Greta Van Susteren versus Gloria Allred. Jerry Brown versus Meg Whitman.

Update: Today is also the big “One Nation” march on Washington sponsored by Big Labor. We wonder if the “One” in “One Nation” refers to Barack the loser one Obama? Wouldn’t be the first time the OD party (formerly known as the Democratic Party of FDR and Hillary Clinton) and allies sucked up to Mess-iah.

—————————————————————————————

Alright we give up. We’ll put off the next installment of “Mistake in ’08” because it appears all anyone wants to talk about is the California race and the nanny/maid/worker.

Here’s the video of the battle last night:



Tonight there will be a debate: Whitman Versus Brown

“Republican gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman had hoped Saturday’s debate in the heart of California’s Central Valley would showcase her economic credentials and help siphon the support of independent and Hispanic votes away from Democrat Jerry Brown.

Instead, Whitman finds herself on the defensive and seeking to regain momentum with those voters after a tumultuous week in which she was forced to explain how she had an illegal immigrant housekeeper on the payroll for nine years and, according to her, didn’t know it.

She also is addressing allegations from the housekeeper’s attorney that she and her husband should have suspected the worker’s status because of a Social Security Administration letter mailed to their home in 2003.

The billionaire former chief executive of eBay has worked hard to court independents and Hispanics, who are crucial to the campaign of any Republican running in a state in which Democrats hold a 13.4 percentage point edge among registered voters. She has trained a large share of her campaign account — $119 million of it from her personal fortune — on the Central Valley, which has been hit hard by the recession and is filled with communities where unemployment afflicts a quarter of the population or more.

The forced acknowledgment by Whitman and her husband this week that they fired Nicky Diaz Santillan when she confessed to being an illegal immigrant in June 2009 has thrown off Whitman’s controlled campaign messages about reviving the economy, controlling state spending and reforming education as the candidates head into their second debate. The forum at California State University, Fresno is hosted by Spanish-language network Univision and targets a Hispanic audience.

That seems like a very biased report. But we’re biased against Jerry Brown. Our rib-tickler comment comes from Wbboei:

“If I were Gloria, I would be all red.”

Who won? Greta or Gloria?

Who wins? The Nanny or Meg Whitman?; Meg Whitman or Jerry Brown?

Share

313 thoughts on “Greta Van Susteren versus Gloria Allred. Jerry Brown versus Meg Whitman.

  1. That seems like a very biased report. But we’re biased against Jerry Brown. Our rib-tickler comment comes from Wbboei:

    “If I were Gloria, I would be all red.”
    __________________________-

    I agree- wbb is a mensh and a very talented wordsmith. After reading his original comment I was smiling broadly and had to hurry and post mine… I had full intentions of posting a smile to his brilliant couching of ‘all red’.. so I’ll post it now..

    Kudos, wbb! 🙂

  2. We shouldn’t let Rick Sanchez out of the debate. Will the Rick Sanchez firing be used by the moderators to pit Jews against Latinos?

  3. Our advice to all candidates, including Meg Whitman: remember this is not about you.

    Whitman should address the implications for everyone who wittingly or unwittingly hires an illegal immigrant worker. As Tim has pointed out, the law (on waiters, etc.) is very fluid and it takes a lawyer versed in employment law to know specifically what to do and how to do it when it comes to documentation and workers.

    Also, remember that likability counts. Men don’t have this problem as much as women do. Women have to prove they are “likable enough” at the same time they have to prove they are strong and competent. Jerry Brown will be able to act like a clown and few will question his capacity for the job. Meg Whitman faces bias.

  4. “Instead, Whitman finds herself on the defensive and seeking to regain momentum with those voters after a tumultuous week in which she was forced to explain how she had an illegal immigrant housekeeper on the payroll for nine years and, according to her, didn’t know it.”

    “She also is addressing allegations from the housekeeper’s attorney that she and her husband should have suspected the worker’s status because of a Social Security Administration letter mailed to their home in 2003.”
    ______________________________

    The lesson here: the illegal status of the Nanny/housekeeper could have been dealt with years ago and never become the pariah it has the potential of becoming. However, at the time the Whitmans believed it was a non-issue and didn’t think there was anything to worry about and should have just followed the natural course of protocol… hand the problem over to their accountant and rely on him to do the follow-up. Of course, it’s so easy to lecture when someone else beside ourselves makes a foolish mistake. Meg should stand on how she has handled the situation since her Nanny/housekeeper’s status has been discovered… (and for the Nanny/housekeeper to have KEPT the letter in a safe place for 7 years is a pretty revealing character flaw “guilt” on her part) Meg can be thankful of the timing of this scandal. She really is better off now that she was a few weeks ago. She has demonstrated how she will efficiently deal with a problematic situation swiftly and decisively. It’s all good and to her benefit…

  5. On Sanchez, I think he will fade and be quickly forgotten. To be honest, the guy was never a big player in media in any way shape or form – the little fame he had came from being comic relief with his gaffes.

  6. I think it would be hilarious if Nicki later sued the pants off Allred for legal malpractice. She’d have a darn good case. As one commenter on Hotair put it:

    Gloria Allred has put her own “client” in serious legal jeopardy, has deliberately exposed Ms. Diaz to multiple counts of criminal prosecution & is making statements to the press – repeatedly! – which are materially prejudicing her client’s case at a likely trial.

    And for what purpose is Ms. Allred willfully harming her own client’s’ legal interests – a powerless woman who is a member of a racial minority, no less?

    Why, to help a very powerful, very wealthy, very white, very male politician win the Governorship and curry favor with him!

    In other words, this predatory publicity wh*re is victimizing her own client, an undocumented woman of color, to benefit someone else who is not her client, in this case one of her longtime political cronies & a personal friend of the lily-white persuasion

  7. #
    TheRock
    October 2nd, 2010 at 2:38 am

    Good Morning all! I haven’t been around to post anything in awhile because we are cutting hours here at work. Go figure. Great post admin. On point as usual.

    OT – Does anyone know anything about this?
    http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/10/state-dept-hide-blackwater-contract/
    __________________________

    TheRock… I read an announcement, practically a one liner a few months ago. The contract awarded to Blackwater and/or their many subsidiaries and/or aliases is by agreement directly under the control and responsible to the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton. Of course, I read the statement long enough ago that the ‘winds of change’ were not that apparent there is a strong possibility Hillary will be the draft choice for the Dem nomination in 2012.

  8. Personally, and I may be the only one here, but I am more interested in Chicago and Rahm. Will it be election business as usual, in other words will he be able to cheat his way into the mayor position, or will he lose? And what happens to the creep then?

  9. JanH-

    Read something in passing yesterday that for Rahm to run for mayor, the rules state you have to be a resident of the state for one year to be eligible for election. The only residency exemptions stated in the rules are soldiers serving in the military. No exemption mentioned for serving for a president or any special exemption at all for a Congressperson..

    Will Rahm have the clout to change the rules? Or will a new interpretation of the rules be his ticket to the Mayor’s seat?

  10. JanH, I agree, California has always been a mess, but what I see as the dems still trying to control their Bell Weather states. All of New England, Florida, California, Texas and errr Ohio and Pennsylvania…those are the states they are fighting for. Has anyone else noticed this.

    Yes, Wbboei, that was cool Gloria should be All Red and I think she was! LOL!

  11. The Rock, I also noticed that story about Hillary rewarding that contract to Black Water…they pretty much rubbed Hillary’s nose in her decision….but do we know she is the final say on anything???

  12. Finally got around to reading Going Rogue. Very accessible.Wanted to pick up a book which told the other side. To get perspective. Yeah right. Every book I could find was a hatchet job.

  13. Mrs. Smith I am watching that with interest. I find it hard to believe that Rahm is unaware of the residency requirements, or would plan a run for mayor without the “fix” for that snag being in.

    Of course there is always the possibility that he never planned to run for mayor at all – that his return to Chicago is for other purposes, perhaps to shore up the Obama machine and help bury some skeletons before 2012, and the mayor run was simply a plausible excuse to get back there.

  14. Henry, I read “Going Rogue” last week. I thought it was a great book, however the new one is a little hard to swallow. It’s seems to be written in a different perspective.

    The place where Sarah lost me was her love of Newt Gingrich…she was probably made to saw that. I did not like her advocating that Bill went after him…poor little Newt.

  15. The Whitman nanny case certainly demonstrated how confusing the law of this land is. The SSA letter specifically said you CAN NOT base your employment decision on wrong SSN infomation. So if an empolyer specifically ask the employee these infomation, that would constitute racial profiling and grounds for charges of discrimation (the SSA letter specifically said that too). So what a law binding American to do? I am sure Whitman wants to follow the law that’s why she hire her nanny through an employment agency. The rest of us can not afford to pay an employment agency. So can you just trust anybody’s Social Security card and driver license?

  16. H4T-

    I’m not absolutely sure if you need to be a resident physically or the accepted interpretation of the residency rules is maintaining the address. I think Rahm has always maintained his homestaed in Chicago and more than likely rented it while in DC. Whatever- I think a basic residency rule in his mind is covered… unless someone with more knowledge of the Rules challenges him at the 11th hour, which would be oh so kool. 🙄
    __________________________

    “#
    confloyd
    October 2nd, 2010 at 11:15 am

    I also noticed that story about Hillary rewarding that contract to Black Water…they pretty much rubbed Hillary’s nose in her decision….
    _________________________

    Ah, because she introduced a Bill against the mercenaries. What I noticed was the point made they had to agree to exclusively report to her. They take their orders and corrections from her. I remember thinking, yes… she can handle those thugs… they mess-up, they’re gone!

  17. confloyd
    I read about 200 pages in one sitting. If what she writes has even a tincture of truth I am now enamored, but it seems to be impossible to find a critique of her that doesn’t go bat crazy. I have no problem with Newt love or even legitimate Clinton bashing. She is after all a repug. I expect that. That being said I love her voice even if I don’t always agree with what she says.

  18. Read on Hillbuzz that the gay men’s club to which rahm and bambi are members has private rooms and as rahm is a lifetime member they have theorized that he can claim residency through that(snark). They also wrote that he sublet his space in Chicago.

  19. Henry, Yes I agree. I can’t get past the Newt thing. He has done more to help the current poisonous political enviroment than Rush Limbaugh. I can’t get past Newt’s personal life, just like some can’t get past Bill’s. Newt’s is a hypocrite and those stripes don’t change, no matter what religion he is now a part of and using to advance his agenda against the middle class.

    Sarah definitely doesn’t realize she really governs like a old democrat…she constantly thinks of her constituents…nothing like a rethug….she really has a identity crisis…probably got it thru her church…born into to Catholism and then going to evangelical Chrisitian church can screw up your thinking, I know I have the same religious background as she does.
    Don’t get me wrong….I really like Sarah and would have NO problem voting for her again as long as she is NOt hooked up with Newt or Mittens. I would like to see Sarah and Col. West get together….real americans!

  20. Again for reference, here is an image of the actual SS letter, a quote from it, and a link to a good article about Allred’s tactic.

    Here is what the famous letter actually said:

    This letter does not imply that you or your employee intentionally provided incorrect information about the employee’s name or SSN…Any employer that uses the information in this letter to justify taking adverse action against an employee may violate state or federal law and be subject to legal consequences. Moreover, this letter makes no statement about your employee’s immigration status.

    dailycaller.com/2010/10/01/whitman-gets-bait-and-switched-by-gloria-allred-and-the-media/#ixzz11BIPu1Iz

    The article is worth reading, too.

    Here’s an image of the letter:

    tmz.vo.llnwd.net/o28/newsdesk/tmz_documents/0930_gloria_3.pdf

  21. HillaryforTexas said:
    I think it would be hilarious if Nicki later sued the pants off Allred for legal malpractice.

    SOONER RATHER THAN LATER I HOPE.

    She’d have a darn good case. As one commenter on Hotair put it:

    Gloria Allred has put her own “client” in serious legal jeopardy, has deliberately exposed Ms. Diaz to multiple counts of criminal prosecution & is making statements to the press – repeatedly! – which are materially prejudicing her client’s case at a likely trial.

    And for what purpose is Ms. Allred willfully harming her own client’s’ legal interests – a powerless woman who is a member of a racial minority, no less?

    Why, to help a very powerful, very wealthy, very white, very male politician win the Governorship and curry favor with him!

    And this politiican will I assume after the election be either Governor or Attorney General. Thus able to pardon or ignore Nikki’s crimes? As will Obama’s INS….

    I was favoring Brown for Gov but he needs to come out against this witchhunt or appear complicit in it himself.

  22. confloyd,
    I just dealt with government intrusion in a big way. The rug rat that my family collectively takes care of is now in pre-school and in order to get her health care we had to go through CHIP as a great uncle I cannot claim her and my parents as great grandparents cannot. Insuring her on our own was cost prohibitive let alone illegal. So CHIP she went. Well along with that comes two home visits!!!! Are you kidding me? How much does that cost? Joke. Waste of money. If I were a crack head I’d hide my pipe before the visitors came. good idea gone wrong and lots of people making money from it. In 1987 I substitute taught in Jersey and we couldn’t do a damned thing for kids that showed up smelling like ass. That was so wrong. But I love Sarah writing anytime you want to get something silly done attach children to it.

  23. Henry, I agree she is something….When I read that book I was ready to go out and vote, but of coarse the reality is the power brokers are against her, just like they are for Hillary too. My wet dream is Hillary/Sarah…those two could straighten out this crap quickly!

  24. Whitman should address the implications for everyone who wittingly or unwittingly hires an illegal immigrant worker. As Tim has pointed out, the law (on waiters, etc.) is very fluid and it takes a lawyer versed in employment law to know specifically what to do and how to do it when it comes to documentation and workers.
    —————————————————————–
    Yup. Kind of like Obama care. The only difference is that to understand that morass of obfuscation, gotchas and payoffs to special interests, you need three (3) lawyers (preferably from Philadelphia) and more time than a busy CBC congressman has to read it before he votes, according that pillar of congressional leadership, the Honorable John Conyers. John is as you know an unimpeachable source. Unimpeachable only because there is no statutory vehicle to remove a congressman for gross incompetence, negligence and dereliction of duty. The oath in that sense is unenforceable.

    I am sorry. I do not mean to single out John. The rest of the dims who voted for that bill are guilty of the same offense. No it is not a case of racial discrimination. It is a case of simply recalling what he said to the reporter, in which he freely admitted he did not read the bill because it was too long, he was too busy, and it would take three lawyers. I am quite sure that there are more than three lawyers on his staff or at the DNC, but why bother.

    But that brings us back to our favorite topic–Mr. Obama. This morning I am doing what the New York Times does so well and that is recollecting the defining moments in his presidency. Not the hype of Nomination Day in Denver where he stood among the styrofoam Greek columns and promised all of us a new heaven and a new earth, not the hupla of the Inauguration where he thrilled the ignorant even as he flubbed the oath, and certainly not that pornographic tingle which overcame Matthews at the sight of all this.

    No I am thinking of things that the New York Times would sooner forget.

    Things like his victory lap around Congress in the late stages of the campaign, when he did not yet have the nomination, because the superdelegates had not yet betrayed their country. And I am wondering whether he will take another victory lap around Congress after the November elections.

    I am also thinking of the interview he gave to an adoring big media reporter whose name escapes me because at this point they are all so forgettable, in which he gave himself an A minus for his first year in office, and a solid A IF he passed Obamacare. Of course he did pass Obamacare by underhanded means and thereby achieved the greatest civil rights victory in half a century, only the public does not look at it quite that way. And to his congressional supporters it was more like a Scarlett Letter. But after November, will he still say an A, or will he inflate his grade to an A+ and send another thrill up the leg of Matthews? Time will tell.

    And finally, I am thinking of his famous statement of self pity and paranoia that special interests treat his like a dog. He did not specify what kind of a dog, but I have a hunch that it would have to elitist dog–a Portuguese Water dog perhaps–no kibbles and bits for him. It is not really a case of noblesse oblige, because he sees the office he holds not in terms of obligations, but in terms of perks. In that respect, Lady of Spain is no different. As Jesse Carr, the Teamster boss of Alaska during the Pipeline Days told my friend the arbitrator as he slammed his gold nugget cuff links on the table: “What good is power if you do not flaunt and abuse it?” A cheerful thought to say the least, one that Barack would agree with. Like the old commercial, you asked for it, you got it, Toyota.

  25. confloyd
    a Hillary/Palin ticket is beyond dreaming.
    What I find so refreshing about Sarah is that she loves her country.
    I do too.
    Loathe detest abhor Obama but his not increasing AIDS funding and research I agree with, Compare what USA has spent to any other country in the battle.

  26. wbboei
    I have not finished Going Rogue but I think Sarah threw politics as usual for a loop when she actually read the bills/budget and required defense.
    I am for ripping Washington apart and having any and all bills be accessible to Joe average. No one made you be a Senator. Read the frigging bills.

  27. henry, I can’t stand Obama anymore than I can stand Romney/Newt.

    I really hope there’s a ticket out there in 12′ that I can vote for. I am not going for Obama/Clinton 12′, forget about that one, he doesn’t listen to her anyway, so why would I vote for that ticket.

  28. Mrs. Smith
    October 2nd, 2010 at 11:11 am

    ——————

    Interesting. I’m sure the thugs aren’t going to let a little thing like the law stop them from buying the mayorship for him.

  29. confloyd
    an icky/Clinton ticket would send me to do hundreds of get out the vote hours to defeat the loser in chief. Respect Clinton but not a mindless troll

  30. I have not finished Going Rogue but I think Sarah threw politics as usual for a loop when she actually read the bills/budget and required defense.

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

    That fits my impression of Sarah in Alaska! Daughter of a high school science teacher and a school administrator. Going through the bills with a red pencil marking ANYTHING that was weak or unclear. Not letting the writer get away with anything.

  31. Gloria should consider putting tape back over her mouth that she used at the Democratic convention. I am surprised that someone who is supposed to be so darn smart is allowing herself to look so damn stupid. Greta is right. This document only helps the Whitman’s case. The maid is just another example of a shameless person acting shamelessly. Deport her.

  32. This document only helps the Whitman’s case.

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

    Allred seems to have made some attempt to suppress the actual content of the letter, showing an image folded to show only the handwritten note. So what most people have heard is an OPINION that the letter was a ‘red flag’ — though the SS content contradicts that.

    I had to look for quite a while to find even a quote of the meat of the letter, much less the image (at tmz). Dunno how tmz got it.

  33. Mrs. Smith
    October 2nd, 2010 at 11:01 am

    confloyd
    October 2nd, 2010 at 11:15 am

    This is that dirty part of politics that I take on a kind of blind trust. I don’t trust those Blackwater thugs. At all. I don’t trust pretty much anybody in the White House. At all. I DO trust the OVERWHELMING majority of choices Hillary makes and has made. They report directly to her. I trust her. But not completely. I need to know that she is watching them. That some form of oversight is set up, with rules and enforcable punishments for transgressors, somewhere in her bureocracy(sp). And how will she deal with a White House that might be trying to use Blackwater to hurt her in the future, maybe by sanctioning a mission/protection/action behind her back, it failing and Obumbles and Co. blaiming it on her?

    I trust her. I don’t trust them. Therefore I don’t trust this situation completely…

    Hillary 2012

  34. I decided to watch some of that stupid rally going on in Washington, DC today @ http://www.cspan.org/Watch/C-SPAN.aspx

    Right off the bat, there was a notable difference in content. Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck were verbally attacked. I don’t recall that type of attack emanating from the Glenn Beck rally on August 28th.

    So far, I’ve seen an Oneida indian man who called Washington, DC “Washington Deceit”. He has been on a continuous, comedic (he thinks so anyway) bitch fest about the US.

  35. These people need to be defeated, trounced, annihilated! The US needs some breathing room to get back on the right track. That will only happen when these people are pushed back into the background.

  36. These speakers are making me laugh as the screw up right and left, even when reading from their notes. This is a union rally in DC today, nothing more, nothing less. Yawn.

  37. Some guy just said that a satellite picture as shown that today’s rally has more people in attendance than the Beck rally. I bet you he is full of shit.

  38. Some guy was just playing the air harmonica… all movement, no sound. He didn’t realize that his mike wasn’t working. Another chuckle for me from the lame rally in DC.

  39. The minority rally in DC today was a bust. It’s 4:32pm and most of the people are already gone, but yet the rally goes on. Lame… very lame.

  40. crazy horse
    October 2nd, 2010 at 3:15 pm
    ===================================

    I think it was “justice”. These people are in constant bitch mode about justice.

  41. This rally must be a joke, so how’d Obama get a supposed 26,000 people at his speech at that college??? Bought and paid for by Soros no doubt. I wonder if it was a IPAD or a IPhone or some money…he did not get those because they were interested…they were paid…I’d lay money on it!

  42. confloyd
    October 2nd, 2010 at 5:08 pm

    There was a concert that they paid for, I forget the band’s name, but it was a free concert as well as some free beer and pizza.

    They did the same nonsense in Germany, they offered free beer and a free concert to anyone who attended the fraud’s rally.

  43. Now I ask you, is what you would call leadership? And was Joe Wilson wrong when he told Obama you lie. Of course that ruffled the feathers of establishment republicans like McCain and Hatch. But hasn’t history vindicated Wilson? Isn’t it obvious by now that Mr. Obama is in the words of Sir Wilfred in Witness for the Prosecution, “a chronic and habitual liar?” And now we find that Selbrius is following her Masters call. . . . But the last paragraph is the one that says it all.

    http://www.thehopeforamerica.com/play.php?id=5110

    And better still. It is not simply the insurance companies who are raising their rates, it is the businesses and particularly the small businesses who cannot afford to do what this law will require, and that leads to more threats and coercion by Obama thugs including once again Selibius. And we have seen this thing before haven’t we, when Obamas deputy chief of staff dispatched SEIU thugs to picket Whole Foods who voted for Obama but had the audacity to offer constructive input on Obama care which was unwelcome.
    —————————————-
    Healthamburglar
    McDonald’s meets ObamaCare.

    Among President Obama’s core health-care promises was that Americans can keep their current coverage if they like it. Among the reasons that a new ObamaCare squall blows in every other day is that this claim simply is not true, as people are discovering.

    The latest fracas was incited by Janet Adamy’s scoop in the Journal this week that McDonald’s Corp. may be forced to cancel its current coverage for 29,500 employees as a result of ObamaCare. McDonald’s told Health and Human Services regulators that new mandates will make its plans “economically prohibitive” and cause “a huge disruption” unless it gets a waiver.

    At a Christian Science Monitor breakfast Thursday, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius claimed that the Journal story was “flat-out wrong,” adding that “I’m sorry that they were not more accurate in their reporting.” If only for the sake of her own credibility, at some point Ms. Sebelius is going to have to try to persuade people who actually know something about the industries she regulates.

    In a statement, McDonald’s did say that it was “completely false” to suggest that “we plan to drop health care coverage for our employees,” and “regardless of how the regulations evolve over the next several months, McDonald’s is committed to providing competitive pay and benefits.” No doubt that’s true: McDonald’s will still need to attract workers—not to mention that corporations of its size and brand recognition are very sensitive to political intimidation.

    But McDonald’s didn’t deny that the new rules will wipe out its existing plans. And that’s precisely the point. The entire philosophical and policy architecture of ObamaCare is explicitly designed to standardize health benefits and how those benefits should be paid for. Those choices and tradeoffs will be made for everyone by Ms. Sebelius’s regulators.

    Dr. Nan Hayworth explains why she left medicine for politics and is now running in a toss-up race for a House seat.

    At issue in the McDonald’s dust-up is a type of low-cost, low-benefit insurance known as “mini-med.” These plans cover most medical services but generally have an annual deductible or benefit cap between $1,000 and $10,000. Unlike more comprehensive plans, there’s no catastrophic coverage. Essentially, the very low premiums—under $100 a month—amount to prepaying for routine expenses like office checkups and E.R. visits.

    Around 2.5 million consumers are covered by “mini-med” policies, most of them concentrated in low-wage industries like fast food, hospitality and retail that have large numbers of part-time or temporary workers. In the case of the restaurants, 75% of the workforce turns over every year and nearly half are under age 25. Mini-med plans are a temporary stopgap for businesses that have low margins and face high labor and health costs.

    But Democrats hate mini-med and other skinny-benefit plans, calling them “underinsurance.” ObamaCare is meant to run them out of the market by mandating benefits, eliminating coverage caps and certain technical rules about how premiums must be spent. This despite the fact that Arkansas, Connecticut and Tennessee sponsor their own mini-med plans for state residents as better than having no insurance at all.

    In other words, the choice is between relatively affordable coverage that isn’t as generous as Democrats think it should be and dumping coverage entirely. McDonald’s may eventually offer the high-cost plans that Ms. Sebelius favors, or get its waiver, but many of its less profitable or smaller competitors won’t. While subsidized ObamaCare options will be available in 2014, those costs will merely be transferred to taxpayers.

    Ms. Sebelius facetiously called the Journal “my favorite newspaper” at the Monitor breakfast, and she’ll no doubt continue to shoot the messenger. What everyone else should understand is that the almost daily damage we’re seeing as this law takes effect is not unintended. It is the heart and soul of ObamaCare.

  44. Question: what does it say of the nomination prospects of Obama in 2012 that virtually no Demoratic politician who is up for re election in 2010 wants to be seen with him, and there will be even more democrats up for re election in 2012? Just wondering.
    ———————————————-

    Al Gore fails to mention President Barack Obama during Democratic rally in Florida
    Al Gore failed to mention President Barack Obama at a campaign rally in Florida as Democrats extended their new tactic for next month’s elections – ignoring the man who so inspired them in 2008.

    By Toby Harnden, Tampa
    Published: 6:25PM BST 01 Oct 2010
    23 Comments

    Al Gore made no direct reference to Barack Obama’s historic health care legislation or the financial bailout Photo: GETTY
    Representative Kendrick Meek, the Democratic candidate for the United States Senate in the November 2nd mid-terms, also neglected to let Mr Obama’s name pass his lips during an appearance with the former vice-president in a union hall.
    Instead, the black congressman lauded “President Gore” – a reference to the 2000 election, when hanging chads in Florida and the US Supreme Court cost the Democrat the White House.

    With their party facing a possible landslide defeat in a month’s time, Democratic candidates are running away from Mr Obama and his record. Polls indicate Democrats could lose control of the House of Representatives and perhaps even the Senate, a result that could cripple to Obama presidency.

    In Tampa, neither Mr Gore nor Mr Meek made direct reference to Mr Obama’s historic health care legislation, his proudest achievement, or the financial bailout. Both measures are unpopular with all but hardcore Democratic supporters.
    Two years ago, every Democrat in the country was invoking Mr Obama’s name as they hoped to ride on his coat-tails to electoral victory. This year, he is a near-pariah, with many of the party’s candidates doing everything they can to distance themselves from him.

    Whether the tactic will work is unclear. Florida is a key battleground state, with Republicans and Democrats typically fighting incredibly close contests, most famously in 2000 when George W. Bush prevailed over Mr Gore by 537 votes.
    This year, Mr Meek is trailing badly in a three-horse race. Marco Rubio, the Republican candidate, backed by the anti-government Tea Party, was initially viewed as too Right-wing for Florida. He now has a seemingly unassailable 13-point lead, according to the latest Quinnipiac University poll.

    Behind Mr Rubio, who is on 46 points, is Governor Charlie Crist. The Florida governor, a centrist who pulled out of the Republican primary race when it became clear he would lose, is on 33 points, with Mr Meek at just 18.
    Even taking into account the split in the anti-Republican vote caused by Mr Crist’s decision to run as an independent, it is a disastrous situation for Democrats in a state they once considered rightfully theirs.

    Sidestepping the current occupant of the Oval Office, Mr Meek hailed Mr Gore and former President Bill Clinton as “stellar public elected figures who once served and are still giving”.
    He said: “I’m a fighter and, you know what, I don’t give up and I don’t give in,” Mr Meek thundered.
    But he stopped short of predicting victory. Come election day, he said, “you are going to be very proud of the work that we have done to turn the vote out”. Meek aides told reporters that a fire marshal had said there were 700 people in the hall, but there were well under half that.

    Introducing Mr Gore, Mr Meek said to whoops that he knew many would be saying: “I am here to see President Al Gore.”
    Mr Gore lambasted the Bush administration for enacting “tax cuts for the very wealthiest”, which “obviously did not stimulate the economy” before turning his sights on Mr Crist.

    The only hope Mr Meek has of winning is to persuade Democrats that Mr Crist can’t win, prompting them to move en masse to him and perhaps even making Mr Crist drop out. Then, he would have to combat Mr Rubio’s increasing popularity among independent voters.

    It is a tall order in just a month and with national party cash being funnelled into races that are much closer. But Mr Gore did his best to put a positive spin on the poll numbers, stating that Mr Rubio was “bumbling along”, Mr Crist was “going down” and “Kendrick’s going up like a skyrocket”.

    He was clearly popular in the hall, though when he referred to “giving in to wealthy corporate special interests”, a heckler shouted: “Like you!” Leaving the event, members of the crowd were reluctant to criticise Mr Obama, thought they were more enthused when talking about the Clinton-Gore years.

    “I was thinking that if we could get Clinton back in and Gore back in we might do something in this country,” said Robert Henry, 62 a retired soldier. His wife Susan, 59, said that Obama was unlucky because he “got handed an absolute train wreck” while Gore “reminds us of good times, of prosperity and peace”.

  45. Ms. Sebelius facetiously called the Journal “my favorite newspaper” at the Monitor breakfast, and she’ll no doubt continue to shoot the messenger. What everyone else should understand is that the almost daily damage we’re seeing as this law takes effect is not unintended. It is the heart and soul of ObamaCare.
    *******
    I think you are right. Very early in the process when single-payer and the public option were still being talked about by the Hopium addled, Sebelius was on NPR and said Obama would make sure that single payer would never happen. The legacy of Obamacare is that it has poisoned the water of reasonable discourse on health care delivery for at least a decade. It will be interesting to see what happens when the reality of chronic 20% under/unemployment combined with the rising cost of premiums and employers no longer offering coverage, hits a critical mass of the US population.

    The ultimate bottom line is that the insurance model will no longer be able to provide health care for the majority of Americans. If for no other reason than the economics of health care can no longer afford to divert $400 billion a year to the insurance companies and excess overhead.

  46. Well today folks, I’ve finally made up my mind that I have to put my husband in a nursing home…he can barely see so I figured out today coupled with the diabetes and the MS, its just too much for me with a full-time job…I feel like shit though. I also found out he was lost and walking down the hiway about 3 weeks ago and the neighbors brought him home. It’s hard to do it, but I have too.

  47. http://cnn.com/video/?/video/politics/2010/09/29/jk.white.house.vs.media.cnn

    Yes, that John King! The CNN anchor took on some recent cable news-related comments by the Obama administration in a quick, sarcastic and brutally accurate segment on John King, USA last night.

    “Sometimes you feel sad to be left out of a big debate,” he said. “This is not one of those sometimes.” And then he found a way in.

    King started with Pres. Obama’s comments that Fox News was a “destructive force” in America, playing some of the more anti-Obama comments from Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity. He followed that by noting Bill Burton had called MSNBC “an invaluable service” – and proceeded to play some of the most vitriolic clips from Ed Schultz and Keith Olbermann.

    When King got back on camera, all he needed to say was, “got it?”

  48. Off topic: Anyone from Cleveland?
    ============
    I have to fly into the Cleveland Clinic next Sunday through Wednesday(turn 48 on the 11th) as I am have not be feeling well for some time. Other than the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, is there anything interesting in Cleveland that I should visit between tests? Thanks.

  49. confloyd
    October 2nd, 2010 at 7:02 pm

    ————————–

    I’m so sorry to hear this. It was be such a heartbreak for you. Again, my thoughts and prayers are with you as well.

  50. Fox News Poll: Only 39 Percent Would Vote to Re-Elect Obama in 2012

    By Dana Blanton
    Published October 01, 2010

    The 2012 presidential race begins in earnest on Nov. 3 — the day after the upcoming midterm elections — and President Obama looks to be in trouble at the starting gate.

    A Fox News poll released Friday shows that 54 percent of voters say they would vote for someone else rather than re-electing Obama if the presidential election were held today. That’s up from 47 percent in a January poll and 31 percent in April 2009.

    Thirty-nine percent would vote to re-elect the president now, down from 43 percent in January. That’s a dramatic drop from the 52 percent who felt that way in April, at his term’s 100-day mark.

    Among Democrats, the overall number who would re-elect the president has dropped to 75 percent, down from 87 percent at the beginning of his term. And there is an even more significant decline in the number of Democrats who say they would “definitely” vote to re-elect Obama — from 69 percent near the start of his term to 41 percent now.

    There’s a similar falloff in support among those who voted for Obama in the 2008 election. In the new poll, 40 percent of 2008 Obama voters say they would “definitely” vote to re-elect him, down from 64 percent in April 2009.

    Among independents, 32 percent would vote to re-elect Obama, down from a high of 43 percent in April 2009. Meanwhile 57 percent of independents say they would vote for someone else — twice as many as the 28 percent who felt that way near the start of his term.

    The national telephone poll was conducted for Fox News by Opinion Dynamics Corp. among 900 registered voters from Sept. 28 to Sept. 29. For the total sample, the poll has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

    Voters would also like to see a change in the No. 2 slot on the Obama ticket. By more than 2-to-1 they would prefer to have Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (55 percent) as vice president over Vice President Joe Biden (25 percent). There’s an even stronger preference among Democrats: 67 percent say Clinton compared to 25 percent who prefer Biden.

    Hypothetically Speaking

    Even with all the negatives, in hypothetical head-to-head matchups Obama tops each of the Republican candidates tested, although in the case of former Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, it’s by just 1 percentage point (41-40 percent). In January, Obama led by 12 percentage points (47-35 percent).

    Obama has a 43-40 percent edge over former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, and an even wider advantage over New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (42-30 percent), former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (45-37 percent), and former Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin (48-35 percent).

    The president tops an unnamed candidate from the Tea Party movement by 11 points (43-32 percent), which is a much narrower spread than earlier this year when Obama’s advantage was 25 points (48-23 percent).

    What about if an independent candidate makes it a three-way race? Obama gets 40 percent to Palin’s 28 percent, with independent candidate New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg capturing 18 percent.

