What We Saw At The Revolution – The Tea Party And The Democratic Civil War

The Tea Party movement has, for the moment, organized and won a revolution against the Republican establishment. On the Democratic side there is still a civil war which started in 2008.

Yesterday Peter Daou published a widely red and discussed article about how “liberal bloggers are bringing down the Obama presidency” which ignores the real history and the reasons why Barack Obama is in trouble.

First the Tea Party and what we saw.

At the very beginning of the Tea Party movement we recognized it as a genuine grass roots uprising (see “Weak Obama, Strong Tea“, “The Meaning Of The Tea Parties: No Taxation Without Representation“, “The People Are Revolting“). We respected the movement and advised it had the potential to wreck Barack Obama’s Dimocratic maladministration.

Most, if not all, Obama Dimocrats laughed at the Tea Party and preferred the disrespectful term “teabaggers” to mock the movement with that sexually tinged epithet. Nancy Pelosi called for investigations into the finances of these grass roots activists and the word “astroturf” was utilized with abandon to smear these citizens.

That the Republican establishment wants to put a saddle on the bucking bronco Tea Party movement there is no doubt. Therein lies a tale of the difference between astroturf and genuine grassroots:

“I just finished Kate Zernike’s sympathetic, and quite useful, book on the beginnings of the Tea Party movement, “Boiling Mad,” which consists largely of portraits of the people, mostly women, organizing on a ground level.

The book also rebuts the notion that the movement is an “astroturf” creation of the Koch brothers, in part by showing how many times Koch groups and others tried and failed, often laughably, to create such a movement.

You can’t, it seems, just can’t conjure these things out of the air.

FreedomWorks, had been “trying to grow a grassroots movement” since 1984, she writes:

It had not had much success. Every April 15, FreedomWorks would hold protests outside post offices across the country — “Hate your taxes? Join us!” — but they rarely attracted more than a handful of people.

It had even proposed the idea of a modern-day Boston Tea Party — more than once. “Do you think our taxes are too high and our tax code too complicated? We do!” the site proclaimed, as “The Star-Spangled Banner” piped in the background. It mocked Tom Daschle, then the Democratic Senate Mmajority leader, in a cartoon video game where a visitor to the site could click on boxes of tea to dump in the harbor while “Redcoat Daschle” stood on the wharf demanding, “Gimme all your money.”

In 2007, Dick Armey and Freedom Works’ Matt Kibbe “wrote an op-ed proposing the Boston Tea Party as a model of grassorots pressure on an overbearing central government.”

They couldn’t get it published anywhere.”

Today, in the New York Times, Stanley Fishman rewrites what we wrote a year and a half ago:

“Liberal pundits and the politicians whose agendas they favor continue to misunderstand the Tea Party movement and, what is worse, fail to realize how much the disdainful tone of their criticism fuels it. This may be changing now as the ominous signs proliferate… [snip]

The usual response to each tea part victory has been to say (1) it’s a one-off aberration (2) the primary turnout was low and unrepresentative and (3) he or she could never win in the general election. This has even been the position of the Republican party regulars who have often opposed the upstarts. [snip]

These developments have led Time magazine to conclude (in its Sept. 27 cover story) that we are seeing a “shaking up [of] the Republican party,” and columnist Mark Halperin follows suit in the same issue when he says that the Tea Party success “spells danger for [the Republican party’s] long term future.”

That all sounds familiar. It is the criticism we heard when we defended the Tea Party movement as legitimate and much more powerful and inclusive that the caricature from the unthinking Obama Left. Fishman then addresses the willful blindness of the “reality based, creative class”:

“But this, I think, is the wrong conclusion and shows how far progressives will go to avoid looking directly at a phenomenon they have trouble believing in. It would be more accurate to say that the Republican party now sees where its future lies, and it will cozy up to the new kids on the block (as it has already done in the case of O’Donnell) and ride their coattails to a victory even larger than the one they have been looking forward to.

And the Democrats will be helping them by saying scathing and dismissive things about the Tea Party and its candidates. [snip] The Tea Party’s strength comes from the down-to-earth rhetoric it responds to and proclaims, and whenever high-brow critics heap the dirt of scorn and derision upon the party, its powers increase.

Commentators who explain smugly that O’Donnell’s position on masturbation (that it is a selfish, solitary act) is contradicted by her Ayn Rand-like attack on collectivism, or who wax self-righteous about Paladino’s comparing Sheldon Silver to Hitler and promising to wield a baseball bat in Albany, or who laugh at Sharron Angle for being in favor of Scientology (she denies it) and against fluoridation and the Department of Education, are doing these candidates a huge favor. They are saying, in effect, these people are stupid, they’re jokes; and the implication (sometimes explicitly stated) is that anyone who takes them the least bit seriously doesn’t get the joke and is stupid, too.

We the people hear this and know who is being talked about, and react with anger: “Don’t presume to tell me what to think and whom to vote for just because you have more degrees than I do. I don’t know much about these people but if you guys are against them, I’m going to give them the benefit of the doubt.”

And if they don’t exactly say that, the recently unveiled “Pledge to America” says it for them in its money quote: “An arrogant out-of-touch government of self-appointed elites make decisions, issue mandates, and enact laws without accepting or requesting the input of the many.” The many grow and become more robust every time a self-satisfied voice from the political or media establishment dumps on their spokespersons. Mayor Bloomberg may be right when he says (in explaining his endorsement of Cuomo over Paladino) that “anger is not a governing strategy,” but it sure is a campaign strategy and it is one the Tea Party and the Republicans it has tutored know how to execute.”

Our long ago advice to respect and not mock was not listened to. We knew our advice would not be listened to by Obama supporters. Our advice was aimed at Hillary supporters and the network of Hillary supporter sites which were conflicted if not outwardly hostile to the Tea Party movement. Today, in retrospect, Fishman details the consequences and stupidity of the anti-Tea Party mockery:

“What to do? It is easier, of course, to say what not to do, and what not to do is what Democrats and their allies are prone to do — poke gleeful fun at the lesser mortals who say and believe strange things and betray an ignorance of history.

That won’t work. [snip] Don’t sling mud down in the dust where your opponents thrive. Instead, engage them as if you thought that the concerns they express (if not their forms of expression) are worthy of serious consideration, as indeed they are. [snip]

It’s at least worth a try, because the way things are going we may soon be looking at Senator O’Donnell, Governor Paladino and, down the road a bit, President Palin.”

The Democratic Civil War.

Peter Daou (he worked for Hillary in 2008) started to write an article about the “frightening case of Anwar al-Aulaqui” then veered off into how “liberal bloggers are bringing down the Obama presidency”. There are interesting points raised by Daou but he misses the source of Obama’s troubles. Here’s Daou:

“The body of the post remains the same, but I wanted to add further context in light of yet another slap at the left by the Obama team, in this case, VP Biden telling the base to “stop whining,” as well as breaking news that Rahm Emanuel is leaving the White House this week.

When Robert Gibbs attacked the professional left he didn’t specify anyone by name, but the assumption was that it was cable personalities, disaffected interest groups, bloggers and online commenters.

With each passing day, I’m beginning to realize that the crux of the problem for Obama is a handful of prominent progressive bloggers, among them Glenn Greenwald, John Aravosis, Digby, Marcy Wheeler and Jane Hamsher*.

Virtually all the liberal bloggers who have taken a critical stance toward the administration have one thing in common: they place principle above party. Their complaints are exactly the same complaints they lodged against the Bush administration. Contrary to the straw man posed by Obama supporters, they aren’t complaining about pie in the sky wishes but about tangible acts and omissions, from Gitmo to Afghanistan to the environment to gay rights to secrecy and executive power.

The essence of their critique is that the White House lacks a moral compass. The instances where Obama displays a flash of moral authority – the mosque speech comes to mind – these bloggers cheer him with the same fervor as his most ardent fans.

Some will dismiss them as minor players in the wider national discourse, but two things make them a thorn in the administration’s side:

a) they have a disproportionately large influence on the political debate, with numerous readers and followers — among them major media figures

b) they develop the frames and narratives that other progressive Obama critics adopt and disseminate

I’ve argued for some time that the story of Barack Obama’s presidency is the story of how the left turned on him. And it eats him up. You know it from Robert Gibbs, you know it from Rahm Emanuel, you know it from Joe Biden and you know it from Obama himself.”

This is sheer nonsense from Daou. “Principles above Party” from that crew of cheerleaders for Obama’s election? That’s a laughable argument. The “same complaints” as against Bush? Rubbish. If George W. Bush had done what Obama had done these bloggers would have called for impeachment, trial, and imprisonment of B.O. (contrast their reactions with our own “Impeach, Remove, Imprison Barack Obama?“) long ago. Daou’s main point is actually evidence in favor of our argument and contrary to what Daou writes:

“Case in point: the extraordinarily disturbing case of Anwar al-Aulaqi:

The Obama administration urged a federal judge early Saturday to dismiss a lawsuit over its targeting of a U.S. citizen for killing overseas, saying that the case would reveal state secrets. The U.S.-born citizen, Anwar al-Aulaqi, is a cleric now believed to be in Yemen. Federal authorities allege that he is leading a branch of al-Qaeda there. Government lawyers called the state-secrets argument a last resort to toss out the case, and it seems likely to revive a debate over the reach of a president’s powers in the global war against al-Qaeda.

Aulaqi is an odious and dangerous character and should be brought to justice for any crimes he committed. Still, the alarm on the left over this astonishing presidential overreach is entirely justifiable.”

The whining from these willfully gullible, now feeling betrayed bloggers, is irrelevant – what do they propose to do is the only point of interest. Greenwald whines that this is “an all-new low”, Digby whines that this is the “most shocking assertion of unfettered presidential power… I don’t think anyone expected the Democratic constitutional scholar would actually double down on the dictatorial powers. I confess, I’m fairly gobsmacked.”

Well, we’re not “gobsmacked” at all. We knew this would happen and that’s why we have always advocated against Barack Obama and started our series of “Obama is the Third Bush Term” (don’t miss the pictures in the lower right hand column of this website).

Where Daou makes a worthwhile contribution is with this:

“Political observers are mystified over the demise of hope, with everything from the economy to health care posited as the reason, but as I’ve argued time and again, it’s the moral authority, stupid:

Pundits put forth myriad reasons to explain the GOP wave (jobs and the economy topping the list), but they invariably overlook the biggest one: that Obama and Democrats have undermined their own moral authority by continuing some of Bush’s’ most egregious policies … Everything flows from the public’s belief that you stand for something. The most impressive legislative wins lose their force if people become convinced you’ll sell out your own values.”

Make no mistake: “sell out your own values” is the crux of the problem. On April 22, 2008, the day of the Pennsylvania primary we gave Howard Dean a deadline.

“We have our own Howard Dean Deadline: seat the Florida and Michigan delegations, without backroom deals, by the end of May or risk a Party rupture worse than 1968.

Dean/Obama/Brazile/Pelosi are trying to steal this election the way Bush stole the election in 2000. They risk a Democratic Party rupture more profound and long lasting than the 1968 convention.”

We were mocked and disregarded in the same way the Tea Party has been mocked and disregarded. One month later, on Memorial Day 2008, the Democratic Civil War began:

“The Democratic Party is now engaged in the opening battles of a Civil War. As in the 1860s this war cannot be avoided. Fort Sumter has been fired upon…. Thus far, the Democratic? Party Civil War has been contained to the presidential level. At some point however those Democratic? officials and office holders who endorsed Obama will be held to account. As Kristen Breitweiser wrote Those who are responsible for putting Democrats in the broken place we are in right now with regard to Barack Obama had better own it to the end. Leave those bumper stickers on and wear those campaign pins until the bitter end folks because YOU OWN IT. And people are going to want to know whose [sic] to blame…. The Democratic? Party Civil War has begun. It will spread.

There is a Democratic Civil War…. the question is whether the Civil War spreads down ticket from the Presidential level this election cycle or the next…. The Democratic Civil War, much like the great split that occurred when the courageous Lyndon Johnson signed the 1964 Civil Rights Act, will be about Civil Rights and Respect – this time for Women.

It is no surprise to us that women are at the forefront of the Tea Party movement and that this is sometimes called the “Year of the Republican Women”. There is an atavistic memory of what was done to women in 2008 by Obama Dimocrats and there is an ocean size wound at the heart of the democratic process inflicted by Obama Dimocrats. None of that is forgotten.

For the moment the Tea Party activists have kept the saddle off their backs and put it on the back of the Republican establishment. That establishment, once in power, will begin to try to cast off the saddle. That fight will continue. The Democratic Civil war will also continue up to and after November 2, 2010. What happens after November 2, remains to be seen.

Is it possible that the Tea Party activists and the Democratic opposition to Barack Obama and his thugs have more in common that any of us realize? You betcha!. There is this intriguing article making the rounds these days:

“Every generation or so, a major secular shift takes place that shakes up the existing paradigm. It happens in industry, finance, literature, sports, manufacturing, technology, entertainment, travel, communication, etc.

I would like to discuss the paradigm shift that is occurring in politics.

For a long time, American politics has been defined by a Left/Right dynamic. It was Liberals versus Conservatives on a variety of issues. Pro-Life versus Pro-Choice, Tax Cuts vs. More Spending, Pro-War vs Peaceniks, Environmental Protections vs. Economic Growth, Pro-Union vs. Union-Free, Gay Marriage vs. Family Values, School Choice vs. Public Schools, Regulation vs. Free Markets.

The new dynamic, however, has moved past the old Left Right paradigm. We now live in an era defined by increasing Corporate influence and authority over the individual. These two “interest groups” – I can barely suppress snorting derisively over that phrase – have been on a headlong collision course for decades, which came to a head with the financial collapse and bailouts. Where there is massive concentrations of wealth and influence, there will be abuse of power. The Individual has been supplanted in the political process nearly entirely by corporate money, legislative influence, campaign contributions, even free speech rights.

This may not be a brilliant insight, but it is surely an overlooked one. It is now an Individual vs. Corporate debate – and the Humans are losing. [snip]

For those of you who are stuck in the old Left/Right debate, you are missing the bigger picture. Consider this about the Bailouts: It was a right-winger who bailed out all of the big banks, Fannie Mae, and AIG in the first place; then his left winger successor continued to pour more money into the fire pit.

What difference did the Left/Right dynamic make? Almost none whatsoever.”

There was no difference because it is all a fake. The current forces of the Left and the Right are fakes. The Tea Party is infusing substance and reality from the bottom up to the right side of the debate and getting rid of its fakes.

On the Left all we have are fakes as exemplified by Trauma Obama. The arguments are fake and the players are fake. Unlike the bottom-up Tea Party just about every organization on the Left is a fake more interested in power for itself than for the concerns of constituents.

On November 2, 2010 the Tea Party controlled Republican Party will rejoice their many victories and prepare to select their next presidential nominee.

On November 3, 2010 the Democratic Civil War will continue until Barack Obama is driven out of office and influence – and one woman, one vote (that vote counted as intended), is restored.

Share

166 thoughts on “What We Saw At The Revolution – The Tea Party And The Democratic Civil War

  1. Admin — Bravo! what a great article.

    You should be a winner of the Pultizer Prize.

    And yes, I used to be a democrat, now an independent, and a supporter of the tea-party movement.

  2. Excellent expose, admin!

    “Those who are responsible for putting Democrats in the broken place we are in right now with regard to Barack Obama had better own it to the end. Leave those bumper stickers on and wear those campaign pins until the bitter end folks because YOU OWN IT.”

    —————-

    I’m sure they will follow their master to the bitter end with no remorse and lots of self-pity.

    After all, didn’t obama graduate with honors in:

    1/ Never apologizing
    2/ Never taking responsibility
    3/ Fingerpointing and under the bus athletics

  3. tim,

    I keep hoping that admin is going to publish a “greatest hits” book on all the marvelous articles posted here. 🙂

  4. Somewhere someone put together a list of 2010 Congressional Candidates and whether they endorsed Clinton or Obama in the 2008 primaries.

    Thought some might be interested in knowing whose up for election this year, and where they were in 2008.

    2008 Obama supporters/endorsers up for election this year:
    Arizona CD-5 Harry Mitchell
    Arizona CD-8 Gabrielle Giffords
    Calif. CD-11 Jerry McNerney
    Colorado CD-3 John Salazar
    Florida CD-22 Ron Klein
    Georgia CD-2 Sanford Bishop
    Illinois CD-14 Bill Foster
    Indiana CD-2 Joe Donnelly
    Indiana CD-9 Baron Hill
    Kentucky CD-3 John Yarmuth
    Kentucky CD-6 Ben Chandler
    N Dakota CD-AL Earl Pomeroy
    Ohio CD-18 Zack Space
    Penn CD-4 Jason Altmire
    Penn CD-8 Patrick Murphy
    S Carol. CD-5 John Spratt
    Texas CD-17 Chet Edwards
    Virginia CD-9 Rick Boucher
    Washington CD-2 Rick Larsen
    W. VA CD-3 Nick Rahall
    Wisconsin CD-8 Steve Kagen

  5. (ok, looks like i figured out what I was doing wrong, sorry about that)

    The same for Hillary Supporters.

    2008 Hillary Supporters/Endorsers
    California CD-47 Loretta Sanchez
    Iowa CD-3 Leonard Boswell
    Missouri CD-4 Ike Skelton
    N Carolina CD-11 Heath Shuler
    New York CD-1 Tim Bishop
    New York CD-19 John Hall
    New York CD-24 Michael Arcuri
    Penn CD-11 Paul Kanjorski
    Texas CD-23 Ciro Rodriguez

  6. The same for Hillary Supporters.

    2008 Hillary Supporters/Endorsers
    California CD-47 Loretta Sanchez
    Iowa CD-3 Leonard Boswell
    Missouri CD-4 Ike Skelton
    N Carolina CD-11 Heath Shuler
    New York CD-1 Tim Bishop
    New York CD-19 John Hall
    New York CD-24 Michael Arcuri
    Penn CD-11 Paul Kanjorski
    Texas CD-23 Ciro Rodriguez

  7. Superb analysis. You saw the piece on Matt Taibbi which makes some of the same points posted at the end of the last thread. It makes the same points. The tea parties are symptomatic of a paradigmatic shift. Corporate interests which are global in scope vs. the American People. The unions were once the bulwark against those corporate interests, but today both they and the old left have allied themselves with the corporate interests and against the American People. Society tolerates class structure when times are good but when times are bad it is a different story. It is like that memorable line in Dr Zhviago where a hush falls over the ballroom as loud voices of the Russian people fill the street below until Kamaravski breaks the silence by saying he hopes they will sing in tune after the revolution. In this case, they may not. And what will Gloria Vanderbilts precious baby boy say then?

