Temple Prostitutes

First, our apologies to modern day sex workers of all genders – those who proffer their various bodily orifices and joints as sexual gratification devices, in exchange for pay. When we denounce “whores” and prostitutes, our intent is not to demean or debase those engaged in the sex trade. Compared to the “whores” and “prostitutes” we regularly denounce, sex workers are an entirely honorable lot.

Today, on Holy Saturday, a day sacred to Western Christians, sandwiched between Good Friday and Easter Sunday, what else can we discuss but Temple Prostitutes?

For those not well versed on Temple Prostitutes in the Biblical era there are many sources of information from which to learn. Temple Prostitutes were both male and female and they were certainly abundant. The books of Deuteronomy (23:17 – “None of the daughters of Israel may become temple prostitutes neither may anyone of the sons of Israel become a temple prostitute.”), Kings I (14:23, 24 “And they too kept building for themselves high places and sacred pillars and sacred poles upon every high hill and under every luxuriant tree. (24) And even the male temple prostitutes proved to be in the land they acted according to all the detestable things of the nations whom Jehovah had driven out from before the sons of Israel.” 15:12 “According he had the male temple prostitutes pass out of the land and removed all the dungy idols that his forefathers had made.” 22:46 “And the rest of the male temple prostitutes that had been left oven in the days of Asa his father he cleared out from the land.”), and Leviticus (19:29 “Do not profane your daughters by making her a prostitute in order that the land may not commit prostitution and the land actually be filled with loose morals.”) are replete with anecdotes. As much as we would enjoy a thorough discussion of Biblical era Temple Prostitution, the practices and variations, and meanings, we won’t engage. We have modern day Temple Prostitutes to worry about.

Modern day Temple Prostitutes are well known afflictions to Hillary Clinton supporters.

Steve Clemons of the Washington Note discusses the modern day Temple Prostitute:

“There are good friendships between White House media and those they cover inside the White House — but they can’t be FRIENDS in the fullest sense. They are supposed to be rivals, wrestling over stories and the truth that is conveyed through the media to American citizens.

But an unhealthy pattern is developing in this White House — a trend that may very well have been a part of other presidencies as well — but what is happening today needs comment.

Some journalists seem to be putting their self interest above their responsibilities to the public as well as their employers.”

After some stroking of the Obama “communications” operatives, Clemons discovers “an unhealthy pattern is developing”. Clemons is playing dumb of course. “Developing” is the wrong declension. “Cemented” is the appropriate word. Clemons is also inaccurate in calling these creatures “journalists”. They are Temple Prostitutes.

“As Howard Kurtz and Glenn Greenwald have both commented, many White House correspondents and other top tier journalists want to write Obama books.

Anything with “Obama” on it is running at a huge premium in the book publication market.

But the kind of books that sell need “inside access” and this is something that the communications team at the White House doles out minimally, and increasingly, only when favors are part of the arrangement.

What I have learned after discussions over the last several days with several journalists who either have regular access to the White House or are part of the White House press corps is that there is a growing sense that access is traded for positive stories — or perhaps worse, an agreement that things learned will not be reported in the near term.”

They are Temple Prostitutes. Do not call them “journalists”.

“The White House is working hard to secure deals that yield fluffy, feel good commentary about the Obama White House. One American White House reporter used colorful terms to describe the arrangement. The reporter said, “They want ‘blow jobs’ first [in the press sense]. Then you have to be on good behavior for a bit or be willing to deal, and then you get access.”

“Axe” and “Gibbs” know who needs access to get their books pushed forward.

They know who will pay for play — and are taking notes on who has been naughty and nice in their reporting.”

Temple Prostitutes. Call them what they are.

“Edward Luce, Washington Bureau Chief of the Financial Times, who has been one of the few to resist the ‘you scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours’ offers from the White House has found himself in a dust-up with the White House for his recent article co-authored with Daniel Dombey, “US Foreign Policy: Waiting on a Sun King“.

Luce was given access to one senior official for the piece, but because Luce reported that National Security Adviser Jim Jones may be on his way out and that Obama’s national security team lacks a top tier strategic thinker — other than Obama himself perhaps — Luce has been pummeled by the White House who think he violated a quid pro quo deal to do a fluff story in exchange for access.”

Clemons writes some whiny nonsense about how the White House should provide access for the public good not political benefit. But Clemons does not write what he clearly knows to be true. Temple Prostitutes.

Howard Kurtz at least named some of the Temple Prostitutes:

“…Newsweek’s Jonathan Alter, NBC’s Chuck Todd, MSNBC’s Richard Wolffe, The Washington Post’s Bob Woodward and David Maraniss, the New York Times’ Jodi Kantor and two New Yorker writers — editor David Remnick and Washington correspondent Ryan Lizza. Time’s Mark Halperin and New York magazine’s John Heilemann, whose campaign chronicle “Game Change” became a huge bestseller, have just signed a deal with Penguin Press to chronicle the 2012 contest — for an advance reported to be about $5 million.[snip]

A White House official said Michelle Obama is granting no book interviews because it is difficult to pick and choose among authors who are seeking similar material. Left unspoken is that the first lady undoubtedly wants to write her own book when she leaves the White House.”

Greenwald approaches calling them what they are – Temple Prostitutes:

“Those oozing conflicts lead to things like this — a glowing New Yorker profile of Rahm Emanuel so sycophantic it made the skin crawl — followed up by an even more one-sided love letter to Larry Summers, both from the eager, wanna-be White House stenographer/author Ryan Lizza. It’s what causes Newsweek‘s Jonathan Alter to proclaim one day (when Obama favored it) that real health care reform “depends on whether Obama gets approval for a ‘public option’,” only to turn around less than two months later (once Obama said it was unnecessary) and proclaim that the Left is foolishly obsessing on the un-important public option. Eagerness to serve the White House: it’s also what leads the desperate-for-book-access Alter to publicly insist that criticisms of Commander-in-Chief Obama help The Terrorists. And it’s what leads Chuck Todd on a daily basis, in the form of “covering the White House” for NBC, to serve as an amplifying vessel and justifier for whatever the White House happens to be saying at any given moment, from Todd’s arguments against investigations of Bush officials to his disparaging of the public option.”

Greenwald gets dangerously close to Big Pink with this:

“Is it even remotely conceivable that this stable of access-desperate reporters would write negatively about the White House or the President, or conversely, refuse to do their bidding? Look at what Ryan Lizza writes to get the answer. They’re all vying for the lucrative position of unofficial royal court spokesman (which Bob Woodward occupied in the prior administration). How can one possibly purport to be a “watchdog” over the very political officials on whom one’s livelihood and hope for riches depend? This conflict between (a) a need for access and (b) adversarial journalism is already acute enough — perhaps even unavoidable — for those who report on a day-to-day basis on the White House and other officials. But to then purposely compound that conflict by putting yourself in such a dependent and needy position vis-a-vis White House aides (with these “behind-the-scenes” books) proves how inappropriate the word “journalist” is for them. They’re motivated by many things; journalism plainly isn’t one of them.”

They are not “journalists.” They are Temple Prostitutes.

Share

147 thoughts on “Temple Prostitutes

  1. Admin: superb analysis. We suspected who the worst offenders are:

    Newsweek’s Jonathan Alter, NBC’s Chuck Todd, MSNBC’s Richard Wolffe, The Washington Post’s Bob Woodward and David Maraniss, the New York Times’ Jodi Kantor and two New Yorker writers — editor David Remnick and Washington correspondent Ryan Lizza. Time’s Mark Halperin and New York magazine’s John Heilemann, whose campaign chronicle “Game Change” became a huge bestseller, have just signed a deal with Penguin Press to chronicle the 2012 contest — for an advance reported to be about $5 million.[snip

    And the only thing any of them can be sure of when they enter into their Faustian Pact with this White House is if they think they are getting a good deal through their blow job diplomacy, then someone else is getting a better one. In which case, despite their betrayal of their profession, they will still get scooped. These people have no honor.

  2. admin, another great article. Thank you.

    I will admit I have not watched any MSM since 2008 after I saw what they did to Hillary. I do watch Fox News, 5 years ago, Fox was not allowed in my home, now, that is probably the only station I have some faith in.

    The MSM is nothing but an extension of the fraud’s adminisstration. I remember saying the same thing during the Bush years, but I will admit it that was only confined to Fox News. When they hired Tony Snow, I blocked Fox from my home.

    But compared to the nonsense that is going on, when the entire media establishment is essentially whoring for that fraud in the WH, it is no wonder Fox News is beating they all the time and its only getting more of an audience.

    I recently read that CNN and MSNBC have lost close to 50% of their audience, I can believe it, I wouldn’t watch that crap if I was paid to.

  3. “Temple prostitutes,” what a magnificently elegant and descriptive phrase to describe these lapdogs who don’t deserve it. Indian history had many kings and many temple prostitutes dancers and their job was to please the King. In Muslim/Moghal (and other) history these women were accomplished poets and were given excellent education in arts, literature, music, and freedom for intellectual pursuits (an irony because they had to give up their social status and honor to get that) to the envy of regular (read honorable) women. Strange that there are similarities here with the current journalists . With one difference, those temple prostitutes engendered sympathy for their plight, but not these present day willing sellouts.

  4. Excellent article.

    BTW, I have to take issue with something in the Charles Krauthammer article someone posted on the other thread. He criticizes Hillary’s comments about the Falklands (made while she was in Argentina), but all she was doing was reiterating what has been U.S. policy for years. She was not taking the side of the Argentine government.

  5. http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/04/02/democrats.tea.party/

    Some Americans who say they have been sympathetic to Democratic causes in the past — some even voted for Democratic candidates — are angry with President Obama and his party. They say they are now supporting the Tea Party — a movement that champions less government, lower taxes and the defeat of Democrats even though it’s not formally aligned with the Republican Party.

    To be sure, the number of Democrats in the Tea Party movement is small. A recent CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll shows that while 96 percent of Tea Party activists identify themselves as either Republican or Independent, only 4 percent say they are Democrats.[snip]

    A small business owner in Grand Junction, Lewis described herself as a lifelong Democrat and called the president a “phenomenal speaker.” She voted for him because she “believed in what he was saying: change.”

    But, Lewis added, “I should’ve listened a lot closer when he talked about ‘spreading the wealth.’ ”

    Asked how she feels about having voted for the president, Lewis said “I feel lied to, cheated and raped.”

    Lewis criticized the taxpayer-funded bailouts of financial institutions, which began under former President George W. Bush, and the bailout of General Motors and Chrysler.

    These are not the Democrats that I have been brought up with,” Lewis said. However, she said she will continue to be a Democrat.

    “We hear from folks, probably at every rally, who say, ‘I was a Democrat,’ ” Levi Russell, communications director for the Tea Party express tour, said.

  6. BTW, if we thought “Game Changer” was pro-Obama, wait till we see what Halperin and Heilemann’s 2012 book is like. It’ll probably be even worse.

  7. Steve Cohen (D, TN-09) called racist by Democrats, returns the favor to Tea Partiers.

    You know, back in the day, I had a certain sympathy for Democrat Steve Cohen (TN-09): back in 2008 he had been targeted for being a Jew by primary challenger Nikki Tinker, with nary a word of objection made by then Senator and now-President Barack Obama, who Cohen enthusiastically supported. It was obvious, even as early as last year, that this theme would probably be revisited in 2010 by former Memphis Mayor Willie Herenton, if a bit more skillfully. At the time, I was disappointed.

    My reaction now, given that he likes to call us all Klansmen and Nazis?

    (Via Hot Air & Ed Driscoll)

    You go and have yourself a nice, karma-laden primary there, Rep. Cohen. I hope it’s the political version of a knife fight in an alley. Just Blue-on-Blue, and it’s no skin off of my nose who wins.

    Enjoy.

    Moe Lane

  8. Thank you for this article, admin.

    My only point of disagreement; Non-biblical Temple Prostitution was a noble profession

    To call these so-called journalists temple prostitutes is to demean what thousands of years ago was a worthy and important position.

    Can’t we think of something else to compare them to?

    They are vile, worthless, slandering, lying, takiing-up-air-on-the-planet sycophants and they deserve to be eunachized or worse.

  9. The Dimocratic Party is morally bankrupt. It is like a CIRCULAR FIRING SQUAD where everybody calls everybody who questions Mr. Obama whether deomcrat, independent or coNservative a RACIST. This is a bitterly divisive and mindless strategy. It could only have been devised by the depraved Chicago crew and implemented by the depraved Chris Van Hollen as head of the DNCCC.

  10. One of my friends, a lifelong democrat, voted, fundraised for Hillary, he is an AA and left the party in disgust after 2008. He has met Llyod Marcus, the gentleman in that CNN piece, my friend told me Mr. Marcus is one of the most patriotic men he has ever met.

    My friend has been to 3 Tea Party events, and the people were very polite but very firm in their pro-America beliefs. He is absolutely disgusted beyond words at what has now become the socialist-democrat party, as HillBuzz likes to say.

    He changed his registration to Independent last year, the bozos in the media don’t realise b/c of their racist lens, the Tea Party movements is a party of millions upon millions of Independents along will centerist democrats. They may be pro-life, they may be pro-choice, the social issues aren’t as relevant as working for middle class people, fiscal conservative, adhering to the principles this country was founded on. As Hillary used to say, not giving a handout to people, but a hand up so they can be successful.
    This is the Tea Party movement, yes it is a conservative movement, but those are American principles.

    The socialist democrat party is done, I know I will never vote for these people ever again, and I know many many PUMAs who are now Independents who feel that way.

  11. Is there any way to statistics on the number of people who have switched parties or gone independent/unaffiliated?

  12. Is there any way to statistics on the number of people who have switched parties or gone independent/unaffiliated?
    ———————————————–
    Henry, I was wondering the same thing. In fact, I would like to know how many left the democratic party:

    1. after the primary, but before the general election

    2 after the general election, up til now

    Let me see what if anything I can find out.

    Moe Lane or Erickson had something on this a few days ago. Not as specific however as you and I might like.

    It is hard for many dems to go republican. But if they go independent and vote against the dim candidates, that is the best strategy at this point, im my opinion.

  13. “It is hard for many dems to go republican. But if they go independent and vote against the dim candidates, that is the best strategy at this point, im my opinion.”

    I very much agree with this. And I am now beginning to think there are many many more centerist, moderate democrats, Hillary dems, JFK dems than there ever were the radical, wayyyyyyy far left “democrats” in the party as a whole (which is why Hillary received more votes than the fraud in the WH), and this is where PUMAs came from, and they have or already left the now socialist democrat party in pure disgust and become independents.

    Many people like me had never ever voted for a republican before until 2008, but I look at each candidate and frankly at this point, I want balance, I want people in Congress to stop the radical agenda of the fraud which is so hurting America, I will be voting straight repubs for a long while now. (which before 2008, I would have never ever considered and would have laughed at anyone who suggested it)

  14. Henry: here are the statistics posted by Rassmussen. Since the general election, the democratic party has gone from 41.4% to 35.1 in February. March is an outlier because of the temporary health care bounce. That is a net loss of 6.3%!. The Republican percentage has experienced a comparatively minor loss moving from 33.8 to 32.1 which is a net loss of 1.7%. The Independent category has experienced significant growth from 24.7 to 32.9. That is a net increase of 8.2! What that suggests to me is an exodus from the Dimocatic Party to Independents, not Republicans. However, it is reasonable to assume that the same impetus that caused them to exodus the Democratic Party will cause them to vote against Dim candidates if the election were held today.
    ——————————–
    Summary of Party Affiliation
    March 31, 2010
    Republican Democrat
    2010
    Mar 32.9% 36.2% 30.9% ———————————–health care bump
    Feb 32.1% 35.1% 32.9%
    Jan 32.3% 35.4% 32.3% ———————————–year 1 anniversary

    2009
    Dec 34.0% 35.5% 30.6%
    Nov 33.1% 36.0% 30.8%
    Oct 31.9% 37.8% 30.3%
    Sept 32.1% 37.5% 30.3%
    Aug 32.7% 37.3% 30.2%
    July 32.6% 36.8% 29.9%
    June 32.2% 38.9% 28.9%
    May 32.6% 39.4% 28.0%
    Apr 32.6% 38.7% 28.7%
    Mar 33.2% 38.7% 28.0%
    Feb 33.6% 40.8% 25.6%
    Jan 32.6% 40.9% 26.6%

    2008
    Dec 32.8% 41.6% 25.6%
    Nov 33.8% 41.4% 24.7%————————————-election
    Oct 33.3% 40.3% 26.4%
    Sep 33.4% 39.0% 27.6%
    Aug 33.2% 38.9% 28.0%
    Jul 31.6% 39.2% 29.2%
    Jun 31.5% 41.0% 27.5%
    May 31.6% 41.7% 26.6%
    Apr 31.4% 41.4% 27.2%
    Mar 32.1% 41.1% 26.8%
    Feb 31.8% 41.5% 26.7%
    Jan 33.1% 38.7% 28.2%

    (Note 1: for the full comparison see: http://www.redstate.com/moe_lane/2010/04/02/unpacking-the-rasmussen-partisan-numbers/

    (Note 2: for March effect see: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/partisan_trends

  15. PA has voter stats online, but May of 2008 and November of 2009 have the categories for non-affiliated/ other voters/ Libertarian combined in different ways so I couldn’t figure much out. They have county by county stats for party changes but its an excel sheet and I couldn’t make any sense of it.

  16. Amazing that journalists are allowed to do this. Where I worked, we could receive nothing of value from the contractor. Being given special consideration, so they can get tid bits to write their books to me should be considered to be not different than taking an enormously large gift from a contractor.

    What is even more amazing is the prostitution of themselves in order for fame and money. They are not different than many of the people they criticize. It is like watching David Letterman talk about other men who have had affairs. Such words about others should stick in his throat. I hope there is a special place in HeXX for these people.

  17. Big Media is an upper class institution designed to insure that the wealth that gets redistributed is not their wealth but the wealth of the middle class. That is why they installed Obama, Pelosi and Reid. Consider that in light of this article by Daily Howler:
    ——————————–
    Half a loaf of history: Is better than none. Tomorrow, we’ll post the first half of Chapter 4 at our companion site, complete with explanations/excuses.

    The triumph of upper-class messaging: We strongly recommend David Leonhardt’s ECONOMIC SCENE column, which the New York Times has had the good sense to put on today’s front page.

    As he considers the new health care law, Leonhardt reviews the growing inequality within our society over the past thirty years. Most people who follow politics know that inequality has vastly increased. That said, we were struck—and surprised—by this part of Leonhardt’s column:

    LEONHARDT (3/24/10): Finally, the bill will also reduce a different kind of inequality. In the broadest sense, insurance is meant to spread the costs of an individual’s misfortune—illness, death, fire, flood—across society. Since the late 1970s, though, the share of Americans with health insurance has shrunk. As a result, the gap between the economic well-being of the sick and the healthy has been growing, at virtually every level of the income distribution.

    The health reform bill will reverse that trend. By 2019, 95 percent of people are projected to be covered, up from 85 percent today (and about 90 percent in the late 1970s).

    We were very surprised by those figures. Since the late 1970s, we have dropped from 90 percent coverage down to 85 percent? And just imagine! All the storm of the past year will result in getting up to 95 percent—just five points higher than we were when Jimmy Carter was president.

    (Elsewhere in his piece, Leonhardt describes other aspects of our decades-long growth in inequality. A chart describes the fate of the very wealthy—the top 0.01 percent of earners. (One person in every ten thousand.) In the past thirty years, the annual income of these lucky duckies has increased by 384 percent. During that same period, their total effective federal tax rate has declined by more than 11 points—from roughly 42 percent to roughly 31.)

    Why were we surprised by those coverage figures, even after a year of health care pseudo-discussion? As we read Leonhardt’s piece, we thought of the decades-long triumph of upper-class messaging.

    In theory, the past thirty years should have been a golden age of progressive messaging. With vast inequality taking hold, it should have been a progressive messager’s dream—a chance to speak to working people, a chance to explain their plight. But almost every American elite is now composed of the wealthy or their kissing near-cousins. The mainstream press corps is an upper-class institution. So is the “career liberal world.”

    Almost everyone you see in our public discourse is an adjunct to the upper-class. They are part of the upper-class, or they are near-cousin lap-dogs. They go on Hardball and kiss Chris Matthews’ ass—then pretend that they are progressives.

    In fact, this has been a golden age for upper-class messaging. First, the Jack Welchs bought the Chris Matthewses; then, the Matthewses bought the Joan Walshes. They sit on TV, scratch backs, kiss keisters. Regular folk can go burn.

    Again, we’ll recommend that nauseating exchange between Rachel Maddow and Jan Schakowsky. Millions more women will go on Medicaid, where they can get no abortion coverage. But so what? Our Own Rhodes Scholar won’t ask about their situation. What are her concerns? She is afraid that upper-class women may have to write two checks, instead of just one. And she wants to know if her elite political friend was disrespected in some minor manner.

    Trust us: This is what Maddow knows. The know-nothing Wolff, who runs her show, is the son of a Budweiser lawyer.

    We strongly recommend Leonhardt’s column. How did the era he describes permit the triumph of upper-class messaging? Jack bought Chris, then Chris bought Joan. Below, we consider the posturing of two “career liberal journalists” for whom we can’t have huge respect.

    WE KNOW WHAT THEY DID LAST DECADE (permalink): How did we ever get into the current mess? Let’s compare and contrast:

    Ken Gormley’s new book, The Death of American Virtue, describes the way the lunacy took hold of our political culture during the early Clinton years (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 3/23/10).

