 2010 12:08 PM Article Font Size
    By: Dick Morris & Eileen McGann

    Why is President Barack Obama so obviously humiliating Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu?

    Why is Secretary of State Hillary Clinton negating everything she said when she represented New York state and piling on the Jewish state?

    They want Netanyahu out. Specifically, they want him to feel such pressure that he dumps his right-wing coalition partners and forms a new government with the center-left party Kadima, headed by former Prime Minister Tzipi Livni.

    Livni, who thinks nothing of trading land for peace, no matter how flawed the peace might be, will then hold Netanyahu’s government hostage and force it to bend to the will of Washington and sign a deal with the Palestinians that cedes them land in return for a handful of vague vapors and promises, none of which will be kept.

    On March 3 Livni said, in a Knesset debate, that since Netanyahu took control “Israel has become a pariah country in the world.”

    She is trying to use Obama’s and Clinton’s rejection of Netanyahu’s course to force her way into the government. And Obama and Clinton are intent on helping her do so by publicly humiliating Netanyahu.

    Netanyahu insists that he’d be happy to negotiate a peace accord. But, as he told me last year, “I just don’t have a peace partner with whom to negotiate.”

    The Palestinians are expert at playing “good cop/bad cop” with Israel. The good cop — the Palestinian Authority — wants to negotiate a peace deal and insists on signs of Israeli good faith in order to do so.

    Meanwhile, the bad cop — Hamas — fires missiles at Israel from Gaza, land Israel ceded to the Palestinians in order to promote the peace process earlier in the decade.

    Any peace deal with the Palestinian Authority will not be binding on Hamas, and the pattern of Gaza will likely play out again: First, Israel cedes land to the Palestinian Authority. Second, Hamas seizes the newly ceded land through elections or military action. Third, Hamas refuses to recognize the peace deal and uses the newly acquired territory as a base from which to launch further attacks against Israel.

    Insanity is defined as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome each time.

    When Hillary Clinton and President Obama explode in indignation against Israel for building apartments in East Jerusalem, they deliberately miss the point: There is no reason for Israel to catalyze peace negotiations when there is no single entity that is both committed to peace and speaks for the entire Palestinian people.

    Without a peace partner, negotiations are either a trip to nowhere or a slippery slope to more Gaza-like concessions that do nothing but strengthen the enemies of Israel without providing any advancement to the cause of peace.

    The merits of building in East Jerusalem or the need for a moratorium on all settlement construction are quite irrelevant as long as a substantial body of Palestinian opinion wants a war with Israel and the prevailing political authority in Gaza insists on the Jewish state’s eradication.

    So why are Obama and Clinton so intent on raising the profile of the construction issue and publicizing it?

    One suspects an effort is afoot to link Israeli resistance to the peace process with the ongoing loss of American lives in Iraq and Afghanistan, if not to the global terrorism of al-Qaida.

    Gen. David Petraeus told the Senate Armed Services Committee that “Arab anger over the Palestinian question limits the strength and depth of U.S. partnerships with governments and peoples [in the region] … Enduring hostilities between Israel and some of its neighbors present distinct challenges to our ability to advance our interests in the area of responsibility.” In other words, blame Israel.

    And ultimately, the administration’s agenda may be to explain its withdrawal of support for Israel by blaming its stubborn insistence on housing construction.

    One can well see the Obama administration learning to live with an Iranian nuclear weapon, all the while blaming Israel for fomenting Iranian hostility by building housing.

    Meanwhile, through American aid to Gaza, the Obama administration is helping Hamas to solidify its position in Gaza and lengthen its lease on political power — the very power it is using to torpedo the peace process.

    © Dick Morris & Eileen McGann

  139. Fox: Obama to sign new CO2 restrictions by executive order

    Fox Business Host Stuart Varney reports that Obama plans to sign an executive order by next week to unilaterally impose new laws mandating CO2 restrictions since he can’t get the laws passed through congress.

    Apparently our Dear Leader doesn’t give a Tinker’s damn about the economy. With the passage of Obamacare, and his having already dramatically expanded the federal government’s role in banks, student loans, auto making, health care, real estate, insurance, and energy industries, it’s already crystal clear he doesn’t give a crap what the American people want.