  8. the middle class is getting squeezed from both sides. The corporations get bailout (and I personally have no issue with sucessful companies, however if you fail, then you fail, no taxpayer bailou), and the unions get bailout.

    So, if you are in the middle, with no lobbyists working for you, then no bailout, if you don’t belong to a union or to one of the protected corporations, then no bailout. The middle class is getting squeezed.

  9. Isn’t it amazing how slow big media celebrities like Halperin were to figure out that the Tea Party Movement is not a passing thing, but represents a paradigmatic change? It should have been obvious, as economic times got worse. But that is what hopium does to you. It dulls the mind and angers the blood, like Satchel used to say. That is their problem. It goes all the way up the line to their editors and producers. They are on the wrong side of history.

  10. “Isn’t it amazing how slow big media celebrities like Halperin were to figure out that the Tea Party Movement is not a passing thing, but represents a paradigmatic change? ”

    And of course, now since they think its the “cool” thing, they purport to be experts at it when just a year ago, they called it a fringe group.

    I never realised these lame media people don’t see themselves as purveyors of news, but rather they consider themselves and their importance the main story. So then they can speak in the solemn voice that they know what’s going on, and their opinion is more important than the people’s opinion.

  11. This article is so true. No one wants to be talked down to by those who feel they are superior. That is the method of the Demonrats, and some of the Repulicants who try to make their detractors feel stupid about themselves in order to bully people into silence. Problem is that most of these bullying no-it-alls are fakes, just as the admin wrote. They tell people how they are so informed on this, that, and the other thing, and then we eventually find that they didn’t know any better than anyone else. And yes, they are mostly concerned with themselves, too. What’s in it for them is their fake moral compass. Fakes…

    Here’s a song from Seether called “Fake It”. It has a line that is part of the chorus that is very apropos. Can you guess what it is? 😉 Hint: It begins with Whoa, ….

  12. It would be nice to think that the left/right paradigm was over at it were now us vs. the corporates. But I don’t see it. The Tea Party have only rallied against the bailouts which is fine, but not nearly enough. They have not rallied against the privatization of our public school system with federal dollars. They have not rallied against the corporate purchasing of elections. They have not rallied for breaking up the big banks. They have not rallied against almost anything that keeps the oligarchy in place. Nobody on the Left has either. I’d love to think we were at some sort of turning point, but I don’t.

  13. 2010 Senate Races:

    2008 Obama Endorsers:

    Calif. Barbara Boxer
    Nevada Harry Reid
    Oregon Ron Wyden
    Vermont Patrick Leahy
    Wisc. Russ Feingold
    N.H. Paul Hodes

    Those who were endorsing Hillary as of June 2008:

    2008 Hillary Supporters running for Senate
    Ark. Blanche Lincoln
    Hawaii Daniel Inouye
    Maryland Barbara Mikulski
    New York Charles Schumer 🙄
    New York Kirsten Gillibrand
    Wash. Patty Murray
    Florida Kendrick Meek
    Indiana Brad Ellsworth
    Penn. Joe Sestak
    Ohio Lee Fisher

  14. Isn’t it amazing how slow big media celebrities like Halperin were to figure out that the Tea Party Movement is not a passing thing, but represents a paradigmatic change?

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

    It might be fun, tho I’m too lazy, to chart the use of the term ‘teabagger’ in Big Media and see how it correlates with polls showing more and more people agreeing with the Tea Party, and winning elections….

  15. Bravo, admin! You are absolutely right, and have been for some time. There is a two-headed beast that is destroying our country. It is a vastly expanding dictatorial State in the hands of a self-interested political establishment, working in concert with the monied and powerful Corporations and Financiers. The People are not even a player in this game, or haven’t been til now.

    The left sees the corporate problem, and strives to lop that head off by giving alarming powers to govt. The right has tended to see the overbearing Statist side of the problem, and seek to decrease its power, which will end up throwing the balance to big business. So long as there is never a two-pronged approach, the beast will continue to thrive. It can handle hits from one side or the other, because one head always lives to succor and revive the other.

    I believe that many in the teaparty and a few on the liberal side are waking up to this fact. If the grassroots left and the grassroots right, despite our other differences, can ever get a bottom-up attack going on both sides against both heads at once, we might just save this country.

  16. I mean, here are the central points of the article:

    • Many of the regulations that govern energy and banking sector were written by Corporations;

    • The biggest influence on legislative votes is often Corporate Lobbying;

    • Corporate ability to extend copyright far beyond what original protections amounts to a taking of public works for private corporate usage;

    • PAC and campaign finance by Corporations has supplanted individual donations to elections;

    • The individuals’ right to seek redress in court has been under attack for decades, limiting their options.

    • DRM and content protection undercuts the individual’s ability to use purchased content as they see fit;

    • Patent protections are continually weakened. Deep pocketed corporations can usurp inventions almost at will;

    • The Supreme Court has ruled that Corporations have Free Speech rights equivalent to people; (So much for original intent!)

    ====

    Sign me up, I agree completely, but this isn’t the tea Party platform.

  17. HillaryforTexas
    September 29th, 2010 at 10:43 pm

    Which Left? The pols in office? Bush and Obama have both grown the power of government, and neither (actually, it is laughable to think either has), neither tried to stave off corporate power. They both have worked in unison with corporate power. But what the author notes:

    • Many of the regulations that govern energy and banking sector were written by Corporations;

    • The biggest influence on legislative votes is often Corporate Lobbying;

    • Corporate ability to extend copyright far beyond what original protections amounts to a taking of public works for private corporate usage;

    • PAC and campaign finance by Corporations has supplanted individual donations to elections;

    • The individuals’ right to seek redress in court has been under attack for decades, limiting their options.

    • DRM and content protection undercuts the individual’s ability to use purchased content as they see fit;

    • Patent protections are continually weakened. Deep pocketed corporations can usurp inventions almost at will;

    • The Supreme Court has ruled that Corporations have Free Speech rights equivalent to people; (So much for original intent!)

    Who on earth do you think has the authority to hange any of that except the government? Government, by the way, is you and me, it’s we the people, not some third Party. If you don’t like the players fine. if you think these things can be solved without the government, please do tell, how?

  18. mj, the tea party does not have a platform. It’s a movement, not an organization. However, I see plenty of individual teapartiers who openly say that the govt and big business need to get out of bed together. They want the lobbyists GONE from DC. These are not crony capitalists.

  19. mj, no one, not even the most extreme conservative I know, wants to abolish govt, or thinks govt has no role.

    But many of the problems you list above came about not simply because of evil corporations, but also because the govt decided that this or that business or corporation would be favored over others. As I said, there are two sides to this problem. Rein them BOTH in. I don’t like concentrations of power. It always ends badly.

  20. HillaryforTexas
    September 29th, 2010 at 10:53 pm

    Well, movements typically have a purpose, and from their website the Tea Parties purpose is limited government, free markets and fiscal responsibility. There’s no mention of reigning in corporate interests there.

    This is not a konck on the Tea Party but the author of that article is very specific about the influence of corporations on each of our individual lives. I haven’t heard anybody on the Right or the Left seriously making this sort of argument.

  21. It would be nice to think that the left/right paradigm was over at it were now us vs. the corporates. But I don’t see it. The Tea Party have only rallied against the bailouts which is fine, but not nearly enough. They have not rallied against the privatization of our public school system with federal dollars. They have not rallied against the corporate purchasing of elections. They have not rallied for breaking up the big banks. They have not rallied against almost anything that keeps the oligarchy in place. Nobody on the Left has either. I’d love to think we were at some sort of turning point, but I don’t
    ———————————-
    Well I do mj. Remember this whole tea party thing was started in Seattle by a mother. I do not see how it can possibly not get to where you want it to be. It is anti elitist to the core. That does not mean they favor a workers paradise. That has been tried before and it just does not work. There will always be elites, but at no time in our nation’s have the elites been more contemptuous of and out of touch with the American People.

    This privatization business you are concerned with is intended to get around the union and to run schools, prisoners, our military on business principles which are sensitive to profit and loss–too sensitive in my opinion. I believe that education, the military etc should be run by government. I do not take the minimalist view any more than most people. If tea party people were libertarians they would say the best government is now government then I might share your concerns. But I see it differently. I think they are Roosevelt liberals, which is different from progressives, much as Glenn Beck tries to merge them together.

    The other thing that should give you some reassurance is the Tea Parties really are targeting the Republican establishment as well, as noted by admin and the Taibbi article on the prior thread.

  22. HillaryforTexas
    September 29th, 2010 at 10:58 pm

    That whom would be favored? The government isn’t favored over the corporate interests and that is NOT the point of the article. He’s not arguing that. You are actually still making the Left/right argument and suggecting some sort of middle road. He is arguing that it’s you against the corporates and the government works for them not you. He’s making a specific argument about the power of the corporation and government appeasement of that power. He is not at all suggesting there is some middle road between the corps and the gov.

  23. The tea party movement is not opposed to government per se. It is merely opposed to government that works against their interests, rather than in favor of them.

  24. But many of the problems you list above came about not simply because of evil corporations, but also because the govt decided that this or that business or corporation would be favored over others. As I said, there are two sides to this problem. Rein them BOTH in. I don’t like concentrations of power. It always ends badly.
    ————————-
    That is the right answer. Also, checks and balances.

  25. wbboei
    September 29th, 2010 at 11:06 pm

    That’s the damn point. The corporations have unbridled influence on the government. The argument again that there is some in between position between the corporations and the government completely misses the point. The point is that corporations now run our government. it’s them against us and we are losing.

  26. “Obama and Democrats have undermined their own moral authority by continuing some of Bush’s’ most egregious policies”

    Didn’t Obama try and smear Hillary (and probably McCain) as “Bush-lite” at one point? Heck, hasn’t name calling everyone Bush pretty much all Obama has done anyway?

    How ironic that he is instead now the subject of that insult….and it is coming from his formerly-adoring Journolist fanclub no less.

  27. wbboei
    September 29th, 2010 at 11:01 pm
    ======================================

    The worker’s paradise is a bunch of bullcrud. The politicians who push that nonsense are the ones who want to be the elitist within that paradise. All of these people, once in power, live like the elites who opposed them. That’s one of the reasons why I would never trust any of them. I agree with HillaryforTexas when she said that she could never align with marxists, or socialists. I have to ask, why is it that this worker’s paradise has never come about anywhere? In the places where it has actually been tried, it more of a worker’s hell. Answer: because it is an impossible feat.

  28. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKRwaKe_4yo&feature=player_embedded

    Hey Slu, I Raise You A Gubernatorial Candidate

    Threatening A Reporter. NY GOP Candidate Paladino Threatens To “Take Care Of” NY Post State Editor
    —DrewM.

    Maine? Fuggetabout it. NY is the place with a crazy candidate starting a fight.

    Apparently this has something to do with Paladino charging that Andrew Cuomo has an illegitimate daughter or was unfaithful to his ex-wife (more on that here). Paladino has acknowledge he has a 10 year old daughter with a woman other than his long time wife.

    I knew Dicker a bit back when I was in college and interned at a TV station that he appeared on regularly. He’s an old school reporter who doesn’t really like anyone, though if anything he seemed to lean a bit to the right (at least on spending and open government issues). Plus, he writes for the NY Post, not exactly a hotbed of liberalism in NY.

    Dicker pretty much takes on whoever is in power. The idea that he’s a shill for Cuomo strikes me as pretty silly (maybe not, see update). That said, he’s not going to go printing unsubstantiated crap on a Republicans behalf either.

    I know people love Paladino’s fighting style but it’s a thin line between that and an irresponsible loose cannon. I think if you are going to charge someone else with the sin you committed, you better provide the evidence at that time.

    UPDATE: I have to admit, I haven’t read Dicker much lately but after going through some of his recent columns, he does seem to be backing Cuomo.

    I’m not sure that makes Paladino’s behavior much better but it does put it in a somewhat different light.

  29. also from ace
    ***********

    The revolution takes another hit; Tea Party candidate says bad words
    —Slublog

    How do you know when your state’s politics are officially boring? When something like this counts as a MAJOR. SCANDAL.

    News of the punch comment comes on the heels of a video posted online Tuesday showing LePage telling a crowd that, if elected, they can expect to see newspaper headlines declaring “Governor LePage tells Obama to go to hell.”
    In an interview with The Associated Press, LePage said he regretted his choice of words but wasn’t backing down in his criticism of the Obama administration for what he describes as free-spending, antibusiness policies.

    “Am I politically correct all the time? No. Maybe it’s time to have people say bluntly what’s going on,” LePage said Wednesday. “The fact of the matter is that I haven’t learned how to speak out of both sides of my mouth yet.”

    Normally, I wouldn’t post about local politics, but this seems to be scandalous enough to attract the attention of national media. Equally horrifying? This same candidate told a reporter to “stop the bullshit” when he was asked a question about his wife’s taxes.
    Sorry folks…the revolution was fun while it lasted, but all good things must come to an end.

    Seriously, though, there’s a reason LePage is getting hit on stuff like this. The Dems who have been running this state for years can’t defend their record so they (along with a willing press) are playing up the ‘temperament’ argument and asking whether LePage is emotionally stable enough to be governor.

    The only problem with this argument? The Dems and the press made it an issue during the last election, and it hasn’t exactly worked out that well. Americans were assured that Barack Obama had a “first-class temperament.” As it turns out, the president is a bit thin-skinned and unable to take criticism.

    What the media doesn’t seem to realize about this election year is that the political silly season is over. Voters aren’t looking for someone who can play the part of elected official. They’re looking for people who share their beliefs and who have the willingness to lead and limit the intrusion of government into our lives.

    Even if those individuals sometimes say naughty words.

    Obligatory: If you’ve got a few bucks lying around and want to hurt some blue-state Democrats, you know what to do.

  30. Pm317, “who is more of an Idiot?” No doubt MSNBC.

    Why ask Ricky foreign policy questions and all the questions Sarah Palin was asked on CBS? Ricky, is running for mayor of Wasilla, (as a nasty joke) not a position which impacts any of those issues. MSNBC wanted to slap Sarah Palin and they used Ricky to do it. Ricky gets some sympathy because he is so out of his league and is desperate for a Hollywood career that he allows himself to be used.

  31. Obama continues to attract admirers, and so does Krugman. It appears Obama has already secured his place in history alongside Japan in the 1930s. I knew there was an economic reason we were in Afghanistan. The “professional left” should learn to be more tolerant of the great Obama, it will all work out fine in the end, once a Chinese version of Mac Arthur puts us out of our misery. This will be ginger peachie with Obama provided it yield him a photo op signing our national sovereignty away. He loves those photo ops almost as much as Ross Perot loved the American People before he went off the deep end.
    ————————————————————————————————————
    You say Obama; I say Ozawa! You say boom; I say ka-boom!

    09/10/10 Baltimore, Maryland – The Nobel Prize committee has never withdrawn a prize. It might want to consider it. In Tuesday’s New York Times, prizewinner in economics, Paul Krugman reveals either that he knows nothing about economics…or that there is nothing worth knowing in it. We’re beginning to think it’s the latter.

    “From an economic point of view,” he writes, “World War II was, above all, a burst of deficit-financed government spending, on a scale that would never have been approved otherwise. Deficit spending created an economic boom – and the boom laid the foundation for long-run prosperity….”

    In the 1938 US elections, voters showed what they thought of the New Deal; Democrats lost 70 seats in the House. Then as now, the public had lost faith in public spending, says Krugman. Nearly two out of three of those polled said they were opposed to stimulus efforts. Roosevelt buckled under the pressure; he drew back from further spending to fight the slump.

    Thank God for WWII! No one opposes military spending in time of war. Krugman made his position clear in 2008 in his New York Times blog.

    “The fact is that war is, in general, expansionary for the economy, at least in the short run. World War II, remember, ended the Great Depression.”

    According to this line of thinking, the best form of stimulus spending is money spent on the military. It creates consumer demand without creating consumer supply. Consumer prices rise; people spend. The slump is soon over.

    But if WWII helped the US economy, think what it must have done for Japan; proportionally, its stimulus efforts dwarfed those of the US…and began much earlier. Just this week, Ichiro Ozawa, running for prime minister of Japan, vowed to take “every measure” to lower the yen and promised a stimulus package more than twice as big as the current program. He was just following in the footsteps of Japan’s leaders from the ’30s. It was “economic security” they said they were after. And they thought they could get it by central planning and government spending. Military spending rose from 31% of the budget in the early ’30s to nearly 50% five years later. By the early ’40s it was around 70% and nearly 100% later on. Deficits and debt soared.

    Did that create a boom? You bet it did. Japan was the first nation to get out of the global slump. It boomed…and boomed…and ka-boomed. When it came to warships, planes, and soldiers, Japan was soon among the richest nations in the world. Yes, Americans had more electric fans, automobiles, central heating, aspirin, ice cream, and the rest of the paraphernalia of civilized life at the time. In the mid-’30s, the US produced 40 times as many autos per person as did Japan. Even during the Great Depression, the US out-produced Japan by a factor of 7 and its workers earned 10-times as much money.

    Economists can’t even measure real prosperity, let alone fiddle it. So they put on the GDP and employment numbers the way a bald man puts on a cheap wig. It makes him look ridiculous and fraudulent, but it’s the best he can do. Unemployment disappears in a war economy. Japan put a million men in uniform. Two million more were part-time reservists. Those who weren’t in the army were put to work building tanks and planes. By 1941, Japan could produce 10,000 planes a year. If you were a swallow you wouldn’t want to build your nest in Japan’s factory chimneys; they belched smoke night and day.

    And talk about fiscal stimulus! Krugman would have loved it – stimulus unfettered by real money or even a casual regard for real prosperity. Takahashi Korekiyo was known as the “Japanese Keynes.” Gillian Tett notes in The Financial Times that he was assassinated in 1936 after he came to his senses and tried to bring state finances under control. He was done in by army officers who did not want the stimulus to stop. Not that we’re being judgmental about it. As far as we know, the quality of central banking could probably be improved by an occasional assassination.