    By way of contrast:

    In his column in yesterday’s Washington Post, Richard Cohen didn’t seem to recall that the Clinton years even took place. Cohen is often astoundingly clueless, true to his role as one of the mainstream press corps’ designated “liberals.” But yesterday’s piece was clueless in a standard, instructive way.

    Cohen praised the passage of health reform—and mused on the opposition’s fury. The fury of this opposition—and its frequent lunacy—tracks directly from the events described in Gormley’s book, of course. (The lunacy is an obvious part of our history.) But like his older brother Rip, Richard Van Winkle seems to have slept all through that earlier decade. In this passage, he seems to marvel at events which represent a reprise:

    COHEN (3/23/10): This battle was never entirely about health care. The fury of the opposition— not a single Republican vote—is as historically significant as the passage of the legislation itself. There is something cleaving this country, something represented by the election of Barack Obama—the change he either promised or threatened, take your pick—and the hyper-exaggeration of the ideological threat the man represented. Caricatured as a socialist, a radical, a hard-left liberal and even an alien, he is actually the very soul of center-left moderation, cautious to a fault.

    “Not a single Republican vote?” To Cohen, this is “historically significant.” Unfortunately, those who were awake in the Clinton years will recall that Clinton’s initial budget passed with “not a single Republican vote.” The next year, his health plan didn’t get a single Republican vote either; the bill had been crushed so thoroughly by solid GOP opposition that it didn’t even come to a vote. But Cohen somehow seems to think that the fury of the current opposition is new—and is somehow tied to Obama’s election. No one could fail to know where his small brain would go next:

    COHEN: Anger comes from fear. What was once a white Protestant nation is changing hue and religion. It is no accident that racial epithets were yelled at black lawmakers on Saturday in Washington and a kind of venom even gets exclaimed from the floor of the Congress: “You lie!” “Baby killer!” The protesters were protesting health-care legislation. But they feared they were losing their country.

    For the tiny mind of Cohen, the fury must come down to “hue” and race. But what explains the events in the Gormley book? What explains the years when the lunacy took hold of the culture? Cohen forgets that those events took place. He slept through that previous decade.

    In part, we were struck by Cohen’s piece because we had already read Bob Herbert’s column in the New York Times. When it comes to the furious opposition, Herbert focuses even more heavily than Cohen on the least among them. Before he got to the race and gay slurs, he started out with this:

    HERBERT (3/23/10): Some of the images from the run-up to Sunday’s landmark health care vote in the House of Representatives should be seared into the nation’s consciousness. We are so far, in so many ways, from being a class act.

    A group of lowlifes at a Tea Party rally in Columbus, Ohio, last week taunted and humiliated a man who was sitting on the ground with a sign that said he had Parkinson’s disease. The disgusting behavior was captured on a widely circulated videotape. One of the Tea Party protesters leaned over the man and sneered: ”If you’re looking for a handout, you’re in the wrong end of town.”

    Another threw money at the man, first one bill and then another, and said contemptuously, ”I’ll pay for this guy. Here you go. Start a pot.”

    Herbert has thoroughly taken the bait. As a nation, “we are so far, in so many ways, from being a class act,” he says. His first piece of evidence? The fact that “a group of lowlifes” behaved in the way he described. And by the way:

    When Herbert says “a group of” lowlifes, the gentleman really means: “two.” (You might call it Classic Screeching Pseudo-Liberalism. Two people behave like fallen souls, and it shows that we suck as a nation.)

    The two people in question behaved very badly. (Dylan once called them “poor immigrants.”) So did the people Herbert described as he continued, those “opponents of the health care legislation” who “shouted racial slurs” at three congressmen and“taunted” Barney Frank “because he’s gay.” This conduct sent Herbert off on a tear about the Republican Party.

    In our view, what he says about the GOP is overstated, but largely true. That said, there’s a reason why we don’t respect Herbert a lot when he goes off on such tears:

    HERBERT: For decades the G.O.P. has been the party of fear, ignorance and divisiveness. All you have to do is look around to see what it has done to the country. The greatest economic inequality since the Gilded Age was followed by a near-total collapse of the overall economy. As a country, we have a monumental mess on our hands and still the Republicans have nothing to offer in the way of a remedy except more tax cuts for the rich.

    This is the party of trickle down and weapons of mass destruction, the party of birthers and death-panel lunatics. This is the party that genuflects at the altar of right-wing talk radio, with its insane, nauseating, nonstop commitment to hatred and bigotry.

    Glenn Beck of Fox News has called President Obama a ”racist” and asserted that he ”has exposed himself as a guy, over and over and over again, who has a deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture.”

    Mike Huckabee, a former Republican presidential candidate, has said of Mr. Obama’s economic policies: ”Lenin and Stalin would love this stuff.”

    The G.O.P. poisons the political atmosphere and then has the gall to complain about an absence of bipartisanship.

    The toxic clouds that are the inevitable result of the fear and the bitter conflicts so relentlessly stoked by the Republican Party—think blacks against whites, gays versus straights, and a whole range of folks against immigrants—tend to obscure the tremendous damage that the party’s policies have inflicted on the country.

    We’d say that is overstated, but largely true. But we’ll admit it: We tend to feel contempt for Herbert when we see him ranting so grandly—when he tells us that we have to “rise up against this kind of garbage, to fight it aggressively wherever it appears.” (Would we have time to do anything else?)

    Why do we feel contempt for this man? We know what he did last decade! In the last decade, the decade of Gormley, he gulped every bit of the lunacy’s Kool-Aid. He drank all the GOP’s poisons down, and then he swilled them back out.

    Today, Bob Herbert shouts and yells pretty much like a big fracking nut (Confront it everywhere!) Quite correctly, he shouts and yells about the “tremendous damage” the lunacy has created. But we don’t have much respect for Herbert. You see, he has never gotten around to explaining why he helped the lunacy in the past decade. And like Joan Walsh, he continues to lick the boots of Chris Matthews, who did more to cement the lunacy’s hold than any living person.

    Herbert gulped the GOP Kool-Aid, first about Clinton, then about Gore. Good God! After the first Bush-Gore debate, he insisted that Bush had tried his best to tell the truth; he complained about the fact that Gore had sighed when Bush kept peddling horse-shit! And Cohen wasn’t far behind in his love for that GOP Kool-Aid. Today, Cohen can’t even remember that decade. But we can recall what he did.

    “Tremendous damage inflicted on the country?” Thanks to these two losermen, yes. Today, one rants and the other muses. But we can recall what they did.

  18. Antonio Gramsci 1916

    Newspapers and the Workers

    Source: Avanti! (Piedmont Edition) December 22, 1916;
    Translated: by Mitchell Abidor;
    CopyLeft: Creative Commons (Attribute & ShareAlike) marxists.org 2008.

    These are the days of subscription campaigns. The editors and administrators of bourgeois newspapers tidy up their display windows, paint some varnish on their shop signs and appeal for the attention of the passer-by (that is, the readers) to their wares. Their wares are newspapers of four or six pages that go out every day or evening in order to inject in the mind of the reader ways of feeling and judging the facts of current politics appropriate for the producers and sellers of the press.

    We would like to discuss, with the workers especially, the importance and seriousness of this apparently innocent act, which consists in choosing the newspaper you subscribe to. It is a choice full of snares and dangers which must be made consciously, applying criteria and after mature reflection.

    Above all, the worker must resolutely reject any solidarity with a bourgeois newspaper. And he must always, always, always remember that the bourgeois newspaper (whatever its hue) is an instrument of struggle motivated by ideas and interests that are contrary to his. Everything that is published is influenced by one idea: that of serving the dominant class, and which is ineluctably translated into a fact: that of combating the laboring class. And in fact, from the first to the last line the bourgeois newspaper smells of and reveals this preoccupation.

    But the beautiful – that is the ugly – thing is this: that instead of asking for money from the bourgeois class to support it in its pitiless work in its favor, the bourgeois newspapers manage to be paid by…the same laboring classes that they always combat. And the laboring class pays; punctually, generously.

    Hundreds of thousands of workers regularly and daily give their pennies to the bourgeois newspapers, thus assisting in creating their power. Why? If you were to ask this of the first worker you were to see on the tram or the street with a bourgeois paper spread before him you would hear: “Because I need to hear about what happening.” And it would never enter his head that the news and the ingredients with which it is cooked are exposed with an art that guides his ideas and influences his spirit in a given direction. And yet he knows that this newspaper is opportunist, and that one is for the rich, that the third, the fourth, the fifth is tied to political groups with interests diametrically opposed to his.

    And so every day this same worker is able to personally see that the bourgeois newspapers tell even the simplest of facts in a way that favors the bourgeois class and damns the working class and its politics. Has a strike broken out? The workers are always wrong as far as the bourgeois newspapers are concerned. Is there a demonstration? The demonstrators are always wrong, solely because they are workers they are always hotheads, rioters, hoodlums. The government passes a law? It’s always good, useful and just, even if it’s…not. And if there’s an electoral, political or administrative struggle? The best programs and candidates are always those of the bourgeois parties.

    And we’re aren’t even talking about all the facts that the bourgeois newspapers either keep quiet about, or travesty, or falsify in order to mislead, delude or maintain in ignorance the laboring public. Despite this, the culpable acquiescence of the worker to the bourgeois newspapers is limitless. We have to react against this and recall the worker to the correct evaluation of reality. We have to say and repeat that the pennies tossed there distractedly into the hands of the newsboy are projectiles granted to a bourgeois newspaper, which will hurl it, at the opportune moment, against the working masses.

    If the workers were to be persuaded of this most elementary of truths they would learn to boycott the bourgeois press with the same unity and discipline that the bourgeoisie boycott the newspapers of the workers, that is, the Socialist press. Don’t give financial assistance to the bourgeois press, which is your adversary. This is what should be our battle cry in this moment that is characterized by the subscription campaigns of all the bourgeois newspapers. Boycott them, boycott them, boycott them!

  19. In case it is not obvious, the reason I posted the above the article by Somersby in The Daily Howler and the ancient article by Italian Communist Antonio Gramsci (a greater than Alinsky) in The Prison Notebooks is because they support Admin’s theme that the scions of Big Media are Temple Prostitutes and why they do it. Compare Gramsci’s comment about the bourgeois newspapers of his day, and the Brian Williams’s (a multi millionaire) and Chris Matthews of today and you will find that the motives and the tactics are identical. For example:

    1. both tell the simplest of facts in a way that favors the upper class.

    2. both condemn the laboring class, i.e. tea parties as hotheads, hoodlums (and the latest variant racists).

    3. both suppress contrary facts

    4. both falsify in order to mislead delude, and maintain ignorance the middle class.

    5. both, therefore, should be boycotted by the middle class.–MSNBC, CNN, NBC, ABC, NYT, WASHPO for starters

  20. One more shot across the bow, and after that I will retire to steerage. But isn’t it grand how he gives these big media four flushers all the respect they deserve–which is to say no respect whatsoever.
    —————————————————————————-
    CHILDREN OF THE RICH AND FATUOUS AND THEIR PERUSALS OF DEEMING! Anderson Cooper played the fool, with back-up from Lady Stoddard: // link // print // previous // next //

    WEDNESDAY, MARCH 17, 2010

    Chapter 4 sets the stage for those 2000 primaries. In the end, we didn’t like the way we had told the story, although it had been in the can for years. At the moment, we’re revising our story-telling. History delayed is history denied. But when dealing with matters so many have disappeared, the story must be told well.

    Children of the rich and fatuous and their perusals of deeming (permalink): Last evening, Gloria Vanderbilt’s best baby boy opened his program with health reform. More precisely, he opened his eponymous program (plus a number) with this fierce presentation:

    COOPER (3/16/10): Tonight: Whatever you think of the health reform bill, are desperate Democrats abandoning transparency to pass it? Are they trying to avoid accountability? Republicans say yes. And to point—and they point to a possible maneuver the Democrats may use. We are “Keeping Them Honest” tonight.

    It sounded important! And deeply principled! And so, after teasing the things he really loves (see below), Anderson Cooper introduced his segment about health reform. As always, Gloria Vanderbilt’s best baby boy was letting us know he was “Keeping Them Honest.” Unfortunately, though, this very best boy was also in a pickle!

    You see, Nancy Pelosi had proposed something that was “anything but simple!” And let’s face it. If it isn’t gong-show simple, Gloria’s boy don’t get it:

    COOPER: First up, though, “Keeping Them Honest”—tonight, the Democrats. Five more of them in the House today saying they plan to vote against the Senate health bill. Now, that means opponents are only 11 votes shy, just 11, from defeating in its entirety the defining item on the president’s agenda.

    For weeks now, President Obama has been saying, we need to know where congresspeople stand on health care, right? And he has been calling for a simple up-or-down vote. You either support it, or you don’t.

    But, today, we got word that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is considering a vote that is anything but simple. In fact, it’s a way of voting for or against something without actually voting for or against it. So why would they do this?

    Well, Ed Henry tonight is “Keeping Them Honest.”

    What followed was a roughly seven-minute segment about Pelosi’s proposal. In Henry’s words, Pelosi may perhaps “use a maneuver known as ‘deeming,’ where the House passes a rule to approve fixes to the Senate health bill, and deems the underlying Senate bill has already become law, without House members actually having to vote on it.”

    “Why would they do this?” Cooper had asked. In all candor, it isn’t all that hard to explain. Here’s a stab at the puzzling matter:

    Explanation: Nobody in the House wants the Senate bill to pass, or become law, without a set of relatively minor changes. (This includes getting rid of the so-called “Cornhusker kickback,” to cite one high-profile example. Cooper has probably heard of it.) The House could pass the Senate bill, then pass a second bill which includes those changes to the bill. But in passing the bill in the manner proposed, the House is in effect passing the Senate bill with the changes. In effect, they are doing all this in one step, instead of doing it in two. They are passing the Senate bill after making a set of changes.

    Repeat: They wouldn’t be passing the Senate bill. They would be passing the Senate bill after making some changes. But alas! To Gloria Vanderbilt’s dumbest boy, this is just too hard to explain. It’s “anything but simple,” he instantly groused. “So why would they do this?”

    Did you doubt that you live in an idiocracy? If you ever doubted that notion, we hope you got a chance to watch Gloria’s fellow last night.

    Gloria Vanderbilt’s best boy devoted roughly seven minutes to this (very important) topic, ending his segment at 10:08 Eastern. Ed Henry had stammered his way through an exposition, then David Gergen had come on to thunder his opinion about the proposed procedure. (He disapproves.) The transcript of the segment is here; you can read it, to see if viewers got anything like a clear explanation of what is involved in this proposed action. (Or to see if viewers were ever told what would happen after such a vote by the House.) And then, at last, at 10:08, Gloria Vanderbilt’s fatuous boy was free to go where he truly wanted.

    Result? He discussed Tiger Woods and his sexy-time troubles from roughly 10:10 until 10:25, his furrowed brow plainly letting us know that this is something that really matters. And then, at 10:25, he looked dumbly into the camera and dumbly told us this:

    COOPER: We’re going to have more on Tiger— We’re going to have more on Tiger Woods and his problems and how he’s dealing with them, including a look at his religion, Buddhism. If you’re interested, you can go for that to AC360.com.

    Still ahead, though, tonight in this hour: New developments in the case of “the Dating Game killer.” This guy is so creepy…

    At 25 minutes after the hour, Gloria’s boy was through with “Tiger Woods and his problems” (unless you went on-line). He was ready to move ahead to his next topic—to lurid tales of “the Dating Game killer.”

    “This guy is so creepy,” he said. His viewers still didn’t have the first fracking idea what “deeming” is all about.

    Since you asked: Where would Cooper go after discussing the creepy killer? Of course! At 10:25, this was his fuller tease:

    COOPER: Still ahead, though, tonight in this hour: new developments in the case of “the Dating Game killer.” This guy is so creepy. He is the former game show contestant convicted of killing four women and a 12-year-old girl back in the 70s. The question is, is he responsible for more murders? Clues may be in more than 100 photos found in his storage facility. Police are looking at them. They want you to see the pictures. We will show them to you ahead.

    And the pope under pressure—what did he know about sex abuse that happened when he was an archbishop in Germany? When did he know it, and why isn’t he talking? “Crime & Punishment” and the Catholic—coming up.

    Of course! Along with the Dating Game killer, it would be “the pope under pressure.” Just like Tiger and the killer, the pope has sex problems too!

    Simple story: If you didn’t know you live in an idiocracy, Cooper was happy to show you last night, on his eponymous hour-long gong-show, which has gone massively tabloid. (Sorry, but that has been the framework even for the bulk of his Haiti coverage, which he continues even today, if he can bring on Sean Penn.) Meanwhile, on The O’Reilly Factor, the discussions of deeming may have been even dumber. Speaking in plummy pleasing tones, A. B. Stoddard condescended to offer this “explanation” of the procedure. Pathetically, this is the lady’s discussion of “deeming” (or “deem-and-pass”) right from the top:

    O’REILLY (3/16/10): I don’t believe [deeming] is going to happen, Carl. The outcry in this country would be so enormous. The anger, so intense, that would pretty much doom the Obama administration. A.B., do you agree with that?

    STODDARD: I do think that you’re beginning to get a sense with each passing critique of the kind of gimmicks the Democrats are depending on. First, it was reconciliation. Now it’s deem-and-pass. With each one, they’re losing more and more steam.

    O’REILLY: Yeah, I mean—

    STODDARD: And they’re in some kind of political quicksand over this. I—

    O’REILLY: Just put yourself in the shoes of the—

    STODDARD: Even House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer today said, you know, the American people won’t be— Real Americans will not be able to distinguish the difference between the two. What is deem-and-pass—

    O’REILLY: Are you kidding me?

    STODDARD: —versus what is supporting the Senate bill?

    O’REILLY: Are you kidding me with cable news and talk radio? Are you kidding me? Look—

    STODDARD: I don’t think people—no, no, but—

    O’REILLY: You can’t. Put yourself in President Obama’s bill.

    STODDARD: I think they’re the same. I think, Bill, I think they’re the same! I think you deem it, you’re supporting the bill.

    Is it possible to be dumber than that? Stoddard said “deem-and-pass” is the same as supporting the Senate bill. But alas! Throughout this moronic Factor segment, no one explained that the House would in fact be passing an amended Senate bill. (“Amended” means “changed, not the same.”) Stoddard failed to explain that utterly basic point. Neither did Mr. O or or his other guest, Carl Cameron, except in a fast, glancing manner. In fact, Mr. O did three segments on this topic last night. For our money, no one ever really explained that the House wouldn’t be passing the Senate bill—they’d be passing an amended version of same. This was so hard and so confusing, it even escaped “MONICA CROWLEY, PH.D.,” as the lady is clownishly chyroned in her weekly segment. (A cruel person could say that this is another way Fox News has been semi-aped by MSNBC. And no, we won’t explain.)

    With her delectably plummy tones, Stoddard reflected her upper-class, napkin-ironing background (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 12/5/07). Plummy vocalizations aside, last night’s hapless presentations reflected a key point: More and more, you don’t have a “press corps” at all. In its place, you have a mahoganied club filled with the rich and fatuous—and their underperforming offspring. Addled legacies take to the air, with furrowed brows and plummy tones. Did you doubt that you live in an idiocracy? Gloria’s dearest—and Lady Stoddard—helped disabuse you last night.

    Gloria’s legacy: Cooper has now done segments on “the Dating Game killer” in three of his last six programs (March 9, March 12, March 16). Just a question: “Shocking photos” to the side, is this a real national news story? As best we can tell from a Nexis search, the New York Times hasn’t mentioned this case in the past week. Neither has the Washington Post or the Washington Times. Even the Los Angeles Times, where the story is local, only mentioned the matter once, on March 10. Just click here.

  21. The reason all this is relevant is because it points to the central truth about the 2008 campaign. The reason big media savaged Hillary and then Sarah was not sexism. Sexism was most definitely a tool but it was not the motive. The motive was to knock out two candidates who happened to be women, and were willing to take on the elites. The elites want sychopants like Pelosi and Reid who will bow and scrape the them.

  22. WBBOEI,
    I tend to agree. Same things were done to Bill and Gore.

    Is it more than coincidence that the people willing to take on the elites had a high percent of women (Hillary and Sarah)? Do women have less to lose?

  23. I would like to know how many left the democratic party:

    1. after the primary, but before the general election

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

    I rememer something on this. There was some poll or something in summer 2008 that said registered Dems had gone down from a peak in early 2008. I remember posting something like “Obama does a voter registration drive — and Dems lose”.

  24. For what it’s worth:
    I turned from life-long Democrat to Unaffiliated mid-week of the Denver 2008 convention. As a resident of Pennsylvania, I’ve recently switched back to Democrat so that I can vote against Democrat Arlen Specter in the May 19th primary. After the primary, I’ll re-register as Unaffiliated.

  25. I am still a registered dem, but not for long. As a dem, I had opportunity to be polled and express my total disapproval of O and his enablers. However, we will probably have two repug primaries here with former dem / inde candidates running for governor and county executive. I will drop my dem registration in order to vote in the repug primary. Then I will remain independent until one of the two parties changes to something I can endorse.

  26. Great post admin. We always knew the White House press corp were a bunch of fluffers. It’s a wonder Helen Thomas can stomach sitting next to any of them.

    In the words of my favorite klown, “They need to get off their knees and not talk with their mouths full.”

  27. Matthews Is A Puppet. He does not even listen to himself. The reason is he has a puppet master and it is the same one–or group who pulls the strings on Obama. That is why from the primary campaign up to now there is no daylight between them. It is like feeding sugar pellets to the mice, or in Matthews case, the big loud obnoxious albino rat who hates America.
    ——————————————————-
    (Via The Corner) Indeed, Mr. Barone: we knew that this was coming. Talking head Chris Matthews was instructed to take umbrage at Rush Limbaugh’s use of the term ‘regime’ to refer to this administration:

    “…The use of the word ‘regime’ in American political parlance is unacceptable, and someone should tell the walrus [Limbaugh] to stop using it.”