    As James M. Taylor notes at Capitalist Magazine, if you enjoyed last summer’s exploding gasoline prices, you’re really going to love the rise in gasoline prices, electricity prices, and unemployment, as well as the reduction in annual household income, that carbon dioxide restrictions will impose on the economy:

    Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), which serves as a contractor to several federal government agencies, last year analyzed the economic consequences of a 70 percent cut in carbon dioxide emissions by the year 2050. SAIC used the U.S. Energy Information Administration’s National Energy Modeling System under two different scenarios. SAIC analyzed the economic consequences under a “low cost” scenario in which nuclear power, clean coal, and other relatively cost-effective but environmentally controversial means are employed to meet the 70 percent reduction, and a “high cost” scenario in which nuclear power plants, clean coal plants, etc., do not play a major role in carbon dioxide reductions. Under either scenario, the economic consequences to American consumers will be devastating.
    According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration’s economic forecasting model, a 70 percent cut in carbon dioxide emissions will cause gasoline prices to rise 77 percent over baseline projections, will cause electricity prices to more than double over baseline projections, will kill more than 3 million jobs versus baseline projections, and will reduce average household income by more than $4,000 each and every year.

    If these numbers make you shudder, here comes the really bad news: That was the “low cost” scenario.

  140. How to trap a bot with four easy questions:

    Q-1: MSNBC, CNN, NBC, and ABC are deplorable. They are nothing but a mouthpieces for a corrupt Obama Administration.

    A-1: Well what about FOX News? They are much worse.

    Q-2: If they are worse then why do you watch them?

    A-2: I will be damned if I watch them!

    Q-3: If you do not watch them then how do you know they are worse?

    A-3: . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . Everybody knows.

    Q-4: And just who do you mean by “everybody”? The Great Pretender who wants to bamboozle the country without interference? Emanuel who wants to snuff out dissenting opinion? The Chicago thugs who want to loot the country? The big media enablers who are going the way of the dinosaur because people want news not propaganda? The left wing pundits and ideologues who have abdicated their principles to support a big business shill? The scumbags who play the race card? Your idiot friends who do not watch FOX News either but claim to have an informed opinion on the subject? Or all of the above?

  141. It Has Begun… Dem Rep Cancels Town Hall Over Fears of Being Alone With Constituents
    ————————–
    He is a wimp.

  142. Q: What can we say about a congressman who is too much of a coward to face his constituents, and casts himself as a victim?

    A: Sayonara Tunney.

  143. The reason Q-2 above traps them every time is because a bot would sooner admit to having carnal knowledge of goats than watching FOX News.

  144. Fein is one of the people who is desperate to get any peace settlement in the Middle East. He is a Boston writer, intellectual and leftist. He is against the current Israeli government, and I suspect he wants to get rid of Bibi. He would be someone who would support the current US policy, but his view is in the minority among Israelis, who are on the front line. The concern is that many of us feel is that Abbas is a weak sister, Hamas is operating behind the scenes and any deal reached will not have stability. This is just like health care. This Administration is desperate for a headline, and will do anything to get it.

  145. RE: basement angel
    March 31st, 2010 at 7:00 pm

    UNMITIGATED BULL SHIT!!!!! It is not about the body count, even one person dead is a tragedy of magnificent proportion. And Bill Ayers is even more dangerous in the world of academia, remember the Annenberg Challenge that he and Obummer were involved in? I did a cursory check and books and teaching material are used in the public schools [the ones I checked] here in Florida as they are likely used in every state. Even my grown daughter said that her generation was taught ‘white guilt’ in school that I was never aware of; she finally reeducated herself. Youth today are being taught to ‘kill their parents’ as Bill Ayers purposed decades ago. UNACCEPTABLE!

    Methinks there must be some reason that a self proclaimed angel is living in the basement, as are so many of the Obummer Zombies. If you love this country, and if you love freedom, and if you care about future generations, and you care about those soldiers who fought and died to make and keep us free, and further if you do not want to see the genocide [be sure to count them correctly when it happens] of seniors and citizens, then there is no way on God’s green earth that you could not oppose Obummer and all his minions. Period. End of discussion.

  146. Basement angel has lots of good things to say about relevant issues and says them very well. I do wish she’d get back to the relevant issues. But there’s no reason to insult her, either.

  147. #
    turndownobama
    April 1st, 2010 at 5:01 am

    Yay for Hillary, still loud and clear for abortion.

    Still, no one dared talk about abortion.

    Then along came Hurricane Hillary.

    In an interview with CBC this week, Clinton’s reaction was blunt: “I think we should be beyond arguing about family planning. Rich women in every culture have access to it; it’s poor women who don’t. … It should be just obvious and available.”
    On abortion: “I’m perfectly respectful of people who have religious objections to either family planning or abortion, but their religious objections should not, in my view, determine what women who don’t share the same views can do going forward.”
    ——-
    No BS from Hillary, she is so awesome!!!!