    Takahashi wasn’t the first. Before him Junnosuke Inoue had held out for the gold standard and balanced budgets. He was out of office by 1931 and out of luck in 1932, when he was murdered. The gold-backed yen was abolished the day he left office. Then, public spending, deficits, central planning, debt, and inflation ran wild. By 1939, the Japanese were spending $5 million a day on their war with China – a huge sum for the Japanese at the time.

    Was the economy improved by all this spending? No, it was perverted…hammered into a grotesque imposter – a parody of a real economy. Most of the nation’s resources were put to work building things almost no one wanted. Then, after the attack on Pearl Harbor, the stimulus efforts were redoubled. Rations were reduced further. Working hours were extended. What few consumer items were available were three times as expensive at the end of the war as they had been when it began. Men were conscripted into factories and the army. Women were expected not only to make the tanks, but to join the home-guard and prepare themselves to repulse the American invaders with sharpened bamboo sticks. What a marvelous economy – operating at full capacity and full employment until General MacArthur finally put it out of its misery.

  32. agreed, mj- If Johnston pulled in my driveway to ask for my daughter’s hand (if I had a daughter)… I’d let the dogs out!
    _____________________

    Admin: I want to repost these two videos posted by Jan in the last thread… It’s pure Clinton gold. Bill expounds and directs on everything from the economy, jobs, Republicans, Gingrich, Carter, and solutions for pulling this country out of the doldrums. It seems a travesty not to take advantage of the message he is trying to get across especially to Hillary supporters.

    So far, it seems these videos have just been ignored…

    JanH
    September 29th, 2010 at 8:30 pm

    PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON ON THE MORNING JOE CGI SPECIAL – 2010 AND BEYOND PART 1

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9JyVj4ZIxY

  33. I came across this article and it is pretty sick. Of course the Europeans look down upon Americans, we racist people. Modern day slavery however…not so much. Fish anyone?
    ****************

    http://gu.com/p/2k2kb

    ‘Slavery’ uncovered on trawlers fishing for Europe
    Exclusive: EJF find conditions including incarceration, violence, and confinement on board for months or even years

    Felicity Lawrence
    The Guardian, Thursday 30 September 2010
    Article history

    The trawlers have mostly been identified engaging in pirate fishing off west Africa. Photograph: EJF
    Shocking evidence of conditions akin to slavery on trawlers that provide fish for European dinner tables has been found in an investigation off the coast of west Africa.

    Forced labour and human rights abuses involving African crews have been uncovered on trawlers fishing illegally for the European market by investigators for an environmental campaign group.

    The Environmental Justice Foundation found conditions on board including incarceration, violence, withholding of pay, confiscation of documents, confinement on board for months or even years, and lack of clean water.

    The EJF found hi-tech vessels operating without appropriate licences in fishing exclusion zones off the coast of Sierra Leone and Guinea over the last four years. The ships involved all carried EU numbers, indicating that they were licensed to import to Europe having theoretically passed strict hygiene standards.

    the ships are crewed by untrained, illiterate workers housed in dismally unsafe and unhygienic living conditions Link to this video
    “We didn’t set out to look at human rights but rather to tackle the illegal fishing that’s decimating fish stocks, but having been on board we have seen conditions that unquestionably meet the UN official definition of forced labour or modern-day slavery,” EJF investigator Duncan Copeland said. A report on the abuses is published by the foundation today.

    Its photographs and film of the areas in which the crews were working and sleeping show quarters with ceilings less than a metre high where the men cannot stand up. Temperatures in the fish holds on some vessels where men were being required to sort, process and pack fish for lucrative European and Asian markets were 40 to 45 degrees, with no ventilation, On some vessels the crews of up to 200 had little access to clean drinking water.

    The trawlers have mostly been identified engaging in pirate fishing off west Africa. Many of the men on board have been recruited from the area around the Senegalese capital, Dakar. Others have been recruited from rural areas of Asia, including China and Vietnam, by agents.

    According to a recent estimate illegal fishing accounts for between 13% and 31% of total catches worldwide each year, but accurate figures are hard to come by.

  34. The worker’s paradise is a bunch of bullcrud. The politicians who push that nonsense are the ones who want to be the elitist within that paradise. All of these people, once in power, live like the elites who opposed them. That’s one of the reasons why I would never trust any of them. I agree with HillaryforTexas when she said that she could never align with marxists, or socialists. I have to ask, why is it that this worker’s paradise has never come about anywhere? In the places where it has actually been tried, it more of a worker’s hell. Answer: because it is an impossible feat.
    ————————-
    Yes. In a workers paradise everyone is equal. Only some are more equal than others. Thus the dachus, the sportscars and the swiss bank accounts. The Latin expression is primus inter pares, i.e. first among equals.

  35. ‘Slavery’ uncovered on trawlers fishing for Europe

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

    The article is about what some Africans are doing to other Africans (and to some Asians). Any connection with Europe is tenuous: The fish are being caught for “lucrative European and Asian markets.” “The ships involved all carried EU numbers, indicating that they were licensed to import to Europe having theoretically passed strict hygiene standards.” It does not say any of these ships have actually gone to Europe; or how long ago the numbers were issued or when last inspecte, or by whom.

    All these digs against Europe seem gratutious, suggesting the writer has some axe to grind other than the issue described.

  36. ( sort of personal )

    I don’t need to BE gay or a Tea Partier or a Muslim or a European piscivore — to defend them when I see them unfairly attacked. 😉

  37. Another great post Admin!!

    Wars on both parties, the voters are angry and many tea party folks are Hillary supporters. I went to a number of tea parties in the Bay Area with my PUMA friends. We were decked out in Hillary gear and made our own signs against the mindless spending of the President of corruption. Hmmm, all of us were white women and although we didn’t join in their chants, we made up Hillary chants of our own. We didn’t wave the yellow flag with a snake on it, but we were welcome and not a bit surprised to find many of these folks liked Hillary too.

    The tea party has been scooped up by the Rethugs, and the PUMAs haven’t stayed under the bus, but are among the group of pist Americans. The Dems pretend we are still supporting them, but on Nov 2, they will pack their bags and go home.

    Hillary’s army = the Dems tea party people.

  38. If you happen to view the first Bill Clinton video, check out the body language and strange sidewards gaze on Mika Brzezinski. While Scarborough digs in depth Brzezinski contorts and ignores the first half of Clinton’s analysis… That is, until she is told the question to ask Clinton by someone in the control room and breaks the ice with Clinton..

    Mika, the iceberg, turn into partly cloudy Mika. While Joe smiling broadly and nodding in agreement revels in his knowledgeable nostalgia of the Clinton years. And Bill subtly carves another notch on his belt designating taming another media tiger. 🙂

  39. September 30th, 2010 at 12:26 am
    ‘Slavery’ uncovered on trawlers fishing for Europe

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

    The article is about what some Africans are doing to other Africans (and to some Asians). Any connection with Europe is tenuous: The fish are being caught for “lucrative European and Asian markets.”
    ***********************

    Hardly. Do you really think the Europeans are trolling the Atlantic for fish? They have decimated the supply anywhere near them. My money is on the article.

  40. HillaryforTexas
    September 29th, 2010 at 10:53 pm
    mj, the tea party does not have a platform. It’s a movement, not an organization. However, I see plenty of individual teapartiers who openly say that the govt and big business need to get out of bed together. They want the lobbyists GONE from DC. These are not crony capitalists
    ___________________
    They are my kind of people if that is the case.

  41. Mrs. Smith
    September 30th, 2010 at 12:41 am
    ************

    She looks ridiculous, arrogant and disinterested.

    When Bill talks about Lott and not being thin skinned, you know he is talking about the fool on the hill.

  42. mj
    September 29th, 2010 at 11:09 pm
    wbboei
    September 29th, 2010 at 11:06 pm

    That’s the damn point. The corporations have unbridled influence on the government. The argument again that there is some in between position between the corporations and the government completely misses the point. The point is that corporations now run our government. it’s them against us and we are losing.
    ———————————————————–
    Inverted totalitarianism and managed democracy is the problem, i.e.

    Inverted totalitarianism is all politics all of the time but a politics largely untempered by the political. Party squabbles are occasionally on public display, and there is a frantic and continuous politics among factions of the party, interest groups, competing corporate powers, and rival media concerns. And there is, of course, the culminating moment of national elections when the attention of the nation is required to make a choice of personalities rather than a choice between alternatives. What is absent is the political, the commitment to finding where the common good lies amidst the welter of well-financed, highly organized, single-minded interests rabidly seeking governmental favors and overwhelming the practices of representative government and public administration by a sea of cash. [10]

    Managed democracy is “a political form in which governments are legitimated by elections that they have learned to control”. [11] Under managed democracy, the electorate is prevented from having a significant impact on policies adopted by the state through the continuous employment of public relations techniques. [

  43. “We the people hear this and know who is being talked about, and react with anger: “Don’t presume to tell me what to think and whom to vote for just because you have more degrees than I do. I don’t know much about these people but if you guys are against them, I’m going to give them the benefit of the doubt.”
    ________________

    Exactly, admin- a good example would be Bill Maher flanked by a panel of flunkies on his show. He is a malignant force upon the too timid or the unbelievably lazy voters daring to buck what he represents as the status quo. I hope at some point in time, Maher is on Bill’s bucket list. A showdown debate or panel guest between the Billx2 would be a great fund-raiser for Haiti(?) How could Mayer refuse.(?) Of course, timing is everything. For now, it’s too soon. Even though, Bill came away with with Scarborough’s imprimatur jokingly recommending BC returning to politics in another presidential run…. which I think may have been a baiting tactic, hoping in a moment of weakness, Bill volunteering ‘why Not Hillary’ for the job ?…hoping to hear him talk-out of turn…

  44. Without her war paint on Mika Brzezinski is a dead ringer for daddy oh. Indeed, you can hardly tell the two of them apart. Zbig meanwhile has a little drag routine where he dressed up like Mika and appears on msnbc in disguise. He calls it going rogue. That may have been what you saw.

  45. Huh? The Europeans (and Asians) are buying the fish. But they have nothing to do with the conditions on the boats, which are run by Africans with African crews (and some Asians). Aside from the boats having at some point got some EU numbers.

    You might as well have an article complaining about factory conditions in China which is all full of digs at the US because we buy their products.

  46. October 24, 2009
    Africa pays high price for Europe’s illegal plate of fish
    Carl Mortished
    Europeans are eating “laundered” fish, harvested illegally from African coastal waters by pirate Asian trawlers while governments deny African fishermen the right to sell their catch within the European Union.

    The double standard, which allows factory ships from China and South Korea, cloaked in EU permits, to loot Africa’s shoreline but prevents Africa’s artisanal fishermen from earning a living, was condemned this week as a “travesty” by President Koroma of Sierra Leone.

    Illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing vessels are exporting their catch, often processed in filthy conditions, into Europe and on to our plates. The pirate vessels “launder” the IUU fish by transferring the catch to other vessels carrying import numbers issued by DG Sanco, the European Commission’s directorate-general for health and consumers.

  47. gonzotx
    September 30th, 2010 at 1:05 am

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

    She looks ridiculous, arrogant and disinterested.

    When Bill talks about Lott and not being thin skinned, you know he is talking about the fool on the hill.
    _____________________

    I agree about Mika- How she hated Hillary during the primary. She would feign in her special shallow way shooshing the open misogyny of Hillary by her media counterparts snickering, saying: “shoosh, now thats not very nice.”

    However, the worm called Mika has been forced to turn. She will on bended knee, kneel in front of the one she snickeringly(word?) shooshed and she will smile gratefully that Hillary hasn’t recommended a replacement for her….. yet.

    On the other hand- why sleep with one eye open. The ME is in need of overseas journalists pronouncing the praises of the wonderful job Obama has done in A-stan. We will need reportage of the latest in Iraqi fashion now that our troops have come home and the country is stable with a mere 50,000 of our troops remaining. I long to hear the words, this is: ‘Mika Brzezinski reporting to you from Iraq,’ as I am sipping my morning coffee at 8am.

  48. You get the picture yet Turndown?
    ***************

    Illegal Fishing in Guinea’s Waters “Worst in the World”
    Julio Godoy

    BERLIN, Mar 24 (IPS) – Rampant illegal fishing is hitting some of the poorest West African countries the hardest as this practice is globally most rife in the east central Atlantic Ocean area, which covers the territorial waters of some 15 African countries from Morocco and Mauritania in the north to Angola in the south.

    Most affected by illegal fishing are Guinea and Sierra Leone while the majority of ships and companies involved in the illegal fishing navigate under flags from countries such as China, Russia, Indonesia, and Panama but also from the European Union (EU) and other industrialised countries, such as Portugal, Italy and Japan.

    Illegal fishing occurs mostly in the eastern central Atlantic region and has increased over the last 10 years, according to the European Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation (CTA), an EU body set up to assist African, Caribbean and Pacific countries with information on development.

    In general, the total current losses caused by illegal fishing worldwide are estimated at between nine and 24 billion dollars per year. Most estimates put illegal fishing catches at between 11 and 26 million tons of fish, or between 10 and 22 percent of the total fisheries production.

    These estimates do not take into account the environmental damage caused by overfishing which has decimated numerous fish species, from tuna to cod fish.

    Developing countries are the most at risk from illegal fishing, “with total estimated (illegal) catches in West Africa being 40 percent higher than reported catches”, according to the London-based consulting firm MRAG, which describes itself as “promoting sustainable utilisation of natural resources through integrated management policies and practices”.

    Illegal fishing has been defined as the fishery conducted by national or foreign vessels in waters under the jurisdiction of a sovereign state without the permission of that state’s authorities or in contravention of its laws and regulations.

    National jurisdictional waters, known as exclusive economic zones (EEZ), consist of a sea area over which a state has special exploration and exploitation rights.

    Illegal fishing can also be conducted by vessels flying the flag of states which have ratified international fishery agreements, but which operate in contravention of the conservation and management measures adopted in such agreements.

    In yet another report, the British department for international development (DfID) estimated in 2009 that the annual loss due to illegal fishing alone in the EEZ of Guinea is valued at 110 million dollars.

    The London-based Environmental Justice Foundation (EJF) calls this illegal fishing in the Guinean territorial waters “the worst in Africa”, which means it is the worst in the world.

    The DfID report also estimated that Guinea loses in excess of 34,000 tons of fish every year to illegal fishing, including around 10,000 tons of ‘bycatch’. Bycatch is the euphemism for the unwanted portion of the catch thrown overboard by fishers.

    Officially, Guinean fishers legally catch some 54,000 tons per year. This means that the illegal fishing represents two-thirds of the country’s legal recorded catches.

    Saskia Richartz, EU oceans policy director for the environmental organisation Greenpeace, told IPS that “these dimensions of illegal fishing should be the most surprising and embarrassing for industrialised countries, since their leaders have over the past 10 years repeatedly pledged to eliminate it by 2004”.

    At the World Summit on Sustainable Development in 2002 world leaders agreed to urgently implement national and regional plans of action to effect the Food and Agriculture Organisation’s international plan of action “to prevent, deter and eliminate illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing by 2004”.

    Richartz said that the economic losses caused by illegal fishing for sub-Saharan African countries “amount to at least one billion dollars per year” but international law enforcement against illegal fishing is “non-existent”.

    “It is easy to launder illegal fishing catches and avoid sanctions because port controls are weak and inconsistent,” Richartz added. “There is also a lack of vessel traceability, lack of control over non-fishing vessels, and lack of enforcement with respect to beneficial owners/companies.”

    Richartz also accused EU members of only paying lip service to the fight against illegal fishing: “Greenpeace has repeatedly observed and documented fishing vessels, nationals and companies from the EU and other developed and developing nations, flouting international agreements where they exist, and fishing with impunity where they do not.”

    Every year Greenpeace compiles a blacklist from publicly available official registries of vessels and companies suspected of involvement in illegal fishing.

    While other blacklists only include vessels and companies from China, Russia, Panama, Tunisia, Indonesia and the like but none from Western Europe and other industrialised nations, Greenpeace’s own list cites ships from Portugal, Italy and Japan.

    In a number of European fisheries, illegal fishing is thought to account for one-third to one-half of all catches, Heike Baumueller, environment and resource governance researcher at Chatham House, an independent think tank in London, told IPS.

    “That will represent over 15 billion dollars of lost catches and over 27,000 lost jobs in fishing and processing industries by 2020,” Baumueller told IPS.

    In a press released dated Oct 27, 2009, the European Commission estimated that around 10 percent of the region’s seafood imports (some 1.7 billion U.S. dollars) could be illegally sourced.

    Some port authorities in European countries have indulged blacklisted vessels and companies. For instance, the EJF calls the Spanish port of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria “the most notorious port of convenience” as it provides services to pirate fishing fleets operating off the coast of West Africa.

    Due to the port’s status as a free economic zone, companies located at Las Palmas “have a variety of fiscal and customs advantages, many of which facilitate the illegal handling, transport and sale of illegally caught fish,” Duncan Copeland of the EJF told IPS.

    Las Palmas has been a soft entry point to the enormous European seafood market and the major transport hub for illegal fish heading for other large seafood markets, such as those in East Asia. (END/2010)

  49. gonzotx
    September 30th, 2010 at 1:05 am

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

    She looks ridiculous, arrogant and disinterested.

    When Bill talks about Lott and not being thin skinned, you know he is talking about the fool on the hill.
    _____________________

    I agree about Mika- How she hated Hillary during the primary. She would feign in her special shallow way shooshing the open misogyny of Hillary by her media counterparts snickering, saying: “shoosh, now thats not very nice.”

    However, the worm called Mika has been forced to turn. She will on bended knee, kneel in front of the one she snickeringly(word?) shooshed and she will smile gratefully that Hillary hasn’t recommended a replacement for her….. yet.

    imo- why sleep with one eye open. The ME is in need of traveling journalists pronouncing the praises of the wonderful job Obama has done in A-stan. We will need reportage of the latest in Iraqi fashion now that our troops have come home and the country is stable with a mere 50,000 of our troops remaining. I long to hear the words, this is: ‘Mika Brzezinski reporting to you from Iraq,’ as I am sipping my morning coffee at 8am.

  50. gonzotx-

    I have a response to you floating in the ether..

    For the third time I will try posting it.

    gonzotx
    September 30th, 2010 at 1:05 am

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

    She looks ridiculous, arrogant and disinterested.