    Matthews didn’t stop there. “I never heard the word ‘regime,’ before, have you?” he said to NBC’s Chuck Todd. “I don’t even think Joe McCarthy ever called this government a ‘regime.’”

    [snip of numerous examples of the use of the phrase ‘Bush regime’ in news reporting]

    Finally — you knew this was coming — on June 14, 2002, Chris Matthews himself introduced a panel discussion about a letter signed by many prominent leftists condemning the Bush administration’s conduct of the war on terror. “Let’s go to the Reverend Al Sharpton,” Matthews said. “Reverend Sharpton, what do you make of this letter and this panoply of the left condemning the Bush regime?”

    Oops. Perhaps Joe McCarthy never called the U.S. government a regime, but Chris Matthews did. And a lot of other people did, too. So now we are supposed to believe him when he expresses disgust at Rush Limbaugh doing the same?

    Naturally, it is not the fault of the talking head that it does not recall being fed lines to repeat about the ‘Bush regime.’ It is not the job of the talking head to remember what it is given to read; its job is to instead repeat the lines that real people have written, and to do so in a reasonably engaging and interesting manner. The talking head is not expected to think for itself, and is in fact discouraged from doing so. Thinking may interfere with its purpose, the complexities of which are likewise not the talking head’s concern.

    That being said, there are a lot of people out there who apparently can’t get it through their skulls that Western civilization has finally licked the non scriptus, non est* problem. It’s all written down now, and usually in an easily-accessible location; in fact, it’s increasingly all being filmed now. Couple that with this culture’s taboo against hypocrisy, and you get awkward situations like this. The only solution is to not assume that things said years and years ago have faded away into the electronic aether, and plan accordingly.

    Moe Lane

    *Freely translated, it means “If there’s no paper trail, it didn’t happen.” This cultural rule of thumb was created before the invention of the printing press, cheap paper, photographic film, electric telephone, electronic data storage, and distributed computer networks; but the (slightly cynical) assumptions remain.

  28. Obama Just Don’t Know When to Shut Up

    By Larry Johnson on April 3, 2010 at 10:13 PM in Current Affairs
    If the first rule of crisis management is, “If you’re in a hole stop digging,” then we may be seeing the corollary for politics–i.e., when you pass an unpopular policy stop talking about it.

    No matter how much lipstick Obama smears on his turd of a healthcare plan, most people don’t want to kiss it or embrace it. Dump it? Oh yeah.

    So what does Barack “Magic Man” Obama do?

    He keeps telling folks what a swell plan it is, except he doesn’t know when to stop flapping his gums.

    According to the Washington Post (this is shocking):

    Even by President Obama’s loquacious standards, an answer he gave here on health care Friday was a doozy.

    Toward the end of a question-and-answer session with workers at an advanced battery technology manufacturer, a woman named Doris stood to ask the president whether it was a “wise decision to add more taxes to us with the health care” package.

    “We are overtaxed as it is,” Doris said bluntly.

    Obama started out feisty. “Well, let’s talk about that, because this is an area where there’s been just a whole lot of misinformation, and I’m going to have to work hard over the next several months to clean up a lot of the misapprehensions that people have,” the president said.

    He then spent the next 17 minutes and 12 seconds lulling the crowd into a daze. His discursive answer — more than 2,500 words long — wandered from topic to topic, including commentary on the deficit, pay-as-you-go rules passed by Congress, Congressional Budget Office reports on Medicare waste, COBRA coverage, the Recovery Act and Federal Medical Assistance Percentages (he referred to this last item by its inside-the-Beltway name, “F-Map”). He talked about the notion of eliminating foreign aid (not worth it, he said). He invoked Warren Buffett, earmarks and the payroll tax that funds Medicare (referring to it, in fluent Washington lingo, as “FICA”).

    Keep talking Barack, keep talking. You are building support alright, but it is support for those who want to repeal your disaster.

    That’s not my opinion, rather that appears to be the opinion of a growing number of Americans. Scott Rasmussen reports:

    Voters now trust Republicans more than Democrats on nine out of 10 key issues regularly tracked by Rasmussen Reports, but the gap between the two parties has grown narrower on several of them.

    Following the passage of the health care bill, 53% now say they trust Republicans on the issue of health care. Thirty-seven percent (37%) place their trust in Democrats. A month earlier, the two parties were essentially even on the health care issue.

    These results are consistent with the finding that 54% of voters want the health care bill repealed. Rasmussen Reports is tracking support for repeal on a weekly basis. Still, health care ranks just number five among voters on the list of 10 important issues. The economy remains the top issue of voter concern as it has been for over years.

    On the economy, Republicans are trusted more by 49% while Democrats are preferred by 37%. That’s a big improvement for the GOP following a five-point advantage last month. More voters who make under $20,000 annually trust Democrats on this issue, but voters who earn more than that favor Republicans.

    This looks increasingly like Barack Obama’s MISSION ACCOMPLISHED moment. Touting a victory that most reject is the kind of foolish, stubborness that George Bush practiced. Looks like Barack, as Reverend Amy noted in an earlier piece, wants to be like George.

  29. Happy Easter. Yes, there can be joy derived from extremely sad circumstances.

    Anyway, I find it sad that a vibrant press has run away from it’s responsibilities in our country. I don’t watch much of the lamestream media anymore. I actually prefer to watch the BBC over most of the American news media, but I’ll watch Fox news
    every now and then. Most of my news comes from the web.
    I wonder if the news media will ever change in this country? I don’t have much faith that it will.

    Also, I’m one of the Democrats who will change party affiliation to the Republican party. I haven’t gotten the paperwork done yet. I’ll stay with them for now. I don’t feel as if I’m betraying my politics much, and I’ve come to appreciate the philosophy lf smaller government. It wasn’t that many years ago that the government collected approximately $70k from me in capital gains taxes due to some good choices that I made in stock picks. That killed me, and I have never recovered from it. It was an
    eye opener. Paying the very high property taxes in NJ at the time was adding insult to injury. Money grubbing, no good scumbags.

  30. Carol
    I am still a registered dem, but not for long. As a dem, I had opportunity to be polled and express my total disapproval of O and his enablers.

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

    Good point. “And even ___% of registered Democrats disapprove of Obama, want a new nominee in 2012, etc” is a headline worth being polled for.

    Especially since we’d vote Dem again if Hillary is the nominee in 2012!

  31. This is the kind of thing we saw in the primary– Obama supporters made telephone threats against people who criticized Obama. I still have the recording. Then in the general election they set fire to a house in Oregon, and the publisher of a militant leftist pro-Obama newspaper in Seattle (The Stranger) published the home addresses of people who had McCain Palin signs on their front lawns as targets for retribution. Barack Obama Thugs, aka bots then trashed the yards of some of those residences. And now this (infra.)

    I doubt very much that we have seen the last of it. People like Bill Mahr incite this kind of behavior, and Obama’s Deputy Chief of Staff Messina has directed such violent acts against the Tea Party in St. Louis. I am not one who worries and says I hope this will not happen because I know it will happen during the Congressional elections. The far left survives on hate. With the Obama Justice Department in charge they will decline to prosecute, like they did to the voter intimidation by gun wielding Black Panthers supporting Obama in Philadelphia.

    Obviously, the best answer is to avoid those situations, if you can. But if you cannot avoid them then it behooves us to prepare to defend ourselves. I believe the race baiting by the Obama bots and the DNC we see now is but a shadow of things to come. The man is a tyrant, and he will resort to whatever means he needs to to cheat his way to victory.

    Posted by Moe Lane (Profile)
    Sunday, April 4th at 2:35PM EDT
    36 Comments

    Read this fast, because Greenpeace will figure out pretty quickly how thoroughly they’ve stepped in it.

    If you’re one of those who have spent their lives undermining progressive climate legislation, bankrolling junk science, fueling spurious debates around false solutions, and cattle-prodding democratically-elected governments into submission, then hear this:

    We know who you are. We know where you live. We know where you work.

    And we be many, but you be few.

    Via small dead animals and The Corner. Two free hints, Greenpeacers:

    You folks are a luxury group. Western civilization keeps you around because we like guilt and you provided some at a price we felt like paying. Guess what? We’re not feeling all that rich, these days.

    Piously claiming that you don’t advocate violence right after you’ve explicitly told us awful eco-traitors “We know where you live” won’t help you with the eventual criminal conspiracy charges.

    Who wants a pool on the link getting sanitized? I’m going to say 10:30 AM local time Monday.

  32. Good point. “And even ___% of registered Democrats disapprove of Obama, want a new nominee in 2012, etc” is a headline worth being polled for.

    Especially since we’d vote Dem again if Hillary is the nominee in 2012!
    ————————–
    Seems like the last poll I saw said 20% of the people who identify themselves as Democrats want a different candidate.

    You want to know what my biggest worry is? I worry that Morris is right and the Republicans sweep both houses. Then Obama moves to the middle, like Bill Clinton did. Then people forget who he is and repeat their 2008 mistake in 2012. Then he gets a second term and finishes his agenda to destroy the country. Could the American People be that stupid? If past is prologue then yes. What they need to say is this: Fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me.

  33. If you’re one of those who have spent their lives undermining progressive climate legislation, bankrolling junk science, fueling spurious debates around false solutions, and cattle-prodding democratically-elected governments into submission, then hear this:

    We know who you are. We know where you live. We know where you work.

    And we be many, but you be few.

    Via small dead animals and The Corner. Two free hints, Greenpeacers:
    ———————————————-
    From 1890 and 1920 millions of Italians moved to the United States. They moved to the lower east side of Manhattan, and then up town to white Harlem, the other boroughs and later to Brownsville East New York. Most of them were loyal patriotic Americans. They are my favorite people in the world. But a criminal element came in too. Initially, it preyed on its own people but with Prohibition it expanded its horizons to society at large, as did Joe Kennedy. We always think of the Mafia in this context, but in fact there were two other organizations of similar repute. One was the Camorra (which is still in existence in Massachusetts). The other was The Black Hand. The kind of anonymous threat you see above is right out of the play book of The Black Hand, and it has nothing to do with race.

    The tactics you see above were typical of The Black Hand.

  34. Fallout: Electoral Impact of US-Israeli Tensions
    By David Paul Kuhn

    US-Israeli tensions are having subtle ripple effects on the electorate. Polls show, however, that President Obama retains leeway with Jewish voters, like the public overall, to reasonably pressure Israel.

    US Jewish support for Obama remains strong. American Jews also back his position on several key Israeli policies. A large majority oppose settlement expansion, for example. But on other issues, like pressuring Israel to take the first steps toward a peace agreement, American Jews are deeply ambivalent. And this is why Obama’s Israeli policy is generally less popular with Jews than the president himself.

    Receive news alerts
    Sign Up
    David Paul Kuhn RealClearPolitics
    Jewish voters BENJAMIN NETANYAHU
    Barack Obama Israel
    [+] More

    Obama could cross a red line that severely risked Israel’s security. That would undercut his Jewish backing. But no modern president has broadly shifted away from the US-Israeli alliance. And there is no indication Obama would veer widely from that precedent. Such a move would, in political terms, likely risk more than his Jewish support.

    In February, for the first time in almost two decades, more than six in 10 Americans told the Gallup poll that they are more sympathetic to the Israelis than Palestinians.

    Recent events have, however, chipped away at that support. Fifty-eight percent of voters recently described Israel as an ally. Hardly low. It’s the same share of Americans who view Japan as an ally. But the March result on views of Israel is a dozen percentage points below what the Rasmussen poll found last August.

    The backdrop is chilling relations. The latest drama began with Vice President Joe Biden’s visit to Israel in early March. The trip soured after Israel announced plans to build 1,600 homes in an East Jerusalem settlement. Obama’s subsequent meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu failed to improve matters. The British Telegraph reported: “Benjamin Netanyahu was left to stew in a White House meeting room for over an hour after President Barack Obama abruptly walked out of tense talks…”

    Less discussed stateside, but heard loudly in Israel, was General David Petraeus mid-March congressional testimony describing Israel as a strategic burden – no top US official has used those terms in recent memory.

    This tension, inevitably, raises the question of whether Obama’s Jewish support is vulnerable. Jews are an influential pillar of the Democratic base and a key fundraising constituency Republicans have long courted, though to little avail.

    Jews approval of Obama, 62 percent in the recent Gerstein-Agne poll, is at least a dozen points above the president’s overall approval rating. Obama has fallen 11 points with Jews since March 2009. But the Jewish decline is only a few points above his decline with Hispanics and still roughly half Obama’s decline with the general public.

    The Gerstein-Agne poll tellingly reveals that only 44 percent of US Jews have a favorable opinion of Netanyahu, whose conservative views are to the right of most American Jews. And when Jews were asked whether they approved of the strong US criticism following the Biden-settlement incident, 55 percent said “yes.”

    Nevertheless, there are signs of strain between Jews and Obama. Consider the 45 percent who disapproved of the US criticism. Last year, the same poll found that American Jews oppose Israeli settlement expansion by a 60 to 40 percent margin. This means at least a fifth of Jews who voted for Obama maintain policy differences with him on Israel.

    Pollster Mark Mehlman, an expert on the Jewish vote, believes Obama faces some “difficulty” with US Jews today. “How much difficulty and how long,” he added, “it depends on what happens. And ultimately, President Obama will face a Republican whose views on a range of issues will likely to be anathema to most American Jews.”

    Obama won 78 percent of Jews in 2008, more than John Kerry before him. In fact, despite a string of stories hinting otherwise, Obama was never really at risk of losing Jews in 2008. No Republican has won Jews since 1920 (and that was due to a third-party candidate). Only blacks are a more loyal bloc of the Democratic Party.

    “The segment of the American Jewish community that votes most on Israel and is really hawkish has long voted Republican,” said Kenneth Wald, a University of Florida political scientist who specializes in the Jewish vote.

    Few American Jews actually vote on the Israeli issue. The economy is the top issue for 55 percent of Jews today. Only 10 percent of American Jews said Israel, according to the Gerstein-Agne poll, ranking Israel the sixth most important issue along with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    Most US Jews don’t view Israel as a top issue partly because of America’s strong support, despite periodic flare-ups, of the Jewish state. Western Europe tells another story. In recent decades, the rise of considerable anti-Israeli sentiment on the European left pushed many Jews rightward. In 2001, to win English Jews back to the liberal Labor Party, a Labor advocate told a reporter that British Prime Minister Tony Blair “has attacked the anti-Israelism that had existed in the Labor Party.” But this “anti-Israelism” is far less prevalent stateside.

    So Obama attempts to thread the needle: pressure Israel for diplomatic gain without risking significant domestic political loss. Obama is gambling that the ends might justify the means. But he is also unlikely to dramatically escalate those means and risk too much political cost. After all, like so many before him, the ends will likely escape this president as well.

    David Paul Kuhn is the Chief Political Correspondent for RealClearPolitics and the author of The Neglected Voter: White Men and the Democratic Dilemma. He can be reached at david@realclearpolitics.com and his writing followed via RSS.

  35. This does not surprise me one bit. It only confirms it.

    nearly 40% of Tea Party members are either registered dems or Independents

    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/04/04/40-tea-partiers-are-dems-and-independents-how-will-media-report-news

    Admin, you recently had a post that VA’s Bob McDonald was able to pull together the Reagan and/or FDR coaliation, centerist dems/independents, conservative dems/independents, moderate dems/independents, repubs, conservatives.

    The Socialist democrat party has now destroyed it.

  36. Admin: the original words to Easter Parade melody. It never sold, so Berlin put it in a drawer for fifteen years, and adopted new lyics. The refrain is where you can see it.
    ——————————————

    [1st verse:]
    Little girlie, you look sad
    I’m afraid you’re feeling bad
    Because he’s leaving
    But stop your grieving, little girl
    He don’t want you to feel blue
    For it’s not the thing to do
    It will soon be over
    Then he’ll come marching back to you

    [Refrain:]
    Smile and show your dimple
    You’ll find it’s very simple
    You can think of something comical
    In a very little while
    Chase away the wrinkle
    Sprinkle just a twinkle
    Light your face up
    Just brace up and smile

    [2nd verse:]
    Little girlie, don’t you know
    That your pearly teeth will show
    If you start smiling
    So keep on smiling, little girl
    You can cut your cares in half
    If you only try to laugh
    Look into my cam’ra
    I’m goin’ to take your photograph

  37. http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-04-03/death-of-the-white-house-press-corps/full/

    For as long as there has been a White House, a healthy tension has existed between the president, who seeks to convince the citizenry with calibrated messages and images, and the middlemen of the Fourth Estate, who traditionally convey, interpret, rebut, deride, and otherwise filter those messages and images. Every so often, the president takes his revenge, as Obama did on Friday, mocking skeptical reporters who have been questioning the positive impact of health-care reform. “Can you imagine if some of these reporters were working on a farm and you planted some seeds and they came out next day and they looked—Nothing’s happened! There’s no crop! We’re gonna starve! Oh, no! It’s a disaster!” Obama told a town meeting in Maine. “It’s been a week, folks. So before we find out if people like health-care reform, we should wait to see what happens when we actually put it into place. Just a thought.”

    Until relatively recently, middlemen like Plante had the upper hand, and the media filter was robust—notwithstanding persistent and clever attempts by various White House communications gurus to bypass the journalistic kibitzing. But these days, as Plante acknowledges, the filter is fraying.

    And the MSM’s relevance is up for grabs.

    At the very moment that social media and enhanced technology are proliferating and gaining audience share by the tens of millions, giving President Obama powerful interactive tools to communicate directly with the public, the old media are in a world of hurt.

    With their audiences eroding along with advertising revenue, long-established television and print outlets are painfully cinching their belts. They are shutting down Washington bureaus, firing hundreds of experienced journalists and—as with a planned presidential trip this Wednesday to Prague, where Obama will sign an arms-control deal and meet with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev—not even anteing up for the usual White House press charter. Members of the press corps who wish to cover the visit will have to make their own way to Prague by flying commercial.

    Next stop: The Filterless Presidency?

  38. Could this be true? Awhile ago, at an Easter Party, we were talking with our neighbor’s granddaughter who is a sophomore at a large high school in the St Louis area.

    She told us that the students were recently told that American History would soon be abolished as a course in her high school. The reason was that they were trying to make more “time” for math and science classes.

    We were surprised. Although she is a bright girl and college bound, could she be mistaken?

    If it is true, what happened to the notion that we need to understand where we have been to understand where we are going? How easy it would be to “re-write” American history if the next generation has no clue about it.

  39. Pollster Mark Mehlman, an expert on the Jewish vote, believes
    ——————————
    Melman may or may not be an expert. But one thing is certain. He is an Obama partisan. His website makes no bones about it.

  40. At the very moment that social media and enhanced technology are proliferating and gaining audience share by the tens of millions, giving President Obama powerful interactive tools to communicate directly with the public, the old media are in a world of hurt
    ———————–
    Well now that works both ways doesn’t it? At this point, people believe big media are a filter and what they say is not straight party line. They naively assume that the press exercises independent judgment and that gives what Bambi says and they mechanically repeat added credibility. Without their “perceived” watchdog role, anything Obama says will be seen for what it is–partisan rhetoric. Is Jake Tapper an honest filter or is he a mouthpiece for the administration? I think he is a mouthpiece, and if I am correct then we really do not need him. As long as he is around however, people will assume that what the White House says through him is not partisan when in fact it is.

  41. If the same people who control Obama also control the press then the press has a conflict of interest between its duty to its masters and its duty to the journalistic profession, the First Amendment and the welfare of the American people. To me at least that is the issue.

  42. Could this be true? Awhile ago, at an Easter Party, we were talking with our neighbor’s granddaughter who is a sophomore at a large high school in the St Louis area.
    —————————————-
    If this is true, then it is less about math and science and more about a globalist agenda. History is the value proposition for sovereignty and to abolish history is to lose a sense of our national identity and pave the way for this citizen of the world bullshit. Just like that stupid ass Obama emblem and his perverse refusal to salute the flag.

  43. wbboei
    April 4th, 2010 at 11:24 pm
    Could this be true? Awhile ago, at an Easter Party, we were talking with our neighbor’s granddaughter who is a sophomore at a large high school in the St Louis area.
    —————————————-
    If this is true, then it is less about math and science and more about a globalist agenda. History is the value proposition for sovereignty and to abolish history is to lose a sense of our national identity and pave the way for this citizen of the world bullshit. Just like that stupid ass Obama emblem and his perverse refusal to salute the flag.
    *******************

    Or attend a church

  44. jbstonesfan: I think Paul Kuhn is very credible. I wonder however if those polls are. I wonder whether Ed Koch’s turn to the right on this issue will carry some weight. Does it make it any easier for others to say I was wrong about Obama and his position of Israel if Ed says it? If so, then the support for Obama will continue to fall. But the most important audience is not the one here but the one in Israel. They are on the front lines of this good cop bad copy pressure play. Abbas is the incompetent good cop and Hamas is the competent bad cop. If Israel gives up territory to Abbas, the logical fear is that Hamas will use that territory to launch rockets against Israeli civilians.

  45. Admin,

    A beloved blogger @ Bitterpolitics has passed, and I remembered an eulogy you posted for a common man. Could you repost that for me, I was very touched by it and would love to share it.

    Thanks

  46. Neville Chamberlain Obama does it again. . . . .
    ____________________________________________

    April 04, 2010

    White House Denies Charges of Caving to China on Currency

    FOXNews.com

    A prominent Democratic senator on Sunday suggested that the Obama administration was letting China slide on possible currency manipulation in exchange for help on Iran sanctions — something the White House flatly denied.