    It’s a tighter race if it includes Hillary Clinton as the independent candidate. In that hypothetical matchup, Obama would receive 30 percent, Palin 29 percent and Clinton 27 percent.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/10/01/fox-news-poll-percent-vote-elect-obama/?test=latestnews#

  51. Kingsgrove @ 7:05

    I’ve been disappointed with CNN a lot lately, but this was a good piece. They seem to be making the effort to act like journalists again rather than cheerleaders for either side. I’m sure it’s just a ratings ploy to position themselves as the “sane middle”, but it’s still nice to see.

  52. So sorry, confloyd. Have been though something similar myself. Do surprise visits to make sure they are treating him right. Good luck to you.

  53. I am gonna stay off the blog for this one on Meg Whitman.
    Happy Saturday all.
    I am waiting for the broadcast of the debate…if anyone sees the link to the video, please post. Thx

  54. Shadowfax – That’s okay, we can disagree and still like one another! Have fun watching. Happy Saturday to you as well. 🙂

  55. H4T and Shadowfax, We are a civilized blog! THere is room for many opinions!

    Yep, how can I see it way down under in Texas?

  56. jbjonesfan

    I have been to Cleveland Clinic. They do have a little Italy area, which might be nice to eat in, and also a theater area downtown.

    Depending on how long you would be there, you can also go to the Islands off of there where the 1812 Battle of Lake Erie was fought. However, you need to travel west to Port Clinton, or Sandusky to catch those boats to Put In Bay.

  57. Thanks everyone…it was a hard decision to make…but I feel a little better now that I’ve finally made up my mind.

  58. Now, if I were Meg Whitman, I would want to know who owns that social security number her housekeeper was using. Right now, Gloria All The Time has got her client tugging at the heartstrings of America, crying her eyes out. Now just imagine if the actual owner of that social security number has been fighting the IRS for years because her ID has been stolen. Or perhaps in the end she was forced to request a new SS number. Or worse….. imagine that the social security number belongs to a deceased person, with the deceased’s family planted firmly in front of the camera, horrified. These are the faces of the people who ARE hurt by the falsification of documents, which is done to Americans every day without regard for their lives or the pain it causes them.

  59. Debate summary via L.A. Times:

    http://www.latimes.com/news/local/politics/la-me-1003-brown-whitman-debate-20101003,0,4777097.story

    Reporting from Fresno —

    Gubernatorial candidates Meg Whitman and Jerry Brown tangled Saturday over Whitman’s employment of an illegal immigrant housekeeper, exchanging blistering jabs as they met for their second televised debate.

    The most direct confrontation between the two candidates of the election season came when the moderator asked Whitman about revelations earlier this week that she employed Nicandra Diaz Santillan, whom she fired in 2009 after nine years. Whitman has denied knowing that Diaz Santillan was undocumented until shortly before she was dismissed.

    Whitman turned to face Brown and accused him of being behind Diaz Santillan’s emergence.

    “Jerry, you should be ashamed,” Whitman said. “You and your surrogates put her deportation at risk. You put her out there. You should be ashamed for sacrificing Nicky Diaz on the altar of your political ambitions.”

    Brown denied involvement and countered that Whitman has repeatedly called for employers to be held responsible for their hires. He said she was failing to take responsibility for her actions.

    Don’t run for governor if you can’t stand up on your own two feet and say, ‘Hey, I made a mistake, I’m sorry, let’s go on from here,’ ” he said. “You have blamed her, blamed me, blamed the left, blamed the unions, but you don’t take accountability.

    The 60-minute debate, held on the Cal State Fresno campus, was much more confrontational and their accusations much more personal than their first meeting, which took place Tuesday night at UC Davis.

    Saturday’s debate was filmed midday, with questions posed in Spanish and simultaneously translated for the candidates. It was aired later, online and on Univision stations, after Spanish voiceovers were added to the candidate responses.

    The meeting was plagued by technical difficulties. Immediately after the tense exchange about the housekeeper, the translation system stopped working, and both candidates were taken off stage for half an hour and placed in separate holding areas.

    Univision reaches millions of Latino households across the nation, and the fact that the candidates agreed to hold one of their three debates on the network showed the electoral importance of Latino voters. Latinos make up roughly one-fifth of the electorate in California, and Whitman has been aggressively courting them to help her overcome the Democrats’ double-digit voter registration advantage.

    “I cannot win the governor’s race without the Latino vote,” she said during the debate.

    As in their first debate, Whitman hewed tightly to her campaign stump speech and answered questions about a wide variety of topics by returning repeatedly to her three priorities — creating jobs, reducing government spending and fixing the kindergarten-through-12th-grade school system.

    Brown frequently touted his family legacy — his father served two terms as governor — and his own record as governor, Oakland mayor and the state’s current attorney general. He was more disciplined than in the last debate, in which he cracked jokes and peppered his statements with salty language.

    Education, unemployment and the water shortage in the Central Valley played prominent roles in the clash, but the quandary about how to deal with the millions of illegal immigrants living in the United States dominated much of the debate.

    Brown accused Whitman of saying “one thing in Spanish, one thing in English” regarding government benefits for illegal immigrants. He noted that she has said she would have opposed Proposition 187, a 1994 ballot measure that would have denied taxpayer benefits for illegal immigrants, but ran radio ads during the primary that said those in the country illegally should not receive such benefits.

    This is a question about talking out of both sides of her mouth,” he said.

    Whitman said Brown was being disingenuous.

    I have been entirely consistent on my immigration stance from Day One of this campaign,” she said.

    Whitman was repeatedly pressed on whether, once the border is secured, she would allow a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants here; she refused to answer and instead repeated her campaign platform of securing the border and creating a temporary guest worker program.

    Her stance led to an awkward encounter when a Cal State Fresno student in the audience told the candidates that she is about to graduate with honors but won’t be able to find work because she is undocumented. She asked both candidates their positions on the DREAM Act, which would provide an opportunity for citizenship for some illegal immigrants who arrived in the United States as children, complete some college or military service and meet other requirements.

    Brown said he would support the measure, and then added that his opponent does not think undocumented students should be allowed to enroll in state colleges.

    She wants to kick you out of this school because you are not documented and that is wrong, morally and humanly,” Brown said.

    Whitman said such a move is necessary because legal California residents were losing access to state colleges. She has said she would allow undocumented students to attend taxpayer-sponsored schools until 12th grade, but no further.

    “I am so pleased by your success,” she said, before noting that budget cuts have limited university enrollment. “I don’t think it’s fair to bar and eliminate the ability of California citizens to attend higher university and favor undocumenteds.”

    Brown, whose positions on legalizing undocumented citizens are more in line with many Latino voters, was pressed about his opposition to giving drivers’ licenses to illegal immigrants and his opposition to sanctuary cities, which protect undocumented residents against some forms of federal immigration intervention. He reiterated his opposition, and then ridiculed Whitman’s proposal to create a guest worker program.

    You don’t just bring in semi-serfs and say do our dirty work and then we’re finished with you, like an orange — you just throw them away, that’s after you’ve squeezed them,” he said. “That’s not right.”

    Most of the debate was serious, but the one light moment occurred when the moderator asked each candidate to name three qualities in their rival that would make him or her a good governor.

    “What shall I say?” Brown asked. “She’s smart. And she’s pretty tough, I can tell you that because I’ve been campaigning against her for several months. And she’s had a pretty interesting set of job experiences.”

    He added, “Can I tell you about all my qualities?”

    Whitman jumped in to list Brown’s traits: “Well, I think he cares a great deal about California. He has had a long career in public service. And I really like his choice of wife. I’m a big fan of Anne Gust,” she said, before turning the answer to herself.

    “So what do I bring to this table?” Whitman said, and then spoke about her credentials for the next minute and a half, as Brown stood by silently, looking peeved.

  60. Rally summary:

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_one_nation_march;_ylt=AsfYCTIyP0VrYEyiS4Pl12ms0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTNqOThhaWgyBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTAxMDAyL3VzX29uZV9uYXRpb25fbWFyY2gEY2NvZGUDbW9zdHBvcHVsYXIEY3BvcwMzBHBvcwM5BHB0A2hvbWVfY29rZQRzZWMDeW5fdG9wX3N0b3J5BHNsawNkY3JhbGx5c2hvd3M-

    Tapping into anger as the tea party movement has done, a coalition of progressive and civil rights groups marched by the thousands Saturday on the Lincoln Memorial and pledged to support Democrats struggling to keep power on Capitol Hill.

    “We are together. This march is about the power to the people,” said Ed Schultz, host of “The Ed Show” on MSNBC. “It is about the people standing up to the corporations. Are you ready to fight back?”

    In a fiery speech that opened the “One Nation Working Together” rally on the National Mall, Schultz blamed Republicans for shipping jobs overseas and curtailing freedoms. He borrowed some of conservative commentator Glenn Beck’s rhetoric and vowed to “take back our country.”

    “This is a defining moment in America. Are you American?” Schultz told the raucous crowd. “This is no time to back down. This is time to fight for America.”

    With a month of campaigning to go and voter unhappiness high, the Democratic-leaning organizers hope the four-hour program of speeches and entertainment energizes activists who are crucial if Democrats are to retain their majorities in the House and Senate. The national mood suggests gains for the GOP, and Republicans are hoping to ride voter anger to gain control of the House and possibly the Senate.

    More than 400 organizations — ranging from labor unions to faith, environmental and gay rights groups — partnered for the event, which comes one month after Beck packed the same space with conservatives and tea party-style activists.

    Organizers claimed they had as many participants as Beck’s rally. But Saturday’s crowds were less dense and didn’t reach as far to the edges as they did during Beck’s rally. The National Park Service stopped providing official crowd estimates in the 1990s.

    AFL-CIO president Richard Trumka urged participants, including his union’s members, to band together.[snip]

    Organizers insist the rally is not partisan. They say the message is about job creation, quality education and justice. However, the largest organizations, such as the AFL-CIO and the Service Employees International Union, tend to back Democratic candidates.

    But the speakers hardly shied from criticizing Republicans.

    If Sarah Palin had a bright idea, it’d be beginners’ luck,” comedian Charlie Hill joked from the stage about the 2008 vice presidential nominee.

    Van Jones, who last year was forced from his job as a White House energy adviser after Beck made public his comments disparaging Republicans, said during his remarks that progressives must stand with Democrats to put America back to work.

    “They don’t need hateful rhetoric. They need real solutions,” Jones said.

    Beck and former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin gathered near the Lincoln Memorial on the anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech to urge a vast crowd to embrace traditional values. Though also billed as nonpolitical, the rally was widely viewed as a protest against the policies of President Barack Obama and congressional Democrats.

    One Nation organizers said they began planning their event before learning about Beck’s rally, and said Saturday’s march is not in reaction to that.

    “Our strength is your strength,” SEIU President Mary Kay Henry led a chant from the steps where King delivered one of the nation’s most

    “We are one nation, coming together.”

    Obama was spending the weekend at Camp David, the presidential retreat in Maryland.

  61. Thanks HillaryforTx and Confloyd. I haven’t seen the video of the debate yet. Local tv is covering all football @$$#$@#@! 😉

  62. “They don’t need hateful rhetoric. They need real solutions,” Jones said.

    I keep hearing the Dims and their allies go on and on about this “hateful rhetoric”, but I have yet to hear any of them give me ONE QUOTE of one single hateful thing said at Beck’s rally. Not one. One can disagree with them, fine, but I am pretty sick of hearing about how “hateful” the teapartiers are when it’s simply not true.

  63. Americans fed up with politicians behaving badly

    By Sheldon Alberts, Postmedia News October 2, 2010

    Scott Turner sat for an hour listening to President Barack Obama take questions in a crowded room at the Southampton Recreation Association, biding his time before being called on by the man who got elected on a promise to fix America’s hyper-partisan, name-calling political culture.

    When Obama finally turned his way, Turner straightened up, grasped the microphone and, with polite exasperation, pressed the president to explain what went wrong.

    “Is there hope for us returning to civility in our discourse to a healthy legislative process, to something that I can trust?” asked Turner, who runs a small business in the Virginia capital. “I’d love to send you guys to Washington and have you do it. And it’s hard to have that faith right now.”

    It’s a frustration Obama is increasingly hearing as the U.S. prepares for the Nov. 2 mid-term congressional elections.

    Two years after he vowed to usher in a new era of civility between Democrats and Republicans, the U.S. president is facing a backlash from voters who have grown disillusioned with a political atmosphere that is, arguably, more poisonous than ever.

    A national poll last month by the Center for Political Participation at Allegheny College in Pennsylvania underscored the extent to which Americans are fed up with dirty politics and congressional gridlock.

    The survey found 58 per cent of Americans believe the tone of political discourse has become worse since Obama was elected president — up 10 per cent from a similar poll taken following the rancorous debate over U.S. health-care legislation last spring.

    Only 11 per cent said U.S. politics had become “more civil” since the 2008 election.

    “There is a perception that things are getting real nasty out there, and there is a concern that this negativity is harmful to the Democratic process and harmful to the election process,” says Daniel Shea, the Center for Political Participation’s director.

    To be sure, Americans are spreading the blame around. The poll found that 16 per cent attributed the growing incivility to conservative media commentators, while 17 per cent blamed their liberal counterparts.

    But the biggest culprits were the politicians themselves — 23 per cent said the country’s political parties are responsible.

    The disenchantment with politics is reflected in Obama’s own approval ratings, which have fallen to 46 per cent in the latest Gallup poll.

    While the president’s slipping popularity is due largely to the nation’s ongoing economic malaise, many voters who invested their hopes in him now feel he is letting them down.

    “We’re counting on you, because if you can’t do it, I’m not sure who is going to,” said Turner.

    According to Shea, Obama set unrealistic expectations that his election would be the catalyst for a substantial new era of co-operation and comity in Washington.

    “It is hard for any president to move the policy agenda forward. The American system was built for incremental change, for slower policy adjustments. But Obama has confronted a very distinct political context,” he says. “What’s unique for Barack Obama is the deep polarization in the American electorate — it is as polarized as it has been for decades.”

    Activists on the extreme wing of both the Republican and Democrat party are “pushing their legislators away from compromise,” adds Shea. “That’s is what is driving the hostility and fuelling much of the rude behaviour.”

    In Richmond, Obama admitted he has found it “very hard” to create the post-partisan world he envisioned in Washington. But he cited Republicans as the biggest roadblock to change, saying they have made a “pure political calculation” to oppose him at every turn.

    “I have to give them credit — that from just a raw political point of view, it’s been a pretty successful strategy, right?” Obama said.

    “Because right now people are frustrated. All the good feeling that we had coming into the campaign is dissipated. Everybody is thinking to themselves, ‘Well, gosh, you know, we sent Obama up there, we thought the tone would change, folks are arguing just as much as they were before, so we’ve kind of lost hope and we’re a little discouraged.”

    Apart from stonewalling Obama on agenda items such as health care, some GOP lawmakers have made their attacks on the president’s agenda highly personal — whether it was South Carolina congressman Joe Wilson yelling “you lie” during the president’s State of the Union speech or Texas congressman Randy Neugebauer calling a Democrat “baby killer” for supporting the health-care bill.

    All the same, Democrats haven’t behaved much better.

    With Republicans on the cusp of big electoral gains, some of the worst offenders when it comes to dirty campaigning this fall are Democrats in vulnerable districts.

    Florida Representative Alan Grayson, for example, aired television ads this week branding his Republican opponent, Dan Webster, as “Taliban Dan.” The ad used an out-of-context quote from Webster to accuse him of wanting “to force battered women to stay in abusive marriages.”

    http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/Americans+with+politicians+behaving+badly/3613666/story.html

  64. Good point about what SS number did Nikki get by with. SS sent the famous letter about a discrepancy, Nikki presumably took care of it — otherwise SS would have kept writing the Whitmans till they got concerned. Or did Nikki intercept some following SS letters?

    (I’ve been out all day so I may have missed stuff.)

  65. I am sorry for your pain Confloyd…My Mom is in early stage dementia and I have a full time aide for her. I know how much agony you must be going through. Prays to you and your husband.

  66. Hi all

    I havn’t forgotten you. I have been very busy. Traveing back and forth to CA. My son and daughter in law are expecting their second child. They wanted to keep me out there. Not crazy about LA.

    Jonestown

    I live in Cleveland. We have the science museum.It is not to far from the Rock and Roll museum. Not far from the clinic is the art museum, health museum. Severance Hall where the Cleveland Orchestra plays.
    Playhouse Square you can take in some broadway plays.

    There is Lolly the Trolley you can ride to take in the city to hear the history.

    Would love to meet someone from this blog.

    Will be praying for you.

  67. Brown frequently touted his family legacy — his father served two terms as governor — and his own record as governor, Oakland mayor and the state’s current attorney general. He was more disciplined than in the last debate, in which he cracked jokes and peppered his statements with salty language.
    ——————————————-
    Family legacy? As in . . . dynasty?? I remember a time when the dimocrats thought dynasties were not such a good thing. At least that is what they said. And big media pounded that theme to favor Obama. Or am I mistaken? Was that just a bad dream? Don’t think so. But now they tout them, and make a distinction without a difference by calling them legacies. I guess they are just devoid of principles and willing to say anything to anyone at any time just to get elected. Just like their fearless leader. I would not give a damned except I do think Whitman is a better bet to save California than Brown, with is a distinction with a very big difference.

  68. confloyd
    October 2nd, 2010 at 7:02 pm
    ◄▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬►

    So sorry that you have to do this. I don’t know if there is a big age difference between you and your husband, but if there isn’t, he is fairly young. I hope he has led a full life with little in the way of regrets. Anyway, I take care of my dad right now, and it’s not easy, and it can be depressing at times, so I understand why you have decided to do this. It’s a lot of work. I hope everything works out, and that your husband gets very good care wherever he finds himself.

  69. JBStonesfan, Thanks Alzheimer is just awful, my husband has dementia really bad. That is the worst part of what is going with him. The diabetes is getting his eyesight. We’ve been married for almost 43 years…its going to be hard when I leave him there, but I know if I don’t I will have a heart attack trying to work and worry everytime I come home that he has set the house on fire.
    Sorry about your Mom too and take care with all those tests!

  70. I’m so sorry confloyd. We finally had to do that with my mom, and for the same reasons – I had to face that she was no longer safe to be alone, even though she lived next door to my sister. One of us just could not be with her 24/7, and the fear that she would be hurt or burn the house down etc was constant.

  71. ‘Serious Insider’ Tells CNBC’s Kudlow NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg Next Treasury Secretary
    ‘The Call’ co-host says Rouse replacing Rahm a signal White House ‘not reaching out to business,’ ‘nothing going to change.’

    By Jeff Poor
    Business & Media Institute
    10/2/2010 8:57:09 AM

    With what appears to be a devastating election looming for his party, is President Obama attempting to follow in the footsteps of one of his predecessors and moderate toward the center?

    Not if choosing Pete Rouse to replace chief of staff Rahm Emanuel is any indication, according to CNBC’s Larry Kudlow. On the Oct. 1 broadcast of “The Call,” CNBC Washington correspondent John Harwood predicted Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner wasn’t going anywhere, but Obama would take a pro-business tack with the leadership of Department of Commerce.

    However, Kudlow, citing a “deep political insider,” had a different forecast.

    “The Commerce thing is a great idea and you’re probably going to be right, but I know that you don’t hear this,” Kudlow said. “But I had dinner last night with a deep political insider who told me that Michael Bloomberg is the next Treasury secretary. I heard that. All I’ll say is this is a serious insider who said the deal has been done and that Bloomberg is the next Treasury secretary.”

    If true, Bloomberg is an interesting choice, but he’s hardly a conservative. In fact, the New York mayor took a swipe at the Tea Party movement earlier in the day on WOR radio in New York, calling it “irrational” and declared it was “not a political movement.”

    Earlier on “The Call,” which had been interrupted by the White House’s announcement that Emanuel was departing, Kudlow declared the move wasn’t one that signified a pro-business moderation, as the Clinton administration exhibited.

    “There is no change going on here,” Kudlow said. “John Harwood look, you had in the Clinton administration – you had senior business people as chief of staff. I’m going to name two – Mack McLarty, who ran the oil and gas company in Arkansas, and Erskine Bowles, who was a distinguished Southern banker and businessman. Now we don’t see any movement whatsoever. This fellow, Pete Rouse – I don’t know him. He’s an inside guy from the liberal side of the Senate. They’re not reaching out to the world of business. Nothing’s going to change. There’s no policy impact. The liberal vision that [Reuters columnist] Jimmy Pethokoukis mentioned, that’s what’s getting spanked in this election, isn’t it John?”

  72. Our Dem candidate for Gov is 10% behind the Rep. However, it is not really the I and Reps that are doing her in. Only 65% of the Dems support her. Since she fought and stayed with HRC until the end, I am sure this is the Obama Kool Aid Drinkers punishing her.

    So much for Dems getting on board and supporting the party selectee.

    If this state switches to Rep, our educational system will be in real trouble. We are at the end of the 50 in the quality of our education system, and the Rep candidate wants to give voucher.

  73. jbjonesfan

    There is an Amish type community just South of Cleveland which is interesting to visit. If you have wheels again, and have a weekend, I think there is a lot to do there. If you are into genealogy, near Cleveland Clinic is a great library at the university that has lots of information. That little Italy area is near Cleveland Clinic also.

  74. Confloyd, those decisions are hard, but if you are going to worry, and put yourself at risk, you need to do what is best for you.

    Many caregivers, because of the stress, end up in worse shape than the people they care for.

    Take care of yourself.

  75. confloyd

    I understand what you are going through. It is such a hard decision to make.

    A friend of mines father have Alzheimers. We were sitting on the porch one day he came through the house with a newspaper lit. He thought he was lighting a cigarette
    Had we not been there he would have set the house on fire.

    From that day on they had to take the knobs of the stove.

    After that he started getting worse, they ended up putting him in a home. It was very hard for them.

  76. confloyd
    October 2nd, 2010 at 7:02 pm

    Extending all the warmth and good feeling that we can here in Houston. Be strong in this difficult time….

  77. confloyd,

    It’s a tragic situation and accepting it is heartbreaking. But in practical terms, if one facility doesn’t work out, another can be found, or details can be corrected.

    Good luck.

  78. #
    Mrs. Smith
    October 2nd, 2010 at 11:11 am

    JanH-

    Read something in passing yesterday that for Rahm to run for mayor, the rules state you have to be a resident of the state for one year to be eligible for election. The only residency exemptions stated in the rules are soldiers serving in the military. No exemption mentioned for serving for a president or any special exemption at all for a Congressperson..

    Will Rahm have the clout to change the rules? Or will a new interpretation of the rules be his ticket to the Mayor’s seat?
    &&&&&&&&&&&

    Supposedly he’s retained a house in that “area”…but it is not crystal clear if it meets whatever requirements there are.

    Then again, we never saw Obama’s birth cert, so “requirements” are not always required.

  79. confloyd
    October 2nd, 2010 at 7:02 pm
    —————————-
    I know how tough that decision is Connie. We went through that same thing with my mother. But it sounds like there is no alternative. He needs constant care, you need to hold down a full time job and no one else can assume that responsibility. If he remains at home, you will worry about him constantly. The recent episode shows that those concerns are well founded. If you can find him a good nursing home then that can make all the difference in the world for his well being and your peace of mind. I enjoyed talking to Michael on the several occasions when we spoke. God bless both of you.

  80. President Surrender Monkey is at it again. His capitulation to bin Laden in Europe wherein he tells Americans abroad to avoid public places is really no different than his prior capitulation to drug lords on our southern border where he posts signs on American soil telling us to be careful in our own country because he cannot guarantee our safety. More stimulus dollars hard at work, etc. Sadly, Barack does not place the same value on American lives that prior presidents have. Put differently: Barack Obama= Surrender Monkey.
    ——————————————————————–

    Obama Surrenders America To Terror
    By Larry Johnson on October 2, 2010 at 5:19 PM in Current Affairs

    News just on the wires that the United States will issue a travel advisory warning Americans to stay away from crowded places frequented by Westerners in Europe. I shit you not. Talk about cowardice and surrendering to terrorism. We laughed when we derided the French several years as a frightened band of cowering primates (the precise term was “surrender monkey”). But now it is Barack Obama and his pathetic National Security Team.

    This decision was made late yesterday at an NSC meeting presided over by former CIA hack, John Brennan. Brennan, if you recall, failed to properly and accurately count the number of terrorist attacks in 2003 when he was running the Terrorist Threat Integration Center. (Read it here.) Brennan was a fuck up when he worked for George W. Bush and he is a bigger fucker upper now.

    Here’s the situation. The United States intelligence community, CIA specifically, has acquired information from a source believed to be reliable who is reporting in a very general fashion that followers of Bin Laden are keen on attacking hotels and tourist spots in Europe. But, once you get pass the scary warning of generic mayhem, there are no specifics about when, where or how.

    Brennan, who is in charge of the counter terrorism portfolio, has failed big time in carrying out his responsibility on this issue. How?

    Instead of bringing together a full interagency task force to scrub this intelligence and determine the exact nature of the threat, he is opting for the ultimate cover your ass approach. He’s hitting the panic button and is directing State Department to issue a public warning to the effect that Americans traveling to Europe should avoid public places frequented by Westerners. This is so fucking stupid I don’t know where to begin.

    So, stay away from the Louvre, the Eiffel Tower and Westminster Hall in London. Don’t go near the Spanish steps in Rome. However, feel free to stroll around muslim neighborhoods in some of the poorer suburbs of Paris.

    Rather than man up and deal with the threat in a sensible manner, the Obama Administration is going to depths not even the fools in the Bush Administration would consider. This is shameful. Can’t wait to watch the European governments erupt over this slap in the face. America the coward, no longer home of the brave. No time for a steel spine and stiff upper lip. Led by Barack Obama and his team of nitwits, we are pissing ourselves like a two year old child in diapers.

  81. confloyd
    I spoke with my sister who works in an assisted care facility and she told me to tell you to ask a zillion questions every time you visit. Problem is according to her that the economy sucks and a six week course gets you a 12 dollar an hour job. A difficult job but most hate it and do at times take out their frustration on the clients, Answer from her perspective is to be a diligent pain in the ass. Keeps them on their toes
    From my own perspective I love the old and damaged folks who live up the street. I take my crud there frequently, I am insignificant but they adore my baby girl. And I pray she is getting something positive and life long from it.

  82. confloyd
    best part about my monster was that she turned four on september one and when we visited they had a party organized for her. I am a gay man who got stuck with a brat. Never ever would I have opted to be a part of the unending fear that is raising a child scariest thing in the world. Most draining. I fear so often that I am not capable of dealing with boom after her parents contact her once in three months. She gets so angry with me for it. I gotta let her hate me for a little while. Then I chose to run her to dance and music lessons. Gay I am, but I am incapable of seeing how it is that I am hurting this child.

  83. wbboei:

    Speaking of John Brennan, you might also recall that, as it turned out, John Brennan was the employer of the contract people who broke into Barack Obama’s passport file in 2008. They also broke into Hillary’s file and John McCain’s file too, but the only one who made a big pan-rattling fuss about it was Barack Obama. Odd, that was. I mean why be all outraged over a file break-in performed by an employee of your very own paid consultant and confidante? Nothing strange there, hey?

  84. Admin,

    If there truly is a civil war in the dem party, how come Schumer is cruising to such an easy victory. I realize that he has worked for his constituents and fights hard to get results, but there seems to be no backlash against his putting his will over the will of the voters.

    I spoke recently to a strong Hillary supporter…a delgate to the convention. She had attended the May? rules meeting and had been forcibly removed with bruises to show for it. Yet, she was surprised when I told her I would not vote for Tim Bishop for congress. She said (what seems to be the dems only mantra) that the repugs are worse.

  85. Carol, that is the indoctrination that both parties have used for a long time.

    I could tell at our convention, they were worried about electing outsiders. Why, because they might cause a fuss at the convention, walk out, and not fold in. They prefer the members they have indoctrinated for years. The rest of us might actually figure out we no longer have a democracy.

  86. Saturday, October 2, 2010

    Will Abbas, Too, Order Hamas to Carry Out Terror Strikes?

    by Khaled Abu Toameh

    Former Palestinian President, Yasser Arafat, who won the Nobel Peace prize, fooled all of the people all of the time.

    Mahmoud Zahar, a prominent Hamas leader, has just revealed that Yasser Arafat, when he failed to get what he wanted at the negotiating table, instructed Hamas to launch terror attacks in the heart of Israel. Hamas obviously took Arafat’s orders seriously, waging an unprecedented campaign of suicide booming and terror attacks that killed and injured thousands of Jews and Arabs.

    When Arafat reportedly unleashed Hamas’s terrorists against Israel, both he and the Palestinian Authority were still on the payroll of the international community, first and foremost the Americans and Europeans.

    Arafat pretended back then that he was doing his utmost to stop the terror attacks that were launched not only by Hamas, but also by members of his own ruling Fatah faction. It now appears – from what Zahar has to say – that Arafat was bluntly lying to Israel and the Western donors.

    What is interesting is that Zahar’s revelations about Arafat’s role in the terror campaign come at a time when the Palestinian and Hamas have resumed efforts to end their differences and achieve “national unity.”

    Does this rapprochement mean that Arafat’s successor, Mahmoud Abbas, is planning to use Hamas again against Israel if the Palestinians don’t get all what they want through direct and indirect talks? Some of the Palestinians who are negotiating with Israel these days were very close to Arafat back then; it is highly likely that they knew about his instructions to Hamas. Nabil Sha’ath, Saeb Erekat and Yasser Abed Rabbo were among Arafat’s inner circle of advisors and confidants.

    Zahar made this revelation during a lecture at the Islamic University in Gaza City marking the 10th anniversary of the second intifada, which erupted in September 2000, a few weeks after the failure of the Camp David summit.

    This is the first time that a Hamas leader openly admits that his movement carried out terror attacks against Israel on instructions from the Palestinian Authority leader. Arafat is believed to have issued the orders to Hamas after the botched Camp David summit, which was hosted by President Bill Clinton.

    Sadly, some Israelis, Americans and Europeans refused back then to open their eyes to the reality – that Arafat was fooling them. They even turned a blind eye when it was revealed back then that Arafat was funding the armed wing of Fatah, the Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, whose members carried out dozens of terror attacks in the past 10 years.

    Arafat was a leader who led his people from one disaster to another. Because of him, thousands of Palestinians were massacred by the Jordanians in the early 1970s. He also played a role in the Lebanon Civil War that claimed the lives of tens of thousands of people.

    By ordering Hamas to carry out “military operations” against Israel after the failure of the Camp David summit, Arafat brought disaster not only on Israel, but on his own people. More than 5,500 Palestinians and 1,000 Israelis were killed in the attacks which Zahar says were ordered by Arafat.

    Finally, it remains to be seen what the Noble [sic] Prize Committee has to say about the Hamas leader’s confession. In addition, those who back then staunchly defended Arafat as a “peace partner” owe the victims of the terror attacks and their families an apology.

    http://www.worldjewishdaily.com/toolbar.html?4t=extlink&4u=http://israelagainstterror.blogspot.com/2010/10/will-abbas-too-order-hamas-to-carry-out.html

  87. Are any of you getting these emails from Senator Bill Nelson–the other Nelson in the Senate? Emails caption reads I am counting on you. It warns us in stark terms that if the dims lose in November the world will end. I would dismiss this as politics as usual were it not for the economic context in which this occurs, and a stone cold sociopath in the White House. Therefore, I have sent my boy Bill a terse response which conveys my sentiments. Let us hope someone sees it.
    ———————————————————————-
    My Dear Senator Nelson:

    If you are counting on me to support Boxer–or you for that matter, either now or in the future, with political contributions, then you are making a big mistake. I have watched both of you operate. First, you betray Hillary? Then you betray the American People with Obama care and Financial Deform? And now you say you are counting on me to support Boxer, and in effect ratify this treason? . . . Frankly Senator you do not know me and you presume too much.
    —– Original Message —–

  88. 2 October 2010

    Bill Clinton: U.S. should be prepared to lose global dominance

    Former U.S. President Bill Clinton believes that Washington must brace for loss of global dominance in the face of rapidly developing economies like China and India.

    “When another nation’s economy overtakes ours, it will rely exclusively on itself to acquire greater military power, and no longer on the U.S.”, stated Clinton last night at the seventh annual meeting of the Yalta European Strategy (YES) held in the Crimean peninsula (Ukraine).

    “Once we lose control, I would still like the U.S. to remain influential in a positive sense,” said the former president, adding that his intention is to build “bridges of friendship” between the U.S. and other nations.

    He also recommended the U.S. should give up some of its current privileges if it is to move forward. “Sooner than later, any system reaches a point where it prefers to preserve things as they are rather than to evolve (…). We need the courage to downsize a very comfortable lifestyle so that our children and grandchildren may live in a world that is ever changing for the better”, he said.

    http://www.voltairenet.org/article167149.html

  89. “Once we lose control, I would still like the U.S. to remain influential in a positive sense,” said the former president, adding that his intention is to build “bridges of friendship” between the U.S. and other nations.”

    “Sooner than later, any system reaches a point where it prefers to preserve things as they are rather than to evolve (…). We need the courage to downsize a very comfortable lifestyle so that our children and grandchildren may live in a world that is ever changing for the better”, he said.”
    ____________________________

    I really admire a man capable of multi-tasking. Women come by it naturally. Clinton is the shining example to emulate. A steward of the earth, heck the entire solar system. He can actually chew bubble gum and walk up a flight of stairs at the same time. His dna should be injected into every embryonic manchild.

    This article should be on the front page of every newspaper in the United States. (But first I would like someone to make sure the translation is accurate.) 🙄 Nevertheless, what are we spending our time analyzing? The employment of an illegal maid. Why do we continue following the losers?

  90. Just Amanpour, and it was a heated debate on Muslim and the location of the Mosque. Daisy, one of the developers indicated that after all the discussion she would not change her mind on the location of the Mosque.

    She said it was American principle she was not fighting for. I guess what I expected to hear was she would meet with the suvivors of 9/11 and determine how far away from the trade center would be acceptable to the majority. That then would be the boundary from this day forward, and they would swap the property out of respect for the majority of the survivors.

    I felt that would be a compromise. She did not seem to be interested in one. Because all of the discussion did not make her understand that being the bigger person, showing respect for the majorities feels, was what being and American was all about. We accept their customs and veils, they should consider the feeling of the majority of the 9/11 survivors and locate that mosque where they feel comfortable. The compromises are only one way.

    You do not convince people you are American’s first by her position.