    When Bill talks about Lott and not being thin skinned, you know he is talking about the fool on the hill.
    _____________________

    I agree about Mika- How she hated Hillary during the primary. She would feign in her special shallow way shooshing the open misogyny of Hillary by her media counterparts snickering, saying: “shoosh, now thats not very nice.”

    However, the worm called Mika has been forced to turn. She will on bended knee, kneel in front of the one she snickeringly(word?) shooshed and she will smile gratefully that Hillary hasn’t recommended a replacement for her….. yet.

    imo- why sleep with one eye open. The ME is in need of traveling journalists pronouncing the praises of the wonderful job Obama has done in A-stan. We will need reportage of the latest in Iraqi fashion now that our troops have come home and the country is stable with a mere 50,000 of our troops remaining. I long to hear the words, this is: ‘Mika Brzezinski reporting to you from Iraq,’ as I am sipping my morning coffee at 8am.

  51. #
    wbboei
    September 30th, 2010 at 1:18 am

    Without her war paint on Mika Brzezinski is a dead ringer for daddy oh. Indeed, you can hardly tell the two of them apart. Zbig meanwhile has a little drag routine where he dressed up like Mika and appears on msnbc in disguise. He calls it going rogue. That may have been what you saw.
    _____________________

    Bill, Mika is in the Clinton videos up yonder. She looks the way she always looks, skinny and neurotic. Her father is a case study in OCD. The destruction of Russia because of his wounded ego.

  52. Well, we heard this might be happening earlier in the year, but looks like it’s now official: Congress will not be coming up with a budget before the elections.

    In a way, I’m kinda glad they weren’t able to come up with anything; really exemplifies what kind of job Congress has done.

    http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2010/09/29/senate_adopts_stopgap_spending_bill/

    Senate adopts stopgap spending bill
    A deeply unpopular Congress is bolting for the campaign trail without finishing its most basic job — approving a budget for the government year that begins on Friday. Lawmakers also are postponing a major fight over taxes, two embarrassing ethics cases and other political hot potatoes until angry and frustrated voters render their verdict in the Nov. 2 elections.

    As Congress moved toward a messy end to a session fraught with partisan fire, President Barack Obama campaigned for Democrats in Iowa and Virginia, accusing Republicans of being dishonest about what needs to be done to revive the economy and restore middle-class dreams.

    With their House and Senate majorities on the line, Democratic leaders called off votes and even debates on all controversial matters.

    “It would be one thing if you have a chance to pass something, then by all means have a vote,” Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., said Wednesday. “But it was pretty clear that it was going to be mutually assured destruction.”

    One foot out the door, the House and Senate convened just long enough to vote on a “continuing resolution,” a stopgap measure to keep the government in operating funds for the next two months and avoid a pre-election federal shutdown.

  53. Meg Whitman is in deep $hit for firing an illegal nanny she had for 9 or 10 YEARS.
    The most telling for me, is how she runs away from a cameraman and acts like she is above the law.

    Doesn’t surprise me in the least. Didn’t trust her from day one.

  54. Mrs. Smith, I too thought Mika looked like the beoch that she really is. For a while there I thought old Joe was going to rehire Bill himself, LOL! I ready for the old two for one theme again and so is the rest of the country.

    You got to give it to Bill, he just can not be outdone…he is absolutely the smartest President….Jimmy C. the oldest!

  55. Shadowfax, I agree with you about Meg, she did not get that rich being nice, she had to grease a few hands here and there and she probably is about as stuck on herself as Boxer is. Senator Mam.

  56. What does the future hold for the relationship between the United States and China? That question will be very important to not only our children and grandchildren but to the future of the world. Economically, militarily and in every other sense that matters.

    The former secretary of the Navy whom I have mentioned previously notes that China is building warships at five times the clip we are, which is our course is a harbinger of imperialistic ambitions and designs. His view is common among senior naval planners. Army planners do not seem to be as concerned because at this point they do not see Chinese troops on their battlefield. But China is smart enough to realize that protracted land wars like the ones we are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan drain the wealth of a nation.

    Still, there are those who insist that the relationship between the United States is sound–they save, we spend what could be better. However, the phase is destined to be short lived.

    According to Ferguson, the best historical model we have for evaluating what the future will hold is the relationship between Britain and Kaiser Germany–meaning a growing nationalism, a sense that the worst times are over, a surging economy all of which led to two world wars, etc.

    To complete that analogy, we have our own version of Neville Chamberlain, only his name if Barack Obama. Give me a treaty and a photo op and I will sign anything, and I will give you a speech proclaiming peace in our time while I weaken the Unites States, which my wife was never proud of before I became president and she had a credit card with no limits.

    Ferguson does not go that far, but the point is rather obvious. But not to everyone. There is a bot named Fat Kid who comments on such things. He routinely dismisses such risks routinely dismisses and demands clear cogent and convincing proof. Otherwise he screams bull shit.

    Unfortunately, we have millions just like him, who are loud obnoxious and too ignorant to spit. Proof means nothing to people like him, because he operates in a fact free universe devoid of historical context. They may or may not have an education. But when it comes to emotional maturity they are a case of arrested development.

  57. Shadowfax
    September 30th, 2010 at 2:36 am
    Meg Whitman is in deep $hit for firing an illegal nanny she had for 9 or 10 YEARS.
    The most telling for me, is how she runs away from a cameraman and acts like she is above the law.

    Doesn’t surprise me in the least. Didn’t trust her from day one.
    ——————————————-
    Shadow, you have made several comments critical of Meg Whitman. I know little about her other than the fact that she succeeded at E-Bay and seems to have some of the tools California probably needs to address its staggering problems. It tells me alot that this nanny would become an issue. It tells me as much about the nanny as it does about Meg. But you suggest there are deep character flaws here. What are they? I am just not up to speed on this since I do not live there.

    Brown on the other hand has bad track record as governor. Bill called him out on that as we saw. But it is his stint as governor that troubles me. It is his performance as Attorney General.

    I wrote to him six months ago, asking him to investigate a phantom company which locks in to your telephone provider like a parasite and drains your credit card for false identity protection services. It was located at San Jose Airport which is a false location. Monday I received a form letter from him saying that his office would write a letter to this company and ask for an explanation. In checking around I find that company is notorious and well known to everyone but him. Thus, the letter he is writing now, is a waste of time and will come back undelivered. And what if anything will he do then?

  58. It seems so odd that Whitman would let this one get by her. With all she has invested in this campaign to fire this nanny now of all times. She knows what opposition research is, she knows how the hispanic population will react to this (assuming she is hispanic) and she knows these illegal nanny problems have derailed national political candidates. There has got to be more to this story, and it makes me wonder whether she was being blackmailed. Something here does not add up.

  59. I think highly of Woodward myself. He gives us a mirror on the internal workings of an administration which others in the press do not know or will not tell. And unlike most of them, I do not think he is simply writing an apologia for the Administration as we have seen from others. Finally, as the true mark that he is a serious journalist as opposed to a shill he makes it a practice to never appear on msnbc because he knows as we do that msnbc is not a news organization.
    ———————————————————-

    Bob Woodward’s book portrays a great divide over Afghanistan

    Network NewsXPROFILE

    Tweet13
    View More Activity
    TOOLBOX
    Resize Print E-mail
    Yahoo! Buzz Reprints

    COMMENT
    51 Comments | View All »
    POST A COMMENT
    You must be logged in to leave a comment. Log in | Register
    Why Do I Have to Log In Again?

    Discussion Policy

    Wednesday, September 29, 2010
    SUPPORTERS OF President Obama’s strategy in Afghanistan can only be disheartened by the portrait of his administration provided in Bob Woodward’s new book, “Obama’s Wars.” By Mr. Woodward’s account, many of the president’s senior White House advisers believe that the modified counterinsurgency strategy he adopted last year is doomed to fail — and some suspect the president shares their views.

    The administration’s lengthy deliberations about whether to send more U.S. troops to Afghanistan last fall produced a sharp debate between Mr. Obama’s White House and the military commanders responsible for Afghanistan — and the rift appears to endure. By the middle of this year, the book reports, Vice President Biden was “more convinced than ever that Afghanistan was a version of Vietnam.” The U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan, Karl W. Eikenberry, is quoted as saying, “Basically we’re screwed.” National security adviser James L. Jones’s view is “you can’t win.” Lt. Gen. Douglas E. Lute, who is the senior coordinator for Afghanistan on the National Security Council, says, “This is a house of cards.”

    It’s possible, of course, that all of the dissenters are correct; the results from Afghanistan so far this year have been mixed at best. Yet Mr. Obama’s chosen commander in the theater, Gen. David H. Petraeus, has been reporting signs of progress — and the administration appears not to be considering significant changes in the strategy for now. Mr. Woodward’s reporting raises a question we have asked in the past: Why does the president continue to employ aides — including an ambassador in Kabul — who do not support his policy and are frequently at odds with those trying to implement it?

    What’s most disturbing in Mr. Woodward’s book is the evidence it offers that Mr. Obama’s own commitment to his plan is weak. The president is described as preoccupied with finding “an exit strategy” that will reduce the U.S. military involvement as quickly as possible. “This needs to be a plan about how we are going to hand it off and get out of Afghanistan,” Mr. Woodward quotes him as saying in one meeting.

    Mr. Obama repeatedly cites the cost of the war and the need to shift resources to domestic priorities — though spending on Afghanistan is well below 1 percent of U.S. gross domestic product. He is portrayed as citing purely political reasons for setting the deadline of July 2011 for beginning a withdrawal: “I can’t lose all the Democratic Party,” he is quoted as telling one senator.

    In Mr. Woodward’s narrative, Mr. Obama repeatedly rejects the notion of a military campaign in Afghanistan lasting eight or even five more years. Yet Gen. Petraeus and other commanders have made it clear that success will require a long-term commitment.

    Perhaps the most damning assessment of the president comes from Gen. Lute, who Mr. Woodward says concluded that “Obama had to do this 18-month surge just to demonstrate, in effect, that it couldn’t be done . . . the president had treated the military as another political constituency that had to be accommodated.” For the sake of the Americans fighting in Afghanistan, and the families of the 360 service members who have died there this year, we hope that is not the case.

  60. As I think about this whole thing with the limited tools I have available, I have formed the opinion that in order to campaign successfully, a candidate must satisfy two broad constituencies–first, the elites, and second, the American people. This is basic stuff, but it is easily forgotten in the confusion and noise of daily events. The same principle applies when it comes to governing, only there your words are tested in the cauldron of reality. By that measure, Obama soared in the beginning and is sinking now. And he will continue to sink in the future.

    I have got to believe that even though the American people were fool enough to elect him, they have reached a point now where they realize, whether viscerally, or consciously that he is fiddling while Rome burns, and when he is not fiddling he is busy lighting more fires. They cannot be so blind and so stupid as to not see that much. Furthermore, I believe the elites have reached the same epiphany. Big business who once believed that an Obama presidency would confer upon them access and influence second to none, is now paranoid of his tax and regulation policies, and reluctant to put capital at risk and build jobs in this country for that reason. And if they feel that way, you can be doubly sure that small business sees him for what he is, namely the destroyer of worlds.

    The bottom line is regardless of what happens in 2010, and notwithstanding how big media tries to spin all this, it is over. Over, as we sally forth into 2011 and the great reckoning Judd Gregg talked about, the serious conversation with the country that Boehner alluded to and the budget action which Reid and Pelosi have deferred until after the election. They are cowards alright, and for good reason. But it all gets back to Obama. He lacks the experience, and the moral character for the job, and it is high time people stopped giving him a pass on account of his skin color and verbal adeptness.

  61. admin – for me, you’ve lifted the veil of confusion regarding the Tea Party. (And I do take considerable satisfaction from being able to report that almost no one on TV calls members ‘teabaggers’ anymore.)
    Fifth @ 8:58 pm regarding 2008 Hillary Supporters/Endorsers Penn CD-11 Paul Kanjorski
    ——————————–
    The following represents my opinion and is placed here solely as an FYI:
    Although Kanjorski is not my district I’ve been financially supporting his campaigns since 2008 for the very reason you state. I am on his mailing list, but will not support him this time around because he has nothing to say about illegal immigration and I’ve little doubt he will toe the Obama line on that. His opponent Lou Barletta has been mayor of Hazleton PA for quite some time now, and for all of that time, has been extremely effective be in bringing fairness/logic to the travesties wrought by overlooking illegal immigration. Barletta has been legally challenged every step of the way, but he has stayed the course in attempting to make renting to/hiring illegal immigrants a crime in his town. Kanjorski began his current ad campaign with blunt negativity. Barletta so far is taking a somewhat higher road. However, DCCC has purchased $104,000 for ads against Lou Barletta, R.
    h t t p://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/where-the-dccc-is-spending-its-money–and-how-much-103971893.html
    That may change Lou’s tune. Just on the basis of his immigration stand I would vote for him if I could. Besides, Kanjorski fits my other qualification for election loss: been there way too long.

  62. wbboei: They [the American people] cannot be so blind and so stupid as to not see that much.
    —————–
    I cite my friend Shirley, a lifelong resident of this rural area and now in her 80’s. For the past 2 1/2 years I’ve spent thousands of dollars and thousands of hours sending political messages via USPS postcards. Shirley is a thankful recipient of them, and she lets me know when the local paper publishes any of the messages. Shirley relies on that newspaper and TV for her information, and knows she’s not getting the full deal. She has no computer access. Yet when I recently mentioned that Obama is owned by big business, she proclaimed rather vociferously “That’s obvious.”
    That’s one way to measure Tea Party awareness.

  63. According to NYT Obama lit up the kids at the University of Wisconsin, and it is deja vu 2008 all over again. If that is even half true, then the analogy that comes most readily to mind is the 19th century mid western town which was recorded for posterity by the likes of Willa Cather. And it is not just any day, because any day would mean up at dawn, backbreaking work, collapsing in the evening and waiting for the bath and Church social on Saturday. No, not that. This is the day the circus comes to town, and the rubes gather around the patton medicine tent, and listen to the pitchman describe how the product he is offering is pure magic and cures everything from poison ivy to whooping cough to gonorrhea. The rubes are so swept along by the cadence of his words, and the the fairy tale he is spinning, that they reach in their wallets and ante up.

  64. holdthemaccountable
    September 30th, 2010 at 8:26 am
    ——————————
    I like your friend. She knows there is no free lunch, and something here does not add up. I wonder where I would be if I had nothing to fall back on but Brian Williams and the nightly news. I suspect I would be frustrated enough to kill my television because I too would realize that this is a patten medicine show we are witnessing, and the product they are offering does not perform.

    The other thing that strikes me here is the elites really did try to emulate the prior example of JFK. I mean the youth vote, the vote rigging, the style, the Camelot syndrome, the plea for public service. And, as noted the other day, Jackie tried to make JFK a martyr for civil rights, rather than the victim of some deranged little commie, to paraphrase her words.

    There were only two problems with this ambitious attempt at political theater. First, as Ferguson correctly notes, Obama made all these grandiose promises but when he got there the cupboard was bare thanks to Hank Paulson. Second, the elites have the wrong man at the end of the puppet string–a man they cannot control, who says stupid things, does even stupider ones, cannot think beyond the next campaign, has no interest in problem solving, and who in the end will throw everyone including them under the bus to save himself and the worst part is he will enjoy doing it.

  65. ShadowFax, Meg has already posted online all of the fake documents that the woman gave her, including a SS card, tax documents, drivers license etc, as well as a signed statement that she was legal and qualified to work in the US.

    She was hired through a reputable agency, not off the street. The woman lied about her status and had paperwork to back it up. She was not a nanny, she was a housekeeper, whom, BTW, Meg paid $25 per hour. When Whitman found out she was illegal, she fired her.

    Here are photocopies of all the actual documents with which the woman was hired: How does this translate to wrongdoing on Whitman’s part? Was she supposed to keep her on illegally? I’m curious as to what, exactly, you think Meg did wrong here.

    http://tmz.vo.llnwd.net/o28/newsdesk/tmz_documents/0929_diaz_01.pdf

  66. Since Obama is AA nobody DARES to criticize him except of course a racist. Since Obama is a racist, he could criticize himself if he wanted to, and who would have the audacity to complain? But when Obama criticizes Bush, as he does with great aplomb and then proceeds to do the same things Bush did, the inference is obvious. Except he can do it because he is AA,

    Larry Johnson @ No Quarter:

    Received the following from a respected journalist. He got it from his mom. Way to go mom. (If anyone has the original link, let me know, we want to credit the originator).

    If George W. Bush had proposed to double the debt within 10 years, would you have approved?

    If George W. Bush had criticized a state law that he admitted he never even read, would you think that he is just an ignorant hot head?

    If George W. Bush joined the country of Mexico and sued a state in the United States to force that state to continue to allow illegal immigration, would you question his patriotism and wonder who’s side he was on?

    If George W. Bush had put 87,000 workers out of work by arbitrarily placing a moratorium on offshore oil drilling on companies that have one of the best safety records of any industry because one company had an accident would you have agreed?

    If George W. Bush had used a forged document as the basis of the moratorium that would render 87,000 American workers unemployed would you support him?

    If George W. Bush had been the first President to need a TelePrompTer installed to be able to get through a press conference, would you have laughed and said this is more proof of how inept he is on his own and is really controlled by smarter men behind the scenes?

    If George W. Bush had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to take Laura Bush to a play in NYC, would you have approved?

    If George W. Bush had reduced your retirement plan’s holdings of GM stock by 90% and given the unions a majority stake in GM, would you have approved?

    If George W. Bush had made a joke at the expense of the Special Olympics, would you have approved?

    If George W. Bush had given Gordon Brown a set of inexpensive and incorrectly formatted DVDs, when Gordon Brown had given him a thoughtful and historically significant gift, would you have approved?

    If George W. Bush had given the Queen of England an iPod containing videos of his speeches, would you have thought this embarrassingly narcissistic and tacky?

    If George W. Bush had visited Austria and made reference to the nonexistent “Austrian language,” would you have brushed it off as a minor slip?

    If George W. Bush had filled his cabinet and circle of advisers with people who cannot seem to keep current in their income taxes, would you have approved?

    If George W. Bush had stated that there were 57 states in the United States, would you have said that he is clueless.

    If George W. Bush would have flown all the way to Denmark to make a five minute speech about how the Olympics would benefit him walking out his front door in Texas, would you have thought he was a self important, conceited, egotistical jerk.