    A prominent Democratic senator on Sunday suggested that the Obama administration was letting China slide on possible currency manipulation in exchange for help on Iran sanctions — something the White House flatly denied.

    Democratic Sen. Arlen Specter, reacting to news that the White House was delaying its report to Congress on whether China is manipulating its currency, told “Fox News Sunday” he’s concerned the administration could be missing a chance to help U.S. workers get on a level playing field.

    The report was originally scheduled for release by April 15, around the time Chinese President Hu Jintao is visiting Washington for nuclear talks.

    “I’m not too happy about a delay,” Specter said. “We have a real problem with the Chinese. They are very shrewd and customarily they outmaneuver us. They take our jobs. They take our money and then they lend it back to us and own a big part of America. So let’s watch exactly … what’s happening.”

    Critics say the administration is delaying the report on exchange rates because it wants Chinese cooperation for new sanctions on Iran, and doesn’t want to alienate Beijing.

    Specter acknowledged the United States needs China’s support in seeking United Nations sanctions on Iran over its nuclear program. But he cautioned that the Obama administration should not overstate China’s negotiating position.

    “The Chinese are not doing us a big favor in joining that. It’s not in their interest to have Iran with a nuclear weapon — so that if we face up to the currency issue, the steel industry can provide a lot more jobs in my state and across the country,” Specter said. “If we get something concrete, a delay might be OK, but we can’t stand back and let them manipulate the currency and run us ragged on the economy.”

    But the White House denied any correlation between the currency report and Iran sanctions.

    Larry Summers, the president’s top economic adviser, said the White House simply wants more time for dialogue with the Chinese, though he admits “no one can be satisfied with where we are” on exports to China.

    He spoke on ABC’s “This Week” and CNN’s “State of the Union.”

    Christina Romer, head of the White House Council of Economic Advisors, told NBC’s “Meet the Press” that “the exchange rate is an issue” but stopped short of saying the administration believes China is manipulating its currency.

    “This is absolutely going to be an issue that’s high on the agenda,” Romer said. “We think it needs to be more influenced by market forces. … We’re going to be working to get the kind of results that we want, which is something more in alignment.”

    Several weeks ago, 130 members of Congress sent a letter to the White House urging that China be cited as a currency manipulator.

    A group of 14 senators also introduced legislation calling for trade sanctions if China doesn’t let the yuan rise against the dollar.

  47. FAKE PRESIDENT, BOGUS BILLS, MOVING DEADLINES

    First it was health care, “Gimme some damn bill, any damn so I can claim MISSION ACCOMPLISHED: HEALTH CA…NO…HEALTH INSURANCE REFORM”

    Now we’re going to slap together some bad bill on “Financial reform”, and there you go again, with the artificial deadlines. And yet again, the Dems chafe at the president’s hectoring.

    How would he know about how long it takes to pass a bill, and how to come up with a good bill? He started running for president before he could be sworn in as senator. From day one, he was bored, and was looking for something with less responsibility, like running for president.

    politico.com/news/stories/0410/35347.html

    Democrats bristle at financial reform deadline
    ==============================

    Democrats blew deadline after deadline in the health care debate, and now some on Capitol Hill are bristling at the suggestion from the White House that a massive financial reform bill should be on the president’s desk by Memorial Day.

    “Setting deadlines in an arbitrary manner did not help us get health care done and it will not help us get financial reform done either,” one senior Democratic leadership aide told POLITICO.

    With Congress returning to session on April 12, top Senate Democrats want to get a bill through the upper chamber as quickly as possible — but some privately questioned whether White House spokesman Robert Gibbs’s Memorial Day push will do more harm than good for negotiations.

    The White House offensive on financial reform and other policy priorities reflects the tricky calculus in White House and congressional relations as the midterm elections approach. There’s no clear agreement between the White House and top Democrats on Capitol Hill over whether to push an aggressive, sweeping Wall Street reform bill and effectively dare the Republicans to filibuster it, or whether to push for a more modest bipartisan compromise bill.

    The aggressive approach, some Democrats argue, is a political winner for Democrats since they could portray Republicans as being too close to big banks while opposing the reforms that would prevent another financial meltdown.

    But other Democrats are worried of another draining partisan debate after the bitter health care saga, saying that a longer timetable — and no tough deadlines — could help win over some Republicans in the Senate. Yet the go-slow tactic has its own risks: Democrats could end up with a watered-down financial reform bill that could turn off House Democrats, who have already passed a much more aggressive version of the legislation.

    Two weeks ago, after Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) and House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) met with President Barack Obama, a reporter asked if they would settle for a watered-down bill — in lieu of blaming Republicans for killing a more forceful measure. Dodd refused to even consider the question, intoning, “We will have a [bipartisan] bill.”

    But Frank joked that the choice was too close to call.

    “That’s like asking someone to choose between their mother and father,” he quipped.

    The White House has its own reasons for pushing for final action by the end of May: Administration officials privately concede that by Memorial Day, Congress will be in full-time campaign mode, making it much harder to have any serious legislative debates before November.

    Speaking Friday in Charlotte, N.C., Obama said that “we’re starting to see a framework emerge both in the House of Representatives and in the Senate, where my hope is, is that we can actually get this sometime in the next several weeks.”

    But some are dubious that “several weeks” will be enough time to get a bill out of the Senate.

    “Memorial Day is a stretch at this point,” said Taylor Griffin, a former GOP Treasury Department aide who is now a partner at Hamilton Place Strategies. “The question of whether they can achieve a Memorial Day timetable is really up to the White House. Republicans have legitimate concerns about the legislation. Will the White House be willing to work with Republicans to resolve them? That is the question.”

    Democrats don’t have much margin for error when counting votes on financial reform. Senate Republican leaders will likely try to unify their caucus against the financial reform legislation, believing it would create more bureaucracy while not addressing the root causes of the 2008 financial meltdown.

    But Democrats on the left dislike aspects of Dodd’s bill, saying it may not do enough to protect consumers. Democrats from agricultural states are worried that new regulations on derivatives could impact agriculture commodities buyers and farmers. And some Democratic moderates are worried about the government having too heavy a hand over local and regional banks back home.

    House Democrats, who pushed their financial services bill through their chamber in December, are in no mood to see the Senate stall on the issue. Frank said Thursday that he believed “the president will be signing a financial reform bill before Memorial Day.”

    “I always think these deadlines are put out for rhetorical reasons,” said one Democratic lobbyist. “The truth is, it’s difficult to get anything through the Senate.”

    Democrats are also divided over strategy. In one camp, some Democrats believe continued action after health care reform will show real momentum for their agenda. But others argue that the White House would be better off — politically, anyway — if Democrats could hit the campaign trail in the fall and blame Wall Street-friendly Republicans for blocking the reform bill.

    Officially, the White House says that it’s solidly in the first camp and wants to see a bill as soon as possible — and at the very least, before September, which will be the two-year anniversary of the economic collapse.

    “The White House is just pushing to keep the pressure up,” one financial industry lobbyist said.

    Dodd still seems to be angling for GOP support. Before the Senate recessed last week, Dodd lunched with the Banking Committee’s top Republican, Alabama Sen. Richard Shelby, whose support would be critical to getting a broad bipartisan deal.

    If Shelby were to come along, Dodd could be in a position to win over other Banking Committee Republicans, such as Sens. Mike Crapo of Idaho, Bob Corker of Tennessee and Judd Gregg of New Hampshire. And Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has put out word to Dodd that if he gets those four senators on board, he can expect much more support from the GOP Conference.

    But getting to that point is no small task. Already, some senior Republicans are preparing for the possibility of another big battle on the floor, arguing that Dodd’s bill is nothing more than just another government takeover that would lead to more bailouts of big banks.

    Republicans argue that a new consumer protection agency housed at the Federal Reserve would give the government too far of a reach over businesses large and small. They also say that a proposed fund that banks would have to pay into to save “too-big-to-fail” financial institutions would essentially amount to a slush fund for the government. And they argue that regulations on derivatives could inadvertently hurt farmers and other end-users.

    The White House has so far shown little willingness to bend on some of those provisions.

    “All derivatives must be regulated, and shareholders should have a say not just on pay but also other compensation that rewards risk-taking,” Obama said in a March 15 statement when Dodd announced his bill, adding that he would “fight against efforts to weaken” the bill.

    Democrats say the bill will help fix a broken system in which failing financial institutions can still jeopardize the global economy — and they argue that financial protections are designed to help shareholders and consumers.

    So far, it’s unclear whether political pressure will force the Republicans to cave and back a bill characterized as a crackdown on Wall Street — or if Democrats are merely talking tough now as a negotiating tactic before giving way to a compromise later.

    “They will play as tough as they can and later on” they may compromise, said Brian Gardner, a Washington-based analyst with the New York financial services firm Keefe, Bruyette & Woods.

    But for now, the White House seems intent on putting its foot on the gas pedal. Gibbs, the White House spokesman, told reporters last week that it’s “not an unrealistic timetable at all” to get a bill to the president’s desk by the end of May.

    “Obviously we’ve got a bill through the House, a bill through [the Senate Banking] Committee, unamended,” Gibbs said. “Nobody on the Republican side even offered an amendment. So I think the next piece of business that the Senate will take up will be financial reform.”

    “You mean late May is not unrealistic?” a reporter asked.

    “I don’t think that’s unrealistic,” Gibbs said. “I think without a doubt, the president would like to see, with his signature, strong rules in place, certainly prior to the two-year anniversary of the collapse in our economy.”

  48. As for Bitterpolitics, I was in the first wave over there, when we fled from TM. But when Camille went to password for the whole site, I never managed to get registered again. Has that become easier?

  49. Just a thought, that one of our running themes is how Obama is a third Bush term.

    I think that what got Obama into office was just how God-awful, rotten stinking the Bush White House was. Think of what made it SOOO bad:

    * arrogance
    * secrecy
    * buffoon caricature of a leader
    * weak leader puppet mastered by “handlers”
    * incompentence
    * unconstitutional / illegal actions
    * media complicity to advance the Administration’s agend
    * covert front for corporations and their lobbyists

    So it seems that we are illuminating how Obama is just as bad. Liberals were furious with Bush, and would gladly point out all these flaws. If they are going to close their eyes when it is a Democrat acting so maliciously, then they are partisan hack hypocrits.

    We are not hypocrits, we here expect any president to act capably and in the best interests of the country.

  50. Agree Wbboei…the numbers seem way too high as far as approval among Jews, particularly after Obama’s abhorent treatment of Netanyahu.

  51. Yes, I know this comes from a Republican site (http://www.gopusa.com/theloft/?p=439), but if it is the right question, then who cares who asks it.

    In this case the question came from a factory worker during one of Obama’s everything is beautiful pep rallies. She asked him this:

    “In the economic times that we have now, is it a wise decision to add more taxes to us with the health care, because we are over-taxed as it?”

    Naturally, Bambi evaded the question–like he always does.

    (Note: a good question for the Washington Press Corps would be this: “Since he never answers your questions, and you let him get away with it, why do you bother to ask them in the first place?” In your struggle for relevance, ponder that one.)

    Insofar as Bambi is concerned, he still does not get it. The issue is jobs. Pep rallies are for high school kids. Instead of helping solve the problem, Obama is undermining the prospects for a recovery through the benighted tax and spend policies which he and his fellow dimothugs are forcing down the throat of the American People.

    I have a friend who is a partner in one of the largest law firms in the country. (I mention that because he has a much broader perspective on the economy than most of us do because of the clients he interacts with). Over the past year, he has had to lay off many young associates whom he recruited from college campuses in the Ivy League only a few years ago. What he told me was this: “we are in the worst economic downturn in 80 years”. That is the issue Obama is evading.
    ——————————————————————–

    Just Think if Obama Had To Answer A Hard Question

    Posted by Bobby Eberle
    April 5, 2010 at 8:12 am
    >> Printer-Friendly Version

    We’ve all seen clips of how Barack Obama talks and talks when he doesn’t have the aid of his teleprompter. He rambles, stumbles, and fills the air with “here’s the point,” without ever really making the point.

    His stumbles are no more apparent than when he’s asked to defend policies that are simply indefensible. No one can intelligently or honestly defend socialism. That’s why it has failed over and over and over again. Yet those like Obama who are bent on government control will continue to try.

    On Friday, Obama took to the road to tour a battery factory and talk about jobs. After the tour, he put together one of his townhall pep rallies complete with questions from the audience.

    As he stumbles and stammers to take a “question from a woman so things will be balanced,” he received the following question from one of the factory’s employees: “In the economic times that we have now, is it a wise decision to add more taxes to us with the health care, because we are over-taxed as it.”

    Now this question is about as simple as it gets. Americans ARE overtaxed! Income tax rates are too high, then there’s the gasoline tax, taxes on services, other “fees”, and more and more and more. Obama’s health care plan adds even more taxes and targets those people who could be using that money to hire people, invest in capital, and expand factories. Of course, all of that gets in the way of the socialist goals of wealth distribution and government control.

    Guess how long it took Obama to “answer” the question. About 17 minutes! And, he still didn’t answer it. Of course, he starts off by saying there is a lot of “misinformation” out there. Misinformation about how big our tax burden is? Is he kidding?

    Of course, that video is only Part 1 of his answer to a single question. He goes on from there:

    As Anne Kornblut describes in the Washington Post:

    He then spent the next 17 minutes and 12 seconds lulling the crowd into a daze. His discursive answer – more than 2,500 words long — wandered from topic to topic, including commentary on the deficit, pay-as-you-go rules passed by Congress, Congressional Budget Office reports on Medicare waste, COBRA coverage, the Recovery Act and Federal Medical Assistance Percentages (he referred to this last item by its inside-the-Beltway name, “F-Map”). He talked about the notion of eliminating foreign aid (not worth it, he said). He invoked Warren Buffett, earmarks and the payroll tax that funds Medicare (referring to it, in fluent Washington lingo, as “FICA”).
    Kornblut notes the audience member who was yawning midway through the speech, and she adds, “But Obama wasn’t finished. He had a ‘final point,’ before starting again with another list — of three points.”

    Here’s part three of the speech in case who are still following along with what he’s saying:

    All in all, you have the fact that Obama cannot answer a simple question about the tax burden facing America. Then there is the massive debt he is stacking up and the newly passed unconstitutional health care bill that will add even more taxes and debt. Oh wait… Obama’s newly established entitlement program will be “different” than all those other big-government entitlement programs… it will be efficient, streamlined, run underbudget, and not be corrupt. How quickly I forget.

  52. Many of my friends who do transactional work/real estate have been extremely slow and their firms not hiring. I am a PI atty and have been relatively uneffected, but the insurance companies are making me try more and more marginal cases as they hold on to their $$$$$$$.

  53. wbboei
    April 5th, 2010 at 1:09 pm

    (Note: a good question for the Washington Press Corps would be this: “Since he never answers your questions, and you let him get away with it, why do you bother to ask them in the first place?” In your struggle for relevance, ponder that one.)
    &&&&&&&&&&

    Yes, a very good question indeed.

  54. gonzotx
    April 4th, 2010 at 11:44 pm
    Admin,

    A beloved blogger @ Bitterpolitics has passed, and I remembered an eulogy you posted for a common man. Could you repost that for me, I was very touched by it and would love to share it.

    Thanks

  55. wbboei
    April 5th, 2010 at 1:09 pm
    &&&&&&&&&&&

    Funny, Obama’s rambling to avoid a direct answer to a simple question is the exact same tactic that he used in the debates, to:
    * stall for time
    * suck up all of Hillary’s time
    * avoid direct answers that he could not answer (because he didn’t know) or would not answer (because he’d have to explain his flip flopping).

    And in the debates, the “moderators” didn’t do their job of calling a fair fight. Just like the complicit media selling their souls for “access”, the refs of the debates knew who they wanted to win so they write books on “This Historic Candidate”.

    The Fourth Estate’s job is to be the eyes and ears and conscience of the people, not to be State Mouthpiece.

  56. wbboei, that link also had its link to Kornblut’s piece. One quoted section is funny:
    \
    “The audience sat politely, but people in the back of the room began to wander off. Even Obama seemed to recognize that he had gone on too long. He apologized — in keeping with the spirit of the moment, not once, but twice.”

    Here’s the whole artical.

    voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2010/04/obamas-17-minute-2500-word-res.html

    Obama’s 17-minute, 2,500-word response to woman’s claim of being ‘over-taxed’
    ===========================

    by Anne E. Kornblut

    CHARLOTTE – Even by President Obama’s loquacious standards, an answer he gave here on health care Friday was a doozy.

    Toward the end of a question-and-answer session with workers at an advanced battery technology manufacturer, a woman named Doris stood to ask the president whether it was a “wise decision to add more taxes to us with the health care” package.

    “We are over-taxed as it is,” Doris said bluntly.

    Obama started out feisty. “Well, let’s talk about that, because this is an area where there’s been just a whole lot of misinformation, and I’m going to have to work hard over the next several months to clean up a lot of the misapprehensions that people have,” the president said.

    He then spent the next 17 minutes and 12 seconds lulling the crowd into a daze. His discursive answer – more than 2,500 words long — wandered from topic to topic, including commentary on the deficit, pay-as-you-go rules passed by Congress, Congressional Budget Office reports on Medicare waste, COBRA coverage, the Recovery Act and Federal Medical Assistance Percentages (he referred to this last item by its inside-the-Beltway name, “F-Map”). He talked about the notion of eliminating foreign aid (not worth it, he said). He invoked Warren Buffett, earmarks and the payroll tax that funds Medicare (referring to it, in fluent Washington lingo, as “FICA”).

    Always fond of lists, Obama ticked off his approach to health care — twice. “Number one is that we are the only — we have been, up until last week, the only advanced country that allows 50 million of its citizens to not have any health insurance,” he said.

    A few minutes later he got to the next point, which seemed awfully similar to the first. “Number two, you don’t know who might end up being in that situation,” he said, then carried on explaining further still.

    “Point number three is that the way insurance companies have been operating, even if you’ve got health insurance you don’t always know what you got, because what has been increasingly the practice is that if you’re not lucky enough to work for a big company that is a big pool, that essentially is almost a self-insurer, then what’s happening is, is you’re going out on the marketplace, you may be buying insurance, you think you’re covered, but then when you get sick they decide to drop the insurance right when you need it,” Obama continued, winding on with the answer.

    Halfway through, an audience member on the riser yawned.

    But Obama wasn’t finished. He had a “final point,” before starting again with another list — of three points.

    “What we said is, number one, we’ll have the basic principle that everybody gets coverage,” he said, before launching into the next two points, for a grand total of seven.

    His wandering approach might not matter if Obama weren’t being billed as the chief salesman of the health-care overhaul. Public opinion on the bill remains divided, and Democratic officials are planning to send Obama into the country to persuade wary citizens that it will work for them in the long run.

    It was not evident that he changed any minds at Friday’s event. The audience sat politely, but people in the back of the room began to wander off.

    Even Obama seemed to recognize that he had gone on too long. He apologized — in keeping with the spirit of the moment, not once, but twice. “Boy, that was a long answer. I’m sorry,” he said, drawing nervous laughter that sounded somewhat like relief as he wrapped up.

    But, he said: “I hope I answered your question.”

  57. EX-SENATOR FEINGOLD?

    Another Dem floundering…

    realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/04/05/will_russ_feingold_survive_105048.html

    April 5, 2010
    Will Russ Feingold Survive?
    By Patrick McIlheran

    Russ Feingold, seeking a fourth U.S. Senate term out of Wisconsin, is by now a habit. His state wears him almost unconsciously, the way a rattling old Tercel in front of me at a traffic light still bore its “Feingold in ’04” bumper sticker.

    Next to the Feingold sticker was one promoting a food co-op, then another reading, “War is not the answer.”

    That’s why Sen. Fixture just may now be in trouble: This year, war isn’t even the question.

    Instead, the question is whether Washington’s grown too expensive and arrogant. Feingold hasn’t been compelling at answering this.

    Much of the liberal Democrat’s appeal to Wisconsin voters in past elections has been his whole party-of-one maverick bit. Speaking truth to power made him an icon to liberals and hasn’t necessarily hurt him among the damn-them-all sorts who profess no party. But now he’s the guy in the suit at the front of the room to whom the little people are speaking in icy tones.

    Feingold, who makes a point of holding public “listening sessions” in every one of Wisconsin’s 72 counties annually, has long and loudly been a backer of a single-payer nationalization of health care. He voted for Obamacare while saying it wasn’t ambitious enough.

    Feingold then faced a series of listening sessions filled with voters telling him Obamacare was overly ambitious by about three or four zeroes. His response has been to demur, deflect and tell constituents they’d like the plan if they knew better. He dismissed several particularly hostile sessions in suburban Milwaukee as being par for Republican territory, but Feingold also got harsh receptions in Green Bay’s Brown County, where Obama won 54% of the vote, and rural western Jackson County (Obama: 60%). “Why could you vote against the will of the people?” demanded a constituent in solidly Democratic Kenosha this week, and Feingold was left saying that no proposition ever wins 100% support.

    Winning at least a plurality helps, however.

    So the senator may be in trouble. How much trouble depends on whether Tommy Thompson gets in the race. The Republican, elected governor four times, has been in Washington since he left to serve as the Bush administration’s Health and Human Services secretary. He almost ran for governor in 2006. He did run, badly, for president in 2008. He’s now coyly letting surrogates drop hints that he might possibly run and weighing in personally on the occasional controversy.

    And in March, he beat Feingold in the Rasmussen poll, 47% to 45%.

    Here’s the thing: Thompson isn’t the only guy running. Unlike two years ago, when the Republicans could scrape up no one but a fringe candidate to run against the senatorial non-entity Herb Kohl, there are already two Republicans running against Feingold.