  91. Thankyou all for all your encouraging words and prayers. I so treason my friends here on the big Pink…thanxs!

  92. We need the courage to downsize a very comfortable lifestyle so that our children and grandchildren may live in a world that is ever changing for the better”, he said.
    ————————————-
    Mrs. Smith, I do not know what to make of Bill’s statement. We heard this theme nearly forty years ago, from Carter, and from then Governor Jerry Brown. The catch phrase then was less is more.

    Most of us understand the problem–the inextinguishable national debt, the negative balance of trade, the comparative rates of gdp growth, the potential loss of reserve currency status, the distorted structure of our economy favoring finance over manufacturing, inability to control our borders, a reluctance to invest due to excessive regulation, growing unemployment–those cards are all face up on the table for anyone who cares to look.

    The pivotal question is how will they be played by our political class? After the election, I fully expect that these so called leaders will come before us with a draconian budget, backed by whatever Alan Simpson and his nameless democratic counterpart come up with. But it will be mainly a restatement of the problem, dumbed down for consumption.

    The question that needs to be asked is what is the plan, the plan, the plan, to downsize our standard of living? Will the government default on its obligations, if so which ones? Will government abandon its borrow and spend policies? How do you raise taxes and not push us into a full blown depression? Who will be the new winners and losers. How do you get a culture that is based on instant gratification, to accept the concept of sacrificing for future generations? How realistic is it to expect a soft landing under these circumstances?

    I do not know the answers to these questions, so I am looking to my intellectual betters to fill in the gaps.

    I am also at sea on the politics of this. Why is Bill shelling the beachhead on this now? His Administration was defined by economic prosperity. Why venture into these troubled waters if you do not have to? Why is this not the job of sitting politicians? I understand what it means to be dominant world leader but I am not sure it matters if all we can ever hope to be in the future is influential. It just seems strange to hear him say that especially now.

    Yes, I know Bill is a statesman. He knows Barack has overpromised and underdelivered. So he is trying to give a realistic assessment, readjust expectations and point a path forward. But those are just words. Can anyone enlighten me on this?

  93. Maybe this is not so hard to grasp after all. Bill achieved the economic miracle of the 1990s by confronting the entitlement mentality which plagued his party and the nation. Maybe he is doing it now. I know he is on our side, but I do not always appreciate the big picture. Maybe that is part of it.

  94. NewMexicoFan
    October 3rd, 2010 at 12:20 pm

    Just Amanpour, and it was a heated debate on Muslim and the location of the Mosque.

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

    Haven’t seen that, do you have a link or key word?

    Btw, it’s not a mosque.

  95. The question that needs to be asked is what is the plan, the plan, the plan, to downsize our standard of living? Will the government default on its obligations, if so which ones? Will government abandon its borrow and spend policies? How do you raise taxes and not push us into a full blown depression? Who will be the new winners and losers. How do you get a culture that is based on instant gratification, to accept the concept of sacrificing for future generations? How realistic is it to expect a soft landing under these circumstances?
    ********
    That is the question…”Where is the plan?”. Two issues that may be the most important, are the project increase in World population for 7 to 9 billion over the next 40 years and the rather rapid fall off in petroleum production over the the period of time. Perhaps the major factor in the explosive increase in Wold population from ~ 1 billion in 1800 to 7 billion today combined with dramatic improvements in standards of living, are mostly due to cheap petroleum energy. That “party” is coming to an end and there is no substitute. As far as I can tell, discussion and planning for these drastic changes were shut down during the Bush/Cheney admin and Obama has continued the same policy.

    Bill Clinton reads more information in a year than Obama has read in his entire life. Bill knows where things are headed and also knows that there are no “sound bite” answers. His statement “We need the courage to downsize a very comfortable lifestyle so that our children and grandchildren may live in a world that is ever changing for the better” is the result of a lot of reading and information gathering.

  96. SHV

    Bill Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar. Last I check O was not. They don’t hand those out like the do the Nobel Peace Prize.

  97. Confloyd,

    My mom is 87 and she’s so forgetful she can’t remember what was said to her ten senconds earlier. It’s getting worse. She lives in a mother/daughter arrangement with one of my brothers and I pray she doesn’t have to ever go to assisted living. I know that would break her heart, and mine.

    It’s a very painful time and I wish you and hubby the best.

  98. wbboei
    October 3rd, 2010 at 12:50 pm

    “We need the courage to downsize a very comfortable lifestyle so that our children and grandchildren may live in a world that is ever changing for the better”, he said.
    ————————————-
    Mrs. Smith, I do not know what to make of Bill’s statement. We heard this theme nearly forty years ago, from Carter, and from then Governor Jerry Brown. The catch phrase then was less is more.
    _______________________________

    I didn’t hear that at all, wbb. What I heard was “America better get off their asses and do something NOW.” “We had better accept what our future will be, ( a second rate country) accept it now that we know what the past had to offer (settle for pain and austerity) rather than carving out new and innovative ways of thinking and doing for a substantive sustainable future.”

    Sounds like to me, Bill has something in mind… I may unwittingly have a leg up on you because I watched the Clinton Global Inititave grow over the last five years from a dream, to an idea, to an undeniable successful reality. Opportunity knocks on every door.
    _____________________

    “The pivotal question is how will they be played by our political class?”
    _____________________________

    If Hillary is the next president, we will be fine.. That should be your given. After all, isn’t that why we are here on this blog?
    ______________________________________

    “The question that needs to be asked is what is the plan, the plan, the plan, to downsize our standard of living?
    ________________________________________

    The Plan laid out by the Republicans for the 8 yrs they were in power is the Plan in Play. We have been and continue to experience the execution of the plans laid out by Republicans for a Plutocracy to rule in the US for the last 2.75 yrs. By a so-called Democrat, and so-called natural born citizen, Barack Obama.

    I think you will agree Real estate values are caput. Health insurance, and the cost of living have no ceiling. Jobs are only available to the well connected. These are just a few examples of our personal reality. The end game is continue the pain and austerity until we arrive at the HAVES and the HAVE NOTS. The Rich vs (the former Middle Class) now the Working Poor. (if they are lucky enough to have a job.)
    ________________________________

    “I do not know the answers to these questions, so I am looking to my intellectual betters to fill in the gaps.”
    ____________________________________

    I do not know if the answers to ALL your questions are here.

    http://www.clintonglobalinitiative.org/

    However, if Hillary can forgive the man for making a foolish mistake, I think you will agree removing any and all obstacles to intellectual growth is key to personal growth and understanding and the sure way to see the world in a different light, all to your own benefit.
    _________________________________

    “I am also at sea on the politics of this. Why is Bill shelling the beachhead on this now? His Administration was defined by economic prosperity. Why venture into these troubled waters if you do not have to? Why is this not the job of sitting politicians? I understand what it means to be dominant world leader but I am not sure it matters if all we can ever hope to be in the future is influential. It just seems strange to hear him say that especially now.”
    _________________________________________

    Hello- Knock, knock… where are you? He is setting the framework outlining the drama preparing the way for Hillary to step into the picture after her resignation from her current position. I cannot for the life of me understand why your resentment of Bill Clinton washes over everything Hillary. You need to get over it for your own health. Do you actually expect her to be out there on her own? Have we learned nothing of the ruthless, viperous, sycophantic climate existing out there… Theft right in front of our eyes? Twice under our noses? And American helpless to stop it. Well apparently Hillary has learned and learned it well. Bill Clinton is not only key to protecting her from suffering at the hands of ruthless Republicans and Democrats but he is a key strategist to forging plans for her to execute fixing the mess created by former administrations when she is president. And I don’t believe the rumors in the press Bill was unfaithful after the fact during airplane travel. In fact, in my last recollection, those rumors were debunked early on. Most likely his past behavior is representative of the brilliant minds you spoke to me about. Geniuses playing Tiddly-Winks for relaxation, fun and amusement.
    __________________________

    “Yes, I know Bill is a statesman. He knows Barack has overpromised and underdelivered. So he is trying to give a realistic assessment, readjust expectations and point a path forward. But those are just words. Can anyone enlighten me on this?”
    __________________________________

    Remove the roadblocks from your mind and the Truth will set you free.

  99. Mrs. Smith,

    I remember reading something about multi-tasking within the past few months. Here’s a perspective on it that I have embraced, even before I read this months ago.

    http://articles.latimes.com/2010/apr/11/business/la-fi-books11-2010apr11

    Information overload and why multitasking doesn’t work
    April 11, 2010|By Richard EvansExecutives everywhere struggle with the mass of responsibilities, projects, reports and meetings that add up to information overload. The only option, they reason, is to multitask.

    There is just one problem with that approach, writes Douglas Merrill, former chief information officer at Google Inc.: It doesn’t work. ◄ continued ►

  100. Confloyd and JBStonesfan…wishing you both good luck and better days ahead…my heart is also with you both…

  101. re: Rick Sanchez…CNN, although bad these days, is much better off without Sanchez…he was awful before the scandal…he used to co-host a local show in Fla with a woman I cast for hosting jobs…I will never understand (besides the Latino aspect) how he got the job a CNN…he simply is not good on national tv…and CNN was expanding his role…much better off without him…

  102. Mrs. Smith
    October 3rd, 2010 at 9:38 am
    ===============================

    I think that show will be bogus. First of all, I have no desire to listen to Spitzer. Addtionally, if this was supposed to be a show in a “point, counter-point” tradition, then they should have chosen a true conservative for Parker’s seat.

    What I would be interested in viewing is a show that is hosted by a Libertarian.

  103. About the rally yesterday, the left is playing up the number of attendees, and the few pictures of the rally show that they are lying. The rally was applauded for its diversity, but what I saw was an event that was titled dramatically towards minorities with minority attendance, and the number of minority speakers out of synch with their percentage of the population as a whole. I guess that is what you call “minority diversity”.

    I think that I am going to give up Democratic party affiliation after the election in 2010. I don’t want to belong to a party that associates itself with wacky leftists, and that so blatantly lies about such stupid things as numbers of people who attended a rally. If their numbers were a disappointment, then maybe it’s their policy positions that discourage people from showing support for them. I have had it with them. I don’t fit in with the left, nor do I even want to, and I have no desire to see them obtain power.

  104. nomobama
    October 3rd, 2010 at 2:13 pm

    Mrs. Smith,

    I remember reading something about multi-tasking within the past few months. Here’s a perspective on it that I have embraced, even before I read this months ago.
    _________________________-

    yeah, right- tell that story to working women with children and husbands.
    _______________________________

    nomobama
    October 3rd, 2010 at 2:22 pm

    Mrs. Smith
    October 3rd, 2010 at 9:38 am
    ===============================

    I think that show will be bogus. First of all, I have no desire to listen to Spitzer. Addtionally, if this was supposed to be a show in a “point, counter-point” tradition, then they should have chosen a true conservative for Parker’s seat.
    ____________________

    My enthusiasm revolves around having a known loyal Hillary supporter sitting in the catbird seat for a change. Having a chance to raise havoc with the chirping know it alls we’ve been forced to listen to for the last 10 yrs.

  105. My enthusiasm revolves around having a known loyal Hillary supporter sitting in the catbird seat for a change. Having a chance to raise havoc with the chirping know it alls we’ve been forced to listen to for the last 10 yrs.

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

    That would be nice!

  106. nomobama
    October 3rd, 2010 at 2:34 pm

    I meant to leave you a thank you note yesterday for providing the live streaming video link of the DC Rally… It was an interesting and calm demonstration.

    Belated thanks, nomobama

  107. Calm, positive, commonsense, no-bashing ads like this one are what is kicking Feingold’s butt in Wisconsin:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9cX5Vhlz4S4&feature=player_embedded

    Whether you like Russ or Johnson or not, that’s a damn effective ad. People are weary of ideology wars and “ZOMG, look at the EVUUUHL other guys!!!! Bush Bush Bush BOOOOOSH!!!” If the Dems keep going down that road in their campaigning, its going to be a blowout.

  108. What is interesting here is that if Hillary becomes president in 2012, then I am optimistic that social security will survive. That was her position in the primary, and unlike Barack, I am confident that she will keep the promises she makes.
    Conversely, I am pessimistic that social security will survive if anyone else from either party becomes president in 2012. That is one of the many things at stake here, albeit one of the most important ones.

    Clarification: when I cast aspersions on the political class, I do not include Hillary. She is not serving in a political role at this point. Also, she is a statesman whose first priority is the welfare of the country. I would be hardpressed to say the same about most of other people, democrats and establishment republicans alike.

  109. that is a very effective ad by Johnson in WI, I have donated to him, I watched his other ads, they are effective as well.

  110. Where is the plan?”. Two issues that may be the most important, are the project increase in World population for 7 to 9 billion over the next 40 years and the rather rapid fall off in petroleum production over the the period of time. Perhaps the major factor in the explosive increase in Wold population from ~ 1 billion in 1800 to 7 billion today combined with dramatic improvements in standards of living, are mostly due to cheap petroleum energy. That “party” is coming to an end and there is no substitute.
    ———————————-
    As you probably know, the nuclear power industry in the United States has been in remission since 1970s. This was the result of the political fall out from Three Mile Island, and later on Chernobyl, and because of the disposal problem. However, in 2003 that changed. The Bush Administration made a firm commitment to get back into the nuclear power business, in response to the very problem you describe. I am told that this effort if proceeding apace, in garden spots like Hanford Washington, Oak Ridge Tennessee, and increasingly the Idaho National Laboratory in Idaho Falls. I have spoken to some of the people involved in this effort and they are committed to other related issues such as climate change, safe disposal and military uses as well. I am reasonably optimistic that there is the will and capacity to mitigate if not solve the problem you describe. The population issue is a larger problem because it leads to foot shortage, migrations and the tragedy of the commons. China has one approach to this problem. There are others.

  111. LOL! Foot shortages? Heh, wbboei, I was wondering if you had suddenly bought into Obama’s idea that doctors have run amok in this country, chopping off limbs willy nilly! Ha! 😉

  112. We were showing guests around DC last evening. It was a big fuxxing mess with garbage everywhere. So then I hear about some rally the lefties had and crowing about how much bigger the crowd was compared to Beck’s. Are these people serious?

  113. Las Vegas suffering like never before

    Gambling revenues have hit the skids, accompanied by the collapse of the construction industry. Confidence that the return of tourists will revive the city and the state is absent.

    New York Times
    Last update: October 2, 2010 – 6:03 PM

    The nation’s gambling capital is staggering under a confluence of economic forces that has sent Las Vegas into what officials describe as its deepest economic rut since casinos first began rising in the desert there in the 1940s.

    Even as city leaders remain hopeful that gambling revenues will rebound with the nation’s economy, experts pro- ject that it will not be enough to make up for an even deeper realignment that has taken place in the course of this recession: the collapse of the construction industry, which was the other economic pillar of the city and the state.

    Unemployment in Nevada is 14.4 percent, the highest in the nation and a stark contrast to the 3.8 percent unemployment rate there just 10 years ago; in Las Vegas, it is 14.7 percent.

    August was the 44th consecutive month in which Nevada led the nation in housing foreclosures.

    The Plaza Hotel and Casino, which is downtown, recently announced that it was laying off 400 workers and closing its hotel and parts of its casino for eventual renovation, the latest high-profile hit to a city that has seen a steady parade of them.

    “It’s been in bad shape before, but not this bad,” said David Schwartz, director of the Center for Gaming Research at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. “If you look at the gaming revenues, they have declined and continue to decline over the past three years.

    “September 11 set off a two-year slowdown,” Schwartz said. “But nothing of this magnitude.”

    ‘Not what it was’

    Mayor Oscar Goodman said in a recent interview that he was “very bullish on our future,” offering as evidence the packed airplanes he encountered both ways on a recent trip east to appear on “The Colbert Report.”

    posted by subterranean on Oct 3, 10 at 1:38 pm |
    11 of 11 people liked this comment.
    Obama hit Las Vegas where it hurts

    Most of the nation is suffering from the well intentioned but inept economic policies of the Congress and Obama administration, but Las Vegas was singled out for special attention, with the President denouncing companies that were planning meetings or conventions in Las Vegas. With more and more companies dependent on business from the government, massive cancellations ensued. The multiplier effect set in, and Las Vegas hasn’t recovered. To paraphrase Obama’s comment about the Cambridge or Boston police, he “acted stupidly.” This is the kind of thing that happens when you install a chief executive who has never had a real job in his life.

  114. H4T, Funny you should bring that “Doctors running amock”. I know your husband is a Doc., so I understand your view point. I do not however believe Obama’s crap, but I do know and it was brought to my attention last week, that our hospital chain has quit giving bonuses for the amount of tests the er doctor runs on pts. Guess what’s happened in our little emergency room??? We’ve had a huge drop off in xray/ct studies ordered…you’d of thought that would happen. Well, I personally believe the orders are dropping off because the folks that are unemployed and are used to having insurance don’t go to the “free ER”, some folks still have their pride. How much longer that will exist is the question. According to my friend here in Texas that works for HCA says they are still giving those bonuses and their work is trippling. They already work like dogs in China, I know I used to work there and I have to scars to prove it.

  115. Wbboei, I still stand behind countless folks at the convenient stores buying $50. on scratch offs and lottery tickets…that is such a waste of money.

  116. He also recommended the U.S. should give up some of its current privileges if it is to move forward. “Sooner than later, any system reaches a point where it prefers to preserve things as they are rather than to evolve (…). We need the courage to downsize a very comfortable lifestyle so that our children and grandchildren may live in a world that is ever changing for the better”, he said
    ——————————————-

    I’d have to see the whole speech, because I don’t think Bill was speaking about us…but those venture capitalists that thirst for money and power constantly. Those that go to all those foreign countries and start wars that are a hindrance to our economy and causes so many hard feelings worldwide. Not hearing the whole speech, I have a feeling he was talking about that. I agree with him on that…I wonder what our economy would look like had we not went to Iraq for all that cheap oil and instead invested in cars that got better gas mileage and maybe some other form of fuel. I think he was talking about preserving what we’ve already fought for insteading of hedging the bet and striving to get richer….like the Wall St. boys do daily. I mean really how much money does a person need…of coarse I believe he should have as much as he wants….but I’m talking about those ultra billionaires that feed of the ills of the peasants.

  117. I also agree with Mrs. Smith, Bill is working his butt off to get Hillary is the best possible position to make a run for it again. He is doing it too! He is more popular than ever!

    I also don’t like that look that I saw on Bill’s face as he was telling the Irish that “we’ll be OK, don’t worry”. I haven’t really seen Hillary smile in weeks other than when her daughter got married. I see the seriousness in both their faces. I just pray Hillary will be given a second chance so she and Bill can get us on the right track again.

  118. The Bush Administration made a firm commitment to get back into the nuclear power business, in response to the very problem you describe.
    *******
    At a fundamental level, I am pro-nuclear power, however, I can’t find any objective data to justify the cost, when there are other alternatives. With the nuclear plants that we have now, the construction costs and later decommissioning are huge and being “kicked down the road” for the next generation to worry about. The first generation plants are now past their projected operational life; Obama solved that problem by issuing new 20 year operation permits for those plants. The pro-nuke people piggy-back on CO2-global warming blah..blah…what isn’t mentioned are the huge amount of petroleum, other fossil fuels and water needed to mine and refine Uranium. No free lunch.

  119. Shv, It always gets back to fossil fuels….we need a Bill and Hillary at the helm to figure out just what to do…to preserve our way of life for our children and grandchildren.

  120. We should have been looking into technology that gave us higher mileage out of cars in 1976…which they really still arent doing. The oil guys don’t want to “scale back” anytime soon! So us peasants are the one who will suffer…Well I’m ready I have 4 donkeys that will take me to town, It may take a couple of hours, but I’ll get there. LOL!

  121. Shv, It always gets back to fossil fuels
    ********
    Exactly…the US and the rest of the World’s population and economies are based on cheap petroleum and coal. Drastic change is a certainty; the only question is how that change will evolve and what will it evolve to. The past, present, and at least near future planning is basically let nature take it’s course and in the mean time how can we profit. Our children and grandchildren may not like how that turns out, IMHO.

  122. There is a lot of new technology in nuclear fuel – thorium rectors, etc – that is much safer than the past. There are still problems, but I am not at all opposed to exploring those options.

    It takes a heck of a lot of fossil fuel to build electric cars and manufacture solar panels and wind turbines as well. I’m a “let’s do a big research push on ALL OF THE ABOVE” person, myself.

    A little wiki on thorium reactors:

    Advocates of the use of thorium as the fuel source for nuclear reactors, such as Nobel laureate Carlo Rubbia, state that they can be built to operate significantly more cleanly than uranium-based power plants as the waste products are much easier to handle.[4] According to Rubbia, a ton of thorium produces the same energy as 200 tons of uranium, or 3.5 million tons of coal.[5] Edward Teller, co-founder and director of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, promoted thorium energy until his death, and scientists in France, Japan, India, and Russia are now creating their own thorium-based power plants.[6] One leading commentator is calling for the creation of a new Manhattan Project, stating that the use of thorium fuel for energy would “reinvent the global energy landscape . . . and an end to our dependence on fossil fuels within three to five years.”[5]

    When used in molten-salt reactors, thorium bred to 233U removes weaponization dangers, because no uranium exists in solid form and the reactor runs continuously, with no shutdown for refuelling—all thorium and fissile uranium is consumed and any undesired gases and uranium/plutonium isotopes are flushed out as gases (e.g., as uranium hexafluoride) as the hot, liquid salt is pumped around the reactor/exchanger system.

    Of course, people who stand to make big money either on big oil OR on various “green intiatives” that are basically as inadequate as spitting in the ocean are all going to fight exploring this option tooth and nail. There is as much kabuki and sleight-of-hand by the “green” lobbies as there is by the oil lobbies at this point, IMO.

  123. The question for Obama is this: how do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a war which you tell the public is a good war, when you privately believe it is a mistake, and secretly plan to pull the rug out from under the soldiers to meet your political timetable? I guess its easy when you have no conscience, no regard for the country you pretend to lead and are only in it for the perks.
    ———————————————————

    Why is Obama sending troops to Afghanistan?

    By Charles Krauthammer
    Friday, October 1, 2010

    From the beginning, the call to arms was highly uncertain. On Dec. 1, 2009, commander in chief Barack Obama orders 30,000 more Americans into battle in Afghanistan. But in the very next sentence, he announces that an American withdrawal will begin after 18 months.

    This Story
    Bipartisanship has a place. It’s not the Pentagon.
    Obama’s Phase Two: Leadership
    Why is he sending them?
    Pound-foolish on national security
    View All Items in This Story
    View Only Top Items in This StoryThis Story
    War without end or reason
    Why is he sending them?
    Pakistan: A strained, and crucial, alliance
    Astonishing. A surge of troops — overall, Obama has tripled our Afghan force — with a declaration not of war but of ambivalence. Nine months later, Marine Corps Commandant James Conway admitted that this decision was “probably giving our enemy sustenance.” This wasn’t conjecture, he insisted, but the stuff of intercepted communications testifying to the enemies’ relief that they simply had to wait out the Americans.

    What kind of commander in chief sends tens of thousands of troops to war announcing in advance a fixed date for beginning their withdrawal? One who doesn’t have his heart in it. One who doesn’t really want to win but is making some kind of political gesture. One who thinks he has to be seen as trying but is preparing the ground — meaning, the political cover — for failure.

    Until now, the above was just inference from the president’s public rhetoric. No longer. Now we have the private quotes. Bob Woodward’s new book, drawing on classified memos and interviews with scores of national security officials, has Obama telling his advisers: “I want an exit strategy.” He tells the country publicly that Afghanistan is a “vital national interest,” but he tells his generals that he will not do the kind of patient institution-building that is the very essence of the counterinsurgency strategy that Gens. Stanley McChrystal and David Petraeus crafted and that he — Obama — adopted.

    Moreover, he must find an exit because “I can’t lose the whole Democratic Party.” This admission is the most crushing of all.

    First, isn’t this the party that in two consecutive presidential campaigns — John Kerry’s and then Obama’s — argued vociferously that Afghanistan is the good war, the right war, the war of necessity, the central front in the war on terror? Now, after acceding to power and being given charge of that very war, Obama confides that he must retreat, lest that very same party abandon him. What happened in the interim? Did it suddenly develop a faint heart? Or was the party disingenuous about the Afghan war all along, using it as a convenient club with which to attack George W. Bush over Iraq, while protecting Democrats from the charge of being reflexively antiwar?

    Whatever the reason, is it not Obama’s job as president and party leader to bring the party with him? This is the man who made Berlin coo, America swoon and the Nobel committee lose its mind. Yet he cannot get his own party to follow him on what he insists is a matter of vital national interest?

    Did he even try? Obama spent endless hours cajoling and persuading individual members of Congress to garner every last vote for health-care reform. Has he done a fraction of that for Afghanistan — argued, pleaded, horse-traded, twisted even a single arm?

    And what about persuading the country at large? Every war is arduous and requires continual presidential explication, inspiration and encouragement. This has been true from Lincoln through FDR through Bush. Since announcing his Afghan surge, Obama’s only major speech that featured Afghanistan was an Oval Office address about America leaving Iraq — the Afghan part being sandwiched between that and a long-winded plea for his economic policies.

    “He was looking for choices that would limit U.S. involvement and provide a way out,” writes Woodward. One can only conclude that Obama now thinks Afghanistan is a mistake. Maybe he thought so from the very beginning. More charitably and more likely, he is simply a foreign policy novice who didn’t understand what this war was about until being given the authority and duty to conduct it — and then decided it was all a mistake.

    Fair enough. But in that case, what is he doing escalating it?

    Sen. Kerry, now chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, asked many years ago: “How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?” Perhaps Kerry should ask that of Obama.

    “He is out of Afghanistan psychologically,” says Woodward of Obama. Well, he may be out, but the soldiers he ordered to Afghanistan are in.

    Some will not come home.

  124. Well Obama is not fight the Afgan war properly as Hillary and Gates would of…he is fighting like Vietnam and using it as political paybacks for the office he attained thru cheating and bamboozling. I still believe we should have fixed Afganistan instead of Iraq. Now look at Iraq, its going to go with Iran…we are just wasting money there. Work on Afganistan and if not…get the hell out and strength our shores thru immigration reform, airport reform,.

  125. http://www.battleforamericamovie.com/

    The trailer in the link below is hard hitting.

    On the other side of the fence . . .

    Notice the front cover of the moribund Newsweek magazine. It features the tea party women Sarah, Niki, Michelle and Christine. It avoids the cheap trick of NBC which doctors photos. Instead, it poses the accusatory question whether the mama grizzlies will protect your children. That is typical of Meacham. The real question is whether he is stupid enough to believe there is any salvation at the end of the path the establishment has put us on. If not, then change is in order. And that is not his decision.

  126. I one thing I see is that video there’s more chaos, lies and trying to up the level of fear in regular Americans. I have no doubt in my mind that when the republicans take of congress and the senate…it will be open season on the middle class because Obama is either afraid of the republicans or he’s in bed with them…which one I am not sure.
    When all this happens, Johnny bar the door because we are in for a rocky ride.
    If Hillary can get in…it changes overnight…of coarse the republicans will ride her like whore in LasVegas. They’ll never give her a break, but she and Bill excell in that enviroment….Obama buckles!
    I never remember it ever being as bad as it is now. Something big is going to happen or they wouldn’t be uping the level of hysteria like they are.

  127. I think it was a mistake for the DNC to hold this rally. It seemed to stress the worst elements in their coalition namely race baiters like Sharpton, ethically challenged congressmen like Charlie Wrangeler, the SEIU with its long and checkered history of corruption and violence, union thugs like Trumka, and at least one lady who perpetrated an assault and battery on a camera man, on camera. The second problem is their message is internally inconsistent. On the one hand they deplore corporations, yet on the other hand they cozy up to Obama who is the quintessential corporate puppet. Now that may be because he protects union workers over non-union workers, but that is hardly a selling point to the rest of the country. The third problem was the rally failed to demonstrate their size and strength compared to the Beck rally. On the contrary, it demonstrated their weakness. The photos in the attached link tell that story. It looks to me that they are 1/3 of the size of the Beck rally. See for yourself.

    http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2010/10/animated-gif-compare-and-contrast-crowd.html

  128. I see the link is frozen up. Possibly the work of Obama people. But if you take the conservative photo you see and imagine nobody in the divot to the huge divot to the left, nobody in the ring to the bottom, and less density along the sides of the reflection pool, that is what the One Nation rally looked like at it high water mark from the arial view.

  129. There is as much kabuki and sleight-of-hand by the “green” lobbies as there is by the oil lobbies at this point, IMO.
    ********
    I think if we look behind the curtain, they are the same. “Big Money” really has no vested interest in what technology increases the bottom line.

  130. Things seem to be heating up in Mr. Obama’s war. Another truck/tanker depot was hit with 27 fuel trucks burned and 6 people killed. I suspect that the Pakistan gov’t is involved at some level. The CIC is clueless or as Woodward said, “disengaged”….a sociopath looses more sleep over a missed putt than he does over American soldiers dying, IMHO.

  131. Off topic, however, is anyone watching Geraldo? Jennifer Flowers is on. WHOA! I would never have recognized her. What in the world happened to her face?

    The topic is Polilcital Impact of Sex Scandals. Seems like Geraldo has her on just so he can go over and over Bill Clinton’s involvement with her and others. Is she supposed to be an expert panelist?

    Should Geraldo consider joining Rick Santchez as journalist”?

  132. Things seem to be heating up in Mr. Obama’s war
    ————————————–
    His Viet Nam. He will end that war too, but leave another 50,000 advisors behind, And that will call for another Nobel Prize, arranged by Soros just as the last one presumably was. In the meantime alot of young men and women–and their families will pay the price for nothing. And then, to add insult to injury, the DNC will try to find ways to disenfranchise them by excluding the overseas military vote. We know how dims operate. They have no honor. And no regard for the voter. We have seen it all before in the primary. Rendell says you don’t have to like us just vote for us. He has got to be kidding.

  133. Should Geraldo consider joining Rick Santchez as journalist”?
    ———————————————————–
    Geraldo is a low life. How low? So low he makes Rick look like Murrow.

  134. The population issue is a larger problem because it leads to foot shortage, migrations and the tragedy of the commons. China has one approach to this problem. There are others.

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

    First let’s take off the financial and religious limits on contraceptives and abortion. Let every woman who wants to limit her fertility do it freely.

    Then see if there’s still any population problem.

  135. Why Dems Are Going Down in November
    By Arnold Ahlert

    Unless something totally unforeseen occurs, Democrats are poised to take a real beating in November. Their response to the impending disaster has run the gamut. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is in denial: “One thing I know for sure is that Democrats will retain their majority in the House of Representatives.” Massachusetts Senator John Kerry is condescending: “We have an electorate that doesn’t always pay that much attention to what’s going on, so people are influenced by a simple slogan rather than the facts or the truth or what’s happening.” President Obama is angry: “It is inexcusable for any Democrat or progressive right now to stand on the sidelines in this midterm election.” Why is the electorate ready to kick Democrats to the curb? Here’s why:

    * An “unstimulated” economy. The original Mother of All Stimulus packages, $787 billion dollars, quickly grew to an astounding $865 billion. It wasn’t enough. Congress pumped out another $26 billion in “supplemental” stimulus in August. The results? Unemployment in the private sector remains well above the eight percent Democrats promised, even as public sector workers who support Democrats were rewarded; our Democratically-controlled Congress has amassed more debt in the last four years than nearly the previous two hundred and thirty combined; the Keynesian economic model Democrats stand by is a colossal failure; the Summer of Recovery was a propaganda fiasco.

    RECEIVE NEWS ALERTS

    SIGN UP
    Arnold Ahlert RealClearPolitics
    election 2010
    * The health care bill. The absolute epitome of ideological, public-be-damned arrogance. A horrendous compendium of bribes, exploding bureaucracy, runaway costs, written in secret and unread by those who passed it. It includes a mandate, likely un-Constitutional, forcing people to buy health insurance or pay a fine. The same administration which originally claimed the commerce clause of the Constitution made such a fine possible is now saying that the federal governments’s “power to tax” justifies it. Irrelevant. 60% of Americans want this monstrosity repealed, ASAP.

    * The federal lawsuit against the state of Arizona. Again, it’s the arrogance, stupid. Despite all the hectoring from Democrats and the Obama administration about racist this, and xenophobic that, fair-minded Americans recognized four things: people have a right to protect their life and property, and if the federal government can’t or won’t do it, they have a right to do it themselves; the idea that anyone opposing the “rights” of illegal aliens is a bigot is nonsense on stilts; the ruling class in Washington, D.C. is holding genuine border control hostage to “comprehensive reform;” the glaring double-standard of suing Arizona for violating federal immigration statues, even as the feds turn a blind eye to hundreds of “sanctuary cities” with illegal protection directives unquestionably in conflict with federal law.

    * The demonization of the Tea Party movement. Take your pick: teabaggers, racists, angry white men, fringe elements, bigots, Astro-turfers, etc. etc. Democrats and the media have tried every one, and every one has been a miserable failure for one overwhelmingly simple reason: decent Americans know they’re decent, and getting insulted by Democrats running the country into the ground has only stiffened their resolve. Progressives want to demonize people who believe in smaller government, fiscal responsibility and a desire to return to Constitutional principles? Why not attack people who believe in guns, and religion too? Oh wait. The president already did that as well.

    * A hopelessly compromised media. Air America tanked, CNN is tanking, and ABC, NBC and CBS news programs have been shedding viewers at historically unprecedented rates-even as Fox and the Wall Street Journal prosper. Americans don’t mind people in the media expressing their opinions, as long as they’re characterized as opinions, but they seethe when such opinions are portrayed as “hard news.” They get even angrier when certain stories are “omitted” by those same organizations, especially when Americans recognize such omissions are calculated to protect the progressive agenda. I wonder if it occurs to either Democrats or their media water-carriers that a majority Americans may savor whacking both groups in November. Depressed looks on the faces of Nancy Pelosi and Katie Couric? In theater circles, that’s known as a “two-fer.”

    * The Ground Zero mosque. Yet another reminder of the contempt progressives and their media enablers have for ordinary Americans who had the “temerity” to allow their feelings to be known. Despite every attempt to characterize these Americans as Islamo-phobic bigots, the public wasn’t buying, again for one overwhelmingly simple reason: decent Americans once again demonstrated their decency by separating the legality of the project from the appropriateness of it.