    If George W. Bush had been so Spanish illiterate as to refer to “Cinco de Cuatro” in front of the Mexican ambassador when it was the 5th of May (Cinco de Mayo), and continued to flub it when he tried again, would you have winced in embarrassment?

    If George W. Bush had misspelled the word “advice” would you have hammered him for it for years like Dan Quayle and potatoes as proof of what a dunce he is?

    If George W. Bush had burned 9,000 gallons of jet fuel to go plant a single tree on Earth Day, would you have concluded he’s a hypocrite?

    If George W. Bush’s administration had okayed Air Force One flying low over millions of people followed by a jet fighter in downtown Manhattan causing widespread panic, would you have wondered whether they actually get what happened on 9-11?

    If George W. Bush had failed to send relief aid to flood victims throughout the Midwest with more people killed or made homeless than in New Orleans (due to Katrina), would you want it made into a major ongoing political issue with claims of racism and incompetence?

    If George W. Bush had created the position of 32 Czars who report directly to him, bypassing the House and Senate on much of what is happening in America, would you have approved.

    If George W. Bush had ordered the firing of the CEO of a major corporation, even though he had no constitutional authority to do so, would you have approved?

    If this these incidents did not occur under George W. Bush’s watch, I wonder who was at the helm when they did…?

    Come Thanksgiving, George W. will be giving thanks for Barack. Next to Barack and his “accomplishments” Bush is looking like a genius.

  67. HillaryforTexas
    September 30th, 2010 at 9:02 am

    ShadowFax, Meg has already posted online all of the fake documents that the woman gave her
    &&&&&&

    Good research, HFTex.

    I may not give two rats’ asses about the Calif. guv race normally, but the best thing to send a message to the Dems that Obama is Death incarnate is for them to lose big across the board.

    Then they can contemplate how to rise out of the ashes by 2012 by doing something…other than…renominating that Obama feller.

  68. I believe this was part of what the elites saw in Obama. His race would inoculate him against valid criticism over the radical policies he is instituting which are destroying the country. They knew that opposition would emerge from all ends of the political specturm, and when it did, they could whistle up their trained media seals and fellow travelers who could be counted upon to line up and scream in unison racist at anyone who dared to speak truth to power. If Lou Dobbs were free to talk about it I am quite sure he would confirm that suspicion.

  69. If anyone wants to make the Ø symbol for Øbama’s name, press and hold down the Alt key on your keyboard, and then press the number sequence 0216 on the number keypad.

  70. HECK OF A JOB, O-BAMBI

    Just when the Resident needs some good economic news…

    news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_gdp

    Economy loses speed in spring; more weakness ahead
    =========

    By JEANNINE AVERSA, AP Economics Writer Jeannine Aversa, Ap Economics Writer – 1 hr 4 mins ago

    WASHINGTON – The nation’s economic growth tailed off sharply in the spring and probably isn’t faring any better now.

    The Commerce Department reported Thursday that gross domestic product — the broadest measure of the economy’s health — expanded at a feeble 1.7 percent annual rate in the April-to-June quarter.

    The new reading is a notch higher than the 1.6 percent growth rate the government estimated a month ago. But it marks a sharp slowdown from a 3.7 percent growth rate logged in the first quarter. And, the new figure doesn’t change the big picture: The economy has been losing momentum since the end of last year.

    Many think the economy grew at around the same anemic pace, or slightly worse, during the July-to-September quarter. Little improvement is expected in the final quarter of this year. That’s why unemployment — now at 9.6 percent — is expected to stay high or even rise in the coming months.

    Americans just aren’t spending at a robust pace to bulk up companies’ sales and make them confident enough to beef up hiring. Consumers and businesses, battered by the worst recession since the 1930s, are clinging to their cautious ways.

    Consumers, in particular, are paring down debt, aren’t spending as much as they normally do during an economic recovery and they are saving more. Their spending accounts for roughly 70 percent of economic activity, so their frugal behavior explains why the economy is stuck in a slow-growth rut.

    In the second quarter, Americans saved 5.9 percent of their disposable income, the most in a year. Before the recession, they saved just 2.1 percent.

    Consumers boosted their spending in the second quarter at a 2.2 percent pace. It was a tad better than the government’s previous estimate but is still considered lackluster for this point in the recovery by historical standards. Economists think consumers will spend at a slightly slower pace through the rest of this year.

    The economy is the No. 1 concern to voters going to the polls on Nov. 2 in the congressional midterm elections. Voter backlash could cause Democrats to lose control of Congress.

    GDP measures the value of all goods and services produced in the U.S. It covers everything from machinery to manicures.

    The sharp drop off in GDP in the second quarter mainly reflected fallout from a bigger trade deficit. A surge in imported goods swamped growth in U.S. exports to other countries. The bigger trade gap that resulted shaved 3.5 percentage points from second quarter growth, the most since 1947.

    Another major factor in the economy’s slowdown: Businesses added to their stockpiles of goods at a slower pace in the spring, reflecting concerns about the spending appetites of their customers.

    The economy’s growth has to be much stronger that what the U.S. has been logging to lower unemployment. Under one rule of thumb, the economy would have to expand by at least 5 percent for an entire year to drive down the jobless rate by one percentage point.

    The Federal Reserve is weighing new action to bolster the economy. One likely step is to buy more government debt. Doing so would be aimed a lowering rates on mortgages, corporate loans and other debt. The Fed’s goal: get Americans to boost their spending, which would strengthen the economy.

    Thursday’s report also showed that prices — excluding food and energy — rose at a slower pace in the second quarter. They increased at a 1 percent annual rate. That was down from a 1.2 percent in the first quarter and was the slowest pace since the beginning of 2009.

    One of the things that Fed doesn’t want to see happen is for the weak economy to lead to a dangerous bout of deflation, a widespread drop in prices of goods and services, in wages, and in the value of homes, stocks and other assets.

    Meanwhile, the GDP report also showed that corporations’ after-tax profits rose at a slower pace in the spring. Less generous profits are likely to make businesses think twice about making big capital purchases or stepping up hiring.

    When the government reported in late August that the economy’s growth had slowed to just a 1.6 percent pace, it stoked fears the economy might fall back into a recession. Since then, those fears have receded a bit, with reports showing that sales at retailers and activity at factories are holding up. Nonetheless, with the economy so fragile, it is more vulnerable to being hurt by any negative forces.

    For each quarter, the government makes three estimates of GDP. It revises the figures based on more complete data. Thursday’s was the third estimate and final estimate for the second quarter. The government makes it first estimate of the economy’s third-quarter performance at the end of October.

  71. BATTERED IN THE BACKYARD CONVERSATION

    Read to learn about the “Obama cookie”, and see how it crumbles.

    Zerobama can’t find the love, even among “friendlies”. So much for that campaign trick…

    55% disapproval in a state where he won with 54%.

    nytimes.com/2010/09/30/us/politics/30obama.html

    Obama, in Iowa, Hears Barbed Questions in a Subdued Backyard
    =================

    DES MOINES — President Obama returned Wednesday to Iowa, the state that put him on the presidential map, this time fighting to keep his Democratic Party in power and confronting skeptical voters who challenged him on policies from tax cuts to health care.

    Continuing his tour of American backyards, Mr. Obama received a reception that was polite and friendly, but also pointed, when he visited Sandy Clubb, the athletic director at Drake University, and her husband, Jeff, a middle school social studies teacher, in the upscale, leafy Beaverdale neighborhood here.

    About 70 people awaited him in the backyard, where Mr. Obama got an earful. One woman told him that her 24-year-old son had “campaigned furiously for you and was very inspired by your message of hope,” but is now out of college and struggling to find a job.

    Another said she had “great concerns about your health care bill.” A priest told of an unemployed parishioner. A small-business owner expressed irritation with the president’s plan to raise taxes for people earning more than $250,000, to which Mr. Obama, showing his own flash of own irritation, replied: “Your taxes haven’t gone up in this administration.”

    The questions were so downbeat that at the end of the hour-long session, Mr. Obama tried to pick up the mood.

    “As I listen to the questions,” he said, “it’s a good reminder we’ve got a long way to go, but I do want everyone to be encouraged about our future.”

    With just five weeks to go before Election Day, Mr. Obama is trying to gin up enthusiasm among beleaguered Democrats and reconnect with American voters who are deeply concerned about his stewardship of the economy, all the while drawing sharp contrasts between Democrats and Republicans.

    He arrived here Tuesday night, after a raucous get-out-the-vote rally on the campus of the University of Wisconsin-Madison, and promptly dropped in on his favorite Des Moines haunt, the Baby Boomers Cafe, to visit privately with friends and supporters. (The cafe bakes a chocolate chunk cookie that became a favorite of the president during his campaign; locals call it the “Obama Cookie.”)

    Mr. Obama carried Iowa with 54 percent of the vote in 2008. But a poll in The Des Moines Register this week found that 55 percent of likely voters in Iowa disapproved of the president’s performance — numbers that are not much different from elsewhere in the country.

    Wednesday morning’s question-and-answer session at the Clubb home was the fifth in a series of “backyard conversations” Mr. Obama has been holding. Each has had a theme: health care in Falls Church, Va., last week; education in Albuquerque on Tuesday; the middle class Wednesday morning in Des Moines. In each, Mr. Obama took on Republicans, who last week released their Pledge to America agenda.

    Mr. Obama has been using the backyard events to draw a contrast between the two parties, and has been accusing Republicans of proposing $700 billion in tax cuts for the rich without offering specifics on how to pay for them. In Des Moines on Wednesday, he told voters that the Republican lawmakers “didn’t really speak honestly to the American people about how we’re going to get this country on track.”

    Later in the day, Mr. Obama took that message to Richmond, Va., straight to the home district of one of his chief Republican detractors, Representative Eric Cantor, the House Republican whip, for another backyard conversation. But this one was moved to a local recreation center to escape the rain.

  72. If anyone wants to make the Ø symbol for Øbama’s name, press and hold down the Alt key on your keyboard, and then press the number sequence 0216 on the number keypad.
    *********
    If you have a Mac. it’s shift-option O…Ø

  73. Which blog is Larry Johnson the owner of? Not Big Pink, right, as I did not think we knew who owned Big Pink.

    I am not in the know, so if someone would clarify, I would appreciate it. Thanks

  74. BIG MONEY NO LONGER LINING OBAMA AND DEM POCKETS

    Awwwwwww.

    nytimes.com/2010/09/30/us/politics/30dems.html?dbk

    Democrats Find Many Big Donors Cutting Support
    ============
    September 30, 2010, 4:44 am

    Many wealthy Democratic patrons, who in the past have played major roles financing outside groups to help elect the party’s candidates, are largely sitting out these crucial midterm elections.

    Democratic donors like George Soros, the bête noire of the right, and his fellow billionaire Peter B. Lewis, who each gave more than $20 million to Democratic-oriented groups in the 2004 election, appear to be holding back so far.

    “Mr. Soros believes that he can be most effective by funding groups that promote progressive policy outcomes in areas such as health care, the environment and foreign policy,” said an adviser, Michael Vachon. “So he has opted to fund those activities.”

    The absence of these Democratic megadonors is contributing to a huge disparity in spending between pro-Republican and pro-Democratic groups. The groups wield huge influence in many House and Senate races because they can take in contributions of unlimited size.

    In the last week, Republican-leaning groups outspent their Democratic counterparts on television by more than seven to one on Senate races and nearly four to one on House races across the country, according to data from the Campaign Media Analysis Group, which tracks political advertising. The gap shows few signs of abating, even with the midterm election season in full swing.

    The donors’ reluctance stems from a variety of factors, including pessimism about the party’s prospects in November, but also President Obama’s strong condemnations of this kind of independent activity, both during the 2008 campaign and after he was elected.

    For Mr. Soros, who was also a big donor in 2006 and 2008, it is a matter of being more focused on pushing to get the policy outcomes he wants than on the electoral process, Mr. Vachon said.

    Mr. Soros gave $5 million each last year to organizations supporting the health care overhaul and the climate change bill, Mr. Vachon said. He also contributed $1.25 million this year to America Votes, an umbrella organization for a variety of liberal-leaning groups, which focuses on the voter mobilization that Mr. Soros has supported over the years.

    The attention of Mr. Lewis, chairman of Progressive Insurance, also appears to be elsewhere this year. Jennifer Frutchy, who advises Mr. Lewis on his philanthropy, said he was focused at the moment on “building progressive infrastructure and marijuana reform.”

    “That’s just where his head is right now,” Ms. Frutchy said.

    Many major donors, in fact, seem to be drawing a distinction between continuing to support left-leaning policy organizations and other institutions, and giving money to political groups focused on this election.

    Labor unions are still promising to spend large sums of money backing Democrats. But they are not keeping up at this point with the flood of money going to Republican-leaning organizations. The landmark Supreme Court ruling in the Citizens United case this year that eased restrictions on corporate political spending has certainly benefited Republicans, but so has the political environment.

    “We’re concerned about it,” said Tim Kaine, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, which is abiding by a pledge to restrict contributions from political action committees and lobbyists. “Would it be easier to take that institutional money? Sure it would be.”

    If the imbalance in spending continues, it would mark a reversal from the past, when Democrats held the advantage when it came to utilizing third-party groups that could accept unrestricted donations.

    Interviews with Democratic operatives, most of whom would speak only on the condition of anonymity because they were discussing the internal dynamics of these groups, provided a broader portrait of the struggles they are facing as they court megadonors.

    For donors, there is certainly an element of fatigue from giving cycle after cycle, as well as an economic squeeze brought on by the recession, the operatives said. But some more ideological donors are also upset that the Obama administration has not been more aggressive in pushing a liberal agenda. Big donors from Wall Street, including hedge fund executives and investment bankers, are also angry at the administration.

    It also appears, however, that Republicans have outmaneuvered their Democratic counterparts since the Citizens United decision. They have taken advantage of Democratic broadsides against the ruling, which have inevitably had an effect on the attitudes of Democratic donors.

    Mr. Obama devoted one of his weekly radio addresses this month to the effect he said untamed special interests were having on the midterm election. “We can see for ourselves how destructive to our democracy this can become,” he said. “We see it in the flood of deceptive attack ads sponsored by special interests using front groups with misleading names.”

    Several Democratic strategists said the White House’s denunciations had made entreaties to prospective donors trickier.

    “You can complain about the rules, or you can respond to them and fight back against the people who welcome those rule changes,” said Craig Varoga, who heads up Patriot Majority, which has been supporting Senator Harry Reid in Nevada and has been one of the most active Democratic-leaning outside groups.

    Belatedly, some additional Democratic third-party efforts are shaping up. An organization called Commonsense Ten is emerging as a conduit for large checks directed toward Senate races and recently went up on the air with television advertisements in Missouri and Washington State.

    The group has been convening regularly with other Democratic-leaning groups — labor unions, women’s groups and others — to coordinate efforts. It has lined up financial commitments to also get involved in the Senate races in Colorado, Wisconsin, New Hampshire and Kentucky, Democratic operatives said. The group is also contemplating jumping into races in Illinois, Connecticut and Delaware.

    Over all, though, the group is talking about spending, along with its partner organizations, about $5 million, with commitments from donors so far for about half of that.

    In contrast, American Crossroads and its affiliate, Crossroads GPS, the biggest Republican-oriented group involved in Senate races, has said it is well on its way to raising $50 million for this election.

    Another group, America’s Families First Action Fund, is shaping up as a major player on the House side among Democrats. But it has not yet even broadcast any ads.

    Democratic leaders have been increasingly sounding the alarm about the disparity in spending, which may be contributing to something of a thaw among donors, or at least more openness to these efforts.

    “It’s a challenging fund-raising environment, to be sure,” said Jim Jordan, a veteran political strategist who is working with Commonsense Ten. “We’re seeing signs lately, though, of a growing sense of awareness and urgency and engagement among our donor base.”

    Whether that will translate into a late flood of cash remains to be seen.

  75. New Mexico: that was my mistake as I told Ani yesterday. I posted the No Quarter thread and inadvertently omitted the name of the author and blog. Ani assumed those were my words, which were excellent but not mine. So I set the record straight on that subject. I now see the reference to Larry which is also misleading. Larry is the owner of No Quarter. That statement was drawn from that blog and has reference to it, not Big Pink. Larry is damned good, which is why from time to time I post materials from his blog here. But Admin is better in my opinion, in terms of factual assertions, strategic insight and the ability to accurately forecast the future. All you have to do is go back to prior posts which Admin did, and you will see what Admin posted 1-2 years ago has come to pass. Admin has read Obama like a book. If I were a journalist who wanted to know the truth about Obama, this blog would be the first place I looked. That said, I regret the confusion.

  76. BUSH’S THIRD TERM

    nytimes.com/2010/09/30/opinion/30thu1.html?ref=opinion

    Editorial
    Shady Secrets
    Published: September 29, 2010

    A midnight filing by the Obama administration on Friday, asking a federal judge to throw out a lawsuit because of the so-called state secrets doctrine, again raises a troubling question. Why do the White House and Justice Department continue to invoke this severe legal tool essentially as prior administrations have used it, in the face of a considerable body of opinion that it has been abused and should be significantly reformed?

    Everyone recognizes that there are secrets that must be protected, but the doctrine has been used to cover up illegal and embarrassing acts or to avoid needed public discussion of policies. Federal trial judges sometimes fail to make the government justify its use of the privilege.

    Despite President Obama’s promises of reform in this area, the public still cannot reliably distinguish between legitimate and self-serving uses of the national security claims. Worse, some of the administration’s claims clearly have fallen on the darker side of that line.

    The lawsuit was filed by the father of Anwar al-Awlaki to stop the government from killing his son, who is believed to be planning attacks for the branch of Al Qaeda in Yemen, where he is said to be in hiding. Charlie Savage reported in The Times that there is wide agreement in the administration “that it is lawful to target Mr. Awlaki,” but disagreement about the basis for requesting dismissal of the lawsuit. In the end, “a more expansive approach” won out.

    Given the cloud of doubt hanging over the doctrine — for 57 years, really, since the Supreme Court established it and for the past decade, especially, because the Bush administration abused it to conceal torture — it’s time for the Obama administration to air these differences and explain the full extent of its thinking.

    The court established the secrets privilege in 1953, in United States v. Reynolds. It said the government could withhold evidence if revealing it would jeopardize national security. In that case, the government suppressed a 51-page report about the crash of an Air Force plane on which electronic equipment was being tested.