    One, Dave Westlake, is a small businessman who forswore fundraising, is previously unknown and whose strategy is to show up Tea Parties. The other, Terrence Wall, gained some fame around Madison as a property developer who has 2.3 million square feet of commercial real estate with his name on it. He also rallied conservative and business opposition to the liberal machine in Madison’s nominally non-partisan municipal politics. Wall has money and youth and is running against Obamacare, cap-and-trade and Feingold. “Government should get back to the fundamentals,” he said. “Individuals should run their own lives.”

    That Rasmussen poll put him at 40% against Feingold’s 49%.

    Which isn’t bad for a man unknown in much of the state. Wall says his campaign’s own polling in late February put him ahead of Feingold, 48% to 39%, in the Milwaukee area, and within three points in Green Bay. He says he’s not bothered that Thompson, the most famous politician in state history, might jump into the Republican race. If anything, he argues, the possibility has distracted the Feingold war machine.

    Wall hasn’t caught fire among conservatives, at least not yet. In the past, he’s donated to Democrats — survival strategy for a Madison developer, he says — and he’s never run a political campaign of any size. Still, he figures, the time is right to take out a senator consistently identified with expansionist government.

    “We’re headed towards a cliff,” he said. Fiscal probity is back on voters’ agenda, the health of business a chief worry, yet “Russ Feingold has never made a payroll.”

    “He’s clueless on business. He’s an attorney.”

    Yet Feingold is the man who, despite being on the left of the Senate, has been elected three times by an undecided state, twice beating men boasting of business experience. Feingold also curries at least the the neutrality of voters for whom the 2nd Amendment is a top issue, earning good ratings from the NRA — an important metric in a state bristling with deer rifles. Between calming the passions of potential enemies and serving as the avatar of the left as it warred against the war on terror, Feingold found a winning strategy.

    But the war is over — except for the one that an even bigger icon of the left, Barack Obama, is fighting in Afghanistan. Unlike 2004, there is no George W. Bush stashing hapless innocents at Guantanamo to talk about. Unlike 1998, there is no Republican Congress tormenting the president to which Feingold can be sent as leaven.

    Now, talking of either war or Congress leaves progressives with a felty feeling in the mouth. From the high of November 2008, it’s been year-long hangover for the left. Feingold’s passionate voters won’t vote against him — but the question is whether they’ll get out of bed to vote for him, at least in numbers great enough to overcome energized Republicans and disenchanted independents.

    Wall already figures he knows the answer. “I’ll win,” he says, more matter-of-factly than you’d think for a political newcomer nine points back in the early polls. “Feingold’s done.”

    He just may be.

  58. THE HEALTH ???? BILL FIRST, NEXT FINANCIAL “REFORM”???

    Krugman points out that the emerging legistlation is going to be toothless and confusing, just like the health-whatever bill that was just passed.

    nytimes.com/2010/04/05/opinion/05krugman.html?ref=opinion

    Making Financial Reform Fool-Resistant
    =========================

    By PAUL KRUGMAN
    Published: April 4, 2010

    The White House is confident that a financial regulatory reform bill will soon pass the Senate. I’m not so sure, given the opposition of Republican leaders to any real reform. But in any case, how good is the legislation on the table, the bill put together by Senator Chris Dodd of Connecticut?

    Not good enough. It’s a good-faith effort to do what needs to be done, but it would create a system highly dependent on the wisdom and good intentions of government officials. And as the history of the last decade demonstrates, trusting in the quality of officials can be dangerous to the economy’s health.

    Now, it’s impossible to devise a truly foolproof regulatory regime — anyone who believes otherwise is underestimating the power of foolishness. But you can try to create a system that’s relatively fool-resistant. Unfortunately, the Dodd bill doesn’t do that.

    As I argued in my last column, while the problem of “too big to fail” has gotten most of the attention — and while big banks deserve all the opprobrium they’re getting — the core problem with our financial system isn’t the size of the largest financial institutions. It is, instead, the fact that the current system doesn’t limit risky behavior by “shadow banks,” institutions — like Lehman Brothers — that carry out banking functions, that are perfectly capable of creating a banking crisis, but, because they issue debt rather than taking deposits, face minimal oversight.

    The Dodd bill tries to fill this gaping hole in the system by letting federal regulators impose “strict rules for capital, leverage, liquidity, risk management and other requirements as companies grow in size and complexity.” It also gives regulators the power to seize troubled financial firms — and it requires that large, complex firms submit “funeral plans” that make it relatively easy to shut them down.

    That’s all good. In effect, it gives shadow banking something like the regulatory regime we already have for conventional banking.

    But what will actually be in those “strict rules” for capital, liquidity, and so on? The bill doesn’t say. Instead, everything is left at the discretion of the Financial Stability Oversight Council, a sort of interagency task force including the chairman of the Federal Reserve, the Treasury secretary, the comptroller of the currency and the heads of five other federal agencies.

    Mike Konczal of the Roosevelt Institute, whose blog has become essential reading for anyone interested in financial reform, has pointed out what’s wrong with this: just consider who would have been on that council in 2005, which was probably the peak year for irresponsible lending.

    Well, in 2005 the chairman of the Fed was Alan Greenspan, who dismissed warnings about the housing bubble — and who asserted in October 2005 that “increasingly complex financial instruments have contributed to the development of a far more flexible, efficient, and hence resilient financial system.”

    Meanwhile, the secretary of the Treasury was John Snow, who … actually, I don’t think anyone remembers anything about Mr. Snow, other than the fact that Karl Rove treated him like an errand boy.

    The comptroller of the currency was John Dugan, who still holds the office. He was recently the subject of a profile in The Times, which noted his habit of blocking efforts by states to crack down on abusive consumer lending, on the grounds that he, not the states, has authority over national banks — except that he himself almost never acts to protect consumers.

    Oh, and on the subject of consumer protection: the Dodd bill creates a more or less independent agency to protect consumers against abusive lending, albeit one housed at the Fed. That’s a good thing. But it gives the oversight council the ability to override the agency’s recommendations.

    The point is that the Dodd bill would give an administration determined to rein in runaway finance the tools it needs to do the job. But it wouldn’t do much to stiffen the spine of a less determined administration. On the contrary, it would make it easy for future regulators to look the other way as another bubble inflated.

    So what the legislation needs are explicit rules, rules that would force action even by regulators who don’t especially want to do their jobs. There should, for example, be a preset maximum level of allowable leverage — the financial reform that has already passed the House sets this at 15 to 1, and the Senate should follow suit. There should be hard rules determining when regulators have to seize a troubled financial firm. There should be no-exception rules requiring that complex financial derivatives be traded transparently. And so on.

    I know that getting such things into the bill would be hard politically: as financial reform legislation moves to the floor of the Senate, there will be pressure to make it weaker, not stronger, in the hope of attracting Republican votes. But I would urge Senate leaders and the Obama administration not to settle for a weak bill, just so that they can claim to have passed financial reform. We need reform with a fighting chance of actually working.

  59. Krugman has a link to Mike Konczal’s site:

    rortybomb.wordpress.com/

    which in turn has this link to “Current State of Financial Reform” (link temporarily not working)

  60. THE COMEDIC “STYLINGS” OF THE FUNNY MAN, FRANK RICH:

    nytimes.com/2010/04/04/opinion/04rich.html?pagewanted=2

    “Fifteen months after arriving at the White House, Obama remains by far the most popular national politician in the country, even with a sub-50 percent approval rating.” Hooo boy, that’s a good one.

    Less funny, Rich kinda admits that Obama doesn’t do a very good job at being president:

    That doesn’t mean his presidency will be successful. Being consistent is not the same as being a forceful leader. If there’s been an overarching, nonideological failing so far in Obama, it’s been his execution of the levers of power. Whether in articulating his health care bottom line, or closing Guantánamo Bay, or moving forward on repealing “don’t ask, don’t tell,” he has often seemed tardy or unfocused, at times missing deadlines he has set himself. The narrative that might link his presidential policies into a clear, mobilizing vision for the country remains murky, which in turn facilitates the caricature of his views from all sides.

  61. “Obama remains by far the most popular national politician in the country”

    WTF? According to the most recent polls we have, the most popular politician in the country is HILLARY.

  62. “By far”…

    Is Frank Rich wearing his Blue State-tinted glasses again?

    And how does this “by far the most popular national politician” not even hit the 50% mark? Oh wait, he has hit 50%…NEGATIVE.

    He has been revealed to be EXTREMELY DIVISIVE, despite the media’s best attempts to portray his as “calm”, “rational”, “collected”, “cool”, etc.

  63. If you read those two articles together, you get a few glaring non-sequiturs, Moreover, it leaves the reader to wonder who is more delusional: Frank Rich–who cannot read a poll and believes his ignorant opinion matters, or the Dimocratic Strategists– who fail to understand the law of holes–which decrees when you are in one, stop digging.
    ————————————————————————————————–

    1. “His wandering approach might not matter if Obama weren’t being billed as the chief salesman of the health-care overhaul. Public opinion on the bill remains divided”. (Kornbutt)

    2.” It was not evident that he changed any minds at Friday’s event. The audience sat politely, but people in the back of the room began to wander off.” (Kornbutt)

    3. “Obama remains by far the most popular national politician in the country”. (per Frank Rich)

    4. “Obama’s support has dropped to 44%, while Hillary’s is 64%. (last Rass on him; last on her weeks ago)

    5. Democratic officials are planning to send Obama into the country to persuade wary citizens that it will work for them in the long run. (per Dimocratic Strategists)

  64. rgb44hrc says:
    He has been revealed to be EXTREMELY DIVISIVE,

    Indeed rgb. If I may use this word…..he has shown himself to be very…POLARIZING. 😉

  65. Obama is“calm”, “rational”, “collected”, “cool”–so say the scions of Big Media.
    ————————————–
    Sometimes. But what does it prove?

    If you ask Obama a tough question, cut him off when he rambles to evade, or presume to contradict him, then he is not “calm, rational, collective and cool is he”. On the contrary, he raises his voice, talks over you, condescends and intimidates by putting his hand in your face or on your back and escorts you across the room like he did with Lieberman and Hillary.

    It is only when he is discussing something that does not matter to him personally, like the problems of this country and the fate of the American People that he displays the qualities which big media imputes to him as if they were virtes, i.e. “calm, rational, collected, cool, etc.”

    But the bottom line is this: Mr. Obama’s legendary cool demeanor in non personal situation, contrasted with his abusive tone when the matter is personal is further proof that the only one he cares about is himself. He is “calm, rational, collected, cool, etc. because he does not give a damned about the things that really matter, like the welfare of this country–the things a President would care about–if he were not a sociopath.

  66. Wow, Time magazine is already portraying Obama as being unbeatable in 2012. Typical of that Mark Halperin isn’t it? Isn’t he a major Obot?

    Now, I would like to see an article where they talk about the possible Democratic challenges to Obama…much more interesting..

  67. National debt seen heading for crisis level

    (04-05) 04:00 PDT Washington — Health care may have been the last big bang of the Obama presidency.

    With ferocious speed, the financial crisis, recession and efforts to combat the recession have swung the U.S. debt from worrisome to ruinous, promising to handcuff the administration.

    Lost amid last month’s passage of the new health care law, the Congressional Budget Office issued a report showing that within this decade, President Obama’s own budget sends the U.S. government to a potential tipping point where the debt reaches 90 percent of gross domestic product.

    Economists Carmen Reinhart of the University of Maryland and Kenneth Rogoff of Harvard University have recently shown that a 90 percent debt-to-GDP ratio usually touches off a crisis.

    This year, the debt will reach 63 percent of GDP, a ratio that has ignited crises in smaller wealthy nations. Fiscal crises gripped Canada, Denmark, Sweden, Finland and Ireland when their debts were below where the United States is shortly headed.

    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/04/05/MNI21COVR1.DTL&tsp=1

    And what is out illustiors DemiGod doing?

    Prez Obama — A Little ToillustriousDemigodo High on Opening Day
    Posted Apr 5th 2010 1:07PM by TMZ Staff

    President Barack Obama took the mound to throw out the ceremonial first pitch at the Washington Nationals game today … and saying it was bad does not do justice to the word, “bad.”

  68. <>

    AG – Admin quotes Howard Kurtz in this post that Halperin and his co-writer got a $5M advance to write about 2012 election. How are they going to get those juicy inside quotes unless they whore themselves from now until then?

    You can expect this non-stop fom Halperin and other journos with book contracts. What will stop all this is devastating and crippling losses for Dems in 2010 elections – with Reid losing his seat and 7 to 8 senate seats and Pelosi with only 1-vote margin.
    Then Halperin and all these whores look like fools or $5 BJ whores at truck stops.

  69. AG, yes Halperin is a major BOT/notorious Hillary hater, and was so before Obama was even elected.

    If I remember correctly, he was the slimebag who made took perverse pleasure in that tragic incident when the filly Eight Belles finished second in the Kentucky Derby and then (sadly) collapsed right after. This was back in May 2008 and he made light of the fact that Hillary picked Eight Belles as the horse to win in that race. Any person who makes levity of the suffering of animals, and draws parallels to politics from such an incident, is a slug IMO.

    He is, btw, a rare type of BOT, in that he is also RINO…..and that is why I have a special nickname for Mark Halperin: R.I.N.O. B.O.T.

  70. Fifth Dimension, I will NEVER believe that was an accident. The probability of that happening normally are way over 1 in a million. I am surprised that Peta and the ASAP did not investigate that incident. I just remember seeing the look in Hillary eyes when she found out her horse broke its leg and had to be put down. I think it was a message from the puppeteers of Obama.

    The mob of Chicago did that.

  71. When you are the incumbent, and your opponents cross the 50% mark you are toast. Not enough time to turn that one around for Dirty Harry Reid. He is history.
    ————————————-
    Reid’s Opponents Crossing The 50% Mark

    Rasmussen Reports has a new Nevada Senate poll out, and the results are looking terrible for Harry Reid. The Democrat is looking likely to be the second consecutive incumbent floor leader for his party to be voted out of office.

    Conventional wisdom says incumbents below 50 are vulnerable. Well, two of the three Republicans running to replace him are now above 50, and the third is at 49.

    Except for the extraordinary circumstances of President Bill Clinton’s second midterm after impeachment and President George W. Bush’s first midterm after the 9/11 attacks, the historical record shows midterm elections are always bad for the party of the President. Clinton and Bush themselves found that out in 1994 and 2006 respectively. 2010 appears to be a continuation of the normal trend, and Democrats all over the country are unusually weak.

    Reid is no stranger to close elections, having beat out now-Senator John Ensign by 401 votes in 1998, but he had an easy time in 2004, outperforming John Kerry by 96,000 votes to win 61-35 while Kerry lost 48-51. This year though, the polls suggest he won’t beat out a national Republican trend.

    Rasmussen has Sue Lowden beating him 54-39, Sharron Angle winning 51-40, and Danny Tarkanian pulling ahead 49-42, each with a margin of error of 4.5%. Winning percentages from my model: 95, 88, and 78 for an average of 87%. Additionally, Reid has not led a single poll in the Real Clear Politics database for this race.

    Senate floor leaders for the Democrats seem to be an endangered species.

  72. <>

    wbb –
    If we beat dirty Harry, I will buy you an ice cream, or a single malt straight shot – whichever you prefer.

  73. ecoast–

    Only if you will allow me to buy the next two rounds.

    BTW, my doctor has advised me to avoid ice cream . .

    So, we will have to settle for single malt . . .

    My suggestion would be McCallum.

  74. A friend of mine told me tonight who believes the Tea Parties will go ballistic once they realize that the real intent of this health care legislation is to create a triage system, and when find the cost of goods at Walmart doubles because China adjusts its currency or its investment strategy. He says Obama is the pied piper leading the ignorant fools and this country over the cliff. Either Obama is a controlled animal in which case the controller has lost the leash, or Obama is acting at his own recognizance, in which case he not be renominated.

  75. We must never give up on Hillary.She is still the best person to take over this failing country and repair the damage inflicted on it by the worst president in our history.He should be removed from office and impeached as an imposter.His goals are treacherous ie.
    Redistribution,Restitution,Retribution,Revolution and Empowerment.All while voters sit on their hands.

    —————————————————-

    Report
    Spam
    Print Move to folder:
    INBOX Bill Boe Direct TV Drafts HRC SoS MailGuard Screened Mail SentMail Trash GO

    WARNING: This e-mail is a suspected phishing scam.

    From: “U.S. Department of State”
    The above “From:” address may be forged. Save Address Reminder

    To: a.milono@att.net
    Subject: Press Releases: Secretary Clinton to Address Chiefs of Diplomatic Missions at Diplomatic Partnerships Division Event
    Date: Tuesday, April 6, 2010 7:06:46 AM [View Source]

    Press Releases: Secretary Clinton to Address Chiefs of Diplomatic Missions at Diplomatic Partnerships Division Event
    Tue, 06 Apr 2010 05:33:53 -0500

    Secretary Clinton to Address Chiefs of Diplomatic Missions at Diplomatic Partnerships Division Event

    Washington, DC

    April 5, 2010

    ——————————————————————————–

    Office of the Chief of Protocol Introduces New Foreign Ambassador Outreach Program

    Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton will deliver remarks to the Chiefs of Diplomatic Missions as part of the Office of the Chief of Protocol’s “State of the Administration” speaker series on Tuesday April 6th, 2010 at 4:00 p.m. at the Department of State. The program is organized by the bureau’s Diplomatic Partnerships Division, which creates opportunities to engage diplomats posted in Washington.

    Established in 2009, Diplomatic Partnerships seeks to foster international goodwill and provide the Diplomatic Corps with greater insight and understanding of the United States’ people, customs and institutions. Diplomatic Partnerships pursues this goal through a broad range of unique programs and events designed to connect U.S. government agencies, community leaders, business leaders, innovation experts and others directly with the Diplomatic Corps.

    The “State of the Administration” speaker series is a Diplomatic Partnerships program which provides an opportunity for Chiefs of Diplomatic Missions to speak with and hear directly from senior Obama administration officials. Previous speakers include White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, Deputy Secretary of State Jacob Lew and others.

    Other Diplomatic Partnerships programs include “Experience America”, which gives Chiefs of Diplomatic Missions the opportunity to step outside the Beltway, create new connections and see firsthand the diverse fabric of America through tours and travel opportunities, “Issue Roundtable” events such as luncheons in honor of Women Ambassadors and “Cultural Exchange” events bringing together Washington D.C. public school students and children of foreign diplomats.

    The event will be open to credential members of the press for the remarks at the beginning.

    Pre-Set for cameras: 3:15 p.m. from the 23rd Street Entrance
    Final access time for journalists and still cameras: 3:30 p.m. from the 23rd Street Entrance.

  76. From Turbo Tax Timmy’s World:
    IRS Launches New Global Program to Target ‘High Wealth Individuals’
    The Internal Revenue Service has launched a new global program to target what it calls “high wealth individuals,” IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman said Monday. Through our new global high wealth operating unit we are taking a unified look at the entire web of business and economic entities controlled by high wealth individuals so we can better assess the risk such arrangements pose to tax compliance,” Shulman said at the National Press Club on Monday.
    Shulman said the IRS is using “our robust and evolving enforcement program that ensures that everyone pays what they owe.”
    http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/63761

  77. Why is no one alarmed that Obama is unilaterally disarming our nukes which have acted as a deterrent all these decades!!!!

  78. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the triage system. I once took care of a man who came in the emergency room on social security disability for a mosquito bite…there are many abuses that clog up the emergency rooms…that man should have had that visit taken out of his monthly income. Gimme a break! How about the ones who come in for pain meds when there’s nothing wrong with them…these are the folks that clog up the emergency rooms and sick people have to wait and wait.
    Something has to be done about what people are doing with healthcare…how it is done will be hard….but leaving it alone and keeping the status quo is unacceptable.

    Abdominal pain is another way to get pain shots, at least SOME Doctor’s are looking back at the records to see if they are frequent flyers…if they are on social security, medicaid, medicare or any kind of government help, they should be fined! I am tired of paying for their wasteful ways!

  79. DEMS ON THE ROPES

    dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=D118DCDB-18FE-70B2-A8CF66902A43928F

    Menendez seeks to halt recall effort
    By: Alex Isenstadt
    April 5, 2010 11:10 PM EDT

    Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) is asking the New Jersey Supreme Court to stop a tea party-led effort to recall him from office.

    His office announced Monday evening that Menendez was appealing to the state’s highest court to rule that the recall effort is unconstitutional since the U.S. Constitution does not explicitly allow for the recall of sitting U.S. senators.

    “Mainstream New Jerseyans believe deeply in the U.S. Constitution, which for more than 200 years has made ours the greatest form of government in world history,” said Afshin Mohamadi, a Menendez spokesman. “This attack on the Constitution undermines our uniquely American system of democracy and will be contested. It would be deceiving to the electorate to pursue a process that ultimately would be nullified by the Constitution.”

    The move comes several weeks after a state appeals court—citing New Jersey law allowing for the recall of statewide elected officials—ruled that the case could move forward.

    “The lower court declined to decide the fundamental matter at hand, and this is why we are appealing and hope that the New Jersey Supreme Court addresses this important issue,” said Mohamadi. “In the meantime, Senator Menendez continues to be focused squarely on his work in the Senate to help create jobs, ease the burden on family budgets and provide tax relief to those who need it most.”

    Even if the court rules in favor of the recall effort, organizers face considerable hurdles in the months ahead. To put the recall on a statewide ballot, organizers must obtain 1.3 million voter signatures — about a quarter of New Jersey’s electorate.

    Menendez and his allies have blasted the effort, with state Democratic Party Chairman John Wisniewski suggesting last month that the campaign is racially motivated.