    * The complete disconnect between the First Family and ordinary Americans. The golfing, the soirees, and the high-priced vacations have created the perception that we are living through another “let them eat cake” moment in history. On Tuesday, the president called the public schools in Washington, D.C. a “‘struggling’ system that doesn’t measure up to the needs of first daughters, Sasha and Malia.” Those would be the same public schools Congressional Democrats tossed 3,300 low-income kids back into when they killed funding for vouchers that had freed those kids from D.C.’s educational ghetto. The First Lady is hectoring Americans to eat healthier. Perhaps more Americans would if they could afford to: the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) stated in their Producer Price Index that the price of food increased 2.4% for March 2010. That’s the biggest increase in almost 30 years.

    * The war on terror. A politically correct contingency operation against unnamed insurgents with a specific draw-down date? Democrats once again prove that all the talk about Afghanistan being the “good war” was complete rubbish. They want out, and victory-along with the heroic efforts of our men and women in harm’s way-be damned. Once again: has America ever fought another war where they knew the exact location of the enemy, had the ability to inflict possibly irreparable damage on them-and decided to split the difference instead? If you answered “Vietnam,” another progressively-instigated catastrophe resulting in the deaths of fifty-eight thousand American soldiers and three million innocent Asians, go to the head of the class. And when is that civilian trial of the 9/11 perpetrators scheduled to begin?

    * Czars and nationalization. The Obama administration and Congressional Democrats may bristle when Americans call them socialists, but the nationalization of banks, car and insurance companies, student loans and healthcare sure isn’t free-market capitalism. Neither is wiping out oil jobs in Louisiana with a government-mandated ban on offshore drilling-after the feds completely bungled their role in cleaning up the spill which engendered it. Unelected czars who answer to no one but the president, along with out-of-control government agencies such as the EPA have made it clear to many Americans that this administration often considers Congress a completely unnecessary component of governance, especially if they don’t kowtow to the president’s agenda.

    * “Unexceptional” America. Progressive contempt for the values and traditions which make this the greatest country on earth can no longer be disguised. An American president who “believe(s) in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism” has made it plain that this is not a great nation which needs tweaking, but a fundamentally flawed one needing a complete progressive make-over. Once one understands this basic premise, everything this administration and Democratically-controlled Congress does makes sense. All of it centers around the ridiculous premise that America owes the world an apology for any number of shortcomings, many of which can only be alleviated by government-mandated “social justice.” That would be the same social justice which demanded-and still demands-that Americans manifestly unqualified to own homes be given mortgages, regardless.

    Unknown to the majority of Americans, this precise mindset was part of the financial “reform” bill which also requires banks to lend a certain percentage of capital to minority-owned businesses, even if it means lowering their lending standards. Apparently progressives won’t be satisfied with their odious social-engineering schemes until every sector of the American economy bears a striking resemblance to the housing sector. So far, Americans support financial reform because it’s been framed as “Main Street versus “Wall Street.” It’s not. Like every other initiative undertaken by this Congress and this administration, it’s the elevation of irresponsible and dishonest Americans over those willing to accept the consequences of their own behavior.

    There you have it. Democratic control for four years in Congress, and two in the White House has been exactly what many predicted: an ideologically-driven disaster of epic proportions. For years, progressives obfuscated their true intentions, because even they knew most Americans couldn’t stomach them. The elections of 2006 and 2008 changed everything. Progressives bought into their own hype, believing they had pulled off a multi-generational transformation of the American mindset. As a result, they showed Americans their true colors: unbridled arrogance, utter contempt for the average citizen’s intellect, and a ham-fisted, never let a crisis go to waste determination to bend the electorate to their will, using government as a club.

    That’s why they’re going down in November. And the most satisfying aspect of the whole scenario is this: despite every attempt they’ve made to blame anyone and everyone else for their problems, they brought it on themselves.

  136. Blogus interruptis.. OT:

    Friday there were rumblings 3 of the largest banks in the country were in legal trouble because of faulty practices and inconclusive language contained in their foreclosure agreements… There are lawsuits galore from victimized homeowners. This could be the next BIG thing to hit us. Also an unforseen blunder even the elites had not seen coming, as the info in this article alludes to:
    __________________________________________________

    Foreclosures Bungle Could Hit US Banks

    NEW YORK — Already fragile US financial firms are facing a raft of law suits and potential fines after three major mortgage lenders admitted to mishandling thousands of home foreclosures.

    Major mortgage lenders Bank of American, JPMorgan Chase and GMAC have in recent days announced they were suspending tens of thousands of foreclosure processes across the country due to apparent improper handling of documents.

    Attorney generals in six states are already investigating claims by borrowers that lenders have committed errors in the foreclosure documentations.

    Foreclosures have evolved into a massive industry since the start of the economic crunch as Americans faced massive debts, with the number of mortgage defaults soaring from an annual average of one percent before 2008 to 10 percent today.

    In 2010, more than three million foreclosures were expected to take place in the United States, figures show.

    Documentation problems “are in all probability” likely to exist in 80 percent of them, according to Richard Kessler, an attorney that heads a company dealing with foreclosures.

    The influx of hundreds of thousands of foreclosures led lending institutions to employ people who processed the paperwork as quickly as possible in order to put the property on the market in what has become known as “robo-signing”.

    “This is a case of someone being understaffed cutting corners and trying to get the work down. I didn’t see this story as a malicious attempt against borrowers,” said Michael Moskowitz, CEO of Equity Now, a Manhattan-based mortgage lender.

    Most of the foreclosures are expected to remain in place once the lending institutions re-examine the myriad of cases, even though the process may take years, said Kessler.

    “This is something that in all likelihood may also result in disciplinary proceedings and fines but it will not stop the foreclosures because the money is still owed.”

    But still, the reviews were likely to reveal serious documentation flaws in several cases, which will place the lenders under heavy pressure and risk of big lawsuits from people whose homes have already been foreclosed.

    “The likelihood is that people currently facing foreclosure have a better chance to negotiate some kind of compromise with the lender” that will prevent foreclosure, Kessler said.

    “There is a potential for class action liability in the United States for billions and billions of dollars on behalf of homeowners who lost their homes in proceedings where lenders used these kinds of phony documents.”

    Even without massive lawsuits, the suspension was bound to damage the already fragile financial market and housing industry, Moskowitz said.

    “It is going to encourage people who are in default already to drag it out. In most of the cases it means they will have to start the process again, even though actually speaking, they defaulted,” he said.

    “This isn’t healthy for the market. It is unhealthy for the real estate market because the values are artificially high because all the foreclosures are not on the market yet.

    “It is bad for the finance market because the lenders can’t get their money for years. The losses for the banks will be much bigger.”

    http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5h8hNOR64QAjHgo–Q78dyfGRlHng?docId=CNG.1a0784e21aac121c81b2ba1901011321.e1

  137. wbboei
    October 3rd, 2010 at 11:14 pm
    ========================================

    Indeed, all excellent points to club these idiots with. One other point should be mentioned, and that is Øbama’s “Katrina moment” in the Gulf. George Bush was rightfully lambasted for his response to hurricane Katrina, which turned off many from the Republican brand. Barack Øbama should be lambasted for his inept response to the gulf oil spill, and his seeming indifference to those average American’s who were affected by it. It just wasn’t his vacations that showed a lack of empathy to those who are hurting.

  138. You say you’ll change the constitution
    Well, you know
    We all want to change your head
    You tell me it’s the institution
    Well, you know
    You better free you mind instead
    But if you go carrying pictures of chairman Mao
    You ain’t going to make it with anyone anyhow

  139. Mexican Mayors: Stop Deporting All These Mexicans, They’re Too Violent and Dangerous!
    posted at 10:38 am on October 3, 2010 by Cassy Fiano

    In what may be the most snort-worthy post I’ve read recently, Mexican mayors are actually complaining about Mexicans being deported back to Mexico… because they’re too dangerous and violent.

    Well, yeah. That’s why we don’t want them here. Because they’re criminals.

    …conference in which the mayors of four Mexican border cities and one U.S. mayor, San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders, gathered to discuss cross-border issues.
    Ciudad Juarez Mayor Jose Reyes blamed U.S. deportation policy for contributing to his city’s violence, saying that of the 80,000 people deported to Juarez in the past three years, 28,000 had U.S. criminal records — including 7,000 convicted rapists and 2,000 convicted murderers.
    Those criminal deportees, he said, have contributed to the violence in Juarez, which has reported more than 2,200 murders this year. Reyes and the other Mexican mayors said that when the U.S. deports criminals back to Mexico, it should fly them to their hometowns, not just bus them to the border.
    But critics in America say the Mexican lawmakers are simply trying to pass the buck to the U.S. and its taxpayers. They say the Mexicans should take responsibility for their criminals, who are putting both Mexican and American lives in danger.

    It’s especially snort-worthy considering that open-borders extremists have recently been spouting ridiculous drivel about how calling illegal immigrants illegal is leading to loads of anti-immigrant violence. Reality, of course, is that violent crimes committed by the poor, sweet, victimized illegal immigrants far outweighs any anti-Latino violence imagined by the amnesty advocates.

    And this is, of course, Mexican officials trying to put the blame on the United States instead of taking responsibility for their own citizens. Yes, a large number of these Mexican illegal immigrants are, in fact, criminals, and oftentimes violent criminals at that. That’s why we don’t want them here. That’s why so many Americans want to get tough on immigration — starting with securing the border. You’d think Mexican officials would understand this, considering Mexico’s own strict immigration laws. Could this have anything to do with the Reconquista mindset encouraged by Mexico’s own president?

    Speaking of violent Mexicans, Green Room blogger Director Blue reports on another tragic American death at the hands of Mexicans. David and Tiffany Hartley were jet skiing on Falcon Lake, and rode over to the Mexican side to take pictures of a Spanish mission. They were chased by Mexican boats, where Tiffany’s husband David was shot in the head and fell into the water. When she went back to retrieve his body, the thugs held a gun to her head.

    Tiffany Hartley told deputies she and her husband David were jet skiing near the town of Old Guerrrero. Hartley told investigators her husband was shot in the head and killed. She says she was forced to leave his body behind as the gunmen fired more bullets at her.

    … Hartley did tell authorities after the shooting she got help from a man on shore. The Good Samaritan told deputies he saw the Mexican boats chasing her into US waters. CHANNEL 5 NEWS spoke to the man who stepped up to help Tiffany in those first terrifying moments after her husbands murder.

    The Good Samaritan wants to remain anonymous because he fears for his life. He was on the west side of the lake. He goes there once a week, but for some reason he went twice this week.
    For him it was just another day on Falcon Lake. The sky was clear, and there were people out having fun. Then, out of the blue he saw a jetski being chased by a boat. Everything would change for the Good Samaritan when he heard Tiffany Hartley rushing toward him. As she sobbed she told him her husband had been shot.

    “She could see the gunshots wounds to his head. His brains were falling and he was not breathing,” he said. The man tried to console her. She told him she and her husband David had gone to old Guerrro on the Mexico side of the lake to take pictures of a Spanish mission.

    “Three boats approached them, waving guns talking in Spanish,” he said. “They got scared, spooked then they heard the gunshots going on. She could see they were hitting the water and the water was coming up at them. [A]ll of a sudden she sees her husband flying off.”

    Tiffany told him she turned around to go take care of her husband, but two pirates went after her jetski. One pirate held a gun to her head. Once he left she tried to pull her husband body onto her jetski but she didn’t have the strength.

    She told the Good Samaritan she made an agonizing decision. She left her husband behind because she could see a pirate charging towards her. Her story is forever imprinted in his head.

    Authorities believe this was the work of pirates working for a drug cartel, who have often been robbing boaters at gunpoint. This is the fifth violent incident at Falcon Lake in five months, with the worst obviously being David Hartley’s murder.

    Why would we want to keep these kind of violent criminals in United States territory? The stance of the Mexican mayors would be understandable if we were abandoning violent American criminals in Mexico. But we aren’t. These are Mexican citizens, meaning they were Mexico’s problem. Americans are already shouldering the burden of harboring Mexico’s worst criminals. These violent criminals are Mexico’s responsibility.

    Of course, knowing our current leadership, these Mexican loons will probably get time to complain in front of Congress, where Obama will promptly apologize for the United States selfishness in expecting Mexico to take responsibility for its own citizens.

  140. SouthernBorn, Why in the world would they want to bring up Jennifer Flowers?

    My guess is that the insiders know she is going to run and want to bring up all the old garbage. Fox is trying to discourage her from running….anything to keep their investment in office.

  141. We sure need to make sure which dems have no honor…the SOS has plenty of it. That is what makes her get up everyday and work for the stooge at the helm.

  142. From Jihad Watch:

    Pakistan: Muslims murder entire Christian family, including five children
    The kuffar stepped out of line. Their crime? Standing up to a Muslim who was charging Christians exorbitant interest.

    Yes, interest is automatically riba, or usury, under Islamic law, but note the double standard the man was upholding: he was just doing his part to make sure the Christians “feel themselves subdued,” as the Qur’an commands (9:29).

    Acts like this against non-Muslims are direct consequences of the Qur’an’s hateful rhetoric against unbelievers, and its open-ended commands to establish and maintain Islam’s dominance by any means necessary: enterprising believers will oblige. “Muslim Extremists Murder Christian Family in Pakistan,” from Compass Direct News, September 30 (thanks to Weavo):

    ISLAMABAD, Pakistan, September 30 (CDN) — Islamic extremists killed a Christian lawyer, his wife and their five children in northwestern Pakistan this week for mounting a legal challenge against a Muslim who was charging a Christian exorbitant interest, local sources said.

    Police found the bodies of attorney and evangelist Edwin Paul and his family on Tuesday morning (Sept. 28) at their home in Haripur, a small town near Abbotabad in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Province (previously known as the North-West Frontier Province, or NWFP), according to Haripur Station House Officer (SHO) Maqbool Khan.

    The victim and his wife Ruby Paul, along with their five children ages 6 to 17, had been shot to death.

  143. After thinking about Gibbs being head of the DNC…the must be a civil war going on in it right now….Why would they want Gibbs as head of the DNC unless to either stop Hillary or Dean. I think Dean has the backing of Soros again.

  144. More from Jihad Watch:

    This is lengthy, and very good, imo. It’s a speech from the same man who spoke at the anti-mosque rally in New York City recently. I like the way this man thinks.

    ———————————————–

    Geert Wilders: Speech in Berlin yesterday
    Geert Wilders Speech in Berlin
    October 2, 2010

    Dear Friends,

    I am very happy to be here in Berlin today. As you know, the invitation which my friend René Stadtkewitz extended to me, has cost him his membership of the CDU group in the Berlin Parliament. René, however, did not give in to the pressure. He did not betray his convictions. His dismissal prompted René to start a new political party. I wish him all the best. As you may have heard, the past weeks were extremely busy for me. Earlier this week we succeeded in forging a minority government of the Liberals and the Christian-Democrats which will be supported by my party. This is an historic event for the Netherlands. I am very proud of having helped to achieve this. At this very moment the Christian-Democrat Party conference is deciding whether or not to approves this coalition. If they do, we will be able to rebuild our country, preserve our national identity and offer our children a better future.

    Despite my busy schedule at home, however, I insisted on coming to Berlin, because Germany, too, needs a political movement to defend German identity and to oppose the Islamization of Germany. Chancellor Angela Merkel says that the Islamization of Germany is inevitable. She conveys the message that citizens have to be prepared for more changes as a result of immigration. She wants the Germans to adapt to this situation. The Christian-Democrat leader said: “More than before mosques will be an integral part of our cities.”

    My friends, we should not accept the unacceptable as inevitable without trying to turn the tide. It is our duty as politicians to preserve our nations for our children. I hope that René’s movement will be as successful as my own Partij voor de Vrijheid, as Oskar Freysinger’s Schweizerische Volkspartei in Switzerland, as Pia Kjaersgaard’s Dansk Folkeparti in Denmark, and similar movements elsewhere.

    My good friend Pia recently spoke in Sweden at the invitation of the Sverigedemokraterna. She said: “I have not come to mingle in Swedish domestic politics because that is for the Swedish people to be concerned with. No, I have come because in spite of certain differences the Swedish debate in many ways reminds me of the Danish debate 10-15 years ago. And I have come to Sweden because it is also a concern to Denmark. We cannot sit with our hands in our lap and be silent witnesses to the political development in Sweden.”

    The same applies for me as a Dutchman with respect to Germany. I am here because Germany matters to the Netherlands and the rest of the world, and because we cannot establish an International Freedom Alliance without a strong German partner.

    Dear friends, tomorrow is the Day of German Unity. Tomorrow exactly twenty years ago, your great nation was reunified after the collapse of the totalitarian Communist ideology. The Day of German Unity is an important day for the whole of Europe. Germany is the largest democracy in Europe. Germany is Europe’s economic powerhouse. The wellbeing and prosperity of Germany is a benefit to all of us, because the wellbeing and prosperity of Germany is a prerequisite for the wellbeing and prosperity of Europe.

    Today I am here, however, to warn you for looming disunity. Germany’s national identity, its democracy and economic prosperity, is being threatened by the political ideology of Islam. In 1848, Karl Marx began his Communist Manifesto with the famous words: “A specter is haunting Europe – the specter of communism.” Today, another specter is haunting Europe. It is the specter of Islam. This danger, too, is political. Islam is not merely a religion, as many people seem to think: Islam is mainly a political ideology.

    This insight is not new.

    I quote from the bestselling book and BBC television series The Triumph of the West which the renowned Oxford historian J.M. Roberts wrote in 1985: “Although we carelessly speak of Islam as a ‘religion’; that word carries many overtones of the special history of western Europe. The Muslim is primarily a member of a community, the follower of a certain way, an adherent to a system of law, rather than someone holding particular theological views.” The Flemish Professor Urbain Vermeulen, the former president of the European Union of Arabists and Islamicists, too, points out that “Islam is primarily a legal system, a law,” rather than a religion.

    The American political scientist Mark Alexander writes that “One of our greatest mistakes is to think of Islam as just another one of the world’s great religions. We shouldn’t. Islam is politics or it is nothing at all, but, of course, it is politics with a spiritual dimension, … which will stop at nothing until the West is no more, until the West has … been well and truly Islamized.”

    These are not just statements by opponents of Islam. Islamic scholars say the same thing. There cannot be any doubt about the nature of Islam to those who have read the Koran, the Sira and the Hadith. Abul Ala Maududi, the influential 20th century Pakistani Islamic thinker, wrote – I quote, emphasizing that these are not my words but those of a leading Islamic scholar – “Islam is not merely a religious creed [but] a revolutionary ideology and jihad refers to that revolutionary struggle … to destroy all states and governments anywhere on the face of the earth, which are opposed to the ideology and program of Islam.”

    Ali Sina, an Iranian Islamic apostate who lives in Canada, points out that there is one golden rule that lies at the heart of every religion – that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. In Islam, this rule only applies to fellow believers, but not to Infidels. Ali Sina says “The reason I am against Islam is not because it is a religion, but because it is a political ideology of imperialism and domination in the guise of religion. Because Islam does not follow the Golden Rule, it attracts violent people.”

    A dispassionate study of the beginnings of Islamic history reveals clearly that Muhammad’s objective was first to conquer his own people, the Arabs, and to unify them under his rule, and then to conquer and rule the world. That was the original cause; it was obviously political and was backed by military force. “I was ordered to fight all men until they say ‘There is no god but Allah,'” Muhammad said in his final address. He did so in accordance with the Koranic command in sura 8:39: “Fight them until there is no more dissension and the religion is entirely Allah’s.”
    According to the mythology, Muhammad founded Islam in Mecca after the Angel Gabriel visited him for the first time in the year 610. The first twelve years of Islam, when Islam was religious rather than political, were not a success. In 622, Muhammad emigrated to Yathrib, a predominantly Jewish oasis, with his small band of 150 followers. There he established the first mosque in history, took over political power, gave Yathrib the name of Medina, which means the “City of the Prophet,” and began his career as a military and a political leader who conquered all of Arabia. Tellingly, the Islamic calendar starts with the hijra, the migration to Medina – the moment when Islam became a political movement.

    After Muhammad’s death, based upon his words and deeds, Islam developed Sharia, an elaborate legal system which justified the repressive governance of the world by divine right – including rules for jihad and for the absolute control of believers and non-believers. Sharia is the law of Saudi Arabia and Iran, among other Islamic states. It is also central to the Organization of the Islamic Conference, which in article 24 of its Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam, proclaims that “all rights and freedoms are subject to the Islamic Sharia.” The OIC is not a religious institution; it is a political body. It constitutes the largest voting block in the United Nations and writes reports on so-called “Islamophobia” in Western Countries which accuse us of human rights violations. To speak in biblical terms: They look for a speck in our eye, but deny the beam in their own.

    Under Sharia law people in the conquered territories have no legal rights, not even the right to life and to own property, unless they convert to Islam.

    Before I continue, and in order to avoid any misunderstandings, I want to emphasize that I am talking about Islam, not about Muslims. I always make a clear distinction between the people and the ideology, between Muslims and Islam. There are many moderate Muslims, but the political ideology of Islam is not moderate and has global ambitions. It aims to impose Islamic law or Sharia upon the whole world. The way to achieve this is through jihad. The good news is that millions of Muslims around the world – including many in Germany and the Netherlands – do not follow the directives of Sharia, let alone engage in jihad. The bad news, however, is that those who do are prepared to use all available means to achieve their ideological, revolutionary goal.

    In 1954, in his essay Communism and Islam, Professor Bernard Lewis spoke of “the totalitarianism, of the Islamic political tradition.” Professor Lewis said that “The traditional Islamic division of the world into the House of Islam and the House of War, … has obvious parallels in the Communist view of world affairs. … The aggressive fanaticism of the believer is the same.”

    The American political scientist Mark Alexander states that the nature of Islam differs very little – and only in detail rather than style – from despicable and totalitarian political ideologies such as National-Socialism and Communism. He lists the following characteristics for these three ideologies.

    * They use political purges to “cleanse” society of what they considere undesirable;

    * They tolerate only a single political party. Where Islam allows more parties, it insists that all parties be Islamic ones;

    * They coerce the people along the road that it must follow;

    * They obliterate the liberal distinction between areas of private judgment and of public control;

    * They turn the educational system into an apparatus for the purpose of universal indoctrination;

    * They lay down rules for art, for literature, for science and for religion;

    * They subdue people who are given second class status;

    * They induce a frame of mind akin to fanaticism. Adjustment takes place by struggle and dominance;

    * They are abusive to their opponents and regard any concession on their own part as a temporary expedient and on a rival’s part as a sign of weakness;

    * They regard politics as an expression of power;

    * They are anti-Semitic.
    There is one more striking parallel, but this is not a characteristic of the three political ideologies, but one of the West. It is the apparent inability of the West to see the danger. The prerequisite to understanding political danger, is a willingness to see the truth, even if it is unpleasant. Unfortunately, modern Western politicians seem to have lost this capacity. Our inability leads us to reject the logical and historical conclusions to be drawn from the facts, though we could, and should know better. What is wrong with modern Western man that we make the same mistake over and over again?

    There is no better place to ponder this question than here in Berlin, the former capital of the evil empire of Nazi Germany and a city which was held captive by the so-called German “Democratic” Republic for over forty years.

    When the citizens of Eastern Europe rejected Communism in 1989, they were inspired by dissidents such as Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, Václav Havel, Vladimir Bukovsky, and others, who told them that people have a right, but also an obligation, to “live within the truth.” Freedom requires eternal vigilance; so it is with truth. Solzhenitsyn added, however, that “truth is seldom sweet; it is almost invariably bitter.” Let us face the bitter truth: We have lost our capacity to see the danger and understand the truth because we no longer value freedom.

    Politicians from almost all establishment politicians today are facilitating Islamization. They are cheering for every new Islamic school, Islamic bank, Islamic court. They regard Islam as being equal to our own culture. Islam or freedom? It does not really matter to them. But it does matter to us. The entire establisment elite – universities, churches, trade unions, the media, politicians – are putting our hard-earned liberties at risk. They talk about equality, but amazingly fail to see how in Islam women have fewer rights than men and infidels have fewer rights than adherents of Islam.

    Are we about to repeat the fatal mistake of the Weimar Republic? Are we succumbing to Islam because our commitment to freedom is already dead? No, it will not happen. We are not like Frau Merkel. We do not accept Islamization as inevitable. We have to keep freedom alive. And, to the extent that we have already lost it, we must reclaim it in our democratic elections. That is why we need political parties that defend freedom. To support such parties I have established the International Freedom Alliance.

    As you know, I am standing trial in the Netherlands. On Monday, I have to go to court again and I will have to spend most of the coming month there. I have been brought to court because of my opinions on Islam and because I have voiced these opinions in speeches, articles and in my documentary film Fitna. I live under constant police protection because Islamic extremists want to assassinate me, and I am in court because the Dutch establishment – most of them non-Muslims – wants to silence me.

    I have been dragged to court because in my country freedom can no longer be fully enjoyed. Unlike America, we do not have a First Amendment which guarantees people the freedom to express their opinions and foster public debate by doing so. Unlike America, in Europe the national state, and increasingly the European Union, prescribes how citizens – including democratically elected politicians such as myself – should think and what we are allowed to say.

    One of the things we are no longer allowed to say is that our culture is superior to certain other cultures. This is seen as a discriminatory statement – a statement of hatred even. We are indoctrinated on a daily basis, in the schools and through the media, with the message that all cultures are equal and that, if one culture is worse than all the rest, it is our own. We are inundated with feelings of guilt and shame about our own identity and what we stand for. We are exhorted to respect everyone and everything, except ourselves. That is the message of the Left and the politically-correct ruling establishment. They want us to feel so ashamed about our own identity that we refuse to fight for it.

    The detrimental obsession of our cultural and political elites with Western guilt reinforces the view which Islam has of us. The Koran says that non-Muslims are kuffar (the plural of kafir), which literally means “rejecters” or “ingrates.” Hence, infidels are “guilty.” Islam teaches that in our natural state we have all been born as believers. Islam teaches that if we are not believers today this is by our own or by our forefathers’ fault. Subsequently, we are always kafir – guilty – because either we or our fathers are apostates. And, hence, according to some, we deserve subjugation.

    Our contemporary leftist intellectuals are blind to the dangers of Islam.
    Former Soviet dissident Vladimir Bukovsky argues that after the fall of communism, the West failed to expose those who had collaborated with the Communists by advocating policies of détente, improved relations, relaxation of international tension, peaceful coexistence. He points out that the Cold War was “a war we never won. We never even fought it. … Most of the time the West engaged in a policy of appeasement toward the Soviet bloc – and appeasers don’t win wars.”

    Islam is the Communism of today. But, because of our failure to come clean with Communism, we are unable to deal with it, trapped as we are in the old Communist habit of deceit and double-speak that used to haunt the countries in the East and that now haunts all of us. Because of this failure, the same leftist people who turned a blind eye to Communism then, turn a blind eye to Islam today. They are using exactly the same arguments in favor of détente, improved relations, and appeasement as before. They argue that our enemy is as peace-loving as we are, that if we meet him half-way he will do the same, that he only asks respect and that if we respect him he will respect us. We even hear a repetition of the old moral equivalence mantra. They used to say that Western “imperialism” was as bad as Soviet imperialism; they are now saying that Western “imperialism” is as bad as Islamic terrorism.

    In my speech near Ground Zero in New York on September 11, I emphasized that we must stop the “Blame the West, Blame America”-game which Islamic spokesmen are playing with us. And we must stop playing this game ourselves. I have the same message for you. It is an insult to tell us that we are guilty and deserve what is happening to us. We do not deserve becoming strangers in our own land. We should not accept such insults. First of all, Western civilization is the freest and most prosperous on earth, which is why so many immigrants are moving here, instead of Westerners moving there. And secondly, there is no such thing as collective guilt. Free individuals are free moral agents who are responsible for their own deeds only.

    I am very happy to be here in Berlin today to give this message which is extremely important, especially in Germany. Whatever happened in your country in the past, the present generation is not responsible for it. Whatever happened in the past, it is no excuse for punishing the Germans today. But it is also no excuse for you to refuse to fight for your own identity. Your only responsibility is to avoid the mistakes of the past. It is your duty to stand with those threatened by the ideology of Islam, such as the State of Israel and your Jewish compatriots. The Weimar Republic refused to fight for freedom and was overrun by a totalitarian ideology, with catastrophic consequences for Germany, the rest of Europe and the world. Do not fail to fight for your freedom today.

    I am happy to be in your midst today because it seems that twenty years after German reunification, a new generation no longer feels guilty for being German. The current and very intense debate about Thilo Sarrazin’s recent book is an indication of the fact that Germany is coming to terms with itself.

    I have not yet read Dr. Sarrazin’s book myself, but I understand that while the ruling politically-correct establishment is almost unanimously critical of his thesis and he lost his job, a large majority of Germans acknowledges that Dr. Sarrazin is addressing important and pressing issues. “Germany is abolishing itself,” warns Sarrazin, and he calls on the Germans to halt this process. The enormous impact of his book indicates that many Germans feel the same way. The people of Germany do not want Germany to be abolished, despite all the political indoctrination they have been subjected to. Germany is no longer ashamed to assert its national pride.

    In these difficult times, where our national identity is under threat, we must stop feeling guilty about who we are. We are not “kafir,” we are not guilty. Like other peoples, Germans have the right to remain who they are. Germans must not become French, nor Dutch, nor Americans, nor Turks. They should remain Germans. When the Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan visited your country in 2008, he told the Turks living here that they had to remain Turks. He literally said that “assimilation is a crime against humanity.” Erdogan would have been right if he had been addressing the Turks in Turkey. However, Germany is the land of the Germans. Hence, the Germans have a right to demand that those who come to live in Germany assimilate; they have the right – no they have a duty to their children – to demand that newcomers respect the German identity of the German nation and Germany’s right to preserve its identity.

    We must realize that Islam expands in two ways. Since it is not a religion, conversion is only a marginal phenomenon. Historically, Islam expanded either by military conquest or by using the weapon of hijra, immigration. Muhammad conquered Medina through immigration. Hijra is also what we are experiencing today. The Islamization of Europe continues all the time. But the West has no strategy for dealing with the Islamic ideology, because our elites say that we must adapt to them rather than the other way round.

    There is a lesson which we can learn in this regard from America, the freest nation on earth. Americans are proud of their nation, its achievements and its flag. We, too, should be proud of our nation. The United States has always been a nation of immigrants. U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt was very clear about the duty of immigrants. Here is what he said: “We should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else … But this is predicated upon the man’s becoming in very fact an American, and nothing but an American. … There can be no divided allegiance here. … We have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.”

    It is not up to me to define what Germany’s national identity consists of. That is entirely up to you. I do know, however, that German culture, like that of neighboring countries, such as my own, is rooted in judeo-christian and humanist values. Every responsible politician has a political obligation to preserve these values against ideologies which threaten them. A Germany full of mosques and veiled women is no longer the Germany of Goethe, Schiller and Heine, Bach and Mendelssohn. It will be a loss to us all. It is important that you cherish and preserve your roots as a nation. Otherwise you will not be able to safeguard your identity; you will be abolished as a people, and you will lose your freedom. And the rest of Europe will lose its freedom with you.

    My friends, when Ronald Reagan came to a divided Berlin 23 years ago he uttered the historic words „Mister Gorbachev, tear down this wall.” President Reagan was not an appeaser, but a man who spoke the truth because he loved freedom. Today, we, too, must tear down a wall. It is not a wall of concrete, but of denial and ignorance about the real nature of Islam. The International Freedom Alliance aims to coordinate and stimulate these efforts.

    Because we speak the truth, voters have given my party, the Partij voor de Vrijheid, and other parties, such as the Dansk Folkeparti and the Schweizerische Volkspartei, the power to influence the political decision process, whether that be in opposition or in government or by supporting a minority government – as we want to do in the Netherlands. President Reagan showed that by speaking the truth one can change the course of history. He showed that there is no need to despair. Never! Just do your duty. Be not afraid. Speak the truth. Defend Freedom. Together we can preserve freedom, together we must preserve freedom, and together, my friends, we will be able to preserve freedom.

    Thank you.

  145. It really doesn’t matter who will head the DNC at this time. It will matter who heads the DNC only after the extent of anti-Democrat feelings are brought to the fore in the 2010 and 2012 elections. It’s the only way the party will throw off Øbamacrats, and until then, the DNC will be headed by someone who lives in an alternate reality.

  146. In 1848, Karl Marx began his Communist Manifesto with the famous words: “A specter is haunting Europe – the specter of communism.” Today, another specter is haunting Europe. It is the specter of Islam.

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

    Exactly! The same wonderful people who brought us the Intrnational Communist Conspiracy and Mutually Assured Destruction — have just done Search and Replace to make a new International Conspiracy bogeyman.

  147. Communism was an ideology, a virus that could infest ANY country anywhere in the world. Now conveniently the International Islamic Conspiracy is found (or created) in any country where Cheney finds oil.

  148. Rendell: ‘Tepid’ support good enough for Democrats
    Published October 03, 2010 | FoxNews.com
    Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell had a piece of advice Sunday for Democratic strategists trying to lure the “liberal” base out to the polls — voters don’t have to like the party’s candidates, they just have to vote for them. The Democratic governor stressed the importance of get-out-the-vote efforts in the final weeks of the midterm election campaigns. He said Democrats need to stress that the alternative of a Republican-led Congress is “bad” for voters — even if those voters aren’t wild about the Democratic candidates.

    [I ran across this article yesterday, then forgot where I’d found it. Wanted to comment at this point of it that 1) We tried voting Democrat in 2006; it did not work. 2) Many tried voting Democrat in 2008 and that really bombed. So for voting in 2010, you want us to do what???? But then I liked the rest of the article too much to snip it. So here is the rest: ]

    “Our job in the next four weeks is to tell our base, our liberal friends, this is a choice. And the other choice is starkly bad for America and for the things you believe in,” Rendell said on CBS’ “Face the Nation.” “And remember, there’s an old political adage. All we have got to do is get them to the polls because a tepid vote counts the same as a wildly enthusiastic vote.” The comments come amid some Democratic bickering over the enthusiasm gap between the GOP and Democratic bases. Far more Republicans have voted in the primaries than Democrats, and President Obama said in an interview published last week that Democratic voters need to get off the “sidelines” – he called Democratic apathy “inexcusable” in the midterm election. Democratic New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson on Sunday agreed that the party needs to “energize” the base, calling President Obama and Vice President Biden the best people to do that. But he said Democrats need to connect better with voters “emotionally” and urged the party to stop criticizing itself. “If there’s one message that I want to send, is that we should stop firing at each other. We’ve got enough people, the Republicans, firing at us already. … We don’t need these divisions in the party,” Richardson said on “Face the Nation.”
    h t t p://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/10/03/rendell-tepid-support-good-democrats/

    PS: I thought Bill Richardson had been disgraced sufficiently so that he would not be shilling for Democrats. Yet another sign of their desperation?