    The privilege turned out to be conceived in sin: the now-declassified report contains no secrets. Instead, it recounts how the engine failure that led to the crash might have been avoided. A lawyer involved said the report “expressly finds negligence” by the Air Force.

    In the past 20 years, use of the privilege has increased considerably. It is now used to dismiss lawsuits outright, as in the Awlaki case, even where plaintiffs could prove their case without protected information.

    Last September, Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. said the administration would follow new procedures “to strengthen public confidence that the U.S. Government will invoke the privilege in court only when genuine and significant harm to national defense or foreign relations is at stake and only to the extent necessary to safeguard those interests.” He said that it wouldn’t be used to cover up illegal or embarrassing actions.

    Those commitments distinguish the Obama approach from that of his predecessor, but they came after Mr. Holder rushed to uphold Bush administration claims in two major cases involving illegal detention and torture. In one case, it had long been shown conclusively in public that the United States abducted an innocent man and sent him to Syria, where he was tortured.

    Mr. Holder’s assurances haven’t strengthened public confidence because they can’t. That will not happen until there is an independent and trusted mechanism for scrutinizing efforts to use the secrecy claim, and to address judges’ deference to a secrecy-oriented executive.

  77. Nomobama, thanks for the keystroke tip! nØbama

    Governor Christie: a breath of fresh air that is alomst enough to make me want to move to New Jersey. It is clear to me that he has the potential for a larger stage, especially in this dawning age of anti-fake.

    Talk about sticking with the facts, speaking clearly, being direct, being quick on your feet, and displaying intelligence:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkuTm-ON904

  78. KARL ROVE HAPPY TO POINT OUT HOW SUCKY OBAMACARE IS

    online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704116004575522073624475054.html?mod=WSJ_newsreel_opinion

    Democrats and the Health-Reform Albatross
    =====
    By making so many misleading claims, the president created an army of opposition.

    By KARL ROVE

    ‘Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, Karl Rove, they’re all warning you of the horrendous impact if you support this legislation,” President Barack Obama said in March about his health reform, but “I am actually confident . . . that it will end up being the smart thing to do politically . . .”

    Unfortunately for the president, it turns out ObamaCare is not the wind filling the sails of Democratic candidates and propelling them to victory. Rather it has become a reef on which many of their electoral hopes will founder.

    Pollster.com reports health-care reform is less popular today than it was when it was passed in March. And it wasn’t particularly popular back then.

    A composite average of the polls show that today 40% of Americans approve the health-care reform legislation while 50% oppose it. Forty-four percent supported it and 47% opposed it when the president signed the measure. And those in many of the polls who indicate they strongly disapprove of the law outnumber strong supporters by 2-to-1.

    Americans stubbornly resist this landmark legislation in part because virtually every major claim about its benefits is turning out to be false—and people recoil when misled.

    Mr. Obama said health-care reform would not only stop insurance premiums from rising rapidly, but also reduce them $2,500 a year per family. Yet PriceWaterhouseCoopers has found that with health-care reform, premiums are likely to rise 111% over the next decade, compared to a projected increase of 79% if nothing had been done. This just makes sense: The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act slathers on mandates, requirements and rules that can only drive up insurance costs.

    Mr. Obama also said repeatedly that if you like your current coverage, you can keep it. According to an analysis by John Goodman of the National Center for Policy Analysis, that won’t be true for between 87 million and 117 million Americans. Either their employer will stop providing insurance, or they’ll see benefits go down and co-pays rise as insurers and employers wrestle with the law’s mandates.

    Seniors are already losing their coverage: Harvard Pilgrim Health announced this week it will stop providing Medicare Advantage to 22,000 customers in New England because of Medicare cuts.

    What about Mr. Obama’s promise that reform would bend the cost curve, reducing what our nation spends on health care? The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has since found the U.S. will spend an estimated $311 billion more on health care over the next decade than if the bill hadn’t passed.

    Nor will Mr. Obama be able to keep his pledge never to raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year. Taxes levied in the new law will fall on people of all income levels who are customers of drug and medical device companies or own an insurance policy.

    There’s more. The new program is “paid for” with 10 years of Medicare cuts and new taxes, fines and fees that start this year. But the government doesn’t actually begin spending money in earnest for four years, and the program isn’t fully ramped up for seven years. How sustainable is that?

    More and more Americans are (rightly) concluding Mr. Obama’s reform is a fiscal disaster of epic proportions. By making so many transparently false claims, Mr. Obama persuaded and energized a large swath of the electorate to oppose health-care reform.

    Many opponents are among the 14 million Americans who work in health care and millions more who work for health insurance, drug or medical device companies. Many are not happy with what’s coming their way. They are telling friends and family how the bill will negatively impact their jobs and communities. For example, health-insurance brokers are already realizing they are unlikely to have jobs or businesses in the future.

    Many business owners are talking to their human resources staff and benefits counselors, making certain employees know what’s responsible for the bad news that’s coming. The conversations these people are having with neighbors and friends are far more powerful than any presidential speech.

    Mr. Obama inadvertently recruited many who now are, as he said during the 2008 campaign, “fired up and ready to go”—this time to defeat his party over his signature domestic achievement. Democrats got the health-care legislation they wanted. Now they’re going to get an electoral defeat they won’t easily forget.

  79. I wonder whether Obama will be able to shakedown Wall Street, the Saudis and the Soros network for half a billion or so in campaign contributions for 2012. It doesn’t seem likely. On the other hand, perhaps he can turn to the one constituency he has not yet disappointed–Castro, Chavez and Dinner Jacket who refuses to meet with him. I still say it is a good thing that Woodward reported that Obama does not listen to Hillary on matters of foreign policy, and equally telling that he listens to Pinata who is more into campaigning than governing. It puts Hillary in the same position as the first mate of the Titanic who tried to warn the captain that there were icebergs in those waters, only he would not listen.

  80. OBLITERATING A GENERATION

    By DICK MORRIS

    Published on TheHill.com on September 28, 2010

    Printer-Friendly Version

    Thanks to the leadership of President Obama, Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid, the Democratic Party is facing the biggest defeat in midterm elections in the past 110 years, perhaps surpassing the modern record of a 74-seat gain set in 1922. They will also lose control of the Senate.

    Republicans are now leading in 54 Democratic House districts. In 19 more, the incumbent congressman is under 50 percent and his GOP challenger is within five points. That makes 73 seats where victory is within easy grasp for the Republican Party. The only reason the list is not longer is that there are 160 Democratic House districts that were considered so strongly blue that there is no recent polling available.

    There is no Democratic message. President Obama is heralding education — an issue never mentioned on the campaign trail. Secretary of State Clinton is trying to restart the peace talks in the Middle East. Attorney General Holder is re-evaluating online national-security taps. And a hundred Democrats are scrambling about on their own trying to get reelected!

    The Democratic campaigns they are waging are formulaic. They make no attempt to defend the administration, but run away from it where possible. They never mention the words stimulus, healthcare reform, card-check, GM takeover or cap-and-trade.

    Instead, they are running almost exclusively negative ads. They base their campaigns on tax liens, failed marriages, DWIs and the like. Where there is a paucity of dirt, they resort to three prefab negatives: that their opponent favors a 23 percent national sales tax, that he wants to privatize Social Security and that he is shipping jobs overseas.

    The Republican answers are simple. Republicans want a 23 percent value-added tax (VAT) only as part of eliminating the income tax. Some Republicans do back letting people under 55 divert one-third of their FICA taxes to approved investment alternatives, and most voters agree with them. But, on the campaign trail, simply saying — accurately — that “I oppose any change at all in Social Security for our seniors” takes care of it. And Republicans rebut the jobs overseas charge by citing how the incumbent backed cash-for-clunkers, where 40 percent of the cars bought were foreign; the TARP bailout, which paid billions to overseas banks; and the GM bailout, where two-thirds of the jobs were overseas.

    It is a pathetic defense, easily pierced and defeated.

    Now the field of battle will increasingly shift. The marginal Democrats — the freshmen and sophomores — are mostly gone. The seats of Southern conservative Democrats largely already lost. Now the combat shifts to the previously safe seats occupied by many in the House leadership, including, perhaps, the seats of Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (Md.) and Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (Mass.).

    This new attack will force the Democrats to spend their resources defending their base and make it even easier to pick off marginal members. And while Republican resources shift to the previously solidly Democratic districts, eager donors anxious to develop relationships with the new Republican majority will fill their shoes.

    In the Senate, Republicans lead in eight Democratic seats: North Dakota, Indiana, Arkansas, Colorado, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, West Virginia and Illinois. In Nevada, the ninth, Harry Reid has been stuck at 44 percent of the vote since Aug. 1, when his Social Security/Medicare attack was rebutted. He is dead in the water. His negatives flood the airwaves but are not working, and the ads run by Karl Rove’s American Crossroads have him pinned down.

    For the 10th seat, the GOP has five options: New York, where Joe DioGuardi is only one point behind Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand in the latest published poll; California, where Sen. Barbara Boxer is stubbornly below 50; Washington state, where the lead has seesawed back and forth between Dino Rossi and Sen. Patty Murray; Connecticut, where Linda McMahon has closed to 50-45; and Delaware, where Christine O’Donnell may yet come back and has closed the gap to nine points.

    And where is Obama while all this is happening? Proposing new initiatives on education!

  81. Admin. Absolutely the best article yet. This should be widely published.

    Fifth Dimension
    September 29th, 2010 at 8:58 pm
    Tim Bishop…like Schumer…may have endorsed Hillary but he has been completely on board with Obama, strongly supported obamacare and every other obama/pelosi initiative. Additionaly he was arrogant and obnoxios at town hall meetings. I will not vote for him. I am voting for Altschuler, a green rebulican, who believes in enforcing immigration laws and fiscal restraint.

  82. HANSON: ELITISTS LIKE OBAMA ARE NOT VERY SMART WHEN TALKING DOWN TO VOTERS

    Lots of good examples of the “we know better than you” crowd making themselves unelectable with their smugness.

    realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/09/30/democrats_cling_to_arrogance.html

    September 30, 2010
    Clinging to Arrogance
    By Victor Davis Hanson

    The bookish, twice-unsuccessful Democratic presidential candidate Adlai Stevenson once sighed that if most thinking people supported him, it still wouldn’t be enough in America because “I need a majority.”

    For some reason, Democrats have chosen to follow the disastrous model of Stevenson and not that of feisty man-of-the-people Missourian Harry Truman — though the former nearly wrecked the party and the latter got elected.

    Former President Jimmy Carter likewise seems to feel that he’s still too smart for us. Carter, who turns 86 on Friday, is hitting the news shows to explain why he remains America’s “superior” ex-president — and why more than 30 years ago he was so successful yet so underappreciated as our chief executive.

    Most Americans instead remember a very different President Carter who finished his single term with 18 percent inflation, 18 percent interest rates, 11 percent unemployment, long gas lines, and a world in chaos from hostage-taking in Teheran and Soviet communist aggression in Afghanistan and Central America.

    Now, John Kerry — who failed to win the presidency in 2004 and recently tried to avoid state sales taxes on his new $7 million yacht — is voicing similar frustrations about Americans’ inability to fathom what their betters are trying to do for them. He is furious that an unsophisticated electorate might not return congressional Democratic majorities in 2010. Kerry laments that, “We have an electorate that doesn’t always pay that much attention to what’s going on.” Instead it falls for “a simple slogan rather than the facts or the truth or what’s happening.”

    In 2006, Kerry warned students that if they did poorly in school, they could “get stuck in Iraq.” He apparently had forgotten that soldiers volunteer for military service, and are overwhelmingly high school graduates.

    In the 2008 campaign, Michelle Obama at one point said of her husband’s burden, “Barack is one of the smartest people you will ever encounter who will deign to enter this messy thing called politics.”

    That sense of intellectual superiority was channeled by Barack Obama himself when he later tried to explain why his message was not resonating with less astute rural Pennsylvanians: “And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

    During the recent Ground Zero mosque controversy, Obama returned to that Carter-Kerry-Obama sort of condescension. When asked about the overwhelming opposition to the mosque, the president felt again that the unthinking hoi polloi had given into their unfounded fears: “I think that at a time when the country is anxious generally and going through a tough time, then fears can surface, suspicions, divisions can surface in a society.”

    The president often clears his throat with “Let me be perfectly clear” and “Make no mistake about it” — as if we, his schoolchildren, have to be warned to pay attention to the all-knowing teacher at the front of the class.

    Disappointed progressive pundits also resonate this angst over having to deal with childlike Americans. Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson recently psychoanalyzed the falling support for the president by claiming that “The American people are acting like a bunch of spoiled brats.”

    Thomas Frank’s best-selling 2004 book “What’s the Matter With Kansas?” lamented that uninformed voters were easily tricked into voting against their “real” economic interests.

    When America votes for a liberal candidate, it is redeemed by the left as intelligent — and derided as dense when it does not. We were told not to worry that Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner did not pay all his income taxes since we were lucky to have someone so well educated and experienced in high finance.

    Note that few Democratic candidates are running on the health-care bill they passed, promising at the time that it would be appreciated by a suspicious American public. More federal borrowing and amnesty are still pushed under the euphemisms “stimulus” and “comprehensive immigration reform.” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi claimed that the tea party movement was merely a synthetic Astroturf movement. Professors and preachers may like such sermonizing, but for politicians it’s a lousy way to get elected. Again, compare the relative fates of the patronizing Adlai Stevenson and the plain-speaking Harry Truman.

    But current polls suggest that these clueless and unappreciative Americans apparently believe that an elite education does not ensure their officials can balance a budget, pay their own taxes or speak candidly.

    What an outrageous “How dare they!” thought.

  83. wbboei
    September 30th, 2010 at 11:18 am
    I wonder whether Obama will be able to shakedown Wall Street, the Saudis and the Soros network for half a billion or so in campaign contributions for 2012. It doesn’t seem likely. On the other hand, perhaps he can turn to the one constituency he has not yet disappointed–Castro, Chavez and Dinner Jacket who refuses to meet with him. I still say it is a good thing that Woodward reported that Obama does not listen to Hillary on matters of foreign policy, and equally telling that he listens to Pinata who is more into campaigning than governing. It puts Hillary in the same position as the first mate of the Titanic who tried to warn the captain that there were icebergs in those waters, only he would not listen.
    __________________

    He may not have his previous financial sources, but his thugs are still at work. From Michelle Malkin:
    The Service Employees International Union plans to send 25,000 rank-and-file workers on 500 buses to Washington this weekend to protest the tea party movement, Republicans and Fox News. If SEIU members had any sense, they’d be demonstrating at their own bosses’ D.C. headquarters. It’s the Big Labor Left, not the Tea Party Right, that is flushing rank-and-file union workers’ hard-earned dues down the collective toilet in these hard times.

    The co-organizer of the so-called “One Nation” protest by a coalition of progressive groups is George Gresham, president of the behemoth SEIU Local 1199 based in New York. (This is the same SEIU affiliate that employed current Obama domestic policy adviser Patrick Gaspard as chief lobbyist for nine years.) Peeved by all the attention that grassroots conservatives and limited government activists have received over the past year, Gresham spearheaded the rally plans earlier this summer to “counter the Tea Party narrative” and reclaim the voice for “working people.” Perhaps Gresham should pay more attention to his workers’ pensions than to tea party leaders’ media appearances.
    http://townhall.com/columnists/MichelleMalkin/2010/09/29/big_labor,_not_tea_party,_is_workers_worst_enemy

  84. From Fox News website:
    Sources: Emanuel Leaving White House on Friday

    Published September 30, 2010
    | Associated Press
    Print Email Share Comments (6) Text Size Two people close to Rahm Emanuel say he will resign as White House chief of staff on Friday, and will begin his campaign for Chicago mayor by meeting with voters in the city on Monday.

    The people who are familiar with Emanuel’s plans spoke on condition of anonymity because they did not want to pre-empt his announcement.

    The people say Emanuel will return to Chicago over the weekend and begin touring neighborhoods on Monday to talk with voters. They say Emanuel also will launch a website with a message to Chicago voters.

    Emanuel’s plans have been the source of widespread speculation both in Chicago and Washington, D.C. ever since Mayor Richard Daley announced he would not seek re-election earlier this month.
    _____________

    It appears Rahm is in quite a hurty to leave.

  85. lol…got interrupted before I could finish my thought.

    Meant to say that I don’t think any one has the high quality of work ethics that Hillary and Bill have.

  86. “The Democratic campaigns they are waging are formulaic. They make no attempt to defend the administration, but run away from it where possible. They never mention the words stimulus, healthcare reform, card-check, GM takeover or cap-and-trade.”

    ——————-

    Isn’t this comment just plagiarized from Bill Clinton who recommended that the dims defend their accomplishments?

  87. Now, John Kerry — who failed to win the presidency in 2004 and recently tried to avoid state sales taxes on his new $7 million yacht

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

    Now, I don’t like Kerry for many reasons. But when I hit this kind of dig I scroll on down. Tax rules are complicated. To stick in something like this as though it were an established fact (requiring mind-reading) rather than the writer’s opinion – makes me doubt the writer’s sincerity or his sanity, and condemn his tactics.

  88. The other thing that strikes me here is the elites really did try to emulate the prior example of JFK. I mean the youth vote, the vote rigging, the style, the Camelot syndrome, the plea for public service.

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

    One difference: JFK really DID take us to the moon. Well, send us. Well, lit the fire, didn’t he?

    I saw someone saying the moon landing must have been a hoax, because we didn’t even have computers back then.

  89. turndownobama
    September 30th, 2010 at 1:02 pm
    The other thing that strikes me here is the elites really did try to emulate the prior example of JFK. I mean the youth vote, the vote rigging, the style, the Camelot syndrome, the plea for public service.

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

    One difference: JFK really DID take us to the moon. Well, send us. Well, lit the fire, didn’t he?

    I saw someone saying the moon landing must have been a hoax, because we didn’t even have computers back then.

    ———————
    Absolutely right. JFL was the real deal. Obama however is just a fraud. They are alike only in the sense that neither one of them is named Bill. Although I have to be careful here. I am not sure we have a full list of Barry’s many aliases.

  90. wbboei

    ——————————————-
    Shadow, you have made several comments critical of Meg Whitman. I know little about her other than the fact that she succeeded at E-Bay and seems to have some of the tools California probably needs to address its staggering problems. It tells me alot that this nanny would become an issue. It tells me as much about the nanny as it does about Meg. But you suggest there are deep character flaws here. What are they? I am just not up to speed on this since I do not live there.