  80. Although there are still some Doctors that order 3 view abdomens/sonograms/cat scans on every single abdominal pain that walks in the door. Most people are constipated and if the Doctor would take an adequate history and actually palpate the patient many useless studies would not be ordered. I also know a Dr. that speaks to his patients from the door of the exam room and NEVER touches the patient and orders a boat load of tests on everyone….this is what people are used to and now the freaking dr’s are complaining!

  81. SOMEWHAT COMPLIMENTARY ASSESSMENT OF MS. PALIN BY NY TIMES

    Really, through some of the veiled criticisms comes quite a bit of praise for how quickly she can adapt.

    nytimes.com/2010/04/05/business/media/05carr.html

    How Sarah Palin Became a Brand
    By DAVID CARR
    Published: April 4, 2010

    When Sarah Palin made her debut as the host of “Real American Stories” on Fox News on Thursday night, she described several triumphs of regular people over insurmountable odds, but she missed an obvious one: her own.

    After her failed bid for the vice presidency, she was more or less told to head back to Alaska to serve out her term as governor — a kind of metaphorical kitchen.

    Instead, she quit her day job and proceeded to become a one-woman national media empire, with the ratings and lucre to show for it.

    With its tales of uplift and pluck, “Real American Stories” trades in the kind of easy sentimentality that provokes eye rolls among those of us who work in media while quickening the pulse and patriotic ardor of almost everyone else. At the beginning of the show, Ms. Palin promised that it would “reaffirm our pioneering spirit and unmatched generosity, here and around the world.”

    And so it did, with two million people tuning in. It featured a young man with cerebral palsy who was inspired to walk by the love of a dog, a millionaire who financed the college educations of legions of underprivileged youngsters, and a soldier who died to save his brothers in arms. (LL Cool J’s interview was withdrawn after he complained that it was going to be used in Ms. Palin’s show, proving that not everyone was in the reaffirming mood.)

    “It’s not the kind of thing that’s going to excite you guys on the East Coast, but everyone else is dying to hear stories like these,” said one of her representatives who was not authorized to speak on the record but was authorized to slam the East Coast.

    Ms. Palin’s politics can border on the atavistic, but beyond her Tea Party theatrics, she has tunneled her own route into the public consciousness and gone into the Sarah Palin Across America business. And what a business it is.

    She was paid a $1.25 million retainer by HarperCollins. Her book, “Going Rogue,” has sold 2.2 million copies, according to its publisher, and she has another tentatively scheduled for this fall.

    She now has an actual television career, including appearances as a pundit on Fox News, her gig as the host of “Real American Stories” four times a year, and a coming eight-part series on TLC called “Sarah Palin’s Alaska,” which will cost, according to some media reports, $1 million an episode (a lot more than governors make for “Come visit!” P.S.A.’s).

    Other people have crossed the border from politics to media to very good effect — George Stephanopoulos, Patrick Buchanan and Chris Matthews, to name a few — but the transition was far more gradual. Ms. Palin turned on a dime and was a ratings sensation from the word go: her first paid appearance, as a commentator on “The O’Reilly Factor” on Jan. 12, was good for an extra million viewers.

    Her appeal doesn’t stop at the red states. When Ms. Palin stopped by to chat with Oprah Winfrey — not exactly friendly territory — the show achieved its biggest ratings in two years.

    Ms. Palin didn’t go on the show to run for president as much as to become the next Oprah. And it seems to be working.

    So what are the rest of us missing?

    Back in September 2008, when she was unveiled in St. Paul during the Republican convention, a longtime political reporter told me that her appeal would burn off over time. I wondered about that. I’m from Minnesota, which is sometimes considered the southernmost tip of Alaska, and her way of speaking in credulous golly-gee may have been off-putting to some, but there is a kind of authenticity there that no image handler could conjure.

    In Ms. Palin’s America, everyone’s got bootstraps; they just need to have the gumption to find them. And her version is full of plain old folks spending a lot of time overcoming a great deal, including a government that she posits usually intends to do them harm. “America is exceptional! It’s not her politicians that make her so; it’s her everyday people and the values Americans hold so dear,” she said on her Facebook page, which, by the way, has 1.5 million fans.

    She’s also imported the political trick of coming from the outside and ruling from the center. When she sets down the ear piece and leaves the studio lights, even the way she says the word “media” in her speeches — “MEE-dee-uh” — makes it sound like something yucky and foul, a swamp to be avoided at all costs. Unless, of course, you are promoting a show, a book or a cause.

    Many observers thought her unwillingness to serve out her term would be fatal to her ambitions, but the fact that governance did not suit her — she resigned as governor back in July — has become a kind of credential.

    Ms. Palin still gets a session in the media spanking machine every time she does anything, but the disapproval seems to further cement the support of her loyalists. Ms. Palin may or may not be qualified to represent America around the world, but she certainly represents vast swaths of the American public and has a lucrative new career to show for it.

    If we don’t see why, then maybe we deserve the “lamestream media” label she likes to give us.

    During the 2008 campaign, she was accused by the staff of Senator John McCain of running her own show and going off message. Then she took their disregard and made a book title out of it. “Going Rogue” is just one more example of how her inability or unwillingness to connect with the establishment leaders gives her credibility elsewhere. That’s a skill that works every bit as well on television as on the stump.

    Last week, she returned to Senator McCain’s side to help in his re-election bid. As she bounded across the stage in Arizona and Cindy McCain struggled to maintain her frozen smile, even people who can’t stand her politics must have laughed.

  82. D’OH-BAMA LIED TO US

    Money quote: “And it is not just on health care. On issue after issue, Obama campaigned one way and is governing in a different way.”

    politico.com/news/stories/0410/35421.html

    Obama’s bait-and-switch campaign
    =============================

    By NORM COLEMAN | 4/6/10 5:00 AM EDT

    One telling moment in the 18-month health care debate was at the White House Summit. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) reminded President Barack Obama of his campaign promises to “bring us together” on health care.

    “We’re not campaigning anymore,” the president said, “the election is over.” The next question should have been, “Does that mean your campaign promises are null and void?”

    Enough time has passed, and enough actions seen, to conclude that Obama ran as one kind of president but is governing as a very different one.

    What the American people want is the kind of president Obama sold them: a post-partisan consensus-builder.

    They are justifiably angry at the massive bait-and-switch on health care reform, the most important public policy debate in our lifetime. Obama has violated their trust, especially devastating with the long list of challenges we need unity to tackle, like jobs, energy and the deficit.

    Health care is an emotional issue for everyone. In my years in government I learned that the deeper an issue, the more carefully leaders have to listen; and the greater the need for consensus-building rather than using raw political power.

    Obama promised to expand health care coverage by 32 million people, and add not one dime to the deficit. He promised Americans who wanted to keep their coverage that the government would leave it alone.

    He promised the bill would help the economy and grow jobs when millions of unemployed Americans are looking for hope.

    He promised not to add to states’ debts.

    But those promises won’t come true.

    The law will not pay for itself. In a New York Times op-ed piece, former CBO head and American Action Forum president Douglas Holtz-Eakin estimates it could put the country about $560-billion in the hole.

    The law could cost jobs, hurt economic growth and hamper innovation. Verizon, AT&T, Caterpillar, John Deere, 3M and others have filed SEC reports that this bill will cost them a combined ten billion dollars.

    Beacon Hill Institute, the fiscally conservative economic research group of Boston?s Suffolk University, estimates 700,000 jobs will be lost, as small and medium-sized businesses try to provide health care for their employees.

    The law does not allow seniors to keep the insurance they have. By 2019, 4.8 million seniors will be squeezed off Medicare Advantage.

    The law does not help states with the high cost of health care. It makes the states? budget situations worse. By 2014, states will be required to pay 50 percent of the administrative costs that come with expanding Medicaid.

    This law will not let the middle class keep its plans. CBO projects that by 2016, the basic plan, covering only 70 percent of a family’s medical expenses, will cost $14,100 a year. Families making $88,000 or more won’t qualify for the government subsidies.

    This means a family making $100,000 could spend as much as one-fifth of annual income to keep private insurance.

    Everybody understands that the status quo on health care was not acceptable.

    This issue cried out for a bipartisan approach. We should have worked together, and done things differently.

    In fact, Obama promised during the campaign that he would do things differently — with change we can all believe in.

    The American people believed that he would change how Washington does business. That he would seek consensus. That he would genuinely listen to the other side, find the best ideas and move forward in such a way as to unify the country.

    But he didn’t. Instead, he decided to jam legislation down the throats of the American people. Poll after poll shows that a majority of the people do not support this law.

    They don’t like the cost. They don’t like what they believe will be its impact on their personal health insurance.

    Most of all, they don’t like the process. They don’t like the back-room deals. They don’t like the arm-twisting. They don’t like exercise in raw power that shows that the politicians are not listening to them.

    And it is not just on health care. On issue after issue, Obama campaigned one way and is governing in a different way.

    He said he would fight waste, but he signed a pork-filled stimulus bill. He said he would cut taxes on the middle class, but they face tax increases on health care. He said he would be Israel’s strongest supporter, but we all now know that isn’t true.

    He said he would unify the country. But the country is more polarized than ever.

    The president took great pride in signing this health care law. But that won’t help him with the American people.

    He is not living up to his promises. This law does not live up to its promise.

    We can do better. The president is right. We aren’t campaigning any more.

    But it is obvious that Obama the campaigner was more compelling than Obama the president — who looks to be a rather conventional liberal politician.

    &&&
    Norm Coleman, who served as Republican senator from Minnesota, is now chief executive officer of the American Action Network.

  83. I really like Sarah Palin, but I can’t stand to hear her speeches, her voice is so high pitched it is almost irritating. She is a reformer and I like that, and I will vote for her again, but I am still hoping for Hillary!

  84. D’OH-BAMA’S “DEAD CAT BOUNCE”

    (As a multi-cat owner, I’m allowed to use this feline politically incorrect term.)

    blogs.ajc.com/kyle-wingfield/2010/04/05/still-waiting-for-that-obamacare-bounce/?cxntfid=blogs_kyle_wingfield

    Still waiting for that ObamaCare bounce
    3:01 pm April 5, 2010, by Kyle Wingfield

    Yet another opinion poll indicates the public wasn’t sighing in relief after ObamaCare passed. The latest is from CBS News, which calls the American public “increasingly skeptical” about the new health laws:

    “Fifty-three percent of Americans say they disapprove of the new reforms, including 39 percent who say they disapprove strongly. In the days before the bill passed the House, 37 percent said they approved and 48 percent disapproved.”

    “Republicans and independents remain opposed to the reforms, and support has dropped some among Democrats. Now 52 percent of Democrats approve of the new reforms, a drop from 60 percent just before the bill was passed by Congress.”
    &&&&& end CBS quote &&&&&&&

    So, no softening among Republicans and independents, and a hardening of Democratic opinion against the bill.

    There was a brief bounce: In the days immediately following the House’s passage of ObamaCare, the approval gap for the legislation improved from minus-11 to minus-4 (follow the CBS News results in the second table here). Within one week, however, the gap had re-widened to the current minus-21.

    The same goes for the USA Today/Gallup poll, which showed a 12-point swing in ObamaCare’s favor immediately following the House vote. Less than a week later, however, sentiment as measured by the very same poll had swung back against the new law by those same 12 percentage points.

    Rasmussen Reports shows a steady 12- to 13-point disapproval margin for the bill-turned-law. Recent polls by Quinnipiac and for the Washington Post also show lingering disapproval for the new law.

    The public’s verdict remains clear: While the Democrats could reasonably claim a mandate after the 2008 elections to do some kind of health-care reform, this wasn’t what the people expected or wanted.

    Pundits keep trying to guess how much longer the public will stomach hearing about health care, given that it has dominated the public debate since last summer. The conventional wisdom is that people will tire of hearing about health care, but I think that’s only half-right. People may tire of hearing only about health care, but this kind of early hardening of opinion against ObamaCare suggests that it could easily remain at the heart of a broader election-year debate about the size and scope of government.

    One piece of evidence for my thinking: The early results of the voting at ContractFromAmerica.com. The top three vote-getters so far are a requirement that Congress cite the specific provision of the Constitution that gives it authority to pass any given bill; the rejection of a cap-and-trade plan for CO2 emissions; and a balanced-budget amendment to the Constitution. Each of these ideas has received support from at least two-thirds of the participants so far; the online vote is still under way, and the full results will be announced April 15.

    The president says it will take more than one week for public opinion of ObamaCare to improve. Fair enough. In the meantime, as the public learns more about what’s in the new law, the hole is only getting deeper.

  85. MORE DELICIOUS POLLS

    Good thing Obama says he disregards polls; He wouldn’t like these
    ===================

    April 5, 2010 | 11:18 am

    While you were searching for Easter eggs (you missed one behind the books, bottom shelf), we were searching for recent items for the Monday morning poll basket.

    President Obama recently appeared to endorse offshore oil drilling in certain areas, though any oil and gas production is years away. This poll found an overwhelming majority of Americans agree on the need for offshore drilling and a clear majority support it off the entire U.S. coastline. They would include California and New England, strongly Democratic areas that Obama still excludes.

    Now that Obama has signed his beloved healthcare legislation and despite his continued stumping for the measure, CBS News finds a) the stumping has been ineffective, b) most Americans don’t like the bill (53%), c) many expect the quality of care to decrease while costs continue to increase and d) few see anything in it for them. Other than that, it’s a huge public relations success.

    As another result of the passage and preceding rancorous healthcare debate, Rasmussen Reports finds that 53% of Americans now say they trust Republicans more with this traditionally Democratic issue, while 37% still trust that party.

    As yet another result, Obama’s overall approval rating has now hit the lowest point since he….

    …took office — 44% — which is down five points since before he signed the healthcare bill and down 24 points since his poll high last April.

    On healthcare alone, the president’s disapproval rating is 55% and approval just above one-in-three (34%).

    The RealClearPolitics average has Obama’s approval at 47.5% and disapproval at 46.1.

    A USA Today/Gallup Poll finds 44% of Americans believe healthcare will worsen as a result of Obama’s healthcare bill vs. 34% who think it will help; 55% believe Obama’s bill will worsen healthcare costs, 29% help; 61% believe Obama’s bill will worsen the federal deficit, 23% improve; and 46% believe Obama’s bill will worsen the economy while 35% think it will help.

    The good news for Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is that Americans’ opinion of her hasn’t changed much recently; the bad news is they still don’t like her much.

    Gallup finds that at the beginning of her House control in 2007, the first female speaker’s approval was two times as favorable as unpopular, 44%-22%.

    Today, her favorable rating has slipped to 36% while her unfavorable rating has shot to 54%.

    Today, Senate Democratic Majority Leader Harry Reid’s favorable rating is 29%, unfavorable 45%.

    All the fighting over healthcare the last year while so many Americans said their top concern was the economy has now resulted in Democrats losing their large edge on the economy. Last summer, CNN/Opinion Research found, 52% of Americans knew Democrats would handle the economy better than Republicans (39%).

    Today it’s flipped to 48-45 in the GOP’s favor.

    On handling terrorism, the gap is even wider: Republicans 50%, Democrats 40%.

    As for non-politics, now that we have the very first game of the Major League Baseball season out of the way (Red Sox 9, Yankees 7), a plurality of Americans has already decided that the New York team will win another World Series. So why even bother with Obama’s first pitch in Washington today or the rest of the season?

    — Andrew Malcolm

  86. Thomas Sowell points out that the charges against the poll intimidators (I believe this was the Philly case) have been dropped:

    “What has his administration done– as distinguished from what the president has said– since taking office? It has dropped the prosecution of black thugs caught on camera stationed outside a polling place intimidating voters. Obama has promoted to the Supreme Court a circuit judge who dismissed a discrimination lawsuit by white firefighters, whose case the Supreme Court later accepted and ruled in their favor.”

    Here’s the whole piece:

    realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/04/06/race_and_politics_105052.html

    April 6, 2010
    Race and Politics
    By Thomas Sowell

    Few combinations are more poisonous than race and politics. That combination has torn whole nations apart and led to the slaughters of millions in countries around the world.

    You might think we would have learned a lesson from that and stay away from injecting race into political issues. Yet playing the race card has become an increasingly common response to growing public anger at the policies of the Obama administration and the way those policies have been imposed.

    When the triumphant Democrats made their widely televised walk up Capitol Hill after passing the health care bill, led by a smirking and strutting Nancy Pelosi, holding her oversized gavel, some of the crowd of citizens expressed their anger. According to some Democrats, these expressions of anger included racial slurs directed at black members of Congress.

    This is a serious charge– and one deserving of some serious evidence. But, despite all the media recording devices on the scene, not to mention recording devices among the crowd gathered there, nobody can come up with a single recorded sound to back up that incendiary charge. Worse yet, some people have claimed that even doubting the charge suggests that you are a racist.

    Among the people who are likely to be most disappointed with the Obama administration are those who thought it would usher in a post-racial society. That they wished for such a society is a credit to their values. But that they actually expected a move in that direction suggests that they ignored both Barack Obama’s history and the heavy vested interest that too many people have in race hustling.

    This is just one of many areas in which this country is likely to pay a very high price for the fact that too many voters paid attention to Obama’s rhetoric while ignoring his actual track record.

    However soothing the Obama rhetoric, and however lofty his statements about being a uniter rather than a divider– both racially and in terms of bipartisanship– everything in his past fairly shouts the opposite, but only to those who follow facts.

    Has he been allied with uniters or dividers in the past? Do Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers and Father Pfleger sound like uniters?

    What has his administration done– as distinguished from what the president has said– since taking office?

    It has dropped the prosecution of black thugs caught on camera stationed outside a polling place intimidating voters.

    Obama has promoted to the Supreme Court a circuit judge who dismissed a discrimination lawsuit by white firefighters, whose case the Supreme Court later accepted and ruled in their favor.

    He preceded this appointment by talking about needing people on the court with “empathy.” That is a pretty word but the ugly reality is that it is just another euphemism for bias. For generations, white Southern judges had all kinds of empathy for other white Southerners, which is to say, bias against blacks.

    The question is whether you want equal treatment or you want payback. Cycles of revenge and counter-revenge have been at the heart of racial and ethnic strife throughout history, in countries around the world. It is a history written in blood. It is history we don’t need to repeat in the United States of America.

    Political demagoguery and political favoritism have turned groups violently against each other, even in countries where they have lived peacefully side by side for generations. Ceylon was one of those countries in the first half of the 20th century, before the politics of group favoritism so polarized the country– now called Sri Lanka– that it produced a decades-long civil war with mass slaughters and unspeakable atrocities.

    The world has been shocked by the mass slaughters of the Tutsis by the Hutus in Rwanda but, half a century ago, there had been no such systematic slaughters there. Political demagoguery whipped up ethnic polarization, among people who had co-existed, who spoke the same language and had even intermarried.

    We know– or should know– what lies at the end of the road of racial polarization. A “race card” is not something to play, because race is a very dangerous political plaything.

  87. Breaking: David Shuster Suspended Indefinitely From MSNBC (Update)
    by Steve Krakauer | 9:29 am, April 6th, 2010» 2 comments
    breaking

    Mediaite has learned David Shuster has been suspended from MSNBC, effective immediately.

    This comes on the heels of a report Friday he had filmed a pilot for CNN – for which MSNBC said he would be “punished appropriately.” He met with MSNBC President Phil Griffin yesterday afternoon.

    An MSNBC spokesperson tells Mediaite: “David has been suspended indefinitely.”

    Shuster has been suspended from Twitter as well, after MSNBC deemed his exchange with James O’Keefe inappropriate. He was also suspended for two weeks in 2008 for his “pimped out” comment about Chelsea Clinton. With his contract up at the end of 2010, we’ll see if Shuster ever returns to the MSNBC line-up.

    An interesting wrinkle to this is Shuster has a new executive producer, Gresham Streigel, who came over from Fox News and Glenn Beck earlier this year. MSNBC confirms Streigel remains EP of both hours.

    We’ve also inquired if there will be a temporary replacement for the two hours Shuster used to anchor.

    > Update: Today the anchors will be Contessa Brewer at 10amET and Ed Schultz again at 3pmET. This is, however, not the permanent line-up.

    —–

  88. I forgot to add to the above…HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA …

    Will pee down my leg be next !!!

  89. Shulman said the IRS is using “our robust and evolving enforcement program that ensures that everyone pays what they owe.”
    **********************

    Sooo, does this include Geitner? (sp)

  90. Yes Gontox..this is incredible but no one seems concerned!!! He is weakening our ability to defend ourselves!!!!

  91. If you have not watched Greta’s interview with the one up for re-election in Nevada, Harry Reid, it will be posted on GretaWire in its entirety. The show was interrupted at least twice by breaking news about the coal miners, but the part I thought interesting was where he was downright giddy over the fact that since HCR was shoved down our throats that he is witnessing the fruit (that he knew was there and he planned for – but only in his pointy little head) of his labors. He says with a sh!t eating grin on his face that since they passed the legislation that people are delighted with how it is (and will) help them.
    When Greta questions Reid about the CornHuskers kickback he says that he gave Nelson what he wanted, but knew in his head that he would be able to give it to every state. Crock!
    It disturbed me what I saw on the wall in his home. The interview took place in Reid’s Nevada home. Look at it and see if you see what I thought I saw. I thought I saw a poster/portrait of the Obummer much in the vein of the [No] HOPE poster. Does anyone else have a huge portrait of their BOSS in their home???? Does Reid think Obummer is the Messy-iah????? Does Reid get down on his knees on a carpet and worship him several times a day? I suspected as much.
    My prayer is that this worshipper of everything UN-American about our government be voted out in November.