  149. nomobama
    October 4th, 2010 at 2:09 am

    From Jihad Watch:

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

    PLEASE think about the effects that these nasty stories might have.

    seerpress.com/nyc-islamic-center-backers-threatened/8622/

    NYC Islamic Center Backers Threatened

    Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf and his wife Daisy Khan, the backers and planners of the Islamic Center to be built near the site of the 9/11 bombings in New York City, have reported that their lives are under threat due to their support for the center.
    Rauf and Khan are reported to be avoiding New York as much as possible due to the threats on their lives.

  150. turndownobama

    Daisy stated that on Christiana A. show yesterday, and the other notables on the show said that they had threats also, indicating she was not different.

    holdthemaccountable

    I was surprised to see Richardson there also, but then his approval rating in the state is down to 36%, so he probabl does not spend much time in the stae. I know the LTG running for Gov as not used him. He also wants to lobby for a job if O get a second term, like going to Spain (Ambassator, but that is not spelled right, sorry).

  151. http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20100923/1awomen23_st.art.htm

    WASHINGTON — [….]
    The survey concludes that the advice often given to women — to ignore the attacks rather than risk giving them more attention — is wrong. Responding directly helped the female candidate regain lost ground and cost her opponent support.

    “I was stunned at the magnitude of the effect of even mild sexism,” says Democratic pollster Celinda Lake, who did the survey. “Right now campaigns tend to be silent and try to tough it out, and this opens up a whole new strategy of responding.”

    The groups that sponsored the research are the Women’s Media Center, the WCF Foundation and Political Parity. They will announce a joint initiative today called “Name It. Change It” designed to monitor and respond to sexism against female candidates in the media.
    [….]
    •Her support rebounded after a mild response — calling the discussion “inappropriate” and turning to issues — and after a more direct counterattack that decried “sexist, divisive rhetoric.”

  152. Daisy stated that on Christiana A. show yesterday, and the other notables on the show said that they had threats also, indicating she was not different.

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

    Which other notables? How recent were their threats? How much media wordage has recently been given to condemnation of the other notables? How many condemnations of their whole religion? Any accounts of murders by people who are said to share their religion?

  153. tdo: this one is a different stripe, I but have been wondering if this threat source received broad coverage:
    Stalker admits threats
    By Heather A. Resz
    Frontiersman
    Published on Thursday, September 30, 2010 9:36 PM AKDT

    MAT-SU — One month to the day after Sarah PAC member Shawn R. Christy, 18, spent $200 on a ticket to a Pennsylvania fund-raiser where Sarah Palin was speaking, an Anchorage magistrate issued restraining orders preventing him from contacting or coming within a mile of the Palin family or Kristan Cole. Christy attended that August fund-raiser. He doesn’t deny he made threats against Palin and Cole. He doesn’t deny quoting the Bible in his letters and e-mails. He does deny he intended to harm the President of the United States, U.S. Sen. John McCain or Palin. All total, his father, Craig Christy, estimates his son made well over 100 threats against these three….
    h t t p://www.frontiersman.com/articles/2010/10/01/local_news/doc4ca56d05a3358237841101.txt

  154. turndownobama,

    The truth hurts. I realize that. I don’t encourage any harm to Daisy and her husband, but neither to I encourage any harm to the Christians of Palestine, Iraq, or Indonesia. I simply do not believe in the altruistic notion of the faux Islamic moderates Daisy and Rauf. Their actions are total opposite of an altruist’s actions. I will not dispense with the truth as I understand it in order for America to be hoodwinked by two people and their supporters who could give two shits about anything but the advancement of Islam in their adopted homeland. Again, nothing personal to you. I am for protecting America from those who are trying to crush her, body and soul.

  155. By the way, it is not a boogeyman concept to write that Islam is on a march to destroy any society that does not agree with its supremacist ideology. I applaud your use of communism in your comment since Islam and communism are two ideologies that are more concerned with promoting themselves, and destroying the culture of America as it has existed since its inception. There is no freedom under Islam for those who oppose it.

  156. The Most Compelling Reason Why Obama Will Not Run In 2012
    (Or, What Bill Really Meant)

    It has been clear to many thinking people for some time that the United States will not be the single dominant power in the world in the near future, and that we as Americans must be prepared to adjust our standard of living accordingly. Whether that occurs through a soft landing or a navy landing however depends on many factors and therefore remains to be seen. (Note: see the work of economic historian Naills Ferguson of Oxford, London School of Economics, Harvard.)

    This great reckoning was an open secret with the political class. Instead of confronting that hard truth and its many adverse implications, they he chose to repeat the old mantra, which is that the United States is the leader of the world, and our economic future would be better for our children. Oh sure you would find emanations of this in big media, but they have played the little boy who cried wolf once too often to be seen as credible on this or any other issue.

    I was puzzled as to why Bill Clinton would bring this harsh truth to light now, and Mrs. Smith gave a brilliant response to that question, as she always does. But there are two additional reasons which occurred to me only this morning and they make alot of sense the more I think about them. I wonder if any of you agree.

    Reason I: this is the first time any politician of stature has told the truth to the American People on this issue. It was far easier for the political class to promote the lie, than to tell a four year old that there is no Santa Claus. I say a four year old because that is roughly the mental acuity of the people who voted for Obama. Ditto big media. But now that Bill has opened the door, others will surely follow. If the Republicans take control of Congress in November, then others will reiterate what Bill has said, and a new consensus will form. And then we can move from a state of denial to a more productive discussion of how do we adjust our habits and how will the burden be equitable shared. However, I make no prediction on how that will go, because history has shown that when lives are uprooted by economic forces, there is no certainty that displaced loggers will make skilled computer operators, etc.

    Reason II: this has to do with the marketing concept of brand obsolescence. Brand Obama was not about less is more. It was about hope and change. In Hollywood, there are actors who make a big splash in a particular role, and from that day forward they are type cast, meaning that they are not considered for other roles. How does a man who promised us hope and change tell us less is more. He can’t. And even if he could he won’t. And even if he tried he would not be credible. He is wrong for the role. And the people who put him in there know this. That being the case, I now understand why Bill said what he said. This statement, indeed this reality, makes brand Obama obsolete, hence the king makers must look elsewhere in 2012.

  157. JBTJONESFAN! Sorry I just saw this post, I hope you see it while you are in Cleveland. Sorry, to hear the visit is at the Cleveland Clinic but that is an excellent hospital. I go there myself for some issues. As for what to see? /Rock hall, yes. But the Clinic is near University Circle, that’s a few blocks away. All the museums are there and I’d suggest you visit the botanical gardens. Also, downtown’s E. 4 street is great for dining…Iron Chef Michael Symon’s restaurant is there. Also, near the clinic is “little Italy”…many cool shops and eateries. Enjoy! If you see this, contact me at shenangn@aol.com and we can meet up. 🙂

  158. What if Hillary were President?

    October 4th, 2010
    Mary Shaw

    Like many other progressive Democrats who are disappointed in President Obama’s failure so far to bring about as much social change as we had hoped for, I’ve been pondering the alternatives.

    If John McCain had won the White House, this country would surely be in far worse straits — perhaps with even more war, even less corporate regulation, and an even worse economy. So obviously we are lucky that McCain did not win.

    But what if Hillary Clinton had defeated Obama in the primaries and had gone on to win the White House? How would things be different if she were President?

    I threw this question out to my Facebook and Twitter followers. It certainly wasn’t a scientific survey. It was more like the preacher surveying the choir. But it led to some good discussions, albeit no real surprises.

    The majority of respondents believe that things would be pretty much the same if Clinton were President. They see the Obama administration as a rerun of the Bill Clinton administration — too centrist, too indulgent of big business, and too afraid of ruffling the feathers of the vast right-wing conspiracy.

    Others reflected my own gut feeling that things might be a bit better for progressives today if Clinton had won. Throughout the first year of his presidency, we saw Obama still playing the community organizer — making deals, being nice, and bending over backwards in hopes of engaging the Republicans in Congress who obviously only want him to fail. And that set a precedent, teaching the Republicans that they could walk all over Obama and, by extension, the Congressional Democrats.

    What this country needs is a leader, not an organizer. The Chief of Staff (though obviously not this last one) can handle the organizing. We need a President who is strong and tough. And I think there’s no doubt that Clinton is, in general, much stronger and tougher than Obama, and would have come across as such from day one.

    Personalities aside, Clinton also knows how to play the Washington game. Obama is still learning. Right now we cannot afford so much on-the-job training.

    Interestingly, no one responded with the opinion that things would be worse if Clinton were President. One person did point out that a Hillary Clinton presidency would bring out a lot of sexism, but that would simply have replaced the racism we’ve been seeing as a result of having an African American in the White House.

    And that last point is perhaps the most telling.

    The Republicans cannot win on the facts of the issues. And so Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and their cohorts in the conservative media use fear and emotion. And they’re getting better and better at it.

    Having an African American in the White House makes it easy for them to incite fear amongst the ignorant that people of color will take over this country.

    Having a woman in the White House would have provided an equally easy opportunity to stir up the misogyny, as they have already been doing to some extent since Nancy Pelosi became Speaker of the House.

    And Democratic politicians and candidates are no safer if they happen to be white males. Where the conservative pundits cannot use race or gender, they will use guns or gays or any other issue they can spin to incite fear of the real or imagined Democratic agenda.

    As long as these right-wing scare tactics are accepted and tolerated, none of this will change, regardless of who occupies the White House.

    So the final answer to my original question is that it probably doesn’t matter.

    And that is what we the people should really be afraid of.

    Mary Shaw is a Philadelphia-based writer and activist. She is a former Philadelphia Area Coordinator for the Nobel-Prize-winning human rights group Amnesty International, and her views on politics, human rights, and social justice issues have appeared in numerous online forums and in newspapers and magazines worldwide. Note that the ideas expressed here are the author’s own, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Amnesty International or any other organization with which she may be associated. E-mail: mary@maryshawonline.com

    http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/TPV3/Voices.php/2010/10/04/what-if-hillary-were-president

  159. What are your takes on how the White House feels about Bill Clinton now?
    ——————————–
    I hope they realize two things. First, they are up to their ass in alligators, and the alligators are biting. Second, Bill is a force of nature, and they cannot control what he says. If they try they are in even bigger trouble. Certainly, the choice of Rouse, as in whale louse, from the discredited Daschale machine is an indication that even now they just do not get it.

  160. wbboei
    October 3rd, 2010 at 6:08 pm

    [snip]
    “He was looking for choices that would limit U.S. involvement and provide a way out,” writes Woodward. One can only conclude that Obama now thinks Afghanistan is a mistake. Maybe he thought so from the very beginning. More charitably and more likely, he is simply a foreign policy novice who didn’t understand what this war was about until being given the authority and duty to conduct it — and then decided it was all a mistake.
    &&&&&&&&

    Yes, we keep paying for Obama’s learning curve, and not just with Afghanistan.

    And worse, it does not appear that the pupil (or “new employee”) is adept at picking things up, learning…

    And worse yet, it does not appear that they even care.

  161. NY STATE SENATE RACE TIGHTENING?

    Let’s give the conclusion first:

    Conclusion
    ———-
    DioGuardi isn’t likely to win, but it certainly is possible. The SurveyUSA poll is a best-case scenario for DioGuardi among current polling, but it nevertheless depicts a realistic scenario for him to get within a point of Gillibrand with the present electorate. Of course, his “reward” for winning this race would be to run again two years later, against a Democratic opponent approved by the Democratic Party, with Barack Obama at the top of the ticket.

    Loads of info if you click on the link, including maps I could not paste in:

    realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/10/04/could_kirsten_gillbrand_lose_in_new_york_107423.html

    Here are some of the highlights at the top:

    Could Kirsten Gillibrand Lose in New York?
    ===========
    By Sean Trende – October 4, 2010

    If you’ve been following the New York Senate polls closely for the last year, you’ve noticed that Democratic Senator Kirsten Gillibrand has been hovering around 50 percent for most of the past two years. This is dangerous territory for any incumbent to be in – by my count, only three incumbents in the last three years who averaged less than 50 percent in August polling have gone on to win in November.

    But it was still something of a surprise when a flurry of likely voter polls taken shortly after the September 14 primary showed a very close race. A Rasmussen Reports poll showed Gillibrand leading Republican Joseph DioGuardi by 10 points, 49 percent to 39 percent. Quinnipiac and SurveyUSA showed Gillibrand with 6- and 1-point leads. Marist weighed in with a poll showing Gillibrand up 11 points, but among registered voters who described themselves as “very enthusiastic” about voting, Gillibrand actually trailed DioGuardi, 52 percent to 43 percent.

    So what are we to make of this? Could Gillibrand actually lose this race?

    Let’s be clear up front: A straight-up Republican win would be unheard of. No Democratic senator has ever been defeated for re-election in the Empire State, and the last time a non-Democrat won an open seat in New York in a two-way race was in 1958. The typical formula for a non-Democratic win in New York is to have a Republican running on the Liberal Party line who splits the anti-Republican vote with the Democrat; this is in part how Alfonse D’Amato and James Buckley won their Senate races. This won’t happen this year – there isn’t even an independent Liberal Party in New York anymore.

    Nevertheless, it is certainly possible for DioGuardi to pull off the upset, though I certainly would require some decent odds before taking the bet. DioGuardi would need to make the final results a little better than what is presently showing up in SurveyUSA’s crosstabs. I think he can do this.

    The Candidates
    Let’s start by looking at the candidates. Most people who talk about Joe DioGuardi refer to him as the father of former American Idol judge Kara DioGuardi, but he’s not a complete outsider to the political game. DioGuardi, a C.P.A., represented what was at the time a D+2 district in Westchester County for two terms in Congress, before falling to now-Representative Nita Lowey in 1988. During his two terms he compiled a solidly conservative voting record. Though he is a social conservative, his efforts focused on balancing the budget and other economic matters. After losing to Lowey, DioGuardi twice waged third-party campaigns against moderate Republican Sue Kelly in the 1990s, but was unsuccessful in both attempts.

    Kirsten Gillibrand brings a lot to the table. She’s young, energetic, and hails from the Republicans’ base in upstate New York. She upset Republican Congressman John Sweeney in 2006, and held the seat handily in 2008. She compiled a moderate voting record while representing upstate, which could have prepared her for a solid general election run.

    But Gillibrand had to tack left once she was appointed to replace Hillary Rodham Clinton. And the appointment process itself was problematic. After all, it left her with the imprimatur of deeply unpopular Governor David Paterson. She’s now in an awkward position – tied to an unpopular governor and without a real base to rely upon in the general election.

    Upstate
    Unfortunately, it isn’t clear from the SurveyUSA writeup where the dividing line between Western New York (presumably Rochester and Buffalo) and “upstate” is, so I am averaging them and dealing with them as a single unit. According to SurveyUSA, DioGuardi is presently winning upstate New York roughly 48 percent to 40 percent.

    I actually think this is the least likely of the numbers that SurveyUSA has released. Upstate New York used to be the hub of the state Republican Party – the fight on election night was between upstate Republicans and New York City Democrats. But over the years, upstate shifted toward the Democrats. In 2004, George W. Bush and John Kerry tied upstate (about 1,000 votes separated them). In 2008, Barack Obama carried it with 53 percent to John McCain’s 47 percent.

    Moreover, Gillibrand hails from upstate. While I don’t think she’s a well enough established figure to move the numbers in her direction all that significantly, she would probably outperform a typical Democrat there, at least in her old district.

    Nevertheless, given the national mood, it is not impossible to see upstate returning to its Republican roots this election. Obviously DioGuardi is unlikely to carry inner Buffalo or Rochester, but at the same time the longstanding economic malaise that has affected the region is likely pointed directly at the Democrats now. It really isn’t that hard to imagine that the political environment alone could propel DioGuardi to a number four points better than Bush managed in the district: roughly the numbers that George H.W. Bush managed in 1988.

    City
    SurveyUSA also has DioGuardi trailing in NYC 35 percent to 54 percent. One very smart blogger at Beyond the Polls assembled a chart of GOP performances in New York City over the past sixteen years, and concluded that it was “difficult to see any realistic scenario under which DioGuardi could get 35% of the vote in New York City.”

    As you can see, Republicans have averaged 23 percent in New York City. If we remove the 2004 Senate and 2006 Governor as essentially uncontested races, Republicans do a bit better – about 27 percent of the vote. At the same time, it isn’t unheard of for a Republican to push into the 30s – Governor Pataki did it twice.

    This map, courtesy of Dave Bradlee’s wonderful redistricting widget, shows the partisan vote in Brooklyn and parts of Queens in 2008 by precinct. What should jump out at you is that South Brooklyn is actually quite willing to vote Republican. Indeed, there are enough voters there to create a 58 percent McCain Congressional district, while keeping the already-Republican leaning 13th District intact. Some of the precincts in heavily Orthodox Jewish Borough Park would be among the most heavily McCain precincts in Arkansas. You’ll also notice patches of red and reddish purple in Queens, to the northeast, indicating a willingness to vote Republican there.

    You’ll notice some correlation between the blue in the above map and the blue/green in the below map:

    This is the racial map of NYC precincts. Blue represents African Americans, green denotes Hispanics, and red signifies Whites. You’ll first notice how heavily segregated New York is, you’ll next notice the sometimes uncanny parallel between where white precincts end and where Obama precincts begin. Obviously, New York still has heavily racialized voting.

    For DioGuardi to equal Pataki’s 2002 vote share in New York City, two things have to happen. First, whites have to be excited about voting for him. I think that’s possible for two reasons: (1) whites who didn’t live on Manhattan were never crazy about Obama in the first place and are presumably ready to cast a protest vote against him today and (2) DioGuardi has an Italian surname. Having attended more than my share of the DiFranco family reunions on the maternal side of my family, I can only attest that the cultural affinity is still pretty important in the Italian-American community. This will help DioGuardi in parts of Queens and in South Brooklyn (and in Staten Island, a notable Republican bastion that is off the map). In fact, this is probably a large reason why DioGuardi is getting 35 percent in the SurveyUSA poll while the other Republican candidates polled are receiving the 25 percent a Republican customarily receives (remember, Paladino is running against a Cuomo).

    The second thing that has to happen is that minority turnout needs to be low. I think that’s entirely possible as well. In the 2009 Virginia governor’s race, the white share of the electorate was 78 percent, up from 70 percent in 2008. And we’ve seen a recent spate of election polls showing members in minority-majority districts vulnerable – GA-02, FL-03, MS-02, and AZ-07. Even controlling for the fact that these are campaign polls, these results wouldn’t be possible unless minority enthusiasm was down considerably. And it is hard to imagine Kirsten Gillibrand – an upstate Congresswoman who had a fairly conservative voting record until 18 months ago – firing up this portion of her base.

    To be clear, I don’t think hitting the 30% mark in the city is a “done deal” for DioGuardi. But I do think it is realistic.

    Suburbs
    That leaves us with the suburbs. Westchester, Nassau, and Suffolk Counties were long Republican bastions. But they swung toward the Democrats as the Republican Party increasingly adopted a Southern twang and focused on social issues. Barack Obama won 64 percent of the vote in Westchester County, 54 percent in Nassau County, and 53 percent in Suffolk County.

    But recent elections in the suburbs indicate that there may be hard movement back toward the Republicans. In November of last year, Nassau County Executive Tom Suozzi lost to little-known, underfunded challenger Ed Mangano. In Westchester County, Rob Astorino defeated Executive Andy Spano 57 percent to 43 percent; just four years earlier, Spano had defeated Astorino by a similar margin.

    Then, in February of this year, while Washington was still focused on the health care debate and Scott Brown’s win, Republicans won a special election victory in a Suffolk County seat that had gone for Obama in 2008. That same day, Republicans won a stunning upset in a Westchester district that had given Barack Obama about 61 percent of the vote only 15 months earlier.

    In other words, the Democrats’ grip on the New York City suburbs seems to be slipping. This is a problem that Democrats are facing elsewhere in the country as well, but it seems especially pronounced here. A 12-point, 51 percent to 39 percent win here is not at all out of the question.

    Conclusion
    DioGuardi isn’t likely to win, but it certainly is possible. The SurveyUSA poll is a best-case scenario for DioGuardi among current polling, but it nevertheless depicts a realistic scenario for him to get within a point of Gillibrand with the present electorate. Of course, his “reward” for winning this race would be to run again two years later, against a Democratic opponent approved by the Democratic Party, with Barack Obama at the top of the ticket.

  162. Personally, I have never wanted America to be the ruler nor peacekeepers of the planet.

    Join with other nations to protect ourselves against the bad guys. – Yup.

    Stick our nose into changing governments, killing the leaders, bombing the Hell out of their country, then bleeding our taxpayers dry for funds to build up what ‘we’ tore down in the first place. – Nope.

    I’m all for helping other nations to an extent, but I am disgusted when it is on the working class people of our country that have to pay for it, over, and over again.

    I also don’t believe that it is up to us to build democracy’s in other areas…look how well it worked in our country 2 years ago when corruption and lies ruled.

    America isn’t rich enough to police the world, we are spread too thin.

  163. http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/

    This is the debate on the mosque where the participants said that they had been threatened also.

    Were their threats any more sever than Daisy, I really don’t know, but we saw this same kind of information emphasized during the Primary with O, when HRC was getting threats also. Were they any more real. I have no idea.

    The point is I guess that people in the public eye with controversary opinions unfortunately have death threats, which is a shame. As to who gets the more serious threats, I don’t know we can determine that.

  164. Thanks wbboei,

    I wondered with how outspoken Bill has been lately if they will try to silence him again after the midterms.

  165. Just saw a report that (D) Oberstar in MN-08 is now dead even with his challenger, former navy pilot Chip Cravaak. That is stunning, since Oberstar has been in congress since 1974, and the worst he ever did was 59-30 back in 1992.

    This seat was considered a stone cold LOCK for Dems, and now it seems he’ll have to fight to keep it. Even if he wins, the fact that it’s in play at all does not bode well for Democrats.

  166. wbboei
    October 3rd, 2010 at 11:14 pm
    Why Dems Are Going Down in November
    By Arnold Ahlert
    &&&&&&&&&&

    Wow, wbboei, excellent post you dug up.

    Separate topic, but in today’s NY Times, Prof. Krugman accuses FOX News of:

    a) hiring tons of conservative politician (some of them possible contenders for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination) as “analysts”.

    b) “anointing candidates”.

    Say, Paul, I don’t recall a whole lot of dire warnings from you in 2008, when television (NBC, MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS), print (NY Times, Time, Newsweek, etc.), and the blogosphere all started

    a) anointing Obama over Hillary, and repeating that in the general election

    b) hired from Democratic ranks to buy insider access

    c) the reverse, media types who sold us Obama then going to work for the administration.

    So, it’s not okay for Fox to act this way, VERY VERY SCARY.

    But when it’s the NY Times blatantly slamming candidates (“Hey, let’s hammer away at Meg Whitman and Carl Paladino”) and taking sides, it’s “journalistic license”?????

  167. HillaryforTexas
    October 4th, 2010 at 1:26 pm
    Just saw a report that (D) Oberstar in MN-08 is now dead even with his challenger, former navy pilot Chip Cravaak. That is stunning, since Oberstar has been in congress since 1974, and the worst he ever did was 59-30 back in 1992.
    &&&&&&&&&&

    …and since he’s got the coolest last name, ever.

  168. BLACK HOLE IN THE CENTER OF THE POLITICAL UNIVERSE??

    More and more articles about the Maytag repairman (the lonliest guy in the world) sitting in the Oval Office.

    Let’s start with this one:

    nypost.com/p/news/local/loneliest_man_in_dc_n3oXOpYBuMyGwoMCe1jsOO

    Loneliest man in DC
    ================
    Michael Goodwin
    October 3, 2010

    He’s tried homey backyard settings, large campus ral lies and teamed up with a crass hip-hop show. Wherever he goes, he floors the rhetorical pedal, as when he likened his slow-motion polices to the time it took to “free the slaves.”

    Barack Obama has gone from a failing president to flailing at ghosts. Even allowing for desperate times, his desperate measures are a national embarrassment.

    Emancipation? Give us a break.

    With each passing day, his denunciations of dissent and inflated claims of economic progress turn off the independent voters who will decide the midterm elections. He is ignoring the sensible advice to listen to the majority of voters and build a governing coalition.

    Instead, he recklessly bets the remainder of his presidency on maintaining the huge liberal Democratic majorities that helped him impose a string of unpopular policies on America. If he fails, and there is good reason to hope he will face a Republican Congress, he’ll be the loneliest man in Washington.

    He is losing much of his White House team, yet the obsequious hagiography continues. When Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel departed Friday, he claimed the last 20 months were “the toughest time any president has ever faced.”

    This is farce masquerading as fact, but there is no sign Obama is willing to bring in new aides who could help him chart a new course.

    If anything, he is doubling down on his self-aggrandizing Big Government agenda, dashing hopes he would use the public revolt against him to finally become the centrist many Americans believed they were electing.

    A friend said the other day that Obama’s nonstop campaign speeches were useless because the country has tuned him out. Politically speaking, that’s true.

    The thrill is gone, and his efforts to gin up enthusiasm seem a pale imitation of 2008. It’s all vapors now as he hectors former supporters to “buck up.”

    But it’s impossible simply to ignore Obama. He is the president of a troubled nation, and he regularly reaches new depths of demeaning the office as he fights public will.

    His isolation from reality produces cringes when he opens smaller gatherings to questions. First, it was a woman in Washington who said she was “exhausted defending you” and waiting for meaningful change.

    Then it was a business owner in Iowa who complained tax hikes would make it impossible to add jobs.

    Both questioners were informed and polite, one a supporter, one not. They represent the sturdy and loyal backbone of the nation, but Obama was clueless about how to respond.

    He answered as if on automatic pilot, showing no ability to connect to their everyday problems or even to stray from stock answers.

    Sadly, the failure to deliver on his promise of unity doesn’t end at our borders. He vowed his election would raise America’s standing around the world and enable us to building expanding networks of allies to face global issues.

    A recent incident at the United Nations shows it’s not going well. When Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said in the General Assembly that the 9/11 attacks were an “inside job” carried out by our government to help Israel, US diplomats walked out in protest.

    Delegations from all 27 European Union nations joined us, as did Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Costa Rica, according to an Associated Press tally.

    Nobody else budged. Not Russia, not China, Japan, South Korea or Mexico, and nobody from Africa or South America.

    Imagine that. A nut case who is building a nuclear bomb, whose regime tortures and kills its own people, slanders the living and the dead, and Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton can’t rally even half of our allies to our side.

    In fact, there is no evidence they even protested the silence. This is not leadership. It is failure on a grand and consistent scale.

    Mike, Joel ‘Odd’-ly divided

    Over the years, I often thought Mayor Bloomberg and Schools Chancellor Joel Klein were taking a good cop/bad cop approach to the unions. The mayor gave teachers 43 percent raises over eight years, while Klein never missed an opportunity to bash them.

    Lately, however, another model better describes their tag team. The mayor and his chancellor are shaping up as the “Odd Couple,” the Felix and Oscar of education reform.

    Their contrasting views emerged around the heralded “Waiting for ‘Superman’ ” film. Both loved the central message about the necessity to fix broken schools, but they had opposing reactions to how it painted unions.

    Bloomberg said the film blamed them too much, and he praised the former head of the United Federation of Teachers, Randi Weingarten, saying she did “an awful lot” to help schools.

    He also spoke with refreshing candor, and perhaps regret, when he said unions weren’t responsible for work rules that perpetuate failure.

    “I would blame the governments that have agreed to contracts” that don’t help children, he said, adding: “I don’t blame the unions for asking. That’s not their job to find ways to help. They weren’t elected to run the school systems.”

    Those are remarkable statements for a mayor who negotiated those contracts. But Klein, writing separately in a Post op-ed the same day, used “Superman” to hammer the unions.

    He cited tenure rules, the seniority system and other restrictions, often created with Albany’s help, as major obstacles to reform. He singled out Weingarten by name as an impediment to getting rid of bad teachers, as though city hall was an innocent victim of the union contracts.

    Whatever the motives, the differences between Bloomberg and Klein reveal a messy incoherence. Especially as they finally try to tackle tenure rules and retool teacher evaluations to match higher state standards, this odd couple needs to speak with one clear and consistent voice.

    After all, Oscar and Felix were playing for laughs.

  169. The Communists critique of the farce on the Mall yesterday:

    “Pro-Democratic Party rally shows bankruptcy of US unions”
    (snip)
    Saturday’s rally in Washington to support the Democratic Party in the November 2 congressional elections was a demonstration of the political bankruptcy of the AFL-CIO and the other unions that organized the event and supplied most of the participants.

    The rally drew several tens of thousands, nearly all of them union officials and their periphery. There was no significant turnout of the rank-and-file workers who remain trapped in the old labor organizations, and no representation at all of the unorganized workers who make up the vast majority of the working class, or of the tens of millions of unemployed and young people hardest hit by the economic crisis.

    While every press release promoting the demonstration, and much of the press coverage after the event, mentioned the “more than 400 organizations” sponsoring the rally, the initiative came primarily from the AFL-CIO and allied groups like the NAACP and the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC).

    Six major unions supplied the vast majority of the demonstrators—the United Auto Workers, the Service Employees International Union, the American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees, the Communications Workers of America, the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers.

    Not only did the union delegations, each identified by color-coded t-shirts, dominate the rally, but the leaders of five of the six unions, along with AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka, gave the main speeches, joining black and Hispanic Democratic politicians like Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and Congressman Luis Gutierrez…
    (snip)
    There was no criticism of the Obama administration by name, even by speakers who criticized some of the policies for which the Democratic president is responsible. One of the first speakers at the rally, the Reverend Al Sharpton declared, “We bailed out the banks. We bailed out the insurance companies. Now it’s time to bail out the American people.”

    The bank bailout was Obama’s first act in office. The healthcare “reform” was certainly a bailout of insurance companies. But Sharpton did not identify either action with Obama, and presented his applause line as though such an appeal would receive a ready hearing from the administration.

    Jesse Jackson, another featured speaker, characterized the situation in America as “midday in politics, midnight in the economy,” an attempt to separate the Obama administration from the economic debacle that its policies have reinforced.

    He declared that Obama was “on the right side of history,” although the only action he could cite was the president’s signing of legislation outlawing hate crimes against gays and lesbians. He concluded with an appeal to register and vote November 2, adding, “The president can’t bear this cross alone.
    (snip)
    UAW President Bob King was the last major speaker, by which time nearly the entire crowd, including several thousand UAW members brought in chartered buses from Detroit, Flint and other cities, had departed.
    (snip)
    The culmination of this process was the installation of Barack Obama in the White House. The first African-American president is carrying out the dictates of the banks and billionaires in both domestic and foreign policy. From his escalation of the war in Afghanistan to his escalation of the attacks on democratic rights at home…

    etc..etc…etc.
    *******
    The crowd was mostly made up of union flunkies and were brought to DC in chartered buses..I’m shocked!!! also didn’t read much about that in the Ministry of Propaganda rags.

  170. EDUMACATION

    Sorry, previous post includes unrelated article about Bloomberg. Call it an “encore”.

    On a separate note, today on the radio, the news story was that the White House will be emphasizing a new dimension in the search to create JOBS, JOBS, JOBS.

    They will push to emphasize eduction, so that our workforce can compete in an ever increasingly technical world.

    But wait a minute. Haven’t we been hearing that:

    * there are all these overqualified people (lawyers working at McDonald’s, consultants cutting the lawn, etc.)?

    * college grads (including those w/ Masters and PhDs) living with their parents until they can land a job?

    * those who went through “regrooving” (retrained from their old blue collar backgrounds to groom them for technical careers) saying that it was a waste of time, that the training only covered so much, that it was not enough to be really competent and therefore be able to actually vie for a job?

    &&&
    So let me guess. This Education Push will be about marketing how much Obama has already done, and that we should be falling all over ourselves to congradulate them for a job well done. That we are just too ignorant to realize how much good the man hath brought us.

  171. Here’s that Krugman piece.

    Decide for yourself if his admonitions for fairness in the media are aimed only at one side.

    nytimes.com/2010/10/04/opinion/04krugman.html?_r=1&hp

    Fear and Favor
    By PAUL KRUGMAN
    Published: October 3, 2010

    A note to Tea Party activists: This is not the movie you think it is. You probably imagine that you’re starring in “The Birth of a Nation,” but you’re actually just extras in a remake of “Citizen Kane.”

    True, there have been some changes in the plot. In the original, Kane tried to buy high political office for himself. In the new version, he just puts politicians on his payroll.

    I mean that literally. As Politico recently pointed out, every major contender for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination who isn’t currently holding office and isn’t named Mitt Romney is now a paid contributor to Fox News. Now, media moguls have often promoted the careers and campaigns of politicians they believe will serve their interests. But directly cutting checks to political favorites takes it to a whole new level of blatancy.

    Arguably, this shouldn’t be surprising. Modern American conservatism is, in large part, a movement shaped by billionaires and their bank accounts, and assured paychecks for the ideologically loyal are an important part of the system. Scientists willing to deny the existence of man-made climate change, economists willing to declare that tax cuts for the rich are essential to growth, strategic thinkers willing to provide rationales for wars of choice, lawyers willing to provide defenses of torture, all can count on support from a network of organizations that may seem independent on the surface but are largely financed by a handful of ultrawealthy families.

    And these organizations have long provided havens for conservative political figures not currently in office. Thus when Senator Rick Santorum was defeated in 2006, he got a new job as head of the America’s Enemies program at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, a think tank that has received funding from the usual sources: the Koch brothers, the Coors family, and so on.

    Now Mr. Santorum is one of those paid Fox contributors contemplating a presidential run. What’s the difference?

    Well, for one thing, Fox News seems to have decided that it no longer needs to maintain even the pretense of being nonpartisan.

    Nobody who was paying attention has ever doubted that Fox is, in reality, a part of the Republican political machine; but the network — with its Orwellian slogan, “fair and balanced” — has always denied the obvious. Officially, it still does. But by hiring those G.O.P. candidates, while at the same time making million-dollar contributions to the Republican Governors Association and the rabidly anti-Obama United States Chamber of Commerce, Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation, which owns Fox, is signaling that it no longer feels the need to make any effort to keep up appearances.