  148. ODD WAY TO SHOW YOUR PRIDE IN YOUR VOTE

    Quote: “On the other side of the political divide, Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid, who fought for a year to muster the votes in his own party, had no plans to speak on healthcare during the spring break, his staff said.”

    reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6300LQ20100401

    Democrats lie low after healthcare victory
    ===============================

    The week after passing landmark healthcare reform and handing President Barack Obama an important victory, members of the U.S. Congress returned to their home districts for a recess to face constituents and justify their votes after the bruising legislative battle.
    &&&

    While Obama made flying visits across the country to tout the new legislation, a number of key Democrats, who led the charge for healthcare reform, seemed to keep a low profile and are doing little to beat the drum.

    Republican lawmakers, however, made quick plans to harness what they see as voter discontent over the issue — either by lambasting those Democrats who may be politically vulnerable or by shoring up their own shaky campaigns with criticism of “Obamacare.”

    While healthcare reform was thought to be a defining issue in congressional elections, many experts believe it may lose steam by November and prove less important for voters than unemployment and the economy.

    Before public anger over healthcare fades, Republicans from veteran senators to freshman congressmen were racing to get their message out at the outset of the two-week spring recess.

    Representative Dan Lungren, a California Republican running for re-election in a district carried by Obama in 2008, planned to tell his constituents that healthcare reform is important, but Obama’s overhaul was not the way to fix the ailing system.

    “Too much costs, too much taxes, too much government, too much debt,” Lungren told Reuters. “It’s another typical over-promise by the federal government. It’s not going to go away and its not going to be the sole issue in the election but it’s the best example of the direction this president wants to take the country.”

    Arizona’s Republican Senator and former presidential candidate John McCain, facing a stiff re-election fight, sounded similar themes as he campaigned in Tucson with 2008 running-mate Sarah Palin.

    ‘GOING TO BE REPEALED’

    “Obamacare is, quote, ‘historic.’ They’re right, it’s historic. It’s the first time in history where a major piece of legislation has been passed over the overwhelming objection of the majority of American people,” McCain said to cheers.

    “It’s historic that it is also the first time on a pure partisan basis a major piece of legislation has been passed. It’s going to be historic, because it’s going to be repealed and replaced, and it’s going to be done soon,” he said.

    On the other side of the political divide, Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid, who fought for a year to muster the votes in his own party, had no plans to speak on healthcare during the spring break, his staff said.

    Conservative Tea Party activists held a rally Reid’s hometown of Searchlight, Nevada and the senator welcomed them to town as a boost to the local economy.

    “I don’t think he feels like he needs to counter (the rally), it’s part of just educating people on what’s in health care,” said Tom Brede, Reid’s Nevada-based spokesman.

    Democratic Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska, who initially secured federal funding for his state to cover the cost of Medicaid expansion in the controversial “Cornhusker Kickback,” also had nothing related to healthcare on his agenda.

    Though the “Cornhusker Kickback” was stripped from the final healthcare deal, conservative activists are hoping disgruntled voters will help them drive Nelson out of office.

    FADE AWAY?

    In Michigan, Representative Bart Stupak, who led a group of Democratic anti-abortion holdouts who threatened to derail the bill, only to ultimately support it, issued a statement saying that an executive order signed by Obama represented an “iron-clad commitment” to ban federal funding for abortion.

    Stupak had no events planned over the recess to discuss healthcare.

    First-term Democratic Representative John Boccieri of Ohio, seen by some as vulnerable in November, explained in a release that he voted yes because “the bill may not be perfect but it strikes the proper balance.”

    Political analysts said Republicans needed to tread carefully now that healthcare overhaul is a fait accompli or risk being painted as the “party of no” by Democrats.

    “My assumption is that this is going to wash out. It’s just not going to be that central (to the election). If anything, it might turn out to be a net plus for the Democrats,” said Joel Aberbach, director of the Center for American Politics and Public Policy at the University of California, Los Angeles.

    That ‘net plus” could come into play in California, where public opinion favored an unsuccessful state-level healthcare initiative pursued by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2007.

    California Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer is facing the hardest re-election battle of her career and she could cash in on her party’s victory on healthcare.

    Her website hails the healthcare overhaul as an “historic achievement and a victory for our seniors, our children, our small businesses and for California.”