  92. MORE UGLY TRUTHS EMERGE FROM HEALTH SCARE BILL

    Money quote: “The real story here—and the one that is getting little attention—is that the new law will likely result in a change of drug coverage for 1.5 million to two million retirees as they are moved from their employer-sponsored plans, according to a study we commissioned by former Office of Management and Budget official Don Moran.”

    online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304871704575160320712566924.html#articleTabs=article

    APRIL 6, 2010
    The White House and the Writedowns
    =============================
    The administration wants companies to ignore known costs and book speculative future savings. That’s Enron accounting.
    &&&

    By JAMES A. KLEIN
    Commerce Secretary Gary Locke had it backwards last week on these pages when he cited the “hype and overheated rhetoric” of U.S. corporations that have reported large writedowns in response to health-care reform.

    In fact, the companies’ accounting announcements were written in the most bland prose imaginable. It was the Obama administration that created the controversy by suggesting that these legally required filings were politically motivated. Mr. Locke himself publicly criticized the companies for being “premature” in making these disclosures, even though rules enforced by the Securities and Exchange Commission require immediate disclosure.

    The new health-care law contains two sentences that change the tax treatment of a subsidy originally crafted in 2003 when Congress established the Medicare prescription drug program. As a result, companies must now impose on their financial statements the present value of their entire new future tax liability. The Obama administration’s position is a) that the original tax provision was actually a “loophole,” and b) that companies are acting irresponsibly by refusing to acknowledge the overall cost savings associated with the new law.

    As to the first charge, some historical context is helpful. In 2003 Congress considered enacting either a larger, taxable subsidy or a smaller, nontaxable one. From both the perspective of the federal government and the companies receiving the subsidy, the real economic impact would have been identical either way. For reasons that entirely served the federal government’s peculiar accounting methods, Democratic and Republican lawmakers agreed to the smaller non-taxable subsidy.

    Notwithstanding the unusual tax treatment in the original provision, the bottom line is indisputable: The subsidy exists for the express purpose of saving the government money by keeping retirees on company prescription drug plans rather than having them enroll in the Medicare drug plan. Now that Congress has reversed the policy, corporations must report eye-popping charges on their financial statements.

    As for the government’s assertion that companies are failing to adequately account for all the savings they will enjoy from health-care reform, isn’t that exactly the kind of “creative” accounting that got Enron in trouble? Even assuming the administration is right that the various features of the new law will reduce future health costs, it would be highly inappropriate for companies to try to book these speculative future savings.

    And if companies did so, wouldn’t accuracy dictate that they also take a charge for all of the new law’s provisions that could add to health-care costs? Fortunately, accounting rules have meaning because they require reporting things that are known (like the new tax on the drug subsidy) rather than things that are either hoped for or feared but may never come to pass.

    The real story here—and the one that is getting little attention—is that the new law will likely result in a change of drug coverage for 1.5 million to two million retirees as they are moved from their employer-sponsored plans, according to a study we commissioned by former Office of Management and Budget official Don Moran. Reasonable people can differ as to whether shifting retirees to the Medicare drug program is good or bad policy. But two things are certain. First, it will cost the federal government more money. Second, employers will be excoriated when it happens.

    When an administration is unwilling to accept criticism of two sentences in a 2,700-page law there is a problem. The White House needs to stop being so defensive. Here’s a new talking point for Press Secretary Robert Gibbs to try: “Overall, we are very proud of the sweeping legislation we have enacted. But we acknowledge that the drug-subsidy provision is having unintended, negative consequences for companies, and potentially also for retirees and government costs.”

    Short of admitting that they were repeatedly warned this would happen, the administration and the Democratic leadership in Congress might at least stop accusing companies of hype and inflated rhetoric.

  93. New Yuck Times saying anything remotely positive about Palin is suspect. Bet the dimocrats would love to see her in syndication as it would neutralize her.

  94. wbboei
    Thanks for the stats re changes in party affiliation. I just saw it this morning or I’d have recognized it earlier.

  95. OGREMANN IN BLISS?

    I did something unusual, something I hadn’t done in two years or so…while channel surfing around 8:30pm, I let it stay on Olbermann’s show for a couple of minutes.

    His Special Comment section was coming up, and he said, “For the first time, I have nothing to complain about…” and he went on to air some silly video to fill the time.

    I guess with Obama “winning” on health care, and all the Talking Heads pronouncing that “The president is BACK”, that all must be right in the world.

    Crippling unemployment, Keith? “No biggie”

    Ballooniing debt crisis? “Don’t mattah”

    Health care bill chock full of problems? “Who cares??”

    Lovely Keith. You got your show, you have your dwindling viewership, you probably have three nice cars and a big house. And you have historic token president throwing out baseballs on opening day. Ah, Paradise.

  96. REPUBS LOOKING LIKELY TO RETAIN BUNNING’S SENATE SEAT

    realclearpolitics.blogs.time.com/2010/04/06/ky-sen-poll-gopers-up-big/

    Trey Grayson and Rand Paul are entrenched in one of the most interesting and combative primaries in the country, as both Republicans vie for the chance to replace outgoing Kentucky Sen. Jim Bunning (R). A new Rasmussen poll (March 31, 500 LV, MoE +/- 4.5%) finds that either candidate would easily win the general election over either of the two Democrats running, Daniel Mongiardo and Jack Conway.

    Grayson 53 (+7 vs. last poll, March 2)
    Mongiardo 33 (nc)
    Und 9

    Paul 52 (+1)
    Mongiardo 37 (+3)
    Und 8

    Grayson 52 (+3)
    Conway 32 (+1)
    Und 11

    Paul 50 (+1)
    Conway 36 (+2)
    Und 11

    Both Republicans hold large leads in the RCP Averages, while Paul and Mongiardo have led the most recent primary polls.

  97. MORE “AHA!!” ON HEALTH SCARE

    politico.com/news/stories/0410/35413.html

    Issa aims to unmask health care deals
    ================================

    CHRIS FRATES | 4/5/10 5:41 PM EDT

    A top House Republican is investigating the legislative deals the White House and Democratic leadership cut with special interest groups while crafting the new health care reform law. And California Rep. Darrell Issa is not happy with the American Medical Association’s terse response to his questions.

    Issa, the ranking Republican on the House Oversight Committee, sent letters to five special interest groups, most of which supported reform and cut deals with the Democrats.

    “Contrary to the president’s oft-stated goal of transparency, the rank-and-file members of the Democratic Caucus and the entire Republican Conference have not had the opportunity to participate in the negotiations between the Democratic leadership, the White House and health care stakeholders. This is troubling to members of Congress who value transparency in government,” Issa wrote to the AMA, AFSCME, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the American Hospital Association and PhRMA.

    Issa asked the groups to detail the health care meetings they had with White House and Democratic congressional leadership officials, what benefits they won from the negotiations and what they were required to provide in return.

    PhRMA, the drug industry’s powerful Washington lobbying group, cut a $90 billion deal with the White House and Senate Democrats. The AHA and the hospital industry cut a $155 billion deal with Democrats to help pay for reform. The union AFSCME successfully lobbied the White House to soften the tax on high-end insurance plans. The Chamber had multiple meetings with White House and congressional staffers, but ultimately opposed the legislation.

    The AMA, one of the nation’s most prominent doctors’ groups, was a big supporter of reform even though its No. 1 priority — a permanent solution to looming annual cuts to doctors’ Medicare reimbursements — was eventually stripped from the legislation. The so-called doc fix was stripped from the bill because of its expense, but Democrats have repeatedly promised to address the problem this year.

    The doc fix’s unfinished status may help explain AMA’s two-paragraph response to Issa’s questions. AMA president James Rohack told Issa his group lobbied, but not much else.

    “Such advocacy has always been in the constitutionally protected tradition of petitioning government and elected representatives for redress and has not resulted in any ‘pre-arranged deal or agreement’ or other inappropriate quid pro quo,” Rohack wrote to Issa.

    Issa spokesman Kurt Bardella blasted the AMA’s response calling it “totally unacceptable” and “incomplete.”

    “If everything that happened is justifiable and defendable, they really should have no issue in providing us with answers,” Bardella said. “One way or the other, we’re going to get answers to these questions.”

    Issa will send another letter to the AMA asking for more complete answers. And if need be, Bardella said, Issa will explore deposing or subpoenaing the AMA or any other group that does not provide sufficient answers.

    An AMA spokeswoman fired back, saying, “We’re troubled that this comment came via a reporter and not directly from the congressman’s office, and, while we stand by our letter, we would be pleased to continue our ongoing dialogue with Rep. Issa.”

    The group supported health reform because it improved the system, but she said the AMA is still working for a permanent doc fix.

    Of the five groups, the AMA and the Chamber have responded to the committee, Bardella said.

  98. U.S. Court Strikes Down FCC’s Internet Takeover

    Like a reckless child finally told to stand in the corner, the Federal Communications Commission’s attempt to regulate the Internet has been dealt a severe blow. This morning, the U.S. Court of Appeals for D.C. ruled unanimously in Comcast v. FCC that the FCC had no jurisdictional authority to enforce its long-sought Net Neutrality rules.
    The FCC attempted to throw the kitchen sink at the Court, creating new interpretations of their “ancillary jurisdiction” over the Internet and tossing in a variety of federal laws and policy statements to back up their case. Yet, the court shot back at virtually every argument presented, stating “the Commission’s attempt to dictate the operation of an otherwise unregulated service…defies any plausible notion of ‘ancillariness.'”

    Perhaps most importantly, the Court called out the FCC for blatantly attempting to broaden their authority well beyond the legal bounds. Justices stated that if in prior court cases the FCC “strained the outer limits of even the open-ended and pervasive jurisdiction,” in this attempt “it seeks to shatter them entirely.” The Justices conclude by stating:

    “Notwithstanding the “difficult regulatory problem of rapid technological change”…“the allowance of wide latitude in the exercise of delegated powers is not the equivalent of untrammeled freedom to regulate activities over which the statute fails to confer…Commission authority.”

    http://www.atr.org/u-s-court-strikes-down-fccs-a4751
    __________________________

    Government run and censored Internet, delayed but not stopped. Net Neutrality is the warm fuzzy Soros vehicle, using the ruse of the big companies are screwing you already.

    The group “Free Press” is another of these Soros front groups designed to throw you off the track … Hey who is against free press right? Another Soros ruse. If this fails, they’ll try again under the COMMERCE CLAUSE…

    Will the recent made up EPA CO2 rules for human’s responsibility for global warming follow?

  99. Today has been my day for doctors. It began in the emergency room with my mother this morning and by lunch I was also spending quality time with my own physician. Surrounded as I was by so much medical wisdom–and I mean that in earnest, I had to ask the obvious question–how sayeth ye about Obamacare?

    Bear in mind, these are quality physicians who deal with patients and spend their lives in the trenches–not the lobbyists of the AMA who at one time funded commercials which said Camel cigarettes are the favorite choice of physicians. These are the heroes, and the people I am talking about are not in it for the money but to serve their people who need medical help.

    In speaking to these people my findings were as follows: i) they find it hypocritical that politicians would claim that they have now created universal health care, ii) we have had universal health care in this country for many years since hospitals cannot turn away people in need who have no ability to pay, iii) the real question is how do we pay for these so called free riders, iv) we have to find a way to do this which is constitutional, v) they support the law suit by our attorney general who is a republican contesting the constitutionality of Obamacare, vii) they point out that although the attorney general in question actions are bitterly opposed by our dimwitted Dimocratic Governor, this is not a partisan action on his part, vii) the proof of this is this same attorney general filed a lawsuit against the prior Republican Administration over the Patriot Act, viii) they deplore the CBO cost estimates, as being grossly understated and the assumptions upon which they are based, 1x) a good example of this is the phantom savings from a 21% reduction in doctors fees, x) they go on to point out that if that is enacted it will destroy the profit margin which make a physician practice viable, and x1) they point out that the real problem is useless, duplicative, and costly new technology, and xii) like the legal profession, doctors have a tendency now to gravitate toward the more esoteric aspects of medicine, and they need to get back to basics–this bill will not help.

  100. POORLY CONSTRUCTED HEALTH ____ BILL NOT SEAWORTHY.
    AND NOW WE KNOW ANOTHER GROUP WHO WAS DELIGHTED ABOUT THE PASSAGE OF THIS BILL: LAWYERS

    Here come the lawsuits.
    The attacks on the bill are only just starting…

    boston.com/business/healthcare/articles/2010/04/06/health_insurers_sue_to_raise_rates/

    Health insurers sue to raise rates
    =====================
    Say state’s veto will cause huge losses; Showdown near on regulatory power
    &&&

    A half-dozen health insurers yesterday filed a lawsuit against the state seeking to reverse last week’s decision by the insurance commissioner to block double-digit premium increases — a ruling they say could leave them with hundreds of millions in losses this year.

    The proposed rate hikes would have taken effect April 1 for plans covering thousands of small businesses and individuals. Insurers wanted to raise base rates an average of 8 percent to 32 percent; tacked on to that are often additional costs calculated according to factors such as the size and age of the workforce.

    Yesterday’s legal action sets the stage for a showdown between state regulators and the health insurance industry.

    Governor Deval Patrick has made reining in runaway health care costs a centerpiece of his administration and his campaign for reelection — contending they are stifling the capacity of small businesses to create jobs. At the same time, health insurers argue that government is forcing them to sell policies at a loss that is unsustainable as the costs of medical services climb.

    Filing the suit were Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Massachusetts, the state’s largest health insurer, and the five commercial members of the Massachusetts Association of Health Plans: Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, Tufts Health Plan, Fallon Community Health Plan, Health New England, and Neighborhood Health Plan. All are nonprofit carriers.

    The insurance carriers will go before a judge on Thursday in Massachusetts Superior Court in Boston asking for a preliminary injunction against Insurance Commissioner Joseph G. Murphy’s decision to reject 235 of 274 premium hikes proposed by the insurers.

    Those rulings, which marked the first time the state has used its authority to deny health plan increases, were delivered last Thursday. They followed emergency regulations Patrick set requiring that rates be submitted 30 days in advance for review by regulators.

    The rulings mean that health insurance rates established in 2009 for small businesses and individuals will remain in effect — rates the insurers say were not even sufficient to cover last year’s costs.

    “What the commissioner did, we think, is going to create tremendous disruption in the marketplace,’’ said Dean Richlin, a partner at Boston law firm Foley Hoag who represents insurers.

    Health insurance leaders are also contending the health premium rate rejections are a distraction from what they see as the real problem: steadily rising medical costs, particularly from health care providers and hospital groups that use their market clout to negotiate long-term contracts on favorable terms with the insurance carriers.

    “We’re particularly distressed that this does nothing to contain the underlying hospital costs and doctor costs and drug costs,’’ said James Roosevelt Jr., the chief executive of Tufts Health Plan.

    Barbara Anthony, undersecretary of the state Office of Consumer Affairs and Business Regulation, which oversees insurance regulators, defended Murphy’s rulings and said the insurers’ lawsuit lacked merit. She said state law gives the commissioner the right to reject rates that are excessive compared to the benefits provided.

    A half-dozen health insurers yesterday filed a lawsuit against the state seeking to reverse last week’s decision by the insurance commissioner to block double-digit premium increases — a ruling they say could leave them with hundreds of millions in losses this year.

    The proposed rate hikes would have taken effect April 1 for plans covering thousands of small businesses and individuals. Insurers wanted to raise base rates an average of 8 percent to 32 percent; tacked on to that are often additional costs calculated according to factors such as the size and age of the workforce.

    Yesterday’s legal action sets the stage for a showdown between state regulators and the health insurance industry.

    Governor Deval Patrick has made reining in runaway health care costs a centerpiece of his administration and his campaign for reelection — contending they are stifling the capacity of small businesses to create jobs. At the same time, health insurers argue that government is forcing them to sell policies at a loss that is unsustainable as the costs of medical services climb.

    Filing the suit were Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Massachusetts, the state’s largest health insurer, and the five commercial members of the Massachusetts Association of Health Plans: Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, Tufts Health Plan, Fallon Community Health Plan, Health New England, and Neighborhood Health Plan. All are nonprofit carriers.

    The insurance carriers will go before a judge on Thursday in Massachusetts Superior Court in Boston asking for a preliminary injunction against Insurance Commissioner Joseph G. Murphy’s decision to reject 235 of 274 premium hikes proposed by the insurers.

    Those rulings, which marked the first time the state has used its authority to deny health plan increases, were delivered last Thursday. They followed emergency regulations Patrick set requiring that rates be submitted 30 days in advance for review by regulators.

    The rulings mean that health insurance rates established in 2009 for small businesses and individuals will remain in effect — rates the insurers say were not even sufficient to cover last year’s costs.

    “What the commissioner did, we think, is going to create tremendous disruption in the marketplace,’’ said Dean Richlin, a partner at Boston law firm Foley Hoag who represents insurers.

    Health insurance leaders are also contending the health premium rate rejections are a distraction from what they see as the real problem: steadily rising medical costs, particularly from health care providers and hospital groups that use their market clout to negotiate long-term contracts on favorable terms with the insurance carriers.

    “We’re particularly distressed that this does nothing to contain the underlying hospital costs and doctor costs and drug costs,’’ said James Roosevelt Jr., the chief executive of Tufts Health Plan.

    Barbara Anthony, undersecretary of the state Office of Consumer Affairs and Business Regulation, which oversees insurance regulators, defended Murphy’s rulings and said the insurers’ lawsuit lacked merit. She said state law gives the commissioner the right to reject rates that are excessive compared to the benefits provided.

    “He’s on firm legal ground in disapproving the rates,’’ Anthony said.

    The insurers’ complaint alleges that the state Division of Insurance acted illegally in three ways: by imposing a “rate cap’’ that is arbitrary and capricious; by attempting to peg rates to a measure — the medical consumer price index — that does not predict future costs; and by violating a requirement to enable insurers to charge adequate rates based on their projected costs in covering medical care.

    “As a result of the commissioner’s action,’’ Richlin said, “the insurance companies will experience substantial and, in some cases, staggering losses. We estimate the collective loss among all of the insurers will run into the hundreds of millions of dollars just for 2010. There are some number that will face near-term solvency problems.’’

    Three of the largest state health insurers — Blue Cross-Blue Shield of Boston, Tufts Health Plan of Watertown, and Fallon Community Health Plan of Worcester — posted operating losses for 2009.

    Anthony said the insurers’ contentions were “specious,’’ and reflected how out of touch the industry is with the pressures ordinary citizens and businessmen face as Massachusetts emerges from recession.

    “This is an outrageous response from an industry that claimed to be concerned about alleviating these escalating health care costs,’’ Anthony said. “I think it’s clear that the insurance companies are in love with the status quo where they get to continue to charge double-digit premium increases on small businesses and families.’’

    In their request for an injunction, the health insurers are asking the Superior Court judge to let their proposed rate increases take effect or, barring that, require that the increases be collected from customers and put in escrow until the lawsuit is resolved. That way small businesses and individuals wouldn’t be faced with paying large lump sums later in the year if the judge eventually ruled in favor of the insurers.

    While the suit predicts the plaintiffs “will suffer collective losses that threaten to amount to well over $100 million,’’ the actual impact will depend on a number of factors such as the strength of their reserves and their ability to negotiate more advantageous contracts with hospitals and physicians groups. Some insurers already have been rebuffed in recent efforts to renegotiate long-term contracts with such health care providers, according to insurance industry leaders.

    “Insurance plans have multiyear contracts with providers,’’ said Lora Pellegrini, the chief executive of the Massachusetts Association of Health Plans, a trade group for insurers. “What incentive is there for providers to renegotiate contracts?’’

    Catherine Bromberg, a Massachusetts Hospital Association spokeswoman, said she was unaware of discussions between insurers and individual hospitals about reopening contracts.

    Insurers are required to maintain financial reserves to cushion them against losses, but such reserves won’t protect them indefinitely if they are not permitted to cover their costs, the carriers said.

    Jon B. Hurst, the president of the Retailers Association of Massachusetts, which represents 3,100 retailers and restaurants, said his members are hoping the judge rejects the insurers’ arguments so they can be spared further rate increases they can ill afford. “Just as they’re fighting this in the courts, they’re fighting our efforts to get group discounts for small businesses,’’ Hurst said.

  101. Wbboei,

    Those physicians get it wrong. If you’re middle class and you don’t have health insurance, getting health care of any kind is almost impossible. Doctors don’t want to see patients who don’t have insurance. It took me years, literally, to get a prescription for high blood pressure. I’d see physicians, who would hand me samples, and tell me to go to county. But if I were to go to the county facility, I wouldn’t be eligible for treatment there either. I earn too much money. I finally went to a local for-profit clinic and begged them for a prescription. I have to go back every three months for a check up, but as long as I do that, they renew the scrip. But I had to go to a lot of doctors before I found them.

    If you have very little money, you can get healthcare from county. If you have an emergency, you can healthcare. If you have insurance, you can get healthcare. But if you do fall in to any of those categories, and you have a problem that isn’t suited to an emergency room intervention, you are out of luck.

    People over 50 frequently cannot get any kind of health insurance. But because we have some assets, we do not qualify for county programs. So we wind up in a situation where we have virtually no access to any kind of health care. I have a problem now that’s impacting my life in a major way that I literally have no ability to deal with. I’m wondering if I’m going to have put up with it until I qualify for Medi-Care – that is, if our current health care reform doesn’t destroy Medicare entirely in that time frame.

  102. Oh, another story. My closest friend is a 60+ yo man who had a prostrate problem. A year previous, he’d wound up in the hospital for an attack of diverticulitis that left him with an $80k hospital bill that he had no ability to resolve quickly. He spent three years having to catheterize himself in order to urinate because he had no means to get the necessary surgery. Because of the outstanding bill, none of the hospitals would accommodate as a non-emergency patient. Because he earned a moderately good income and owned a home, he didn’t qualify for any county programs.