    Something else has changed, too: increasingly, Fox News has gone from merely supporting Republican candidates to anointing them. Christine O’Donnell, the upset winner of the G.O.P. Senate primary in Delaware, is often described as the Tea Party candidate, but given the publicity the network gave her, she could equally well be described as the Fox News candidate. Anyway, there’s not much difference: the Tea Party movement owes much of its rise to enthusiastic Fox coverage.

    As the Republican political analyst David Frum put it, “Republicans originally thought that Fox worked for us, and now we are discovering we work for Fox” — literally, in the case of all those non-Mitt-Romney presidential hopefuls. It was days later, by the way, that Mr. Frum was fired by the American Enterprise Institute. Conservatives criticize Fox at their peril.

    So the Ministry of Propaganda has, in effect, seized control of the Politburo. What are the implications?

    Perhaps the most important thing to realize is that when billionaires put their might behind “grass roots” right-wing action, it’s not just about ideology: it’s also about business. What the Koch brothers have bought with their huge political outlays is, above all, freedom to pollute. What Mr. Murdoch is acquiring with his expanded political role is the kind of influence that lets his media empire make its own rules.

    Thus in Britain, a reporter at one of Mr. Murdoch’s papers, News of the World, was caught hacking into the voice mail of prominent citizens, including members of the royal family. But Scotland Yard showed little interest in getting to the bottom of the story. Now the editor who ran the paper when the hacking was taking place is chief of communications for the Conservative government — and that government is talking about slashing the budget of the BBC, which competes with the News Corporation.

    So think of those paychecks to Sarah Palin and others as smart investments. After all, if you’re a media mogul, it’s always good to have friends in high places. And the most reliable friends are the ones who know they owe it all to you.

  172. Clinton More Popular Than Obama In Illinois

    October 4, 2010
    By Jeremy P. Jacobs

    Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is viewed more favorably in Illinois than Pres. Obama, according to a new survey of the president’s home state.

    Clinton is the most popular politician in the state, according to the Suffolk University poll. The former presidential contender was viewed favorably by 61% of Illinois likely voters, while 32% viewed her unfavorably.

    Obama was viewed favorably by 52% of respondents and unfavorably by 41%. Those numbers are higher than his national numbers, but suggest that even in Illinois, Obama’s brand is struggling.

    There is good news for Obama in the poll, however. He most certainly doesn’t have the lowest numbers of anyone in the survey: Former Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D) is viewed favorably by just 10% of respondents.

    The Suffolk poll was conducted Sept. 30 to Oct. 3. It surveyed 500 likely voters and had a margin of error of +/- 4.5%.

    http://hotlineoncall.nationaljournal.com/archives/2010/10/clinton_more_po.php

  173. And some comments in response to Krugman’s article:

    1. “Krugman, please don’t think Neocons are the only ones who accept special interest money from billionaires with a soapbox. CNN, MSNBC, NYT, et al, are all equally biased.”

    2. “Question: What is the difference between the Koch brothers and George Soros?
    Answer: Nothing.

    Sorry Krugman (and us), but both parties are equally indebted to wealthy billionaires who want to push their own agenda. This is why we need mandated, publicly-financed elections. Our choices should not be limited to the super rich (or just plain, old, ordinary rich) and those financed by the super rich.”

    3. “Fox is partisan, as is MSNBC and the NY Times, corporate entities left and right, and many others. Democrats did a great job leading up to the 2008 Presidential elections. Republicans are now. The only ones giving power to Fox are the Democrats. People wouldn’t be listening if President Obama and the Democrats were doing their respective jobs. The fringe on the right isn’t what decides elections. Quit whining.

    By the way, I continue to be surprised by the Left insisting that those on the Right are ignorant (putting it very mildly). Most of the people I know vote Republican but are well-informed, well-educated and, amazingly, disagree with what President Obama and his supporters are trying to do. Your own ignorance of those who oppose you is a significant reason for your impending losses at the polls.”

  174. What if Hillary were President?

    October 4th, 2010
    Mary Shaw

    Like many other progressive Democrats who are disappointed in President Obama’s failure so far to bring about as much social change as we had hoped for, I’ve been pondering the alternatives.

    If John McCain had won the White House, this country would surely be in far worse straits — perhaps with even more war, even less corporate regulation, and an even worse economy. So obviously we are lucky that McCain did not win.

    But what if Hillary Clinton had defeated Obama in the primaries and had gone on to win the White House? How would things be different if she were President?

    I threw this question out to my Facebook and Twitter followers. It certainly wasn’t a scientific survey. It was more like the preacher surveying the choir. But it led to some good discussions, albeit no real surprises.

    The majority of respondents believe that things would be pretty much the same if Clinton were President. They see the Obama administration as a rerun of the Bill Clinton administration — too centrist, too indulgent of big business, and too afraid of ruffling the feathers of the vast right-wing conspiracy.

    Others reflected my own gut feeling that things might be a bit better for progressives today if Clinton had won. Throughout the first year of his presidency, we saw Obama still playing the community organizer — making deals, being nice, and bending over backwards in hopes of engaging the Republicans in Congress who obviously only want him to fail. And that set a precedent, teaching the Republicans that they could walk all over Obama and, by extension, the Congressional Democrats.

    What this country needs is a leader, not an organizer. The Chief of Staff (though obviously not this last one) can handle the organizing. We need a President who is strong and tough. And I think there’s no doubt that Clinton is, in general, much stronger and tougher than Obama, and would have come across as such from day one.

    Personalities aside, Clinton also knows how to play the Washington game. Obama is still learning. Right now we cannot afford so much on-the-job training.

    Interestingly, no one responded with the opinion that things would be worse if Clinton were President. One person did point out that a Hillary Clinton presidency would bring out a lot of sexism, but that would simply have replaced the racism we’ve been seeing as a result of having an African American in the White House.

    And that last point is perhaps the most telling.

    The Republicans cannot win on the facts of the issues. And so Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and their cohorts in the conservative media use fear and emotion. And they’re getting better and better at it.

    Having an African American in the White House makes it easy for them to incite fear amongst the ignorant that people of color will take over this country.

    Having a woman in the White House would have provided an equally easy opportunity to stir up the misogyny, as they have already been doing to some extent since Nancy Pelosi became Speaker of the House.

    And Democratic politicians and candidates are no safer if they happen to be white males. Where the conservative pundits cannot use race or gender, they will use guns or gays or any other issue they can spin to incite fear of the real or imagined Democratic agenda.

    As long as these right-wing scare tactics are accepted and tolerated, none of this will change, regardless of who occupies the White House.

    So the final answer to my original question is that it probably doesn’t matter.

    And that is what we the people should really be afraid of.

    Mary Shaw is a Philadelphia-based writer and activist. She is a former Philadelphia Area Coordinator for the Nobel-Prize-winning human rights group Amnesty International, and her views on politics, human rights, and social justice issues have appeared in numerous online forums and in newspapers and magazines worldwide. Note that the ideas expressed here are the author’s own, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Amnesty International or any other organization with which she may be associated.

    http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/TPV3/Voices.php/2010/10/04/what-if-hillary-were-president

  175. JanH
    October 4th, 2010 at 2:38 pm
    Clinton More Popular Than Obama In Illinois
    &&&&&&&&&

    To know, know, know him,
    Is to hate, hate, hate him,
    and they do.

  176. The Communists critique of the farce on the Mall yesterday:
    ———————————————————
    Reverend Jackson and Reverend Sharpton see everything in terms of race struggle. That is the tool they use to shake down society, time and time again. Truth to tell, they would be, and are in fact, perfectly content with a president who does nothing for black people, as long as he is black and has a background in community organizer like they do. The communists would say, who cares what his skin color is, the question is simple–is the leader on the side of working people or the elites. In the ways that matter, they are like the overseers on a plantation. They pretend to serve the laborers, they will incite them when it serves their interests, but are in fact the servant of the man–meaning the almighty dollar. They do their people a grave disservice because they look backward rather than forward, and it does not work in a society where they are not the only minority, and the grievance they revel in is more than a century old.

    The union bosses suffer from the same disease. They rail against corporations to the public. Yet, behind the scenes they play footsie with them. Richard Trumpka is a prime example of this. Great back swing, but no follow through. The greatest challenge the labor movement faces is outsourcing. And they have done little or nothing to prevent it, at the bargaining table or in the political realm. The answer is they no longer think institutionally. All they think about is their pensions, perks and standing at the podium next to the president. They are a cheap date.

    The communists are the only ones who really make sense any more. Doctrinally, intellectually, and practically they see the problem for what it really is, namely class struggle. Karl Marx wrote at a time when Europe was still in the throes of the Industrial Revolution. Workers left the villages and headed to the cities where they worked in the factories and lived in squalor. The computer has engendered another major paradigmatic shift, in how society is organized and how people adjust. Perhaps that is why the communist narrative is so compelling today, and why their unvarnished insights about Obama, the One Nation Rally, and everything else begin to make eminent good sense.

  177. The Communists critique of the farce on the Mall yesterday:
    ———————————————————
    Reverend Jackson and Reverend Sharpton see everything in terms of race struggle. That is the tool they use to shake down society, time and time again. Truth to tell, they would be, and are in fact, perfectly content with a president who does nothing for black people, as long as he is black and has a background in community organizer like they do. They pretend to serve the laborers, they will incite them when it serves their interests, but are in fact the servant of the man–meaning the almighty dollar. They do their people a grave disservice because they look backward rather than forward, and it does not work in a society where they are not the only minority, and the grievance they revel in is more than a century old.

    The union bosses suffer from the same disease. They rail against corporations to the public. Yet, behind the scenes they play footsie with them. Richard Trumpka is a prime example of this. Great back swing, but no follow through. The greatest challenge the labor movement faces is outsourcing. And they have done little or nothing to prevent it, at the bargaining table or in the political realm. The answer is they no longer think institutionally. All they think about is their pensions, perks and standing at the podium next to the president. They are a cheap date.

    The communists are the only ones who really make sense any more. Doctrinally, intellectually, and practically they see the problem for what it really is, namely class struggle. Karl Marx wrote at a time when Europe was still in the throes of the Industrial Revolution. Workers left the villages and headed to the cities where they worked in the factories and lived in squalor. The computer has engendered another major paradigmatic shift, in how society is organized and how people adjust. Perhaps that is why the communist narrative is so compelling today, and why their unvarnished insights about Obama, the One Nation Rally, and everything else begin to make eminent good sense.

  178. OBAMA LIVES UP TO ONE PROMISE; TO UNITE THE COUNTRY.

    …AND THE DEMS.

    Now no one likes him. Michelle the “Sleeveless” was polled and said, “I’m exhausted, disappointed, and quite frankly angry with this man; as a president, as a husband, as a father, and as a dog owner”.

    Now it is Russ Douthat’s turn to expose the dysfunctional Democratic family infighting.

    nytimes.com/2010/10/04/opinion/04douthat.html?ref=opinion

    A Man for All Factions
    =====================

    By ROSS DOUTHAT
    Published: October 3, 2010

    For decades, the Democratic Party was torn by civil war.

    On one side was the liberal left — populist in economics and dovish on foreign policy, in favor of lavish spending programs and suspicious of big business, and hostile to any idea that seemed to give an inch to the conservatives. On the other were the moderates and centrists — pro-market and pro-Wall Street, inclined to tiptoe rightward on issues like crime and welfare, and hawkish about deficits and dictators alike.

    In the 1980s, these two factions vied for the opportunity to lose to Ronald Reagan. In the 1990s, they fought over the direction of the Clinton administration. In the 2000s, they feuded over whether to support the Iraq war.

    But in George W. Bush’s second term, peace broke out. In part, this was because Democrats came to hate Bush so intensely that every other consideration faded into insignificance. In part, it was because the two camps converged on policy: the liberal left largely accepted that it had lost Clinton-era arguments over Nafta and welfare reform, the centrists mostly admitted that they’d been wrong about Iraq, and the two sides found common ground on health care, global warming and income inequality.

    But peace was also possible because Barack Obama emerged to bridge the Democratic divide. The left initially wanted John Edwards as the 2008 nominee; the centrists wanted Hillary Clinton. But Obama united the party by persuading both factions that he was really on their side.

    The left looked at him and saw a community organizer and Hyde Park intellectual who had been against the Iraq war before being antiwar was fashionable. Of course he was one of them!

    The moderates listened to him and heard a postpartisan healer who promised to work with Republicans, cut middle-class taxes and send more troops to Afghanistan. Obviously he was a centrist at heart!

    Once campaigning gave way to governing, it was inevitable that one faction or the other would be disappointed. But lately, Obama has managed the more difficult feat of alienating both of them at once.

    The party’s centrists, from Blue Dog Democrats to Wall Street, insist that he’s turned out to be far more liberal than they expected. The health care bill was too expensive. The deficits are too big. He’s been too hard on business interests, and on Israel. And what happened to bipartisanship?

    On the left, meanwhile, Obama is deemed a disappointment for all the things he hasn’t done. The stimulus should have been bigger. The financial reforms should have been tougher. He should have withdrawn from Afghanistan. He should have taken the fight to the Republicans, instead of letting them obstruct.

    Both these arguments are self-serving, of course — a way for activists on both sides to imply, none too subtly, that the Democrats’ dispiriting poll numbers are all the other faction’s fault.

    But the widespread appeal of these dueling critiques has left Obama increasingly isolated. And the White House’s attempts to preserve his above-the-fray mystique have backfired: they’ve made the president seem like an ideological enigma, and created the impression that he’s a bystander to his own achievements.

    That impression took hold during the debates over health care and financial reform, where left-wing and centrist Democrats alike often complained that they didn’t know exactly where the White House stood. It’s been reinforced lately by Bob Woodward’s portrait of Obama’s Afghanistan deliberations, in which the hawks in the Pentagon and the doves in the Democratic base often seem like more powerful actors than the president himself.

    As a result, what was once Obama’s great strength has been transformed into a weakness: neither the center nor the left really trusts him, and neither is prepared to stand by him at a time of crisis.

    So the president finds himself alone. Many of the administration’s highest-profile centrists — Peter Orszag, Larry Summers, Rahm Emanuel — are either gone or on their way out. The left is wallowing in angst and disappointment. The White House spent recent weeks hectoring progressives about the need to turn out in November, but all these efforts earned was the mockery of Jon Stewart.

    Can Obama rebuild his coalition? Perhaps, but not the way he did the first time. He won the White House by being all things to all Democrats (and quite a few independents and even Republicans as well), by making each faction see its own values reflected in his candidacy.

    But the days of soaring above the grubbiness of politics are over. If Obama wants to save his presidency, he may have to do it the old-fashioned way: not by transcending his party’s divisions, but by uniting his supporters around their common fears.

  179. YOU’RE NOT GOING TO BELIEVE THIS…

    Charles Blow of the New York Times this past Saturday was on the level, and had a fair assessment of the Democrats, Repubs and Tea Party.

    Really.

    He did.

    Read for yourself:

    nytimes.com/2010/10/02/opinion/02blow.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

    What’s Dumb, Really?
    ====================

    By CHARLES M. BLOW
    Published: October 1, 2010

    Big-city liberals and their blogging buddies love to paint Tea Partiers as yokels with incoherent candidates and language-mauling signs. (Some have even dubbed their misspellings and grammatical gaffes “Teabonics.”) On some level, this may be true. But there is also a certain hypocrisy to these taunts.

    The unpleasant fact that these liberals rarely mention, and may not know, is that large swaths of the Democratic base, groups they need to vote in droves next month — blacks, Hispanics and young people — are far less civically literate than their conservative counterparts.

    Therein lies the hurdle for the Democrats: How can they excite this part of the base that is not engaged and knowledgeable in an off-year election? How can they motivate these voters to help Democrats maintain their Congressional majorities when, according to a poll released this week by the Pew Research Center, 42 percent of blacks, 42 percent of Hispanics and 35 percent of voters ages 18 to 29 years old don’t even know that Democrats have a majority in the House? It’s sad. Pathetic, really. But it’s a political reality. (Only 71 percent of Democrats overall knew that Democrats had a majority in the House. By comparison, 82 percent of Republicans knew it.)

    Instead of focusing like a laser on this problem, part of the White House’s new strategy appears to be to pick a fight with the left’s ivory tower intelligentsia.

    Vice President Joe Biden said at a fund-raiser on Monday that the Democratic base should “stop whining.” The “professional left” may be whining, but underengaged Democrats are simply wandering. And, by the way, many Democrats don’t even know who the vice president is. In the Pew poll, 64 percent of Hispanics, 51 percent of young adults and 45 percent of blacks could not name Biden as the vice president. (Only 35 percent of Republicans got it wrong.)

    In a Rolling Stone interview this week, President Obama both described himself as a progressive and then laid into progressives for their “debilitating” mind-sets. Whom are you talking to, Mr. President? According to a Gallup poll released in July, most Democrats didn’t even seem to know what a progressive was, and of those who did, slightly more said that it didn’t describe them than said that it did.

    This high-altitude bickering is a waste of time. You can’t fight in the clouds if you want to win on the ground.

    The smarter tactic is to build excitement rather than sow discord. For example, Obama has made a concerted effort recently to reach out to young people, and that appears to be paying off. According to a Gallup poll released on Friday, the Democratic advantage in the Congressional races among young voters jumped 10 percentage points from last month, producing the “widest generational gaps so far this year.”

    Excitement is exhilarating and contagious, even if you’re not aware of all the policies and players. Just ask those Tea Party yokels.

  180. rgb44hrc
    October 4th, 2010 at 2:45 pm
    ———–
    I was really getting into this article until I got to the last two chapters.

    I feel like humming “the Impossible Dream”

  181. DEMS RUN FROM “SIGNATURE” BILL

    The Obamacare Follies
    ====================
    Don’t let Obamacare reach its third birthday.

    BY Matthew Continetti
    October 11, 2010, Vol. 16, No. 04

    weeklystandard.com/articles/obamacare-follies

    The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, aka Obamacare, turned six months old on September 23. Hardly anybody celebrated the occasion, and it isn’t hard to figure out why. Last spring President Obama promised Democrats that supporting the new entitlement would turn out to be a political winner. But, like a lot of Obama promises, this one’s turned out to be a bunch of baloney.

    Obamacare is less popular than it was on the day it was born, and it wasn’t popular then, either. Practically the only Democrats who mention the law in campaign ads are those who brag about voting against it. Large numbers of Americans, including a majority of independents, would like to see the law repealed. No wonder the pro-repeal GOP maintains an edge in the congressional generic ballot. As much as the public continues to distrust Republicans, it understands that the first step in undoing this harmful law is giving John Boehner the speaker’s gavel.

    The case against Obamacare is simple. The requirement to buy health insurance is constitutionally dubious. The law lards taxes, rules, and fees onto an already over-regulated health insurance market. Its accounting is filled with gimmicks and tricks and relies on rosy assumptions about how many people will sign up for the government-subsidized insurance “exchange.” Those subsidies may be much more expensive than anticipated, because companies probably will find it cheaper to pay a fine than pay for their employees’ health care.

    Furthermore, since the fees for violating the individual mandate are also low, Obamacare may actually lead to an increase in the uninsured, as individuals wait until they are sick to buy a health plan. In the meantime, since the bill increases demand for insurance while constraining supply, premiums will rise. And when the government attempts to control the price of premiums (as with any other good), shortages will result.

    Add it all up, and you have a law that will make health care more expensive and less satisfactory. It’s also a law that exposes a massive gulf between the American people and the Democrats who govern them. When Americans responded to Barack Obama’s call for change in 2008, they wanted a change from a lousy economy and two long and unpopular wars. Obama and his lieutenants wanted something else. They wanted a change from the last 30 years of American government. They wanted redistribution in the service of income equality.

    As the president famously told Joe the Plumber, “When you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.” It therefore never really mattered that most voters placed a much higher priority on jobs, the economy, and the deficit than health care. For Obama and his liberal base, a universal entitlement to health care was always the top priority. Obamacare, more than anything else, is the change they were waiting for—whether the rest of us like it or not.

    In a way, the tenacity with which Obama clings to his health care overhaul is almost admirable. After all, he’s sacrificed a lot for his ideology. His job approval rating dove underwater in the summer of 2009, when Congress took up health care legislation in earnest, and it hasn’t yet come up for air. He forfeited his claims to populism when he signed Obamacare into law despite public opposition, the rise of the Tea Party, town hall protests, and the election of Scott Brown to the Senate.

    Obama’s credibility was severely damaged as he toured the country and promised audiences that he could give millions of people health insurance, not change a thing for people who already have insurance and like it (i.e., most people), and cut the deficit at the same time. Just the other day in Iowa, during yet another tedious “backyard discussion,” Obama felt compelled to condescendingly remind a concerned voter that “there’s nothing in the bill that says you have to change the health insurance you’ve got right now.” Who’s he kidding? Voters understand that any piece of legislation has unintended consequences. And one consequence of Obamacare will be to force changes in people’s health insurance, even if they are happy with what they have now.

    This is a president who loves teachable moments, and there’s no better one than Obamacare’s six month anniversary. Pay attention, class: The central piece of Barack Obama’s presidency is a law that was passed by a narrow partisan margin over a public outcry—a law that increases dependency on government and will do untold damage to American health care. Repeal of that law will presumably require a Republican president in addition to a Republican Congress, so the homework assignment for 2013 is tough but worthwhile. Repeat after us: Don’t let Obamacare reach its third birthday.

  182. Here’s a very short article on today’s meeting (does not mention the education emphasis that NPR mentioned this morning):

    realclearpolitics.com/news/ap/politics/2010/Oct/04/economy_tops_obama_s_agenda_on_monday.html

    October 04, 2010
    Economy tops Obama’s agenda on Monday
    ==================================

    The Associated Press

    Home from a weekend at the Camp David mountain retreat, President Barack Obama will sit down with his Economic Recovery Advisory Board.

    The board is headed by Paul Volcker, the former chairman of the Federal Reserve.

    Among the Cabinet members expected to attend Monday’s session are Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, Commerce Secretary Gary Locke and Education Secretary Arne Duncan.

    Jill Biden, wife of the vice president, will also attend.

  183. JanH
    October 4th, 2010 at 2:39 pm

    What if Hillary were President?

    October 4th, 2010
    Mary Shaw
    ——————

    This is how the lefty fuckers who voted for Obama will rationalize their vote and clear themselves of their guilt of 2008 primary fiasco. How pathetic! They can never admit to his inexperience and incompetence and a total lack of intellectual curiosity.

  184. Jan–

    Thank you for acquainting me with the likes of Mary Shaw–activist and Philadelphia writer. Frankly, I had never heard of her before. But now that I have, she gets my vote for the stupidest person on earth. I move that she be so declared, and would welcome a seconding of the motion.

    I am fascinated by the lies people will tell to get off the hook. Being a bona fide Philadelphia activist, you can be reasonably sure that Mary beat the hustings for Obama during the campaign. And like so many others who did the same thing, she has a problem. That problem is he has failed to deliver what he promised.

    What does Mary do to resolve that problem? She does not say she was duped, that people should have known better than to take him at his word, that governing is difficult or that it will take more time to deliver the miracle he promised. Those are the standard excuses of those who realize there is a problem, but cannot summon the courage to accuse Obama.

    What Mary does is revert to childhood. She tries to tell us that because racism and sexism are pervasive, it makes no difference. If we had Hillary instead of Obama it would all be the same. I marvel at a mind that would say something tha stupid. It betrays an ideological obsession and basic lack of understanding of reality.

    It makes no difference whether the president was Hillary or Obama? Give me a fucking break. I can tell you for a fact that if Hillary were president, then there is no way we would have added 3.2 trillion to the national debt in the last eighteen months. I can also assure you that her first priority as president would have been to create jobs. And we would not be talking about ending social security and taking half a trillion out of Medicare.

    Beyond that, I believe, but cannot prove, that we would be in far superior shape in the middle east, partly because Hillary would not temporize in the name of politics and she inspires trust in our generals, whereas Obama inspires nothing of the kind. And contrary to Mary’s thesis, Brazil has elected a woman president.

    Those are salient difference to anyone with an IQ above room temperature.

  185. The communists are the only ones who really make sense any more…
    *******
    The Fourth International is a good source for well researched reporting that hasn’t been filtered through the White House Ministry of Propaganda and disseminated to their MSM flunkies. Unfortunately, they haven’t got a clue either about what to do about the changing economic realities. Their solutions are the stock formula rhetoric of the 1920s and 30s and in reading their stories, there doesn’t seem to be much passion behind the “standard rhetoric”, it’s just thrown pro forma.

    Driving the “bottom” economic 60% of Americans into financial ruin may be a winner for the upper 1% economic elites but the rest of the Country is headed for bad times, IMHO.

  186. OOO-FA: REALITY CAN BE SOOOO UNPLEASANT

    blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100056732/diehard-liberal-elites-are-still-in-denial-over-obama%E2%80%99s-crumbling-presidency/

    Delusional liberal elites are still in denial over Obama’s crumbling presidency
    ====================

    By Nile Gardiner
    October 3rd, 2010

    In early September I wrote a piece discussing how The Washington Post, widely viewed as a flagship of the liberal establishment, was now acknowledging the scale of the collapse facing the Left in this November’s mid-terms. As The Post put it, “Democrats in Congress are no longer asking themselves whether this is going to be a bad election year for them and their party. They are asking whether it is going to be a disaster.”

    Three weeks later, there is no evidence to suggest the political landscape is getting any better for President Obama and his party. If anything, it’s getting even worse according to some polls, as a recent CNN survey showed. According to the CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey, a striking 56 percent of Americans now believe President Obama has fallen short of their expectations.

    The latest RealClear Politics poll of polls has Obama at just 45 percent approval, and the Republicans currently with a 17 seat advantage in the House of Representatives race, with a further 38 seats in contention. The Senate race remains extremely tight, with RealClear Politics giving the Democrats a projected slim 51 to 49 seat lead, which would mean an eight seat gain by the GOP. At the Governor level, RCP has the Republicans with a nearly two to one advantage in terms of the race for State Houses.

    Over at The New York Times however, the message doesn’t seem to have sunk in. The Times, generally regarded as the most powerful and elite liberal media entity in America, has a major piece this evening with the headline: “In Fluid Race, House Majority is Uncertain, GOP Says.” The article goes to extraordinary lengths to talk about a Democratic fight back in November, yet without citing any independent polling evidence to back it up. As The Times puts it:

    “Republicans carry substantial advantages as they move into the final month of the fall campaign, but the resilience of vulnerable Democrats is complicating Republican efforts to lock down enough seats to capture the House and take control of the unsettled electoral battleground.

    By now, Republicans had hoped to put away a first layer of Democrats and set their sights on a second tier of incumbents. But the fight for control of Congress is more fluid than it seemed at Labor Day, with Democrats mounting strong resistance in some parts of the country as they try to hold off a potential Republican wave in November.”
    &&& end Times quote &&&

    While acknowledging “the chances of a Republican takeover in the House remain far greater than in the Senate”, The Times bullishly declares that “enough contests remain in flux that both parties head into the final four weeks of the campaign with the ability to change the dynamic before Election Day.”

    I haven’t come across a single major poll which supports this conclusion, and as for the GOP “declaring a house majority is uncertain” the piece merely cites unnamed “Republican strategists” as its source. And this view is completely contradicted in the same article by Senator John Cornyn of Texas, chairman of the Republican Senatorial Committee who, according to The Times, “said Democrats were delusional if they believed an upswing was under way.”

    The Washington Post, to its credit, has offered a realistic assessment of the scale of the political revolution that is likely to sweep Washington this November. The New York Times, on the other hand, remains in a state of denial, and still seems to be living in November 2008. My guess is that on November 2nd 2010, The Times and the diehard liberal elites that continue to cling to it’s archaic left-wing vision will be given a wake-up call that will reverberate across the United States.

    Although he won’t be on the ballot, the mid-terms will largely be a referendum on Barack Obama’s leadership. And by all accounts, The New York Times aside, the president is almost certainly heading towards a massive humiliation at the polls, no matter how hard his supporters try to put a positive spin on it.

  187. RCP 2010 SENATE RACES: “IT’S CLOSE”

    Dem: 48
    Rep: 47
    Tossup: 5

    realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2010/senate/2010_elections_senate_map.html

  188. MR. POPULARITY. NOT!!!

    Hmmm, that is one heck of a trend since Jan. 2009.

    And is Newsweek an “outlier”, or are they out lying?

    realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html

    RCP Average 45.4 49.7 -4.3
    Gallup 46 48 -2
    Rasmussen 48 51 -3
    Newsweek 48 46 +2
    FOX News 42 49 -7
    NBC/WSJrnl 46 49 -3
    CNN 42 54 -12
    Politico 46 51 -5

  189. The Fourth International is a good source for well researched reporting that hasn’t been filtered through the White House Ministry of Propaganda and disseminated to their MSM flunkies. Unfortunately, they haven’t got a clue either about what to do about the changing economic realities. Their solutions are the stock formula rhetoric of the 1920s and 30s and in reading their stories, there doesn’t seem to be much passion behind the “standard rhetoric”, it’s just thrown pro forma.

    Driving the “bottom” economic 60% of Americans into financial ruin may be a winner for the upper 1% economic elites but the rest of the Country is headed for bad times, IMHO
    ——————————————————
    I do not doubt for one minute that the elites are discussing this very subject among themselves in the den with brandy and cigars in hand very late in the evening. From what little I know of those deliberations, there seems to be a consensus in their ranks that the world is overpopulated and we are going though its resources at an unsustainable rate. There is even a loose consensus within that group, one they would surely deny, that the ideal population for the world is 2 billion. But how do they get there–that is the problem. Personally, I think that is the whole problem. If they allow the situation to go to hell in the short term, they will pay the price. They cannot outrun a tidal wave. And it is not possible for small oases of wealth to exist amid vast deserts of poverty without engendering storms that could threaten those oases. To do that successfully would require a degree of control which they do not currently have, or cannot successively deploy, e.g. the micro chip in the head, etc. At some point it begins to resemble science fiction, like this:

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

  190. ELEANOR CLIFT NOW THINKS OBAMA’S EXPERIENCE AS A COMMUNITY HAMPERS HIS ABILITY TO LEAD…

    Oy vey.

    Talk about “friendly fire”.

    Only NOW does Eleanor wake up. Sje wants a fighter, not a pushover. She could have had Hillary.

    newsweek.com/2010/10/01/obama-s-failure-of-leadership.html

    Obama’s Failure of Leadership
    ============================
    — The president’s experience as a community organizer may have hampered his abilities to lead and order and direct. His recent fighting stance might be coming too late.

    by Eleanor Clift
    October 01, 2010

    I continue to believe that the passage of universal health care is an historic achievement, and that Glenn Beck’s grandchildren will agree even if he and his followers are blind to it. But getting it through a Congress wary of major social legislation and beholden to special interests was a 14-month horror show that consumed the Obama presidency.

    With the proviso that no good deed goes unpunished, Democrats are bracing for significant losses in the midterms, provoked by a backlash over government spending, and by disappointment in President Obama’s performance. After hanging back too long, Obama has finally gotten off the mat and joined the fight, setting aside his bromides to bipartisanship and punching away like a politician who wants to win, not make nice.

    The campaign trail is good practice because he’ll have to become more confrontational once the election is over. Tea Party Republicans have no inclination to work with Democrats, and they’re likely to displace the few reasonable Republicans that are left. It’s hard to see where the grand bargain can be made or the deals struck to begin to address deficit spending. With nothing but stalemate and gridlock ahead, things may have to get worse, and then who will we blame?

    Obama took office not wanting to fight or blame anyone, and the Republicans played him. They stood up to him and he wasn’t prepared to defy them, revealing a vulnerability that has brought the Democrats to the brink of disaster. Obama ran on the idea that his election was a sign that everybody was going to get along but he also ran on a platform, and he won with 53 percent of the vote, the biggest margin of any Democrat since LBJ. Instead of claiming his rightful mandate, he made getting along his top priority, extending an olive branch to the other side, which Republican leaders rebuffed.

    When it became evident during Obama’s first 100 days that the GOP wanted him to fail and would work hard to make that dream come true, he should have stopped chasing after the false gods of bipartisanship. The GOP is destined to win a bunch of seats despite their ongoing low approval ratings, and the unpopularity of their record, and many of their proposals. They are winning because conservatives hate Democrats more than Republicans and liberals are disheartened, and Republicans have done a better job exploiting the anger than Obama has tamping it down.

    Obama’s background as a community organizer may be hampering him as president. While his supporters still like him, they’re not so sure he has what it takes to bring about the hope and change he promised and excited the base. A community organizer empowers people to do things for themselves, and in government, you have to lead and order and direct, and that’s not Obama’s style, even though Republicans call him autocratic and Rush Limbaugh calls him “Ayatollah Obama.” Obama has had a lot of success in politics and academia, and on the mean streets of Chicago, by reaching consensus, and he expected to apply that life lesson now that he’s at the pinnacle of power, and it didn’t work.

    I’m loath to admit it, but I think there’s been a failure of leadership in this White House. Why else would a party on the verge of extinction less than two years ago be poised to take over one or perhaps both chambers of Congress? Hillary Clinton would have been tougher than Obama as president, but Republicans would have found her vulnerability and exploited it. I don’t think Obama’s supporters have buyer’s remorse, but they’re struggling to understand where Obama lost the magic and became the piñata for all the country’s ills. Republicans and the business community have been so successful in blaming Obama that if the next two years are like the last two years, he won’t get reelected.

    After the ’08 election, polls found that a majority of Republicans thought they had lost ground because their party wasn’t conservative enough. Most analysts thought that way off base, and that the GOP needed to spend some time in the political wilderness to come to their senses, and move back to the middle. Instead they’ve tacked so far to the right that Ronald Reagan looks like a moderate and Newt Gingrich, the original bomb thrower, is considered mainstream enough to be taken seriously as a likely presidential candidate.

    The ascendancy of the right has put Democrats on the defensive. A Hoover Institution study shows that House Democrats who voted for two out of three of Obama’s signature proposals (health care, the stimulus, and cap-and-trade energy policy) are likely to lose, a formula that would give the Republicans 43 seats, enough to take control of the chamber. There’s so little out there from Democrats on the merits of those proposals, and other core issues that separate them from Republicans, Democrats almost deserve to lose.

  191. While his supporters still like him, they’re not so sure he has what it takes to bring about the hope and change he promised and excited the base.

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

    THat would make sense of the ‘positive feelings’ vs ‘job approval’ figures.

  192. RCP 2010 SENATE RACES: “IT’S CLOSE”

    Dem: 48
    Rep: 47
    ————————–
    Interesting. It would be interesting to know what is already in the pipeline. Also, this suggests that one big fuck up by Obama between now and November could make the difference.