    “I fully expect that Boxer will use (healthcare reform) in her arsenal as something that she will run on rather than run away from,” Field Poll director Mark DiCamillo said.

    “In other states this issue could be toxic to incumbent Democrats. I don’t see that as much here in California.”

  149. Tea Party Unveils ‘Contract From America’ Planks
    Thursday, 01 Apr 2010 11:58 AM Article Font Size

    You won’t find many surveys that involve over 365,000 respondents, but that’s how many online forms were completed to determine the top three planks of the tea-party movement’s platform released Thursday as part of the new “Contract From America.”

    Leading the list as issue No. 1: “Protect the Constitution: Require each bill to identity the specific provision of the Constitution that gives Congress the power to do what the bill does.”

    That proposal won the approval of 80.7 percent of the survey responses collected so far. Voting will continue through Monday at ContractFromAmerica.com.

    The second most popular of the 21 issues that are up for a vote: “Reject cap and trade: Stop costly new regulations that would increase unemployment, raise consumer prices, and weaken the nation’s global competitiveness with virtually no impact on global temperatures.”

    The goal of that plant, tea party officials say, is to block any imposition of the cap and trade tax, whether by congressional fiat or by the Environmental Protection Agency, which has threatened to act unilaterally if Congress fails to do so. The issue won the support of 70.8 percent of respondents.

    Issue No. 3 was unveiled Thursday based on the survey responses: “Demand a balanced budget: Begin the Constitutional amendment process to require a balanced budget with a two-thirds majority needed for any tax hike.” That plank received the approval of 69.9 percent of respondents.

    Ryan Hecker is the 29-year-old Houston attorney who came up with the Contract From America concept even before the tea-party movement was launched in February 2009. He says the ultimate objective is to influence the outcome of the midterm elections the way the Contract With America did in 1994, only more so:

    “My dream, my hope,” Hecker tells Newsmax, “is that economic conservative candidates and those who want to be economic conservatives in the future will sign on, and that we get a bunch of blue-dog Democrats and tons of elected officials onboard, and that they recognize that any document they craft themselves won’t be as powerful as one coming from the people.

    So I’m hoping this will be the legislative agenda, coming from the people, for the 2010 elections.”

    The Contract From America proposal first emerged at CPAC in February, promising a legislative agenda bubbling up from the grass-roots rather than down from legislators. Since then, Hecker his colleagues at the Tea Party Patriots and other grass-roots organizations have sifted through a small mountain of proposals submitted from voters across the United States.

    Using more than 5,000 surveys mostly completed by members of the grass-roots movement, they winnowed the ideas down to 21 proposals.

    Next they posted the list online in the form of an extended survey, and directed voters to the ContractFromAmerica Web site to select the top 10 ideas.

    The 10 proposals that the grass-roots voters deem the most important will be included in the full ContractFromAmerica proposal, which will be unveiled on April 15 during the massive Tax Day Tea Party rally being conducted in the Nation’s Capital. Reflecting the widespread, de-centralized power of the tea party movement, the Contract From America also will be simultaneously revealed in Houston, Austin, Atlanta, and 80 other locations in the country.

    Hecker, who sits on the national leadership council of Tea Party Patriots, gives many others due credit for helping to make his vision a reality. He tells Newsmax that the Contract From America is intended “to help turn the tea party movement into more than just a protest movement. One of the major criticisms, which I is think is unjustified, is that they’re just ‘anti.’ This is offering powerful ideas from the people.”

    The Contract From America concept has received the backing of former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, one of the architects of the original Contract With America, which helped frame the political debate that preceding the Republican takeover of the Congress in 1994.

    It’s not the handiwork of me or any public official,” Gingrich wrote regarding the new Contract in a February column. “It is the genuine voice of the American people. Unlike the current political dynamic, in which the will of Washington is forced on America, this is the voice of America coming to Washington.”

    Heckler is careful to emphasize he has deep respect for the original Contract. But he says this one should be even more effective.

    “The Contract From America was a great document,” Heckler says, “but what this says is it’s not top down, it’s bottom up… It comes from the people, and it’s how representative government should work.”

    What got Heckler, a young attorney fresh out of law school, interested in promoting a new political covenant in America?

    “It was my frustration with the Republican Party’s lack of legitimacy on economic-conservative issues,” he explains. “They no longer represented for me a proxy for my beliefs on the economic front. So this idea came from that. I thought, ‘How do we move this country back into an economic conservative direction if that’s not where it seems either party is headed. And then it just fit perfectly within the tea party movement.”