  103. I find it extremely unusual that Harry Reid seems to think since healthcare passed he will be re-elected…does that mean Obama will fix the voting machines in Nevada or what because the people who live there want Harry to find new work for himself.

    Has anyone seen Hillary, she’s looks so tired. She is working her butt off while Odummer looks rested and healthy…she looks as if she’s been the President.

  104. I was not declined for insurance. I got it, even as old as I am. Its 234. a month for a ppo. It’s just a few dollars more than I was paying my employer. I also can get dental for 18 extra a month. Its with Assurance, anyone hear anything about them??

  105. Alcina,

    Our geography is what has kept us safe. We’re almost impossible to attack. That’s what deterred our enemies. This change in policy is minor. No one ever really thought we would unleash another nuclear attack on a non-nuclear nation.

    This CIC may be a lousy commander in chief but he’s not destroying the nation anymore than it’s already been destroyed by the previous even more lousy commander in chief. The real problem is that he isn’t putting it back together again.

  106. IRS chief: Buy health insurance or lose your tax refund

    By Gautham Nagesh – The Daily Caller | Published: 04/05/10 at 5:16 PM | Updated: 04/06/10 at 12:36 PM

    Internal Revenue Service Commissioner Douglas Shulman discusses his role in overseeing the collection of $2.4 trillion in tax revenue during a luncheon gathering at the National Press Club in Washington, Monday, April 5, 2010. (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta)
    Individuals who don’t purchase health insurance may lose their tax refunds according to IRS Commissioner Doug Shulman. After acknowledging the recently passed health-care bill limits the agency’s options for enforcing the individual mandate, Shulman told reporters that the most likely way to penalize individuals that don’t comply is by reducing or confiscating their tax refunds.

    Speaking at the National Press Club on Monday, Shulman downplayed the IRS’s role in enforcing the recent overhaul of the health insurance industry by claiming the agency would not aggressively target individuals who don’t purchase coverage. He noted that the health-care bill expressly forbids the agency from freezing bank accounts, seizing assets or pursuing criminal charges, but when pressed said the IRS would most likely use tax refund offsets to penalize those that don’t comply with the mandate. The IRS uses refund offsets to collect from individuals that owe the federal government a delinquent debt.

    “These are not the kinds of things we send agents out about,” Shulman said. “These are things where you get a letter from us. Congress was very careful to make sure there was nothing too punitive in this bill.”

    Many reports have claimed that enforcement of the individual mandate will be non-existent, but Shulman’s answers indicate differently. According to BusinessWeek, starting in 2015 Americans who don’t purchase insurance will be subject to a fine of $325 and that sum increases to $695 in 2016. However, the commissioner seemed confident that in most cases individuals would either receive subsidies to purchase insurance or simply do so on their own in order to comply with the law.

    “The vast majority of American people have a healthy respect for the law and want to be compliant with their tax obligations,” Shulman said, mentioning letters, collection notices and offsets as among the various ways the IRS will reach out to people without coverage.

    During his speech Shulman said threats against the IRS have not risen despite media reports to the contrary. He disagreed that it has become more dangerous to work for the IRS following the February incident in which a disgruntled pilot flew his plane into the agency’s Austin, Texas office, killing one employee.

    “There’s been a lot of stuff in the press around increased threats, which is actually inaccurate,” Shulman said. “What there has been is increased chatter on the Internet that has an anti-government sentiment.”

    He also said it is too early to know what additional resources or how many employees the IRS will need to enforce compliance with the mandate and clarified his reasons for using a professional tax preparer.

    “I wouldn’t read into anything about me doing it now,” Shulman said. “I’m just a busy guy and have had good service for the past 15 years.”

    E-mail Gautham and follow him on Twitter

    Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2010/04/05/irs-chief-buy-health-insurance-or-lose-your-tax-refund/#ixzz0kLXm02SB
    ********************

    YES, SOME AMERICAN’S RESPECT THE LAW…HMMM TIMMY, WOULD THAT BE YOU?

  107. basement angel
    April 6th, 2010 at 7:26 pm
    Alcina,

    Our geography is what has kept us safe. We’re almost impossible to attack. That’s what deterred our enemies. This change in policy is minor. No one ever really thought we would unleash another nuclear attack on a non-nuclear nation.
    ******************

    Really? You don’t see this as more of a threat than “symbolic”? It shows the world that we don’t have the stomach to fight with the big boys. It allows thugs to move ahead with their plans to say, re take satellite countries, or move ahead to eliminate Israel because they know they have a patsy in the WH. It undermines our security and the security of the free world as we know it. This takes a very large brick out of the wall.

  108. gonzo

    We are the 800 pound gorilla. No one has a military anywhere near as large as ours. We are the biggest of the big boys. By far. Most nations aren’t afraid of us because we have nuclear weapons. They’re afraid of us because we have the biggest, best equipped military ever and morale is high. That’s why people are afraid of us. No one anywhere thinks that we are going to nuke a non-nuclear nation – because we aren’t. We aren’t going to go into a nation and take out the civilian population by the hundreds of thousands without them already having done as much or come close to have done as much.

    Now, our geography makes it almost impossible to attack us. Think about it, how do you invade the United States? Second of all, our military might is unprecedented. Sure, you can send a missile or two in, but then what? if it’s a nuclear bomb, you can take out a lot of people if you hit New York or something like that, but we’ve reserved the right to attack back with a nuke. If it’s not a nuke, you kill a few people and then what? How is any nation going to land enough troops on our soil to do any damage to us?

    As for other nations, when haven’t actions like that been taken? Look what Hussein did when Bush Senior was in office, and no one thought he was a patsy. Look at all the stuff Libya got up to during the Reagan admin until we finally bombed them into submission. And Reagan did threaten to nuke people.

  109. Oh, and as for Israel, they have nukes and they have kicked ass. Repeatedly. Hillary has already told Iran that if they develop their nuclear weapons, that we will incinerate them if they use them against Israel.

    Remember, Hillary is the one who went to AIPAC and told them nothing was off the table as it related to Iran and then rapped George Bush for taking diplomacy off the table. Iran heard that loud and clear. They know she’s a tough cookie and that she’ll fight for diplomacy. That gives the moderates the room they need to get their share done.

  110. So he throws a wild pitch, high and out to way left, at the nats-phillies opener y’day and he walks into the radio booth to talk to the commentators (a
    presidential tradition, I guess). The radio guys refer to his white sox cap and ask him who his favorite white sox players were. Mind you they were not asking about this year’s white sox players – they gave him a wide room. He could have talked about any wsox player in the last 100 years. This is really so sad – he couldn’t name a single player.
    (I heard the audio on Mark Levine last night.) He hems and haws, bobs and weaves, and talks about Wrigley field and Cubs and some Honolulu farm team.

    When that lady in NC asked him “why tax us now?” he didn’t have an answer; so he goes 17 minutes with all kinds of nonsense. The baseball guys asked him about his fav players in his favorite team and he went 3 minutes with some blather and no answer.

    Usualy when you deflect, the audience shouldn’t know that you are deflecting (Big Dawg is a master with this), but even a little leaguer would know that he didn’t know any wsox player’s name.

  111. henry
    April 6th, 2010 at 1:29 pm
    Bet the dimocrats would love to see [Palin] her in syndication as it would neutralize her.

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

    Why would it neutralize her?

  112. Now, our geography makes it almost impossible to attack us.
    ****************

    I seem to remember 9/11…12/7/41…

    Now nukes come in small suitcases…

    A few grams of ‘Botulinum’…

    So many ways, so little defense against a secret enemy. Wake up, the bell is tolling. We must always present a strong front, psychology is half the war.

  113. Machiavelli: “there is such a difference between the way men act, and the way they ought to act, that anyone who forsakes what is for what ought to be will surely learn something that will ruin him.” Case in point: Bambi’s assumption that his own pacifism will be reciprocated by foreign dictators. They view pacifism as weakness, and when a predator smells weakness he does not dither, he does not negotiate, he does not throw down his arms, he resists and when the moment is right, he strikes. Sir Edmund Burke’s comment at the time of the French Revolution is so apropos of Bambi: “The French are so consumed with the rights of man, that they have totally forgotten his nature.”
    ——————————————–

    Peddling Pacifism in A Violent World Obama Takes The Ultimate Bow (Note: a better word perhaps would be “Dive”.

    It would be far easier to rail against the apparent misguidance of President Obama on National Defense and his silly little notions of World Peace than to attempt a calm assessment of his revamped nuclear strategy, but a calm assessment is more of what this country needs right now. Rudy Giuliani has a piece up over at National Review that sums it up fairly well: Obama is living in a ‘Left-Wing Dream’ world. The bigger issue, though, is that he continues to talk out of both sides of his mouth. Consider the “guiding principles” on his Defense Issues page at the White House website [emphasis mine]:

    The Obama Administration is investing in a strong, agile, well-trained, and well-equipped U.S. military that can fight and win the nation’s wars. U.S. Armed Forces must be able to prevail in current operations and the missions they are most likely to face, while developing capabilities to deter potential adversaries and provide a hedge against other risks and contingencies. Our policies will incorporate lessons from our experience in Iraq and Afghanistan. First and foremost, we will ensure that our troops have the training, equipment and support that they need when they are deployed, and the care that they and their families need and deserve.

    Given Obama’s work on the international scene, since taking office, this statement is just not true. The only hedging ‘against other risks and contingencies’ going on in the White House these days is related to re-election bids and campaign donors.

    Obama’s promise to get out of Iraq as quickly as possible gave rise to a scramble between the factions in anticipation of the power to be had in the vacuum of our withdrawal. His dithering in Afghanistan doubled the fatality rate of George Bush’s worst period in that war, and has pushed its President to the point of considering changing teams. His willingness to expose Central Europe to Russian missiles might have pleased the Russians and it might have even been the deal-sealer in getting the START treaty signed, but it certainly didn’t make any new friends among those on the losing end of that strategy.

    It’s not unfair to assume that our list of friends grows shorter by the day, in large part, because Obama presents to the world an untrustworthy partner and an unreliable ally that is no longer willing to fight, let alone win, when backed into a corner and provoked. Even in gaining Russian acceptance of the new START agreement, for example, Moscow reserves the right to opt-out under certain circumstances. How does this reassure our allies in that region?

    This is not the posture of a superpower willing to lead the free world through superior strength and fight to defend herself and her friends with honor dignity and self-respect. This is the posture of the new kid in school giving away his lunch money in hopes he won’t get his butt kicked and shoved into his locker.

    This President is unserious about Iran, and is unaware or unconcerned that this very same Iran means to destroy Israel, and promises on a regular basis to do so when the right opportunity present itself.

    Selling a pacifist America to an International community hell-bent on killing eachother and themselves in the name of some greater good serves no master save for the “Peace at all costs” crowd. Obama sells our strength and honor for all the wrong reasons and at great peril to us all. Giving away our promise of cataclysmic retaliation for large-scale attacks against us by any means only guarantees that they will now be tried sooner and with little reason to fear reprisal. Allowing Iran and North Korea to trundle along with their nuclear programs, especially now that we’ve told them we won’t fight back too hard unless they’re really really mean about it, only makes us the laughing stock they’ve been saying we were for years.

    It’s clear to most of us that Obama does not negotiate in good faith (see health care), and that he means to keep campaign promises regardless the damage and destruction he leaves in his wake by doing so. What’s not so clear, even now, is just where America will be by the time he’s finished keeping his word to all the folks that seem to like us the least…here AND around the globe. Erick is right…Obama’s is a very dangerous game.

  114. Gonzo,

    This discussion is about whether we nuke countries that don’t attack us first with nukes. Not about attacks with nukes. You might want to catch up.

  115. Old Harry doesn’t seem to be worried about winning this November, does he?? I wonder if Obama has some crap on the republicans in Nevada or maybe he has info on all the republicans?? Who knows, but old Harry sure seemed relaxed!

  116. And no one thinks of the US under Obama, where we are now fighting two wars, as pacifist. Obama is seen as as much a war enthusiast as Bush. People don’t like Obama and they don’t trust him. But he has made very clear, by doubling down in afghanistan, that he is willing to put our military on ground to fight.

    That assessment is so far from reality that I just don’t even know what planet those people are on. What foreign nations do know is that our military is tired and worn out – because they are. They also know that Obama expanded in afghanistan despite that reality.

  117. Confloyd,

    Reid is the majority leader in the Senate and as such, brings home a lot of bacon to Nevada. Guys like him don’t lose very often, but that doesn’t mean he won’t.

  118. Timothy May He Rot In Hell Russert perfected this propaganda technique. It consists of knowingly taking what somebody said completely out of context and then pillorying them for something they never said. Now we see Maddow has adopterd this perverse technique. Why anyone would waste them time listening to this screed is beyond my comprehension. Nor am I surprised given the fact that she, Russert, Matthews and the Twice Suspended Schuster all hail from that dark shore.

    Want proof? Bob Somerby lays out the proof quite nicely:
    ———————————————————-
    The politics of cable: In theory, news programs exist to deliver the news, not to play party/ideological politics. That said, we thought of the politics of cable early this morning, as we flipped between a rerun of Countdown and a live presentation on Fox.

    But first: Does anybody doctor quotes as persistently as Rachel Maddow?

    On Sunday, Senator Jon Kyl (R-Arizona) appeared on Fox News Sunday, in tandem with Arlen Specter. Late in the segment, Kyl was asked if he would pledge that the GOP won’t filibuster Obama’s next Supreme Court appointment. What follows is the full Q-and-A. We highlight the part of Kyl’s answer that will turn out to be relevant:

    WALLACE (4/4/10): Senator Kyl, your thoughts about a nominee for the Court. And are you willing— Because Senator Specter brought it up, are you willing to pledge right now that the GOP will not filibuster whoever the president nominates?

    KYL: It’ll all depend on what kind of a person it is.

    I am a little troubled by what Arlen said. He wants somebody who—and then he named two or three positions that he wants that person to take—to be tough on executive powers, for example.

    I want a judge who will read the law and declare it in each case that comes before him or her, as it should be. In other words, don’t have somebody coming in with preconceived attitudes; I’m going to be tough on the executive, or I’m going to be for the little guy, or whatever their preconceived attitudes are. We’ve had too much of that.

    What we want is a judge who will read the law in any particular case. And as Justice Roberts said during his confirmation, if the law is on the side of the little guy, the little guy wins. If it’s on the side of the big guy, the big guy should win. And that’s what we want in our judges.

    I think the president will nominate a qualified person. I hope, however, he does not nominate an overly ideological person. That will be the test. And if he doesn’t nominate someone who is overly ideological, I don’t think—you may see Republicans voting against the nominee, but I don’t think you’ll see them engage in a filibuster.

    You can paraphrase that last paragraph as you like. But last night, Maddow played videotape of that passage, “editing” it in a way that let her play you for fools. You’ll have to read the full transcript of last night’s show to see how absurd (and dishonest) her full presentation on this topic was. (Not yet available publicly as we post.) But in the following passage, you gaze on the work of a consummate hack:

    MADDOW (4/5/10): Actually, there’s not even a vacancy yet. Oh. Never mind, though. Republicans are letting it be known that they may filibuster this nominee who doesn’t exist. Republicans are prepared to go to unprecedented lengths to stop this nominee who doesn’t exist for filling a vacancy that doesn’t exist.

    (videotape)

    WALLACE: Are you willing to pledge right now that the GOP will not filibuster whoever the president nominates?

    KYL: It will all depend on what kind of a person it is. I think the president will nominate a qualified person. I hope, however, he does not nominate an overly ideological person. That will be the test.

    (end videotape)

    MADDOW: Here’s the thing: the justice who might retire is John Paul Stevens. He’s a liberal. Barack Obama is, therefore, very likely to replace him with a liberal so that the balance of the court won’t change. And frankly, it may be a little unreasonable to expect a Democratic president to replace a liberal Supreme Court justice, with, say, a conservative who would move the court dramatically to the right. But who here is willing to bet that being a liberal is going to be enough to meet Jon Kyl’s definition of someone who is so overly ideological that they must be filibustered?

    That’s a very dumb piece of commentary; Maddow’s full, quite-lengthy segment is even dumber still. But note the way Kyl’s answer was “edited.” Maddow was careful to “edit” the part where Kyl seemed to say that he doesn’t expect a filibuster. Soon, Maddow was thundering thusly to Senator Amy Klobuchar, her thoroughly pandered-to guest::

    MADDOW: Senator, I think it’s not an accident that it was Senator Jon Kyl this weekend who floated the idea of again, filibustering a nonexistent nominee for a vacancy that doesn’t exist, because he’s already outraged by the prospect of this nonexistent person.

    Had Kyl “floated the idea” of a filibuster “because he’s already outraged by the prospect of this nonexistent person?” Sorry—that’s perfect crap, of the type Maddow has patented. In the most obvious sense, Kyl “floated the idea” because he was asked a question by Wallace. And Maddow had disappeared the part of Kyl’s answer which would have undercut her thoroughly childish “analysis.” But this is Maddow—one of the worst ever dragged onto cable. We’ll guess it’s inexperience and tribal temperament more than simple dishonesty. But Maddow is truly one of the worst. She rarely permits you the truth.

    That said, we thought of the politics of cable this morning:

    At 1 AM, we saw Fox run a live, 11-minute update about those coal miners in West Virginia. At the same time, MSNBC was re-airing Countdown, as it always does at this time. This included a childish tease, right at the start of the program, in which Olbermann slipped in a few of his standard double entendre dick jokes—this time about a few non-sexual things Tiger Woods said at yesterday’s press conference.

    There was nothing “wrong” with re-airing Countdown, as MSNBC always does at this time. But we couldn’t help thinking what viewers saw if they flipped between these two channels. They saw that Fox had thrown away its scheduled programming to attend to the life and death of coal miners. At the same time, they saw our own side’s biggest buffoon telling his endless dick jokes.

    Why do working-class white voters tilt toward Fox? Really? Do we have to explain?

  119. Schuster is a maggot. And now again a suspended one. I will gladly represent him pro bono. And I will make sure he gets everything he deserves–including the electric chair.

  120. I am not an O’Reilly fan by any stretch of the imagination. He used to be a brawler but now he sees himself as some kind of emperor of the news. He is intimidated by Bambi, in ways that Bret Baird was not.

    But in one important sense he is right. MSNBC has the worst lineup of losers in the business–Matthews, Maddow, Olberman, and the other loony toons crowd. Phil Griffin is the problem. He is the one who hired and retains them. He should be canned. Griffin by the way has his nose up Jeffrey Immelts you know what, so he is uber corrupt.

  121. wbboei said:
    Bambi’s assumption that his own pacifism will be reciprocated by foreign dictators. They view pacifism as weakness, and when a predator smells weakness he does not dither, he does not negotiate, he does not throw down his arms, he resists and when the moment is right, he strikes.

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

    This reminds me of something I read back in the Cold War. Some animals, when one rolls over, the other reciprocates or backs off. Other animals go for the kill. When members of these two groups meet, something ugly can happen. The writer was talking about the US and USSR, same point as yours.

    I wish I could find the original of that again. I have it associated with some writer such as Edward T. Hall.

  122. I viewed Sue Lowden and Tarkanian on Greta. According to Tarkanian, Lowden supported Reid in six election cycles and several other points that really really make me think she is a Republican Harry Reid. Is this correct or is it just political speak?They will be primaried in NV with Republicans only voting in June. Anybody but Harry Reid, right?

  123. What makes anyone think that Obummer is a pacifist after he threatened with: if they bring a knife, we will bring a gun, during the primary. He is using drones (which I applaud him for) in Afghanistan. He may display himself as a pacifist as a person and may want to keep HIS hands clean – but then again HE LIES, but he thinks nothing of sending goons and thugs out to do his political warfare.

    Any action that this regime takes that even gives the appearance of weakness makes us weak. We can not even contain our own southern borders, so what makes the rest of the world think we can be successful in protecting them especially when mixed messages are telegraphed?

  124. thank you, charles krauthammer.
    ——————————-
    Yes. As a practical matter, this negates the doctrine of deterrence. Why? Because it places sole reliance on our conventional, i.e. non-nuclear capabilities. Currently, those capabilities are stretched to the maximum. Why? Because we are presently engaged in two costly, protracted and labor intensive wars in the Middle East. That is what our generals are saying privately at least. Where then is the excess military capacity to deal with a nation that launches a biological attack upon the United States or its allies? And how credible is our nuclear umbrella? How believable is our deterrent? This is academic thinking run riot. It draws its essence from the book of utopian dreams, and cloud cuckoo land. Not the real world–the world of Machiavelli, where men do not act as they ought to act, and whoever fails to realize this will surely learn something that will ruin him. And now, our enemies will recalibrate their aggressive designs accordingly.

  125. basement angel
    April 7th, 2010 at 12:51 am
    And no one thinks of the US under Obama, where we are now fighting two wars, as pacifist. Obama is seen as as much a war enthusiast as Bush. People don’t like Obama and they don’t trust him. But he has made very clear, by doubling down in afghanistan, that he is willing to put our military on ground to fight.
    &&&&&&

    I don’t think the other world players, other big boys, the little guys, the rouge states, etc., consider Obama a “pacificist”. But he’s proven real good at bowing, caving in, poor negotiation tactics, in other words, a pushover.

    Just wait him out, or start with an outrageous negoatiating position, and watch him become Super Appeasement Man.

    Unless you are a predominantly Muslim country, then he will automatically prostrate himself to your country, to atone for our long standing relationship with our democratic allies such as Israel, England, France, etc.

    Or

Comments are closed.