  193. This is the great problem I have with all consensus based decision making involving the selection of people. Likability can trump competence.

  194. What if Hillary were President?

    October 4th, 2010
    Mary Shaw
    ——————

    This is how the lefty fuckers who voted for Obama will rationalize their vote and clear themselves of their guilt of 2008 primary fiasco.

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

    At least they’re asking the right question!

    To answer it — they should look at her record as Senator. Don’t recall many sexist attacks on her there, and she got a lot done, even with the help of the Impeachers.

  195. Here’s why I worry about the government taking over anything.
    I got robbed coming out of a store. Guess the person had seen me in the store as all they did was grab my breast pocket and take off. Got my id and less than a hundred dollars. Going to the dmv was an absolute nightmare. I was using my NY id as it didn’t expire til 2011. I don’t drive so its just photo ID. Well you need to turn over one state ID to get another. So if you are robbed it is inconvenient to say the least. I had to provide an absurd amount of documentation proving I was me I also had to have a blood relative accompany and vouche for me with a copy of a utility bill. All the while I am in the system with a photo. Finally get it all taken care of and didn’t take a good look at the writing on the new id. They spelled my name wrong!! To get it fixed I had to pay again. The woman I spoke with said did they ask you if everything looked correct when they did it the first time. So it was my fault they spelled Timothy wrong.

  196. There is even a loose consensus within that group, one they would surely deny, that the ideal population for the world is 2 billion.
    *******
    It seems that the extremes of that line of thought are 1) The human world population growth is analogous to yeast in a wine fermentation barrel. Nearly exponential growth leads to population overshoot until resources (sugar) are nearly exhausted and toxic waste (alcohol) produced result in population collapse. Using that scenario, the ideal human population is projected to be 1-2 billion. 2) the opposite is that humans are good a solving problems and new technology will allow continued population increases.

    The future is likely to be something in between the extremes. Projected population growth is 2 billion more by 2050. I doubt that resources will be able to sustain a 25% increase. The next fifty years will be “interesting”, fortunately I won’t be around to see the process or the results.

  197. turndownobama
    October 4th, 2010 at 4:20 pm

    What if Hillary were President?

    October 4th, 2010
    Mary Shaw
    ——————

    This is how the lefty fuckers who voted for Obama will rationalize their vote and clear themselves of their guilt of 2008 primary fiasco.

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

    At least they’re asking the right question!
    ———————-

    They are asking that question to absolve themselves of their wrong vote, not with any intellectual honesty. They know Hillary supporters and even some Republicans are asking that question. So they are trying to stifle the discussion by glossing over the question and providing a superficial answer that she would be no different. That is dangerous.

  198. Anyone have any stats on what percentage of private donations to the rest of the world are? Then add to that American taxpayers money going abroad? The theme of American’s being spoiled and eating up the world’s resources pisses me off. How much money did Haiti get? I was working in Manhattan when the tsunami hit. Everyone who was legal gave up a days pay. I’d really like to know how another billion dollars will stop the spread of HIV when women are raped with immunity?

  199. I wish I could sleep until it’s time to vote.

    I am so sick of all the political promises/lies from both sides…

  200. Good. I hope they don’t.

    Jewish Voters May Not Back Emanuel for Chicago Mayor

    Monday, October 4, 2010

    Jewish voters don’t reflexively back Rahm Emanuel for Chicago mayor

    Some local Jewish voters at odds with Emanuel’s role in Obama’s Israel policy, his politics when in Congress — and his coarse language

    Some might assume that the idea of a Rahm Emanuel candidacy for mayor would be cause for celebration along Devon Avenue, the longtime rialto of Chicago’s Jewish community.

    After all, Emanuel attended an Orthodox synagogue before going from Chicago to the White House, and his family is highly respected in West Rogers Park, where his father, Benjamin, was a pediatrician. The numbers of those who say Dr. Emanuel took care of their kids is roughly similar to the legion that claimed to have witnessed Babe Ruth point to the Wrigley Field bleachers and hit that famed home run.

    But Rahm Emanuel, who begins his Chicago “listening tour” this week, is about to discover that all politics aren’t local.

    In the Jewish neighborhoods on the Far North Side, Rahm Emanuel is more associated with what he did in Washington than what he might do in Chicago’s City Hall.

    “There are questions about his positions on Israel,” said Chesky Montrose, 32, who was wearing a skull cap and pushing one child in a stroller while keeping an eye on two others bicycling down Devon. “It’s not logical that international policy would influence a race for mayor. But there is some resentment here, no doubt.”

    There was rejoicing along Devon on Friday because it was Simchat Torah, a festive celebration of the divine laws Moses received on behalf of the ancient Israelites. But there also were questions about Emanuel timing his White House farewell announcement for that day.

    “On yontif?” said Montrose, using the Yiddish for the holiday.

    During the run-up to Simchat Torah, it’s traditional for Jews to take their meals in a sukkah, an improvised hut like their ancestors dwelled in during their wandering years in the deserts of Sinai. A fast-food restaurant on Devon provides customers with a sukkah.

    With rituals marking their forebears’ exiles, it’s hardly a wonder Jews fret over modern-day Israel. Obama got a huge percent of Jewish voters, many of whom assumed Emanuel would give voice to their concerns as chief of staff, noted Cheryl Jacobs Lewin, Chicago co-chair of Americans for a Safe Israel.

    “That has not happened, judging by the White House’s heavy-handedness toward Israel,” Lewin said in an e-mail.

    A spokeswoman for Emanuel said Sunday he is a strong backer of Israel.

    “Rahm’s support for Israel is well known, and he had many supporters in the Jewish community when he represented a half-million Chicagoans in Congress. But he takes nothing for granted and will work to earn the support of every voter in communities across the city,” said Lori Goldberg, Emanuel’s spokeswoman.

    Another person leery of Emanuel on the Israel issue is Norm Levin, who said, “I used to be a devout Democrat.”

    Levin is president of the Great Vest Side Club, an alumni association of the West Side neighborhood that was once the epicenter of Chicago’s Jewish community. (The pronunciation “vest” commemorates the immigrant accent of members’ parents.)

    “I like to vote for Jewish people,” Levin said. “But if they’re sort of negative on Israel, they lose me.”

    Yet that very quality could be a plus for Emanuel among lakefront liberals, many of them secular Jews uncomfortable with a right-leaning Israeli administration.

    “I’m sort of hostile to Israel,” said James Alter, a founding father of independent politics in Chicago.

    He and his late wife, Joanne Alter, also Jewish and a Metropolitan Water Reclamation District trustee, made their Lakeview home a longtime clubhouse for anti-machine activists.

    Even so, there are other issues on which liberals clash with Emanuel, said political consultant Don Rose, who is Jewish, a reigning guru of the independent movement.

    “We progressives found him unresponsive as a congressman when we wanted him to speak out against the Iraq war,” Rose said.

    Then there could be a linguistic problem attached to an Emanuel candidacy. Jews think of a Jew in the public eye as representing all of them with his or her behavior, said Chayim Knobloch, a rabbi and proprietor of the Kol Tuv supermarket on Devon.

    Emanuel is famous for peppering his conversations with swearing, while Jews have a longstanding caution: “Don’t make a shandah for the goyim” — be aware of your behavior in gentile company.

    “So I have a small request,” Knobloch said. “Rahm should watch his language.”

    http://www.worldjewishdaily.com/toolbar.html?4t=extlink&4u=http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-emanuel-jewish-vote-1004-20101003,0,2739767.story

  201. Barack Obama — Washington’s Loneliest Man
    By Michael Goodwin

    He’s tried homey backyard settings, large campus rallies and teamed up with a crass hip-hop show.

    Wherever he goes, he floors the rhetorical pedal, as when he likened his slow-motion polices to the time it took to “free the slaves.”

    Barack Obama has gone from a failing president to flailing at ghosts. Even allowing for desperate times, his desperate measures are a national embarrassment.

    Emancipation? Give us a break.

    With each passing day, his denunciations of dissent and inflated claims of economic progress turn off the independent voters who will decide the midterm elections. He is ignoring the sensible advice to listen to the majority of voters and build a governing coalition.

    YOU MIGHT ALSO BE
    INTERESTED IN
    Verizon To Introduce Tiered Pricing Over Next 4-6 Months Ten Worst Places to Live New York-Bound Plane Makes Emergency Landing as Sparks Fly, Wing Drags Along Tarmac Senate Power Could Shift Following the Midterm Elections Ford To Build Second Engine Plant In China Instead, he recklessly bets the remainder of his presidency on maintaining the huge liberal Democratic majorities that helped him impose a string of unpopular policies on America. If he fails, and there is good reason to hope he will face a Republican Congress, he’ll be the loneliest man in Washington.

    He is losing much of his White House team, yet the obsequious hagiography continues. When Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel departed Friday, he claimed the last 20 months were “the toughest time any president has ever faced.”

    This is farce masquerading as fact, but there is no sign Obama is willing to bring in new aides who could help him chart a new course.

    If anything, he is doubling down on his self-aggrandizing Big Government agenda, dashing hopes he would use the public revolt against him to finally become the centrist many Americans believed they were electing.
    A friend said the other day that Obama’s nonstop campaign speeches were useless because the country has tuned him out. Politically speaking, that’s true.

    The thrill is gone, and his efforts to gin up enthusiasm seem a pale imitation of 2008. It’s all vapors now as he hectors former supporters to “buck up.”

    But it’s impossible simply to ignore Obama. He is the president of a troubled nation, and he regularly reaches new depths of demeaning the office as he fights public will.

    His isolation from reality produces cringes when he opens smaller gatherings to questions. First, it was a woman in Washington who said she was “exhausted defending you” and waiting for meaningful change.

    Then it was a business owner in Iowa who complained tax hikes would make it impossible to add jobs.
    Both questioners were informed and polite, one a supporter, one not. They represent the sturdy and loyal backbone of the nation, but Obama was clueless about how to respond.

    He answered as if on automatic pilot, showing no ability to connect to their everyday problems or even to stray from stock answers.

    Sadly, the failure to deliver on his promise of unity doesn’t end at our borders. He vowed his election would raise America’s standing around the world and enable us to building expanding networks of allies to face global issues.

    A recent incident at the United Nations shows it’s not going well. When Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said in the General Assembly that the 9/11 attacks were an “inside job” carried out by our government to help Israel, U.S. diplomats walked out in protest.

    Delegations from all 27 European Union nations joined us, as did Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Costa Rica, according to an Associated Press tally.

    Nobody else budged. Not Russia, not China, Japan, South Korea or Mexico, and nobody from Africa or South America.

    Imagine that. A nut case who is building a nuclear bomb, whose regime tortures and kills its own people, slanders the living and the dead, and Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton can’t rally even half of our allies to our side.

    In fact, there is no evidence they even protested the silence. This is not leadership. It is failure on a grand and consistent scale.

  202. Just spreading the wealth–like he told Joe The Plummer. Morale to the story: unless you are a delusional fool who voted for Obama, you do not give a loaded revolver to a two year old, or presidential power to a sociopath.
    ——————————————————–

    From: EVJOHNFISH@aol.com
    To: KSNews@KOMOTV.COM
    Sent: Thu, Sep 30, 2010 11:36 am
    Subject: Real Estate sales tax to go into effect 2013 Wait till you see
    what you will pay

    Subj: Real Estate sales tax to go into effect 2013

    Real Estate sales tax to go into effect 2013 (Part
    of HealthCare Bill)

    Did you know that if you sell your house after 2012 you will pay a
    3.8% additional sales tax on it? That’s $3,800 on a $100,000
    home etc. When did this happen?

    Its in the healthcare bill.

    WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH HEALTH CARE?

    The bulk of these new taxes don’t kick in until 2013 (presumably after obamas re-election).
    You can thank Nancy, Harry and Barack and your local Democrat
    Congressman for this one.

    If you sell your $400,000 home, there will be a $15,200 tax.
    This bill is set to harm the retiring generation who often downsize their
    homes.

    Is this Hope & Change great or what? Does this stuff make
    your November and 2012 votes more important?

    Oh, you weren’t aware this was in the obamacare bill? Guess what, you
    aren’t alone. There are more than a few members of Congress that aren’t
    aware of it either (result of clandestine midnight voting for huge bills
    they’ve never read). AND, there are a few other surprises lurking.

    *Why am I sending you this? The same reason I hope you forward
    this to every single person in your address book.
    ****People have the right to know the truth because an election is**
    **coming in November!*

  203. This story ticks me off. It’s just another example of politicians willfully trying to pull one over on US citizens. They want to be trusted, but only a fool will not question their actions. I am glad that Øbama administration leaked their disapproval of the gasoline tax, even if these yahoos worked long hours on trying to fool their fellow Americans. And yes, it’s a first. I actually have agreed with something teh one has done. The Tax and Crap bill is just another financial burden on the vast majority of Americans with everything from 80% increases in electric bills, to absurd gasoline prices.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/dailycaller/obamawhitehousetankedshotatbipartisanclimatee28098capandtradee28099deal;_ylt=Aviic9JDmlv_CiiSAFOl8qZ0fNdF

    But at a pivotal moment, the White House betrayed Graham by leaking details of the negotiations in a way particularly damaging to Graham politically, Lizza reports.

    At issue was a gasoline tax in the proposed legislation. The tax was actually supported by the gas industry for various reasons, but Graham knew if public debate centered on a “gas tax” in the bill, constituents in his conservative home state of South Carolina would be deeply unhappy.

    While Graham, Lieberman and Kerry struggled with how to keep the public from realizing a gas tax was in the bill, the White House leaked to Fox News that it opposed a “gas tax” in the bill supported by Graham.

  204. I agree with Hugh Lewis. This unauthorized disclosure that Angel told her opponent in private that the Republican Party has lost sight of its principles, helps her in the eyes of Nevada voters. Harry Reid has not come through for Nevada, but he has sure come through for the big money interests in Washington. Her reference to DeMint is further evidence of her bona fides because he more than any other insider to try to clean up their party, and make it responsive to the people rather than Wall Street interests.

    http://video.foxnews.com/v/4358617/sharron-angle-caught-on-tape-blasting-gop-touting-access/

  205. nomobama
    October 4th, 2010 at 7:26 pm
    ——————————
    We think of the Snow and Collins as the shakiest of Republicans and the secret lovers of all things Obama. Lindsey Graham is far worse, but he does it all behind the scenes. He did it on immigration, and he did it on cap and trade. If he were not in South Carolina, he would be a dimocrat. He is a Quisling and the worst of RINOs.

  206. You know, I used to have a lot of respect for Paul Krugman, but he has just pissed me off one time too many.

    A note to Tea Party activists: This is not the movie you think it is. You probably imagine that you’re starring in “The Birth of a Nation,” but you’re actually just extras in a remake of “Citizen Kane.”…

    So they are all raycist klansmen, huh? Bullshit. You, Mr. Krugman, are a pompous, self-important, ivory-tower elitist ass, whose head is so far up Obama’s butt that you are suffering from hypoxia and delirium. I am not even a damn conservative, and I find myself rooting for these people just to shut up the big fat arrogant finger-wagging pontificators like yourself. Keep it up, assholes, and I’ll pull a straight R lever in November, just for the joy of seeing the NYT editorial board crap their trousers.

  207. A recent incident at the United Nations shows it’s not going well. When Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said in the General Assembly that the 9/11 attacks were an “inside job” carried out by our government to help Israel, U.S. diplomats walked out in protest.

    Delegations from all 27 European Union nations joined us, as did Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Costa Rica, according to an Associated Press tally.

    Nobody else budged. Not Russia, not China, Japan, South Korea or Mexico, and nobody from Africa or South America.

    Imagine that. A nut case who is building a nuclear bomb, whose regime tortures and kills its own people, slanders the living and the dead, and Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton can’t rally even half of our allies to our side.

    In fact, there is no evidence they even protested the silence. This is not leadership. It is failure on a grand and consistent scale.
    ———————————–
    I did not realize that the BRICS did not walk out with us, but stayed behind in the room. When that happens in a negotiation it tells you your supposed allies are not with you, and your power over them is diminished. Actually, that is a shocking development–especially in the case of Japan, and to a lesser extent India. And while I would argue that this is more of a reflection on Obama, Rice and Power, the fact remains that Hillary is Secretary of State, and Hillary haters like Goodwin will grasp at any straw. The plain fact is these nations know Obama is President, they do not respect him and they suspect what Woodward says is true, namely that he does not listen to Hillary. But if that is indeed the case, then it puts Hillary in the unenviable position of having more responsibility than authority. And that is why she cannot remain in this Administration indefinitely without compromising her image as a world leader.

  208. It is hard for me to imagine that the D’s are really this stupid. I mean, I’m a freaking liberal and they are disgusting ME with their treatment of the tea-partiers.

    I have family members and neighbors who are part of that movement. And not a single damn one of them are raycist, or selfish jerks, or crazy ideologues. What they are is deeply disappointed in and distrustful of their govt, and for DAMN GOOD REASON.

    All the Dems needed to do was just a little bit of good governance. Just some transparency, and responsibility, and serious attention to fixing what was wrong instead of grabbing power for power’s sake, and gloating and rewarding cronies, and geefully patting themselves on the back for “We WON, screw you!” while the country drowned.

    If they had DONE that, then a lot of those friends and neighbors and family members of mine would have shifted left most willingly. I know them. They are not rigid people. Hell, several of them voted for Obama!
    Instead, the Dems are just jeering and writing off these people, walling them off behind accusations of raycism, or stupidity, of fringiness and wacko-ness, just so they don’t have to face the truth that they have FAILED them miserably. And instead of alleviating their distrust of govt, they have reinforced it with a vengeance.

    The left is CREATING a whole swathe of the population that will never trust or listen to them again. Ever. Under any circumstances. And it didn’t have to be that way.. Its just so damn sad.

    Dems capitalized on the nation’s disgust with Bush……….by coming into power and proving “Hey, we can screw you over just as badly as he did, except, as a bonus, we will also call you raycist hillbillies while we do it!”

    Between the Bush years and Obama, is it any wonder that people are in a SCREW GOVT IN GENERAL mood? I mean, jesus, it’s pretty understandable. What is not understandable is the D’s reinforcing that feeling rather than defusing it. When you have a populace who is seeing govt as the enemy, it isn’t exactly smart to go around talking to and about them as if they were your enemy.

  209. There is no way anyone can keep up with the dimocrats. They light fires everywhere, faster than we can report them, faster that we can analyze them and much faster than we raise a possee to go after them. And they behave like the Donner Party and eat their own. This fine pirouette by that prima dona ballerina Brad Sherman is a perfect example.

    In the south and in the mid west, this naked attempt to repeal right to work laws the kind of insult that can be only be answered by gentlemen, at dawn, with pistols (or Bowie knives in Louisana), by the river’s edge. And Brad’s timing is just impeccable–on the eve of an election. This legislation may be good politics in Brad’s home district, but like the Gallant Hood of Texas, it plays hell in Tennessee–and every other right to work state–all 22 of them. And that leaves many of his fellow Democrats holding the bag. But above all, it reflect an every man for himself imperative which has engulfed the party as it faces the calling of Nemesis.
    —————————————————————————————
    Posted by LaborUnionReport (Profile)
    Monday, October 4th at 7:00PM EDT
    31 Comments

    Back in June, we reported that California Congressman Brad Sherman (D) was circulating a letter to his fellow Democrats to introduce legislation to repeal “Right-to-Work” laws in 22 states. Now, with less than a month before the mid-term elections and five weeks before a lame-duck session in Congress, Sherman has introduced legislation to eliminate state Right to Work laws all across America.

    Currently, there are 22 states in the U.S. that have laws where workers who are employed at companies that are unionized have a choice whether or not to join or pay the union. These states are known as Right-to-Work states.

    On the other hand, in the 28 Non-Right-to-Work states (also called forced-dues states), it is legal for a union to negotiate a “union (income) security clause” that requires all workers covered by the union to pay the union does or ‘agency fees’ as a condition of employment. If the workers refuse to pay the union, under a “union (income) security clause,” the union can have them fired from their jobs.

    As background, in 1947, Congress amended the National Labor Relations Act with the Taft-Hartley Amendments which, among other things, gave states the right to establish “Right-to-Work” laws. Until the Taft-Hartley Amendments, from 1935 to 1947, private-sector workers in all 50 could be required to pay dues to a union or, if not, be fired from their jobs. The ability of states to have Right-to-Work laws is contained in a single paragraph within the National Labor Relations Act (Section 14 [b]), which states:

    (b) [Agreements requiring union membership in violation of State law] Nothing in this Act [subchapter] shall be construed as authorizing the execution or application of agreements requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment in any State or Territory in which such execution or application is prohibited by State or Territorial law.

    As a result of this one section being inserted into the 1947 amendments, states (through their legislatures) could determine whether or not to be a Right-to-Work state, or a forced-dues state. Therefore, the removal of this one section would make all 50 states forced-dues states, giving unions the ability to have workers fired for not paying union dues or fees.

    From Congressman Sherman’s website [emphasis added]:

    Today, Congressman Brad Sherman announced the introduction of dramatic legislation that would eliminate so-called “right-to-work” laws, which was applauded by AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka. Sherman has a strong record of supporting working men and women and earned a 100% rating from the AFL-CIO.

    Right-to-work laws require unions to represent non dues-paying employees, thereby undermining the basic premise and promise of union membership and creating free riders – people who are exempt from paying their fair share. Right-to-work laws create different standards for union membership in different states. This results not only in confusion over the regulation of union membership, but also places a higher cost on worker representation in labor rights states.

    [snip]

    “I do not believe that there should be a right to be treated unfairly or to endure unnecessary restrictions. Right-to-work laws strip unions of their legitimate ability to collect dues, even when the worker is covered by a union-negotiated collective bargaining agreement. This forces unions to use their time and members’ dues to provide benefits to free riders who are exempt from paying their fair share,” said Congressman Brad Sherman. “These laws are harmful to states like California, which allows labor unions to organize, because now we have to compete with the race to the bottom as our companies have to compete with those where the workers would like better wages, working conditions and benefits but are unable to organize to get them.”

    “With the introduction of legislation banning so-called right-to-work, Congressman Sherman has once again demonstrated his strong commitment to working families,” said Richard Trumka, president of the AFL-CIO. “Right-to-work laws undermine the economy and weaken workers’ ability to bargain for better working conditions, which translates into lower pay and fewer benefits for everyone.”

    While Brad Sherman’s statement about workers in Right-to-Work states not having the right to organize is patently false (the National Labor Relations Act does not discriminate on workers’ rights to organize in a Right to Work state), he is accurate that his state of California has been losing jobs. However, there are a multitude of factors that have contributed to California’s demise—many of which were, ironically, caused by the unions that Sherman has so endeared himself.

    Although Congressman Sherman introduced this legislation back in 2008, it had little chance of succeeding. However, with the mid-term elections and a lame-duck Congress following, the chances that Democrats (who are taking hundreds of millions from unions), it is possible that Democrats could vote to end Right-to-Work states.

    As a result, now is as good a time as any to get Democrats (in both Right-to-Work states and forced-union states) to state their positions on whether they support an end to workers’ right to work.

    [hat-tip: Projections, Inc.]

    __________________
    “I bring reason to your ears, and, in language as plain as ABC, hold up truth to your eyes.” Thomas Paine, December 23, 1776

    Cross-posted on BigGovernment.com and LUR.

    For more news and views on today’s unions, go to LaborUnionReport.com.

    31 Comments Leave a comment

    Because unemployment wasn’t high enough?
    tngal Monday, October 4th at 7:16PM EDT (link)
    That must be the reason. Well, Tennessee won’t stand for this. Things are about to get nasty.

  210. jbstonesfan
    October 4th, 2010 at 9:14 pm

    ——————-

    Thanks jb. Very interesting indeed.

    Hope things are going well for you.

  211. So Cafferty aired the following comments about his question on Hillary vs obama 2012:

    Brian in Baton Rouge, Louisiana writes:
    I’d support Hillary. She is a fighter, which is why the Republicans hated her and called her names. Obama is too weak and unwilling to fight for what he believes in, although the man can give a good speech. Just before he gives the Republicans everything they ask for.

    Sandi in Arizona writes:
    That’s a tough call for an extreme Hillary backer who would love to see her become the first female president of the United States. However, I think President Obama deserves a second term so I’d have to support him. This is truly a moot point however. Hillary will not run against him in 2012.

    Paul writes:
    To be honest, whoever shaped up better against the competition. And in this hyper-partisan, anti-incumbent fever that’s infected the nation, I’d say Hillary. She’s poised, smart and hasn’t done anything to tick off the electorate.

    Janice in Fayetteville, Arkansas writes:
    I doubt that Hillary Clinton will challenge the president. However, I would enjoy a debate between Clinton and Sarah Palin if they are the nominees. Clinton would show Palin no mercy!

    Chris writes:
    The answer is (C): the Republican who is running against one of them.

    Sarah in Denver writes:
    I’m disappointed enough with Obama to consider Clinton. I’ve already started looking around, and so far I don’t see a moderate Republican I like.

    Marcia writes:
    In 2008, I was torn but voted for Obama; in 2012, Clinton absolutely. She’s shown her mettle beyond a doubt and Bill’s behaved.

    http://caffertyfile.blogs.cnn.com/2010/10/04/hillary-clinton-vs-pres-obama-in-2012/

  212. October 04, 2010

    Tillemann to advise Clinton on civil society

    http://www.politico.com/blogs/laurarozen/1010/Tillemann_to_advise_Clinton_on_civil_society.html?showallTomicah Tillemann, a speechwriter for Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and the grandson of the late House Foreign Affairs Committee chairman Tom Lantos, has gotten a promotion.

    Clinton has asked Tillemann to be her senior advisor for civil society and emerging democracies.

    The appointment was the Secretary’s idea, an official described, saying Clinton is personally committed to these issues, which she raised in an address to the Community of Democracies in Krakow, Poland in July.

    The post is intended to advise the Secretary on how the U.S. can best support the efforts of civil society activists around the world. Another intended purpose of the appointment is to bring civil society groups into the policy making process earlier on. “We have realized that we do a much better job and civil society groups are empowered when they are able to work with us earlier in the process upstream and help us in actually formulating policy,” the official said.

    Tillemann has already shifted assignments, but is working in the same seventh floor office where he was previously part of the Clinton speechwriting shop.

    The speechwriting shop has been undergoing a transition. Josh Daniel, formerly with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, has come in as the director of speechwriting, and former chief speechwriter Lissa Muscatine has departed. Longtime Los Angeles Times diplomatic reporter and editor Sonni Efron has also joined the Department as a Clinton speechwriter.

    Before joining the State Department in early 2009, Tillemann worked for four years on the Democratic staff of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Apparently something of a prodigy, Tillemman was accepted at age 14 as an undergraduate at Yale, from which he graduated in 2001, and earned his PhD from John Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies.

  213. wbboei
    October 4th, 2010 at 6:56 pm
    ———————

    That clip is amazing. Edie Gorme is one of my all-time favorites.

    Such a shame to waste her on this idiot though.

  214. JanH
    October 4th, 2010 at 10:18 pm

    CLINTON vs OBAMA IN 2012 ELECTION
    _______________________

    Wow- this video is a goodoutlier cleverly couched in just the right ratio of percentage points. This will grab a basic reaction and spontaneus feedback from it’s viewers..

    Obama in the 50% pecentile bracket? Whistling past the graveyard are we? Hillary in the high 30%… haha-

    What is true is the numbers would be correct if they were reversed.

    Notice where the respondents are from… cute!
    Someone is having fun…

  215. That clip is amazing. Edie Gorme is one of my all-time favorites.
    ————————————–
    Mine too. She was a big band singer really who came along five years too late. She did a brief stint with Tex Beneke who was originally with the Glenn Miller band. There used to be an old Jewish guy in the bottom floor of the Empire State building who had a store called Records Revisited. Long gone now. He told me that Eydie was singing at night clubs and supper clubs on the Island from the time she was 14 even though liquor was served. She was from the Bronx. The original host of the Tonight Show Steve Allen put Eydie and Steve Lawrence together, as a boy girl duet. Later they married and what Steve joined together no man tore apart. They had a problem as I recall with one of their kids and that hit both of them, her in particular very hard. I have not heard about them for many years. Good people.

  216. JanH

    October 4th, 2010 at 11:11 am

    Mrs. Smith,
    What are your takes on how the White House feels about Bill Clinton now?
    ________________________

    With so many employees walking around with their heads in their hands, it would be difficult to seriously speculate about anyone at the WH thinking anything about Bill Clinton. Theres no one of any importance left to worry about Bill Clinton… Valerie Jarret? She has to be hoping right about now for a health issue taking the next 6 mos to resolve itself so she can leave Obama and doesn’t appear to be disloyal.

    I would go so far as to say, Obama has begged her to stay… (He is experiencing abandonment issues which is an unsafe feeling for the leader in charge of the Free World.)

    Obama needs close supervision right now. I hope the Secret Service is aware of his emotional instability.

    He is so not representative of the strength of character we are accustomed to sitting in the O/O.

  217. Obama has had a lot of success in politics and academia, and on the mean streets of Chicago, by reaching consensus, and he expected to apply that life lesson now that he’s at the pinnacle of power, and it didn’t work.

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

    Reaching consensus? YOu mean going off in back rooms to get your mentor thrown off the ballot, or to get HIllary’s votes and delegates given to him.

    Obama himself said you can act polite after you’ve gotten the power. But consensus isn’t how he gets it, or maybe just the act that his supporters go through after he knifes all his opponents and silences them.

  218. Tonight I discovered a Bulgarian Proverb which explains the Dimocratic Strategy for 2010 and beyond. It goes like this:

    “If you wish to drown, do not torture yourself with shallow water”.

  219. “we saw Obama still playing the community organizer — making deals, being nice, and bending over backwards”

    “Obama’s background as a community organizer may be hampering him as president.”

    Wow, that hope crack is something else. Obots just make stuff up in their heads.

    Obama’s problem is not that he was a community organizer. The problem is that (1) he wasn’t a good one and (2) he didn’t do anything else. Rev. Sharpton is a community organizer. But people know him by his actions (for better or worse), not his job title. Obviously, Sharpton leads the people he organizes–like a spearhead!–and obviously, Sharpton is a ruthless, brutal fighter. The guy has terrorized corporations with his community boycotts, and yes, he shook them down by brute force. His whole career has been a cage match with the enormously powerful NYPD. I doubt the PBA would describe Sharpton as ‘nice and bending over backwards.’ I know a lot of people hate Sharpton. But if ‘community organizer’ Obama had Sharpton’s nads, the Radical Left would be in ecstasy.

    “Republicans would have found her [Hiillary’s] vulnerability.” And Hillary wouldn’t have found theirs? The woman destroyed Newt Gingrich. She destroyed Al D’Amato. With supermajorities, the GOP’d would be afraid of her.

    Krugman, Clift. It’s very sad how useless and dishonest these left wing pundits have become.

  220. They had a problem as I recall with one of their kids and that hit both of them…
    ********
    Died of ventricular fibrillation at age 23, while he was college student

  221. I can’t believe no one is talking about this investigative report that FOx came out with..Its on their front page…its 9-11 all over again. Its so ridiculous! Just go to their home page I won’t dignify the report by posting here!

  222. Hillary is also receiving another award on the 5th from Mondale. I thought she got it last year too. The 8th the peace prize will be given out…I’m sure they’ll give it again to someone who doesn’t deserve it.

    Its nice to see Hillary get some notority. The rethugs are definitely scared of her because they are already starting crap.

    Whats your take on Cafferty’s look on his face when asked if he’d thought of Hillary challenging Obama…weird expression! I think Cafferty is a woman hater.

  223. Mrs. Smith,
    I love reading your posts they are always so uplifting…you have never given up on Hillary an Bill, of coarse on this board most have not. Still I like to read your ideas on the situations going on now!

  224. NewMexicoFan
    October 4th, 2010 at 12:12 pm

    http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/

    This is the debate on the mosque where the participants said that they had been threatened also.
    [….]

    The point is I guess that people in the public eye with controversary opinions unfortunately have death threats, which is a shame. As to who gets the more serious threats, I don’t know we can determine that.

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

    Thanks for the link. I’ll try ot get my system to run it, or to find a transcript.

    We might look at what sort of incitement comes before the threats that are actually put into practice. Abortion doctors are killed — after a lot of nasty incitement from anti-abortion people who accuse them of ‘murdering un-born children’ etc. McVeigh bombed Oklahoma City — after incitement about violence at Waco and Ruby Ridge. These recent horror stories about ‘Christian families murdered by Muslims’ have the same degree of violence, of incitement.

  225. Rauf and Khan are reported to be avoiding New York as much as possible due to the threats on their lives.

    basil9
    October 4th, 2010 at 8:00 am

    good.

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

    Better they should avoid Staten Island and stay in Manhattan where their project is supported by the majority. And where they’ve been well known in the community for years.

  226. Confloyd, I’m in catch up mode with reading comments on this site. Since I read your comments yesterday about your husband, you have been in my thoughts.

    Although I don’t know what it would be like for my spouse to have dementia, my husband and I are dealing with his 88 yr. old mother who has serious dementia and also my 90 year old mother who has physical problems and is beginning to get mentally “fuzzy”. We kept our mothers at our home for over a year, however, the time came recently when we knew we could not longer take care of them. Making the decision to put them in a nursing home was the hardest, most emotional decision we have ever had to make.

    Even though we spend hours each day with them at the nursing home, we are relieved to know that they are in a safe environment and at least we are getting more than three hours of sleep…or at least most nights.

    I just wanted you to know that my thoughts are with you at this tough time in your life.

    Also, I want to thank Administrator for Hillary is 44. There have been so many times that I’ve “escaped” to this site for a few minutes and it helped me through some of the rough patches.