    Brown on the other hand has bad track record as governor. Bill called him out on that as we saw. But it is his stint as governor that troubles me. It is his performance as Attorney General.

    ——
    wbb
    The things I have seen in Meg Whitman that I do not respect are many. Here are a few.

    Ebay success – Her one claim to fame and what made her a multimillionaire. The idea of Ebay is great, nothing wrong with that, but I sold hand made items for years on Ebay, and one thing she did was to pull more and more money from the sellers into her pocket. My items were inexpensive, but I had steady customers and after a few years I quit when the costs increased so much I never made any profit. She may have turned that online website into a corporate moneymaker, but making jobs for Americans is a joke. Some have done well, but the majority do not. So seeing this as the best example as to how she will fix Calif. doesn’t fly with me.

    Next – Try spending over 120million dollars on tv ads since she started running, one negative, ugly ass ad after another, many times, the same ad, three times in a row on a commercial break. Watch months and months of these and it makes anyone rabid. Besides the fact that it seems she is trying to buy her way in as Governor instead of run on any policies. She didn’t vote for 20 something years……I find that unconcerned and stupid.

    Next – this nanny story. Yes, she was wrong to employ her for 10 years, and the illegal nanny was wrong to not try to enter the US legally…….but, who is the person that is running on the Republican platform for Governor. Someone that wants to secure the borders and stop spending on illegal? Meg is, so by hiring this woman that worked for her, with cheap pay in comparison to a legal nanny, she was saving her money and not living up to what she now preaches on immigration. I would call this a 10 bold faced hypocrite.

    When Meg is in front of a camera, it is all controlled. She does not answer questions about things that bother other Californian’s, she walks away. She says she doesn’t have time for questions. She doesn’t think the voters need to know anything she doesn’t want to talk about.

    Some of disdain I feel for Meg is gut level Wbb, the same gut level mistrust I had for Obama. I trust these red flags because they have always been right for me so far. (Except in the love department, I have been a fool more then once in this area and didn’t pay enough attention to the red flags. 😉

    Brown, have you seen Oakland lately? It was a hood, dirty, ugly, big stores closed, dangerous. Brown MOVED there, cleaned the city, encouraged big business to build there, downtown Oakland is beautiful. It is still dangerous, but nothing as bad as it was.

    Brown is more honest of a person than Meg in my book, and honesty has a value. He has worked for the state all his life and he is more mature now and has a better chance at working across party lines.

  91. Oh, and one last thing about Meg, the ad with Bill Clinton saying that Brown raised taxes according to CNN, the facts were incorrect and it was pointed out on this blog. Meg still runs the ad against Brown even though the facts are wrong and have been corrected by CNN.

  92. the majority of ships and companies involved in the illegal fishing navigate under flags from countries such as China, Russia, Indonesia, and Panama but also from the European Union (EU) and other industrialised countries, such as Portugal, Italy and Japan. [….] While other blacklists only include vessels and companies from China, Russia, Panama, Tunisia, Indonesia and the like but none from Western Europe and other industrialised nations, Greenpeace’s own list cites ships from Portugal, Italy and Japan.

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

    This shows EU as less involved with the pirates than other countries are. The first article posted mentioned only EU citizens as eventual consumers of these fish, which was unfair.

    The current article, much better, gives perspective and some facts showing WHERE Europe needs to tighten up its enforcement of its regulations.

  93. andyp
    September 30th, 2010 at 12:06 pm
    ———————-
    Actually, that is very good news. I am sure big media will be helping coordinate this to present the most benign face. But all it takes to burst that bubble is flashbacks to the assault by SEIU thugs of Tea Party people in St Louis, a showing that Stern is closer to God Obama than thee, and a further showing that good old Andy is under investigation by the FBI for any role he might have had in the embezzlement schemes and ghost employees of lieutenants in his union. Also, someone might say a word or two about how he has bankrupted his union chasing the holy grail of politics. I like the idea of the SEIU stepping forward. That will play real well in the south and middle America where they always welcome and appreciated.

  94. They might also recall the boycotts by the SEIU at the behest of Obama against the owner of Whole Foods in every major city. Even though the idiot voted for Obama, he had the audacity to question Obama care and shortly thereafter down came the hammer.

  95. have you seen Oakland lately? It was a hood, dirty, ugly, big stores closed, dangerous. Brown MOVED there, cleaned the city, encouraged big business to build there, downtown Oakland is beautiful. It is still dangerous, but nothing as bad as it was.

    Brown is more honest of a person than Meg in my book, and honesty has a value. He has worked for the state all his life and he is more mature now and has a better chance at working across party lines.

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

    Fwiw, that’s my impression of Jerry Brown. I remember seeing stories about him as Mayor. Instead of talking to the reporter, he’d be off helping some poor woman who interrupted them.

    I got the impression he was a workhorse who wouldn’t stop working no matter what level of job he was at — like “Bloom where you’re planted.”

    Going from Governor to Mayor would seem to me embarrassing, but he did it.

    (Nothing against Whitman except her negative ads, sfaik. But overall my impression is that Brown has paid his dues over and over and knows the territory, and Whitman should try for some other office and get some experience of her own before bumping out the old veteran workhorse who may be nearing retirement age soon. You know, sort of like Obama bumped Hillary….)

  96. I hope Bibi does reject this latest bribe.

    ————-

    Obama offering Israel incentives to extend freeze on settlement construction, say reports

    US president said to have listed a range of inducements in letter sent to Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu

    Harriet Sherwood in Jerusalem guardian.co.uk, Thursday 30 September 2010

    Barack Obama has offered a range of inducements to Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu in return for a two-month extension to the partial freeze on settlement construction, it was reported today.

    Obama wrote a letter to Netanyahu in an attempt to break the deadlock in talks which has occurred since the expiry of the freeze at the weekend. In it he sets out a list of commitments and guarantees the US was willing to offer in exchange.

    The letter was disclosed by David Makovsky of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, and reported by all major Israeli news organisations.

    A White House spokesman said no letter had been sent to Netanyahu, adding: “We are not going to comment on sensitive diplomatic matters.” Mark Regev, Netanyahu’s spokesman, said: “We’re not getting into the content of discussions.”

    According to the reports, the letter requests a 60-day renewal of the freeze. In return, Obama guarantees to demand no further extensions, to ensure that the future of Jewish settlements would become part of “final status” negotiations, and to veto any United Nations security council resolution relating to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict over the next year, while talks continue.

    He pledges to support a continued Israeli military presence in the Jordan Valley after the establishment of a Palestinian state. The letter also acknowledges Israel’s security needs and the need to upgrade its defence capabilities, and promises to consult Israel and the Arab states on US policy on Iran.

    According to the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, Netanyahu had not replied to the letter and was inclined to reject its offer.

    George Mitchell, Obama’s Middle East envoy, and Lady Ashton, the EU’s foreign affairs chief, were both in the region today, underscoring diplomatic efforts to keep the negotiations on track.

    After meeting Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas in Ramallah, Mitchell told reporters that he would “continue attempts to find common ground”, suggesting the impasse had not been broken.

    Palestinian negotiators have threatened to walk out of the talks unless the 10-month freeze is extended. However, Abbas is to consult political organisations in Ramallah on Saturday before meeting Arab League representatives next week, when a decision will be taken about whether to continue discussions.

    Chief negotiator Saeb Erekat reiterated his position this week, saying “there are no halfway solutions on the settlements issue.”

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/sep/30/israel-obama-netanyahu-peace-talks

  97. wbboei
    September 30th, 2010 at 1:29 pm

    They might also recall the boycotts by the SEIU at the behest of Obama against the owner of Whole Foods in every major city. Even though the idiot voted for Obama, he had the audacity to question Obama care and shortly thereafter down came the hammer.

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

    First I’ve heard of SEIU being involved in the flap against Whole Foods. I thought it was just a bunch of Bot types going mad with PC about WF measuring their belts or something.

  98. NOT AGAIN?? CLAIMS OF RACISM.

    Obama received unending assistance and free passes from the press to help him win what he could not have possibly won if he had been properly vetted and questioned.

    But when there finally is a tough question, it’s “racism”.

    Now it’s LeBum’s turn. LeBron has enjoyed years of hyping by the media as The Next Jordan and now The Best BB Player on Earth. Yet he did not deliver (hmmmm, sounds familiar?). Then he stabs his own community in the back (hmm, sounds familiar?), and wonders why he is no longer loved (sounds familiar?). Then his inner circle jump up and down and say it is racism now that there is any criticism (hmmm, sounds familiar?).

    yahoo.com/nba/news;_ylt=AvK.4vKW1OeMobu2acGCFuc5nYcB?slug=ap-lebronsdecision

    James’ manager: Race played role in media coverage

    HURLBURT FIELD, Fla. (AP)—LeBron James’s(notes) manager says he believes race played a factor in how the two-time reigning NBA MVP’s decision to join the Miami Heat was covered this summer.

    Maverick Carter did not cite specifics when talking to CNN for a story that aired Wednesday night.

    Carter tells the cable network that race “definitely played a role in some of the stuff coming out of the media” during coverage of James’ free-agent saga.

    James turned down a chance to stay with the Cleveland Cavaliers and ultimately decided to join the Heat in an oft-criticized televised special that raised $3 million for the Boys & Girls Clubs of America.

    James was expected to talk to the media Thursday and a e-mail to his representatives requesting comment was not immediately answered.

  99. rgb44hrc
    September 30th, 2010 at 11:27 am
    HANSON: ELITISTS LIKE OBAMA ARE NOT VERY SMART WHEN TALKING DOWN TO VOTERS
    ——————————-
    No they are not. But they cannot help themselves. From the time Washington was offered the crown 1781 and declined; to the time De Toqueville toured the country in 1840 and wrote Democracy In America; to the time of the Broadway musical Oklahoma in 1948 up to and including now; these assertions of moral and intellectual superiority by the self anointed elites cut against the grain of the American psyche. They are anti egalitarian. We do not need a bevy of Platonic guardians, as Judge Learned Hand so aptly put it. Good trial lawyers know this to a fare thee well. They try not to look too smart to a jury and part of the art is the art which conceals the art. The subtext reads I am okay and you are okay. Elitists start from a fundamentally different position. They say in effect, I am great, you are not, ergo you should defer to me. They are taught to believe this crap at the elite institutions and elsewhere. But it is not the way to win juries or voters. Perhaps the best answer to that kind of smug arrogance came from one of the characters in Oklahoma as Oscar Hamerstein gives us the words. The song is Territory Folks Should Stick Together:

    [Aunt Eller]
    I’d like to teach you all a little sayin’
    And learn the words by heart the way you should
    I don’t say I’m no better than anybody else
    But I’ll be damned if I ain’t jist as good!

  100. Actually, that is very good news. I am sure big media will be helping coordinate this to present the most benign face. But all it takes to burst that bubble is flashbacks to the assault by SEIU thugs of Tea Party people in St Louis, a showing that Stern is closer to God Obama than thee, and a further showing that good old Andy is under investigation by the FBI for any role he might have had in the embezzlement schemes and ghost employees of lieutenants in his union. Also, someone might say a word or two about how he has bankrupted his union chasing the holy grail of politics. I like the idea of the SEIU stepping forward. That will play real well in the south and middle America where they always welcome and appreciated.
    ________________
    I certainly hope it backfires. What they did last year to Hillary supporters is unconscionable.

  101. KUDOS TO BRODER, THE ALL-SEEING PROGNOSTICATOR…

    …who only just now admits that the Dems are in deep doo doo.

    Wow, how astute. Can’t sneak anything by this guy.

    realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/09/30/the_middle_has_swung_against_dems.html

    September 30, 2010
    The Middle Has Swung Against Dems
    By David Broder

    WASHINGTON — Sometimes the most important clues are hiding in plain view. That was the case in late June, when the Gallup Organization reported that the share of voters who describe themselves as conservative had increased from 37 percent to 42 percent in the past two years.

    That does not sound like a big change. But given the long-term stability of these basic philosophical alignments, the reaction it measured to the economic troubles and the performance of the new Democratic administration is very significant.

    The most recent number, a cumulative figure based on surveys during the first half of 2010, drew some attention because it was the highest percentage for conservatives in any such poll since Gallup started asking this question in 1992. The five-point gain came equally from the ranks of moderates and liberals, who fell to 35 percent and 20 percent, respectively.

    What was less noticed at the time were the state-by-state Gallup figures, but thanks to the busy calculators at Third Way, the moderate Democratic advocacy and political action group, the implications of those numbers for the midterm election have become clear in a memo now circulating around Washington.

    They explain why so many Democratic candidates are struggling in states such as Wisconsin and Washington, which have been kind to their party in the recent past. And they argue that President Obama may have been focused on the wrong target when he kicked off his fall campaigning at the University of Wisconsin in the liberal stronghold of Madison.

    The message emerges from some pretty basic math calculations — work done by Lydia Saad of Gallup and then overlaid by Anne Kim and Jon Cowan of Third Way.

    Saad ran the Gallup numbers for individual states, with few surprises. Wyoming, Mississippi, Utah and South Dakota checked in with 50 percent or more conservatives. At the other end, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Vermont, Massachusetts and Colorado were the most liberal states — but only in Rhode Island did the percentage top 30.

    Then Kim and Cowan added their own assumptions: Suppose Democratic candidates run as well as Obama did nationally in 2008, taking 20 percent of the conservatives, 60 percent of the moderates and 89 percent of the liberals. And suppose, too, that turnout rates are the same for all three groups.

    With the updated Gallup figures, a 2010 Democratic candidate who matched Obama’s national percentages would still win Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Oregon and Washington. But, with more conservatives and fewer liberals in the mix, the Democrat would come up short in 13 other competitive states and barely break even in California, Illinois and New Hampshire. Among the big states where the numbers now break against the Democrats are Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania.

    As anyone who is following the election campaign knows, this kind of analysis makes no allowance for the possible impact of Lisa Murkowski’s write-in effort in Alaska or the crash-and-burn Republican gubernatorial campaign in Colorado.

    But the basic math shows why Democrats such as Sen. Russ Feingold in Wisconsin are struggling this year and why Obama may witness the defeat of his fellow Democrats running for governor and senator in his home state of Illinois.

    And, in the view of the Third Way analysts, the math also suggests the limitations on the apparent White House strategy of concentrating the president’s campaign efforts on young people and single women. To the extent that those groups delivered liberal votes to Obama in 2008, it makes sense to mine them again.

    But if Gallup is right, and I believe its methodology is solid, there simply are fewer liberal votes to be won this time. And, as the Third Way memo says, “While the middle has always played a pivotal role in American electoral politics, where they swing this fall will certainly decide the fate of the Democratic majority.”

  102. GALLUP TO START DOING “REAL POLLS”; RUH-ROH.

    realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/09/30/gallup_generic_may_point_to_double-digit_republican_lead_107380.html

    Gallup Generic May Point to Double-Digit GOP Lead
    Gallup Generic May Point to Double-Digit GOP Lead

    By Sean Trende – September 30, 2010

    Gallup has held out quite a long time from imposing a likely voter screen on its generic ballot, but that will be coming to an end next week. The pollster suggests that this could result in a massive swing toward the GOP, perhaps even showing a double-digit GOP win:

    Additionally, preliminary modeling of the likely electorate using Gallup’s traditional likely voter questions (more on this next week) suggests that if current patterns persist, Republicans could have a double-digit lead in the national House vote on Election Day, which would translate into Republicans gaining well above the number of seats necessary to control the House.

    The reason? Gallup has basically been asking people only if they are registered to vote. If they are, Gallup proceeds to the ballot test questions. Next week, the likely voter screen will begin probing how frequently these respondents vote, and more importantly, how enthusiastic they are about voting. This enables Gallup to predict which registerd voters will turn out in the fall. Republicans are substantially more enthusiastic about voting than Democrats right now, so this will likely move the generic ballot substantially in their direct.

    To put it differently, the RV polls in the current RCP Average show a 1.75 point Republican lead, while the likely voter polls currently show a 6.25 point Republican lead.

    For a point of reference, in 1994 the GOP won the national vote by 7 points and held 230 seats on election night. In 2006 the Democrats won the national vote by 8 points and finished with 233 seats. And in 2008, the Democrats won the national vote by 10.5 points, and finished with 257 seats. 257 Republican seats would translate to a 78-seat pickup.

  103. JESUS CRIST! WHY IS THIS MAN (RUBIO) SMILING?

    realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/09/30/rubio_cruising_crist_fading_in_florida_107378.html

    Rubio Cruising, Crist Fading in Florida
    Rubio Cruising, Crist Fading in Florida

    By Tom Bevan – September 30, 2010

    Three polls released in the last twenty-four hours confirm that Republican Marco Rubio is cruising toward election as the new U.S. Senator from Florida, while Charlie Crist’s hopes of making the jump from Governor to Senator are fading fast.

    Yesterday surveys from Rasmussen Reports and CNN/Time pegged Rubio’s lead over Crist at 11 points, and this morning a poll from Quinnipiac University gives Rubio an even wider 13-point margin over Crist,, 46 to 33, with Democrat Kendrick Meek pulling in 18% support.

    Overall, Rubio now holds a 12.2% lead in the RCP Average in Florida.

    After falling way behind Rubio early this year in the Republican primary, Crist dropped out of the GOP race at the end of April and announced his candidacy as an Independent. The move bounced Crist into a slight lead over Rubio which lasted throughout the summer. But since the completion of the primary races on August 24, Crist has been bleeding support. The trend appears to have accelerated since Labor Day, as Crist has been pummelled by Rubio and Meek from both the left and the right. (Watch Meek’s lastest ad, released yesterday, here.)

    In the month of September, Crist has lost nearly four points in the RCP Average, while Meek and Rubio have gained 3.4% and 6.0%, respectively.

    Another sign of Rubio’s strength, according to the Quinnipiac poll, is that nearly all of his supporters (90%) say their minds are made up. Support for Charlie Crist and Kendrick Meek is far more soft: 29% of Crist’s supporters and 38% of Meek’s supporters say there is a chance they may change their minds before Election Day.

  104. SPOKANE, Wash. — Family of Medal of Honor recipient Vernon Baker was denied access to the White House’s West Wing on Saturday, a day after the World War II hero was buried at Arlington National Cemetery.