  150. Drill Now to Drill Less Later

    (Has this Kool-aid drinker been smokin’ crack?)

    ————

    Peter Maass a fellow at the the Shorenstein Center on the Press at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government.

    I consider myself an environmentalist and have written at length about the problems of oil extraction, but I have a hard time getting upset about the decision to expand offshore drilling.

    Rather than being a vindication of the ‘drill, baby, drill’ argument, the new policy will show its shallowness.

    As a matter of global justice , why should America exclude its coastlines while coastlines all over the world are drilled for oil that goes into American gas tanks? Banning oil companies from operating in our waters while encouraging them to do so in other people’s waters — there’s a whiff of hypocrisy to that, a sort of outsourcing of oil pollution. Perhaps if we suffer more of the inconvenience of extraction we will reconsider the merit of continuing down the road of a fossil-fuel based economy.

    But don’t get me wrong — drilling to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and reduce gas prices is a charade. President Obama seems well aware of that, in a sense calling the other side’s bluff. With 2 percent of the world reserves, there is no way to extract our way to lower prices or energy independence; the impact will be between “not at all” and “hardly at all.”

    The new policy, rather than being a vindication of the “drill, baby, drill” argument, will show its shallowness and hopefully allow us to have a more constructive debate about our energy future. Paradoxically, drilling a bit more in the short term may help the effort to drill a lot less in the future.

  151. Shadowfax, one of the cardinal principles of political canvassing is that “birds of a feather flock together”. Peter Maass and the Obama apologists prove the rule of birds flocking together. There is no principle they do not bend, no conviction they do not desecrate in pursuit of survival of the cult.

    Maybe that is why we have all flocked to Hillary. We have some very divergent views but while we, like Hillary, will seek common ground, we will not give ground. Hillary has convictions and while we might disagree with her positions on certain issues, we know she speaks from a worldview tested by time, reality, and circumstances. We can disagree with her on various issues but the respect for her remains. Obama is just “present” for whatever forces propel him personally forward.

  152. Admin: here is the Republican slant on the Rassmussen poll.

    Unpacking the Rasmussen numbers:

    I had read the latest Rasmussen examination on the topic (short version: health care debate increased both the GOP and Democrats’ partisan identification) when I noticed that they had provided a handy table of their polling results over time. I personally feel that this material is more accessible in graph form; so I pulled the results, averaged them by quarter, and graphed the whole thing out. So:

    The vertical bars represent the last three federal elections. Using somewhat primitive analysis methods (’squinting and looking’) 2005-2006 seems to show that Independent voters increased at the cost of Republican ones; and 2007-2008 seems to show Democratic voters increased at the cost of Independent ones. And since then… Republican voters are more or less holding steady, while Democratic voters are dropping at about the same rate that Independent ones are growing.

    All of this is important because the Democratic strategy for victory in 2010 is based on the conditions on the ground in the first quarter of 2009, which was a distinctly better time to be a Democrat than it is today. Rasmussen is not the only pollster to notice the Democrats’ loss of independent* voters (PPP’s Tom Jensen is probably hoarse from all his shouting about that by now); but if the implications of this trend has been internalized by Democratic political strategists, it’s not obvious from their actions.

    You can imagine how broken up I am about this.

    Moe Lane

    PS: If the Republican party would like to take long-term (or even medium-term) advantage of this, it would be well-advised to not forget about fiscal responsibility once we’re back in control of the House.

    Very.
    Well.
    Advised.

    *For the record: ‘independent’ does not mean ‘moderate’ in this context. It means ‘neither Republican nor Democrat.’

    Crossposted to Moe Lane.

  153. • By 50%-46%, those surveyed say Obama doesn’t deserve re-election. (Rassmussen last)
    ———————————–
    What? Ah . . er . . this? . . after his heroic, historic, intergalactic uni-partisan, bribed, bartered and blackmailed victory shout it from the roof tops Obamacare? Well . . . shit! . . . that’s gratitude for you!! Since a Messiah cannot be wrong, there is only one possible explanation: 50% of the American public is racist. QED! Don’t believe your lying eyes? Just ask the DNC, the Obama crooks and that spoiled Harvard fratboy Chris Van Hollen.

  154. I remember Connie Morrell–Van Hollen’s predecessor. She was a Republican by name but a Democrat in her heart, and she voted that way more often than not. Van Hollen is a Democrat by name and a racist in his heart. That is the difference.

Comments are closed.