    Baker’s widow, Heidy, and grandson, Vernon Pawlik, 10, were denied entry because the boy was wearing shorts and a T-shirt. His shirt had a picture of his grandfather on it.

    A White House Web site doesn’t list a dress code, but the family had been invited to tour the West Wing, which houses the president’s office and where casual dress is prohibited.

    U.S. Rep. Walt Minnick’s office says he’s contacted the White House to express his disappointment.

    Vernon Baker, of St. Maries, Idaho, was the last living black World War II Medal of Honor winner.

    The White House didn’t return a phone call seeking comment.
    —————————
    Can you believe this….the fraud is very casually dressed in the WH…no tie, no jacket, sleeves rolled up and his feet on the desk….and they through this kids out…hmmm,hmmm!

  105. REPUBS THANK OBAMA EVERY NIGHT

    Remember in 2008, when Obama kept trying to remind Dems that Hillary was the Divisive One Who Would Unite Republicans for a Permanent Republican Majority?

    And that he was the Post-partisan wunderkind who was allegedly going to lead them to the Promised Land?

    Ha. Ha.

    Now across the country, under his bad (or “non-existent”?) leadership, he has crippled the party. Races for governorships, Senate and House are dismal, to the point where even capable and liked Dems are trouble.

    The lesson here? Don’t hire a clown to perform open heart surgery, get someone qualified.

  106. What are we to make of the fact that Obama is going door to door in middle class hoods extolling the virtues of his health care scam? Is this what you would expect from a president? Or is it more like what you would expect from a community organizer? A psychology major might call something like this regression. Whereas a business student might call it the Peter principle. If I lived in the hood myself and saw that bastard coming I would run the other way. Joe the plumber didn’t, he asked Obama a question, Obama let his guard down and for the next six months big media did everything they could to destroy poor Joe. Obama makes Typhoid Mary look like a good heath risk.

  107. gallop poll for obama v hillary 2012… they only polled democrats or leaning democrats, they didn’t count those running away from the dem party!

  108. I am surprised about the Rubio /Crist poll. I can’t say I care for either one too much, but at least Rubio won’t rubber stamp everything Obama proposes like Crist would. I actually like Meeks and his Mother Carrie, who served as a Congresswoman down here for a very long time. I long for the days when we had people like the late Cluade Pepper representing us down here.

  109. Question: what do Barack Obama and General Mark Clark have in common?

    Thanks to Big Media six billion people around the world know who Obama is. I mean the headhunters in the south seas, the lost tribes of the Amazon, the eskimos who live in igloos all know who the Fraudster is. He is famous–or infamous depending on your point of view. If you are a bot he is your light of love. If you are a reasonably intelligent human being he is not.

    But unless you have studied who Mark Clark is. He was a World War II general who led what Churchill described as the attack on the soft underbelly of Europe. (Note: I apologize to whoever I may have offended. I know it is politically incorrect to quote Churchill because in the age of Obama he is nothing more than a racist and a colonialist, which is why Barack did the right thing and returned it to Gordon Brown).

    Clark’s best years were before and after World War II when he served as superintendent of VMI and care taker of Robert E Lees stuffed horse Traveler. During World War II he got alot of troops under his command he got alot of GI killed in the invasion of Italy and the tides turned red. The grim reaper hit the Texas brigade the hardest, and for the rest of his life he could never set foot in Texas for that reason.

    So what do Barack Obama and Mark Clark have in common? They are both bad generals. Good generals are what Napoleon called lucky ones. Bad generals are ones who get their own troops killed. The casualty rate in 2010 will be the true measure of how bad Obama is. Just think of it. If he loses half his command and Obama care gets repealed how will history judge the man? The same way history judges Mark Clark.

  110. confloyd
    September 30th, 2010 at 2:56 pm
    SPOKANE, Wash. — Family of Medal of Honor recipient Vernon Baker was denied access to the White House’s West Wing on Saturday, a day after the World War II hero was buried at Arlington National Cemetery.
    —————————-
    I wonder how Axelgrease will spin that one. He cannot say the hero was white therefore he was not entitled to the protection of the law, as Obama did with the voting rights act. The hero was black. So what about it grease, what sayeth thee about this? May be you could borrow a line from Janet–the system worked.

  111. As long as Barack is in the White House the comedians will never run out of material. Whether they use it or not is another question. I hope dinner jacket and Kim Joy Ill have a sense of humor watching how this clown operates. They will need it.

  112. #
    jtjames
    September 30th, 2010 at 5:09 pm

    gallop poll for obama v hillary 2012… they only polled democrats or leaning democrats, they didn’t count those running away from the dem party!
    ——–
    This is a bull$hit poll!!!!!!!!!

    It must reflect those at the Daily Kooks.

  113. Huh, so much for fair and balanced Fox and the Rethugs finally telling the truth.

    I don’t see Drudge or any rightwingers reporting on Meg Whitman and her illegal housekeeper/nanny for 9 years:

    http://www.google.com/search?q=Nicandra+Diaz+Santillan+-+Whitman%27s+nanny&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

    This story came out just after the debates, where Whitman said how much she supported going after those that hire illegal immigrants.

  114. Forgive me if this has been posted previously…

    September 30, 2010
    Obama 52%, Clinton 37% for 2012 Democratic Nomination
    Clinton’s support highest among conservative, less well-educated Democrats
    by Frank Newport

    PRINCETON, NJ — If Secretary of State Hillary Clinton were to challenge President Barack Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2012, she would currently have the support of 37% of Democrats nationally, while 52% would support Obama.

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/143318/Obama-Clinton-2012-Democratic-Nomination.aspx

    Don’t mind the numbers, that they are POLLING this at all is VERY significant IMO…

  115. Shadowfax @ 5:50

    Huh?? You are wrong on that – the right is reporting it. Fox has reported on it all day. Meghan Kelly did an entire panel on it earlier. HotAir, Townhall, Ace of Spades and others have all had the story, some of them multiple times with updates.

  116. Next time Hillary runs, she should only pick delegates and Super-delegates that are PUMAs.

    No jack boot is going to keep me from fighting to get her in the Oval office.

  117. jtj, something is up for sure, if they are polling. Either the Dems are really scared and are considering asking Hillary to save them in 2012,

    OR it’s possible that they are just trying to gin up some Hillary hate in the Obot base for the midterms. Nothing else has worked to get them energized, so maybe they figure the idea of Hillary primarying their true love in another year will get them to put down the Funyuns and Cheetos and GOTV.

  118. #
    HillaryforTexas
    September 30th, 2010 at 6:14 pm

    Shadowfax @ 5:50

    Huh?? You are wrong on that – the right is reporting it. Fox has reported on it all day. Meghan Kelly did an entire panel on it earlier. HotAir, Townhall, Ace of Spades and others have all had the story, some of them multiple times with updates.
    ——–

    Thanks for letting me know, I am at work and can only check though google, fox and Drudge.

    Bottom line, what does Meghan Kelly think of it?

  119. I think Meghan is reserving judgement but mostly doesn’t see where Meg did much wrong. She did get really pissed off at the “poor exploited maid” line. Sorry, but $23 an hour is not exploitation.

    There is now a SS letter from 2005, noting some discrepancy in her SS#, up on TMZ. It has what Allred says is Mr. Whitman’s handwriting on it, which she says is proof that Meg is lying.

    Meg maintains that she never knew of any letter, and has offered to take a polygraph to prove it. The handwriting on the letter says: “Nicki – Please Check this – Thanks.” So it’s entirely conceivable to me that Mr. Whitman saw the letter, gave it to Nicki and told her to clear it up, and Nicki came back and said, “Oh no, it was all a misunderstanding, I called SS and cleared it up.” and he believed her and didn’t think anything of it. She was a long-time employee, and they trusted her.

    It just makes no sense that the Whitmans knew for years and years that she was illegal, and waited until WELL AFTER Meg started running for gov to fire her? That’s just silly. I think the worst one can say is that perhaps they should have not taken her word for it that she’d handled the “discrepancy”, and should have followed up, but to burn them at the stake over this is just flat ridiculous.

    The maid LIED and FORGED LEGAL DOCUMENTS. She signed an IRS statement that she was a legal resident that says right there “I swear under penalty of perjury” that it’s true. The attempt by Allred and the media to make her a poor poor oppressed victim here is hogwash. To trot this woman out many many months after her firing, just a few weeks before the election, is bullshit dirty politics.

    I don’t care if you agree with Meg Whitman’s policies or not, this whole thing stinks to high heaven of a trumped-up hit job.

  120. Gallup poll: isn’t this poll meaningless? It would make more sense to run such a poll after the November elections and also when and if Hillary announced that she was leaving the Obama administration ..

    Hillary is not in the political limelight right now, she’s not a candidate for anything, she’s not putting forth any political plans or ideas…wouldn’t it be natural that she wouldn’t currently poll as high as Obama? He’s a sitting president and she isn’t running for anything..

    Actually, if you look at it that way isn’t 37% pretty darn good for someone not currently an active political candidate?

    Also, I agree with someone who posted earlier…if such a poll is to be taken why not include ALL likely voters….

  121. Polling Dems on Obama vs HRC a waste of time. First, the Kool Aid drinkers and hard core Dems are going to respond O until O is out of he picture.

    I learned first hand that the hard core dems would vote for Lucifer is they were told to.

    This poll does not poll independents and reps. Therefore, you would expect to find this result. The result that matters is the I portion, which they did not get, and icing on the cake would be the R portion.

  122. Actually, if you look at it that way isn’t 37% pretty darn good for someone not currently an active political candidate?
    —————————————
    It is uninformative in one sense, but in another sense it provides a useful baseline, provided another poll is taken after the 2010 blow out election, and another poll if she decides to run. Also, Obama will get few if any independents whereas Hillary would probably get 60% of them plus 10-30% of the Republicans. For those reasons I find this number encouraging. At some point, Obamas numbers will shrink to his core base, just as we saw with Bush. How ironic since the two of them have so much in common from Afghanistan to domestic spying to Katrina vs BP. A ;air made in heaven–or perhaps the corporate board room.

  123. HillaryforTexas
    September 30th, 2010 at 6:46 pm
    —–
    I totally agree with you on Meg Whiteman. The double standard against women by women is so astonishing. If you are a male politician of any kind, you don’t need to answer any questions about your household help. If you happen to be a woman, even if you hire someone through an employment agency, you are presumed a liar. The most disgusting thing about it is that women are trashing themselves to destroy other women cold blood. Remember most vicious Hillary haters were women too. How tragic.

  124. gallop poll for obama v hillary 2012… they only polled democrats or leaning democrats, they didn’t count those running away from the dem party!

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

    Very important point!

    I used to have some figures on how many Dems left in protest in summer 2008. Of course some of them may have since re-registerd Dem to influence future Dem nominations etc.

  125. Obama 52%, Clinton 37% for 2012 Democratic Nomination
    Clinton’s support highest among conservative, less well-educated Democrats
    by Frank Newport

    PRINCETON, NJ — If Secretary of State Hillary Clinton were to challenge President Barack Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2012, she would currently have the support of 37% of Democrats nationally, while 52% would support Obama.

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/143318/Obama-Clinton-2012-Democratic-Nomination.aspx

    Don’t mind the numbers, that they are POLLING this at all is VERY significant IMO…

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

    Hope so. And 15% gap isn’t as much as might be expected, especially since these are the Dems who remained Dems, not counting the PUMAs.

  126. Next time Hillary runs, she should only pick delegates and Super-delegates that are PUMAs.

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

    If there are any Super-delegates left to pick from. Dems who lose their seats in Congress won’t automatically be Super-delegates any more.

  127. OR it’s possible that they are just trying to gin up some Hillary hate in the Obot base for the midterms. Nothing else has worked to get them energized, so maybe they figure the idea of Hillary primarying their true love in another year will get them

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

    I doubt it. I think someone is up to something — isn’t it mostly still GOP who are talking up a Hillary challenge?

  128. HillaryforTexas
    September 30th, 2010 at 6:46 pm

    There is now a SS letter from 2005, noting some discrepancy in her SS#, up on TMZ.
    [….]
    To trot this woman out many many months after her firing, just a few weeks before the election, is bullshit dirty politics.

    I don’t care if you agree with Meg Whitman’s policies or not, this whole thing stinks to high heaven of a trumped-up hit job.

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

    Bravo h4t ! And where did TMZ get this letter? Who has been doing all this digging?

  129. Also, Obama will get few if any independents whereas Hillary would probably get 60% of them plus 10-30% of the Republicans.

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

    For a baseline number there, there’s the exit poll McCain voters who said they would have voted for Hillary. Enough to make about a 7% difference in the national result, iirc.

  130. fake…you said it…talk about fake…the dims have sold us out so bad it is not even funny…the next time you hear O and his supporters say that only those above $250,000 will have their taxes raised…you might want to hit them back with some of this info…which, btw…was snuck into the “health care reform scam”…

    canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/27634

    Health Law’s Heavy impact

    Hidden Real Estate Sales tax in Health care bill – Surprise!

    By Dr. Laurie Roth Tuesday, September 14, 2010

    Hidden Real Estate Sales tax in Health care bill – Surprise!There are already at least 20 hidden taxes in the Obama Health care plan coming down upon us the next few years. So, along with rationed care for seniors and forced health insurance, we now find there is a Real Estate Tax snuck into the Health care plan. You may ask, what in God’s green earth does health care have to do with Real Estate taxes??? Absolutely nothing, that is precisely why one got snuck in there.

    There has never been any rhyme or reason to this administration other than redistribution of wealth, socialism and inserting cradle-to-grave control. Using Health care as an excuse for seizing control of accounts and businesses is just one strategy. Obama has also planned all along to use the ‘environment’ i.e. Cap and Trade to take even more. This will do more than take. It will flatten American business and destroy our sick economy. Who cares what the American people think and what the constitution says! We are just in the way…..take, take, take.

    I was forwarded this latest tax scheme by Van Hipp, President of American Defense International and the former Deputy Secretary of the Army under Bush senior and Ronald Reagan. He recommended the well known accountant and expert witness on tax matters, Paul Guppy who wrote a commentary on the various hidden taxes in the Spokesman Review paper, “Health Law’s Heavy impact.”

    Starting in 2013, not only will you pay the closing costs and real estate fee when you sell your house but now you will pay a 3.8% Sales Tax. So, if you sell your home for $400,000, perhaps wanting to down size if you are a senior you will pay $15,200 in Tax.

    Here we have another assault on our seniors again. Many downsize their homes as retirement comes closer, so along with long lines and rationed care that is substandard, seniors and anyone will have to pay more tax on the home they just sold.

    Penalties for individuals: We will pay 2.5% of our annual income as a fine/penalty if we don’t purchase the government approved health care plan.

    Penalties on families: Parents will pay a yearly $347 per kid if they don’t purchase a government approved health care plan.

    Penalties on employers: If you are a business with 50 or more employers you will get fined at least $2,000 per employee if you don’t provide, once again the ‘government approved health care plan.

    Other special taxes and fees:

    Investment income: Anyone making $200,000 or over gets to pay 3.8% of their annual investment income. Start adding up them apples, folks.

    If you have a fancy health care plan and pay as an individual, $10,200 or $27,800 for a family, you get to pay a 40% annual tax on those health care plans.

    Medical aid devices have gotten hit hard as well. They will see a 2.9% tax hike. Sorry if you have an artificial limb….you are screwed.

    Medicare gets more money because if you earn $200,000 or more you pay a special Medicare tax of 3.9.%

    Then there is the 10% tax on tanning….on and on. Perhaps you should consider an ‘Albino’ beauty treatment.

    This Health care bill is nothing but an orgy of controls, tax schemes and rationed care. Now add Real Estate tax to the ridiculous list.

    snip…

    one more time for emphasis:

    Starting in 2013, not only will you pay the closing costs and real estate fee when you sell your house but now you will pay a 3.8% Sales Tax. So, if you sell your home for $400,000, perhaps wanting to down size if you are a senior you will pay $15,200 in Tax.

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

    can you imagine…with people losing their homes, out of work, home values underwater, the blatant corruption of the banks and mortgages companies…now banks are even stopping foreclosures from going further because of widespread fraud and false documents provided to confiscate homes…with all of that…

    the dim congress and O admin slips in a 3.8% sales tax in their so called ‘health reform law”

    what does that have to do with health reform??? just whose side are these people on?
    how much more do they expect to drain from people trying to make ends meet??

    FAKE…FAKE…FAKE…more stealing from the struggling average people…

    …thank goodness we are rising up and not falling for more of this FAKENESS…

  131. re: the Meg Whitman issue and the general attitude of the dims…boy, how far the O dims have fallen…

    i am so sick of the smear politics and distractions…enough…we are stupid if we buy into this nonsense…it is so obvious…

    I saw Meg Whitman give a very long press conference yesterday on c-span and she answered question after question regarding this whole housekeeper issue with her husband standing right beside her…I am sorry to say that Gloria Aldred, who I once admired, has become beyond a media whore…she is out of control…

    the current Aldred represents any homewrecker and hooker she can find in the news …this stunt is like pulling a Gennifer Flowers at the final hour to throw an election…sorry, I cannot get behind these tactics…this is what is wrong with our system…and this is the kind of BS they pulled on Hillary and Palin…

    and the poor housekeeper has become a pawn of the dims…ironic! btw…Meg Whitman paid this housekeeper $23 per hour…there are alot of people out there today who would love to become a housekeeper for $23 an hour…give me a break!

    the O dims have gone from ‘hope and change’ to ‘seek and destroy’…they are taking the low road in the political debate…almost everything coming out of the O dims is a distraction…they set out to dig up dirt on their opponents and now that is all we hear out of the ‘hope and change’ crowd…all negativity…not issues, not solutions…just the politics of personal destruction and their snobby above it all attitudes…

    both parties needed to be voted out and all new blood put in…new blood to work on solutions for us and not the corporate interests that the article above states so wisely…

    btw…Meg Whitman mentioned that she is scheduled to debate Jerry Brown, I think, tomorrow at Telemundo…coincidental that this scandal has broken at this time???

    I think not…I hated when the repubs did this kind of stuff to BC and dems…and I cannot justify the dems pulling this stuff…

    bottom line…don’t vote for Meg Whitman if you do not like her politics, but for the dims to pull this is just plain sleazy…and it makes them look desperate…dims desperate in CA…

Comments are closed.