  227. Dealing with a loved one’s dementia has to be one of the cruelest burdens one can face. Confloyd, wbboei, Southern Born … and all others, I’ll keep you in mind.
    ————————————
    Here is a local situation. Is it double jeopardy? The young men really lucked on the first trial as their punishment was hardly appropriate to the fact that their actions killed a person. Yet I find the DOJ frighteningly heavy handed with this.
    October 4, 2010
    Jury selection began Monday in the federal hate crime case that stems from the death of an illegal immigrant in Shenandoah. This is the second time the two men are on trial. Last year, a jury in Schuylkill County court acquitted them of the more serious charges against them, but federal prosecutors are trying to prove they attacked the man two years ago because he was Mexican. All day, prosecutors and defense attorneys questioned potential jurors behind closed doors. They hope to have a jury selected sometime Tuesday in the federal civil rights trial. Brandon Piekarsky and Derek Donchak face federal hate crime charges. Investigators said the two, along with others, beat an illegal immigrant, Luis Ramirez, in 2008, shouting racial slurs at the man. Ramirez, 25, later died.
    Piekarsky and Donchak were both tried in Schuylkill County court in 2009 and found not guilty of the most serious charges.
    snip
    The federal trial for Piekarsky and Donchak is expected to last five to 10 days. In that time, federal prosecutors are hoping to prove the two men attacked Ramirez because he was Hispanic, an attack ignited by hatred. Defense attorneys on the other hand said Piekarsky and Donchak have already been found not guilty of serious charges and they will once again be acquitted. “We did contend that it’s double jeopardy. I guess the federal government likes to get a double dip. I guess a double dip is not prohibited by the constitution,” said Piekarsky’s attorney James Swetz.
    h t t p://www.wnep.com/news/countybycounty/wnep-shen-beating-trial-federal-court-peikarsky-donchak,0,4328921.story

  228. correction: lucked = lucked out, and I should probably not have snipped out this section of the story:

    Three members of the Shenandoah Police Department were charged [with coverup], including an officer who is engaged to Piekarsky’s mother. Their trial is set for next year.

  229. confloyd
    October 5th, 2010 at 2:58 am

    Mrs. Smith,
    I love reading your posts they are always so uplifting…you have never given up on Hillary an Bill, of coarse on this board most have not. Still I like to read your ideas on the situations going on now!
    _________________________________________

    The insight about Jarret came to me as I was typing, confloyd. I’ve noticed, my insights have gotten stronger since being resuscitated twice at the hospital 8 mos ago. As far as Hillary and Bill are concerned. I appreciate them for being human. They continue to work together as one person just as they have their entire careers. What I like most about Bill is him as Mr. Mom. He was there for Chelsea getting her off to school, taking her to dance classes, taking her home from school when she got sick. This was at the time when Hillary was the breadwinner of the family. If Chelsea is any example of the product of his brilliant mind and heart that imparted his knowledge and love on this child grown into stunning womanhood. He has set the bar high for any other man to meet and exceed. Besides all that- I believe their primary motives are, they really care about the country and have the plans in mind to fix it.

  230. confloyd-

    I’m glad you made a final decision about your hubby. You are the rock in the family and they depend on you for support. Holding a full time job away from home and having the strength left to care for him is just too much to expect from one person. My Mom is home with me as well. I’ve begun taking her back to Day Care again as my arm is healed well enough to drive. And I agree with SB.. His44 is our outlet for learning and dealing with the world around us and of course knowing what is the latest with our favorite couple.

  231. An Indian Cordoba.. What if the GZ Mosque people had behaved like this?

    Indian history is replete with conquests and pillage as well as generosity and communal harmony as told in this story.

    http://www.deccanherald.com/content/102061/temple-6-days-mosque-friday.html

    “The five-century old mosque functions as a temple for six days in a week, transforming itself into a mosque on the seventh day. Barring Fridays when Muslims pray in it, Hindus have a free run of the mosque as a temple.

    Constructed by Ibrahim Adil Shah II, the Bahmani Sultan known for his efforts to foster communal harmony among people of all religion, the structure resembling a mosque hosts idols of Hindu Gods like Shiva, Nandi and Ganesha as well as paintings of Marula Shankara Devaru, Ibrahim Adil Shah and his wife.”

  232. Beautiful thoughts, Mrs. Smith.
    I’ve been really concerned about Obama hitting the college campus trail, enough so that I just finished printing a postcard mailing about that subject. Then I went about closing all the windows I use for the process, and checked email — only to find another one scheduled for O’Malley in MD: “The President will be firing up supporters at a special afternoon rally on the campus of Bowie State University in Bowie, MD. He’ll lay out the choice we face this November between moving forward with Governor O’Malley, Lt Governor Brown, and other dedicated Democratic leaders across the state–or whether we slip backwards to the failed policies of the past.”
    The email notes that further details of the rally will be provided for those who rsvp. And of course there is a rally in Philly this Sunday with the band The Roots.

  233. Pakistan, why can’t they be like India or become like India? After all, they were part of India at one time.

    Troubling article (but nothing new, really)from FP:
    http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/10/04/pakistan_goes_rogue

    So Europe is on alert for terrorist attacks that would likely originate in Pakistan and be controlled from Pakistan — the two distinguishing features of the 2008 Mumbai attacks. Until Woodward’s book, observers might have assumed that, in the intervening two years, the United States might have succeeded in pressuring Pakistan to place the ISI under tighter control. We can no longer make that assumption.

    Perhaps we should be asking: Why is General Pasha still head of the ISI? He was, after all, appointed a month before the Mumbai attacks that Woodward, in his footnote, linked firmly to the ISI.

  234. BLEAK, BLEAKER, BLEAKEST

    washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/gallups-astonishing-numbers-and-the-lake-superior-congressional-districts-104321583.html

    Gallup’s astonishing numbers and the Lake Superior congressional districts
    =========================

    By: Michael Barone
    Senior Political Analyst
    10/04/10 11:55 PM EDT

    Late yesterday, Gallup came out with new numbers on the generic ballot question—which party’s candidates would you vote for in the election for House of Representatives? Among registered voters Gallup shows Republicans ahead by 46%-42%, about as good a score as Republicans have ever had (and about as bad a score as Democrats have ever had) since Gallup started asking the question in 1942.

    However, Gallup also shows the results for two different turnout models. Under its “high turnout model” Republicans lead 53%-40%. Under its “low turnout model” Republicans lead 56%-38%.

    These two numbers, if translated into popular votes in the 435 congressional districts, suggest huge gains for Republicans and a Republican House majority the likes of which we have not seen since the election cycles of 1946 or even 1928. For months, people have been asking me if this year looks like ’94. My response is that the poll numbers suggest it looks like 1994, when Republicans gained 52 seats in a House of 435 seats. Or perhaps somewhat better for Republicans and worse for Democrats. The Gallup high turnout and low turnout numbers suggest it looks like 1894, when Republicans gained more than 100 seats in a House of approximately 350 seats.

    Having said that, caution is in order. Gallup’s numbers tend to be volatile. Its procedures for projecting likely turnout are very sensitive to transitory responses. They’re useful in identifying shifts in the balance of enthusiasm. But they can overstate the swings to one party or the other. Scott Rasmussen’s latest generic ballot numbers among likely voters show Republicans with only a 45%-42% lead, much less than the 48%-38% lead he reported two days ago. That’s based on a three-day average, indicating Democrats fared relatively well on the most recent night of interviewing. Perhaps Barack Obama’s attempts to gin up enthusiasm among Democratic voters are bearing fruit. Or perhaps one night’s results were an anomaly. Polling theory tells us that at least one out of 20 polls is simply wrong, that is, the results differ from what you would get from interviewing the entire population by more than the margin of error.

    The realclearpolitics.com average of recent generic ballot polls, with the Gallup likely voter results factored in, shows Republicans ahead by 48%-42%, which is similar to what we’ve seen for the past week or two.

    But we do keep seeing poll results from surprising districts that tend to support the Gallup results. Last week I pointed to a poll (from a pollster I don’t know) showing an even race in North Carolina 7 between Republican Ilario Pantano and 14-year Democratic incumbent Mike McIntyre, who won his 2008 race, in which he had an active Republican opponent, with 69% of the vote. Now Ed Morrissey directs our attention to a poll by Public Opinion Strategies, a highly respected Republican firm, in Minnesota 8 showing 36-year incumbent James Oberstar leading Republican challenger Chip Cravaacke by only 45%-42%, within the margin of error.

    John McCormack has a good post in the Weekly Standard’s blog on this. Oberstar was first elected in 1974, he is Chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and has brought public dollars to an economically chronically ailing district. He was reelected in 2008 with 68% of the vote. But this is also a district that, despite containing the Democratic strongholds of Duluth and much of the Iron Range (both in St. Louis County) that voted only 53% for John Kerry in 2004 and Barack Obama in 2008. However, at its southern end it includes Isanti and Chisago Counties, exurban counties in the Twin Cities metro area, which despite a Democratic heritage have trended away from Democrats in recent elections—toward Jesse Ventura in 1998 and toward Republicans between 2000 and 2008, when they both voted for John McCain.

    Minnesota 8 has a certain historic resonance for Democrats. It was one of only two or three districts (I am away from my desk where I have my papers and sources on this) which in the Republican landslide year of 1946 switched from a Republican to a Democratic congressman. This was a move away from progressive and isolationist Republicans (like Alvin O’Konski in the adjoining then-10th District of Wisconsin) toward labor-backed Democrats (completed in the Wisconsin case by the victory of young Democrat David Obey over O’Konski when they were redistricted together in 1972). Only two Democrats have represented Minnesota 8 ever since, John Blatnik, first elected in 1946 and for whom Oberstar worked as a staffer, and since 1974 Oberstar; only one Democrat, David Obey, has represented what is now Wisconsin 7 since 1969. For Oberstar to have a serious challenge, much less to be in danger of defeat, is quite astonishing. If these numbers are right—and like all poll numbers they are subject to some degree of doubt—they tend to confirm the Gallup likely voter numbers.

    As for Obey, he has chosen to retire this year at age 72, and Republican Sean Duffy is waging a serious campaign for the district. These are two American congressional districts that touch on Lake Superior, that huge and cold forboding body of water over which the great freighters filled with iron ore have sailed in the ice-free months, from Duluth to the steel factories in Gary, Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland and Buffalo. In the third of these districts, Michigan 1, Republican Dan Benishek looks like the favorite to take the district being vacated by Democrat Bart Stupak.

  235. SUPREME COURT NOW HAS JUST EIGHT JUSTICES…

    Kagan refused to give her opinions during the confirmation process.

    Now Kagan recuses herself into non-existence.

    washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/03/AR2010100303890.html

    Kagan’s recusals take her out of action in many of the Supreme Court’s cases
    ================

    By Robert Barnes
    Monday, October 4, 2010; 3:05 AM

    Elena Kagan begins hearing cases as the Supreme Court’s 112th justice Monday morning. But anyone who wants to see her in action needs to be sharp.

    Kagan will hear the first case argued before the court, then slip quietly through the burgundy velvet curtains behind the bench. She’ll be out of the action in all three cases : Tuesday. Her chair will be empty when the court returns next Tuesday and she’ll put in a half-day the next day.

    Kagan’s old job as solicitor general – the “10th justice” – is initially making it hard to do her new job as the ninth justice.

    Kagan, 50, has recused herself from 25 of the 51 cases the court has accepted so far this term, all as a result of her 14-month tenure as solicitor general, the government’s chief legal representative in the Supreme Court and the nation’s lower appellate courts.

    The recusals are one measure of how integral the “SG” is to the court’s workings. Much of the court’s caseload comes from challenges to federal statutes or government policies that the solicitor general must defend. The court also often asks for the government’s view on whether a case is ripe for review.

    Kagan is recusing herself from cases in which she had a role in drafting a brief for the Supreme Court, or when she was actively involved in a case in the lower courts. She took herself out of such deliberations when President Obama nominated her last May, so the pace of her recusals should slow as the court over the next few months completes the work of filling the term’s docket.

    But initially, Kagan’s absence will affect some important corporate and employment- discrimination cases, as well as a highly anticipated review of one of Arizona’s attempts to crack down on illegal immigrants.

    The issue might affect the court in other ways. Steven R. Shapiro, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, said last week that some lawyers are waiting on bringing issues to the court until they can be sure Kagan could hear them.

    An eight-member court creates an advantage for the party that won at the lower level: it needs to convince only four justices in order to win, because an evenly divided court keeps the lower-court ruling in place without creating a national precedent.

    The immigration case, Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting, is an unusual alliance between business groups, civil liberties organizations and the federal government to overturn a law that allows the state to yank a business’s license for hiring undocumented workers.

    The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit upheld it, but the solicitor general’s office told the court that it intruded on the federal government’s exclusive authority on immigration laws.

    Kagan’s absence may be felt most strongly in two cases that ask whether federal regulation protects companies from lawsuits brought under state consumer protection laws.

    Maureen Mahoney, who represents Mazda Motor Corp. in one of the cases, said at a recent Chamber of Commerce briefing that plaintiffs lost their “champion” in such suits when Justice John Paul Stevens retired. It is unclear whether Kagan will agree on such issues with the man she replaced, but her recusal certainly makes it harder for plaintiffs to find five justices to overturn the lower-court ruling favoring Mazda and whether its seatbelts met standards.

    Likewise, Wyeth prevailed at the lower-court level when a couple said that a vaccine produced by the company was responsible for their daughter’s seizures and mental impairment.

    That case, Brusewitz v. Wyeth, illustrated another aspect of the recusal problems justices can face. Most commonly, justices take themselves out of a case when they or family members have a financial interest in it.

    The court confirmed last week that Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., who has recused himself in cases involving Wyeth’s parent company, Pfizer, has sold his stock in the company. If he had not, only seven justices would have been available to hear the case.

    The Supreme Court, unlike the high courts in 39 states and the District of Columbia, has no authority to replace a recused justice so that a full court hears each case.

    Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) filed legislation last month that would create such a system. As a result of a conversation with Stevens, Leahy proposes allowing a majority of the active justices to vote to designate a retired justice to fill-in for a recused justice.

    With the current lineup of retired justices composed of Stevens, Sandra Day O’Connor and David H. Souter, it seems unlikely that Leahy’s conservative colleagues will jump to support him.

    In the meantime, the issue of Kagan’s recusals will diminsh in what is likely to be decades on the court. The problem occurred the last time a former solicitor general was elevated. Thurgood Marshall – for whom, coincidentally, Kagan was a clerk – recused himself from a large portion of cases his first and second years. But his legacy is more about the cases he helped decide than the ones he sat out.

  236. I am troubled by how Kagan recused herself in half the cases too. If you think about it, it is Obama voting present indirectly again.

  237. From Eleanor Cliff’s rubbish: “Hillary Clinton would have been tougher than Obama as president, but Republicans would have found her vulnerability and exploited it.”

    One reason why Hillary has prompted hatred in much of the political class, if not the population, is that she “has an answer for everything”, i.e. no vulnerability whatsoever, period.

  238. White House at Confab with Muslim Brotherhood

    by Connie Hair
    10/04/2010

    The Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) held its “Islam and Muslims in America” conference last week in Chicago where a controversial White House appointee rubbed elbows with Muslim Brotherhood front organizations—including unindicted co-conspirators from the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and the largest terrorist funding trial in U.S. history, the Holy Land Foundation (HLF) trial.

    The OIC host entity is comprised of the kings and heads of state of all Islamic countries (the OIC numbers its membership at 57 states by including the non-existent state of Palestine).

    According to the “about us” section of the organization’s website, the OIC speaks for the Muslim world and the ummah, which is the worldwide body of Muslim believers. The website says:

    “The Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) is the second largest inter-governmental organization after the United Nations which has membership of 57 states spread over four continents. The Organization is the collective voice of the Muslim world and ensuring to safeguard and protect the interests of the Muslim world in the spirit of promoting international peace and harmony among various people of the world.…

    “The Organization is composed of the following main bodies: The Islamic Summit, composed of Kings and Heads of State and Government of Member States, is the supreme authority of the Organization. It convenes once every three years to deliberate, take policy decisions and provide guidance on all issues pertaining to the realization of the objectives and consider other issues of concern to the Member States and the Ummah.”

    The OIC’s claim to speak for “the collective voice of the Muslim world” carries great weight considering its membership. The OIC conference in Chicago—with the participation of the White House—is working with Muslim Brotherhood front groups to promote Sharia law and its governance in America through the ummah (body of religious believers).

    Yet the OIC is not an Islamic religious organization but a political entity exercising political power and territorial claims through all of its members as well as the ummah.

    The White House representative at the OIC conference, Dalia Mogahed, is a big supporter of Sharia law. From the London Telegraph:

    “Miss Mogahed, appointed to the President’s Council on Faith-Based and Neighbourhood Partnerships, said the Western view of Sharia was ‘oversimplified’ and the majority of women around the world associate it with ‘gender justice.’

    “The White House adviser made the remarks on a London-based TV discussion programme hosted by Ibtihal Bsis, a member of the extremist Hizb ut Tahrir party. “The group believes in the non-violent destruction of Western democracy and the creation of an Islamic state under Sharia Law across the world.

    “Miss Mogahed appeared alongside Hizb ut Tahrir’s national women’s officer, Nazreen Nawaz.

    “During the 45-minute discussion, on the Islam Channel programme Muslimah Dilemma earlier this week, the two members of the group made repeated attacks on secular ‘man-made law’ and the West’s ‘lethal cocktail of liberty and capitalism.’

    “They called for Sharia Law to be ‘the source of legislation’ and said that women should not be ‘permitted to hold a position of leadership in government.’”

    Mogahed participated in a panel at the conference with Siraj Wahhaj, an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. Wahhaj, imam of the Masjid Al-Taqwa mosque in Brooklyn, N.Y., also sits on the board of directors of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), an unindicted co-conspirator in the HLF trial. In a September 1991 speech, Wahhaj made clear his intent toward all non-Muslims worldwide. From Discover the Networks:

    “‘And [Allah] declared: Whoever is at war with my friends, I declare war on them. … Your true friend is Allah, the messenger, and those who believe…. Hear what I’m telling you well. The Americans are not your friends … The Canadians are not your friends … The Europeans are not your friends. Your friend is Allah, the Messenger and those who believe.’

    “In a 1992 address to an audience of Muslims in New Jersey, Wahhaj expressed his desire to see Muslims seize control of the United States and replace its constitutional government with an Islamic caliphate. ‘If we were united and strong,’ Wahhaj said, ‘we’d elect our own emir [leader] and give allegiance to him…. Take my word, if 6-8 million Muslims unite in America, the country will come to us.’

    “In 1995 Wahhaj was named by U.S. Attorney Mary Jo White as a possible co-conspirator to the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. Wahhaj angrily objected to that designation, noting in his defense that he had eaten ‘dinner with Secretary of State [Madeline] Albright—after the list’ of co-conspirators had been released.

    “In the summer of 1999, Wahhaj testified as a character witness for convicted terror mastermind Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman. Wahhaj stated, on the record, that he considered it an honor to have had an opportunity to host Abdel-Rahman at his mosque, describing the latter as a ‘respected scholar … bold … a strong preacher of Islam.’

    “In August and September of 2001, just prior to the 9/11 attacks, Wahhaj was a guest speaker at ‘Jihad Camp’ in Pennsylvania. The camp was organized by Safet Abid Catovic, a leader of the Benevolence International Foundation, a ‘charity’ that would be shut down in November 2002 on charges that it had provided funding for al Qaeda.”

    The OIC meeting in Chicago claims to represent American Muslims and is working through and with Muslim Brotherhood front organizations, such as CAIR and the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA—another unindicted co-conspirator in the HLF trial) whose stated goal is to subvert America through civilizational jihad.

    Is the OIC making any headway in its jihad?

    When the OIC meets at the summit level it represents the heads of state of its “57 member states.” On December 8, 2005, at such a summit, the OIC ratified its “Ten-Year Programme of Action to Meet the Challenges Facing the Muslim Ummah in the 21st Century.”

    In the ten-year plan, section VII entitled “Combating Islamophobia,” subsection 3: “Endeavor to have the United Nations adopt an international resolution to counter Islamophobia, and call upon all States to enact laws to counter it, including deterrent punishments.”

    In 2009 the U.N. Human Rights Council passed a resolution (without a vote), submitted by the Obama Administration, which would subordinate U.S. free speech rights to U.N. oversight standards. These standards mirror the OIC’s Ten-Year Plan objectives.

    The OIC seeks deterrent punishments for speaking against Islam to garner silence and submission to Sharia law.

    http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=39266

  239. rgb44hrc: The Gallup high turnout and low turnout numbers suggest it looks like 1894, when Republicans gained more than 100 seats in a House of approximately 350 seats.
    ——————————————
    This raises a rather interesting question:

    After November, will Barack Hussein Obama be hailed as the new George Armstrong Custer, rather than the new Lincoln?

    Frankly, if Barone is right, and if you substitute the word “political deaths” for military deaths causalities and killings, then the question becomes apt.

    Consider the evidence:

    Fast Facts:
    Date: June 25 to June 26, 1876
    Location: Little Bighorn River, Montana
    Also known as: Battle of Greasy Grass
    War: Black Hills War
    Victor: Native Americans
    Commanders:
    Native American: Crazy Horse, Sitting Bull
    Army: George Custer, Marcus Reno, Frederick Benteen, James Calhoun
    Battlefield is now a National Monument
    Reported to have lasted only half an hour
    Casualties
    Native Americans: 36-136 killed, 160 wounded
    7th Cavalry: 268 killed, 55 wounded

    Custer’s Legacy
    Lieutenant General George Armstrong Custer was defeated and killed at Little Bighorn. (Snip). His decision-making during the battle itself has also proved controversial, with some historians concluding that his actions were rash and impulsive. (Snip).

  240. Canaan
    October 5th, 2010 at 12:14 am
    ——————————
    Absolutely positively correct. These left wing pundits will go to any lengths to rationalize their mistake and treachery. But their attempted deceptions are transparent, because we know their history.

    Stanley Kubrick wrote a book called Paris in the 1950s. In it he noted that after the War, all Parisian remembered that during the war they were an integral part of the French Resistance. This was curious however because during the war it seemed like there were many many many French Collaborationists and many of those same people survived the war. They were simply liars.

  241. “all Parisian remembered that during the war they were an integral part of the French Resistance. This was curious however because during the war it seemed like there were many many many French Collaborationists and many of those same people survived the war. They were simply liars.”

    ————-
    Yes indeed. This also happened in Poland and Germany among other places.

  242. SUPREME COURT NOW HAS JUST EIGHT JUSTICES….
    *******
    This is summary of some of the cases before the SCOTUS this term. After they are done, I suspect the elite-corporate agenda will be advanced further and to the economic detriment of the vast majority of Americans.

    “US Supreme Court opens 2010 term with pro-corporate agenda”

    (It will be interesting to see if the Court continues down the road of “corporations are persons”)

    “For example, in the only “right to privacy” case on this term’s docket the Supreme Court will decide whether communications behemoth AT&T can assert that release of data from the government about its overcharging customers pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act could “constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” Previously such claims have only been honored for human beings, not transnational corporations.”

    http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/oct2010/cour-o05.shtml

  243. “The five-century old mosque functions as a temple for six days in a week, transforming itself into a mosque on the seventh day. Barring Fridays when Muslims pray in it, Hindus have a free run of the mosque as a temple.

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

    Cordoba House will give outsiders free run of its swimming pool, other community center facilities, and non-Muslim meditation rooms ALL SEVEN days, reserving only PART of 1/13 of the structure for Muslims to pray in.

  244. As Obama goes slip sliding away it is wonderful to watch people give him advice on what to do and what not to do. Bill, Mondale, Dukakis et. al. I am sure they do it with the best of intentions.

    But where would he be for example without the idiot boards? It would be a lot like the video above. Put differently, take away the boards, and all you are left with is the idiot.

    The other thing I like about Obama receiving all this well intentioned advice, is it must surely drive him up the wall. He is a stone cold sociopath, and for others to presume to give him advice must go down like a mouth full of grass burrs.

    To take the full measure of the man’s hubris we need only recall his famous words: “the difference between 1994 and now is you have got ME!” And what exactly does that mean? It means massacre along the lines of 1894 courtesy of The One.

    Question: was Bush responsible for that one as well Barack? You have blamed him for everything else, why stop now?

  245. Secretary Clinton to Receive the George McGovern Leadership Award from the World Food Program on October 5

    Office of the Spokesman
    Washington, DC

    Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton will be awarded the George McGovern Leadership Award for advancing the international community’s efforts to address global hunger at the World Food Program USA’s 9th annual awards ceremony and reception. The event will begin at 3:30 p.m. on Tuesday, October 5 in the Benjamin Franklin Room of the Department of State. Secretary Clinton’s remarks are expected at 5:15 p.m.

    Former Senator and Goodwill Ambassador to the World Food Program George McGovern will present the award to Secretary Clinton. Executive Director of the World Food Program Josette Sheeran and President and CEO of WFP USA Richard Leach will also participate.

    http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2010/10/148622.htm

  246. I understand that Rahn is on a “listening tour” in Chicage much like Hillary did when she ran for the Senate. I also Bloomberg was asking many questions on how Hillary ran for Potus….you know I don’t understand why they are not asking Obama on how to run a campaign…I mean Obama beat Clinton so why aren’t they asking Obama for advice….

    THEY ASK HILLARY BECAUSE SHE REALLY WON AND THEY KNOW IT!

  247. I hate to be cynical, but if the reverse had happened, i.e. a synagogue burning, I could see most of the world rejoicing, but I could not see an iman delivering a box of torahs.
    ————–

    Rabbis gift Korans to vandalised West Bank mosque
    (AFP) – 2 hours ago

    BEIT FAJJAR, Palestinian Territories — Two settler rabbis on Tuesday delivered a box of Korans to a West Bank mosque which had been torched by vandals, in an unusual peace gesture welcomed by Palestinians.

    The two rabbis, Menahem Frohman and Aharon Lichtenstein, who both live in Jewish settlements near Bethlehem, paid a solidarity visit to the mosque in Beit Fajjar and donated a dozen copies of the Muslim holy book.

    The visit came a day after unidentified vandals driving a car with Israeli licence plates drove into Beit Fajjar and sprayed Hebrew graffiti all over the mosque before setting it alight in a pre-dawn attack blamed by witnesses on Jewish settlers.

    Several hundred Palestinians cheered as the two rabbis arrived at the mosque in bulletproof Land Rovers accompanied by a small delegation of Israeli soldiers.

    They were met by the mosque’s imam and Bethlehem governor Abdul Fatah Hamayel who gave them a tour of the damaged mosque.

    The attack came at a tense time, with peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians on hold over Israel’s resumption of settlement construction in the West Bank.

    Witnesses said six armed men in a white car drove into Beit Fajjar at 3:00 am (0100 GMT) and spray-painted Hebrew insults on the walls of the mosque before setting it alight.

    The Israeli military described the attack as a “grave and serious incident” and said it had launched a manhunt for the perpetrators.

    http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5i0vAVV9d082MK34ArfXcdkrFhSXg?docId=CNG.b4f78a36c7b572cde0d946ad2a4390fc.bd1

  248. ROTFLMAO!

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

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/05/science/earth/05fossil.html?_r=2&hp

    With insurgents increasingly attacking the American fuel supply convoys that lumber across the Khyber Pass into Afghanistan, the military is pushing aggressively to develop, test and deploy renewable energy to decrease its need to transport fossil fuels.
    ….
    While setting national energy policy requires Congressional debates, military leaders can simply order the adoption of renewable energy. And the military has the buying power to create products and markets.
    ….
    The Air Force will have its entire fleet certified to fly on biofuels by 2011 and has already flown test flights using a 50-50 mix of plant-based biofuel and jet fuel; the Navy took its first delivery of fuel made from algae this summer. Biofuels can in theory be produced wherever the raw materials, like plants, are available, and could ultimately be made near battlefields.
    ….
    Because the military has moved into renewable energy so rapidly, much of the technology currently being used is commercially available or has been adapted for the battlefield from readily available civilian models.
    ….
    “If the Navy comes knocking, they will build it,” Mr. Mabus said. “The price will come down and the infrastructure will be created.”

  249. If I had the time and the energy and thought anyone would listen, then I would like to take the top 25 big media celebrities who shilled for Obama and trashed his opponents. For each one of them, I would provide a synopsis of what they told us about him and what they censored to delude 58% of the electorate. I would provide supporting links, so the people who did have the attention span to read it and reflect on it, could satisfy themselves that I was not distorting the evidence for some undisclosed albeit partisan end. The reason I would do this would be to impeach the credibility of those journalists, so the public at large does not rely on their judgment in the future, and sees them for what they are: damaged goods, with no warranty, as is where is, buyer assumes all the risks of listening to their bullshit.

  250. turndown, I think its a grand idea, why not use the military to learn what works with fuel conservation and what does not…did you know that some of the surgery that is performed today were defined in Vietnam. I am sure surgeon’s are learning alot more about brain surgery in Iraq and Afganistan today. It’s really a positive.

  251. Mr. Mabus
    ——————-
    His military credentials are de minimus in relation to the job he holds. This is a critical time for the Navy as it confronts a rising China. We need a strong military man in that position, as opposed to a political hack.

  252. POLITICS

    I hope the voters of West Virginia vividly recall the fact that in 2008 Governor Joe Manchin promised to endorse the winner of their primary, whereupon Hillary won their primary by a margin of 69% to 26%, whereupon Manchin reneged on his commitment and refused to endorse her. That is what Joe really thinks about democracy, and the will of the voters in his state. Well, one bad turn deserves another. As they say down in the Holler, fuck him and the horse he rode in on. Or, better yet, those who live by Obama deserve to expire by Obama. He is such a fine governor, they need to keep him where he is until the next election. I have mentioned several time what else I was told about him by an insider. There is no need to repeat it again.
    —————————————————

    Fox News Polls: GOP Poised to Gain or Hold Senate Seats in Key States
    By Chris Stirewalt

    Democrats have a mountain to climb in West Virginia.

    The latest Fox News battleground state surveys of five key states shows Republicans in good position to gain two seats and hold two seats left open by GOP retirements. Democrats, meanwhile, are well-positioned to hold only one.

    The polls in West Virginia, Connecticut, Nevada, Missouri and Ohio show varying degrees of success for Democrats in dealing with low approval ratings for President Obama and his policies.

    In West Virginia, even a popular governor cannot escape the gravity of Obama’s bad numbers, while in Connecticut lukewarm ratings for Obama seem to do little harm to the well-known Democratic attorney general’s Senate bid.

    The latest surveys were conducted on Oct. 2 by Pulse Opinion Research for Fox News. Each survey included 1,000 likely voters and has a margin of error of 3 points.

    YOU MIGHT ALSO BE
    INTERESTED IN
    High School Coach Moons Fans During Game
    Paranoid Much? Try These Gadgets
    Boehner: Dems Have Time for Comedy, Not Tax Cuts, in Congress
    4 Simple Steps to Getting Rid of Credit Card Debt
    10 Worst Celebrity Business Owners
    The surveys will be conducted weekly until the election.

    Obama Angst Pulls West Virginia Into GOP Column

    Deep resistance to Obama’s agenda has put a West Virginia Senate seat once thought to be safe territory for Democrats in serious jeopardy.

    A new Fox News battleground state poll on the race for the seat held by the late Sen. Robert Byrd for 51 years shows Republican businessman John Raese with a 5-point lead over Democratic Gov. Joe Manchin among likely voters — 48 percent to 43 percent.

    In what may be the year’s clearest case of Obama’s downward pull on his party’s candidates, Manchin gets high marks from voters – 66 percent approved of his job performance and 65 percent had a positive view of him personally — but they still prefer Raese.

    The survey was conducted before new reports that the head of the state’s Democratic Party, Manchin’s former chief of staff and business partner Larry Puccio, is under scrutiny by federal investigators for state contracts obtained under Manchin.

    Manchin’s most obvious problem is Obama’s 29 percent approval rating in the state. Only 12 percent believe that Obama’s policies have helped the state economically, while 55 percent in the coal-rich state believe they have hurt. That is borne out in the slim 28 percent of respondents who supported a plan to address global warming like the one Obama favors.

    Raese has hit Manchin hard for his support of the president’s national health care law and Manchin has played up his opposition to certain aspects of it and is now calling for the legislation to be repealed. One can see why. Sixty three percent of respondents favored repealing the legislation.

    Even among Manchin supporters, 18 percent still said they hoped their vote would register their dissatisfaction with the Obama agenda. Raese drew a quarter of all Democrats and 54 percent of independents.

    Also worrisome for Manchin: Of the 6 percent still undecided in the race, more than two thirds hoped their eventual decision would register their disapproval for Obama.

    West Virginia also showed some of the strongest support for the Tea Party movement of any of the states surveyed so far in the Fox News battleground poll: 53 percent were supportive, including 31 who were strongly behind the movement. Only 30 percent were opposed.

    Click here for the complete questionnaire

    Click here for additional demographics

    McMahon Still Trailing in Connecticut

    Republican hopes to pick up a Democratic Senate seat in Connecticut face a tough reality on the ground.

    Democrat Richard Blumenthal holds a 10-point lead over Republican Linda McMahon in a new Fox News battleground poll in the race to replace retiring Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT).

    Blumenthal — elected five times as attorney general — took 52 percent support compared to 42 percent for McMahon, who built a professional wrestling empire with her husband, Vince. The survey was taken before the fiery first debate between the two, moderated by “Special Report” anchor Bret Baier, on Monday night.

    Blumenthal was helped by relatively strong support for President Obama. Forty eight percent supported the job he was doing as president and only a slim plurality favored repealing Obama’s national health care law. Forty seven percent were in favor of repeal and 43 percent were opposed – the best showing for the plan in any of this week’s surveys.

    In the race for governor, Democrat Dan Malloy, the longtime mayor of Stamford, holds a 6-point edge over Republican Tom Foley, a businessman who served as an envoy to Iraq and an ambassador to Ireland under George W. Bush.

    Other pollsters had shown McMahon within striking distance of Blumenthal, but here, voters seem to have deep reservations about her. Fifty one percent of respondents said held an unfavorable view of McMahon, compared to 37 percent who felt the same way about Blumenthal.

    And despite Blumenthal’s exaggerations about his military service, 48 percent of respondents said they found him honest and trustworthy, compared to 36 percent who felt the same way about McMahon.

    Click here for the complete questionnaire

    Click here for additional demographics

    Reid on the Ropes in Nevada

    Republican Sharron Angle seems to be solidifying her support in her bid to unseat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in Nevada.

    In the latest Fox News battleground state poll of likely voters, Angle drew 49 percent to Reid’s 46 percent. As voters make up their mind with four weeks to go until Election Day, Angle seems to have the edge.

    In the first Fox battleground poll in the Silver State four weeks ago, 10 percent of respondents were either unsure, in favor of a minor party candidate or, as state law allows in Nevada, planning to vote for “none of these candidates.”

    In this week’s poll, those three categories add up to 5 percent. Over the same period, Angle’s overall vote percentage went from 45 percent to 49 percent.

    Democratic strategists hope to prevent an Angle win by driving up her unfavorable ratings and pushing voters to choose a minor party candidate or “none of these.” Angle was viewed unfavorable by 53 percent in the survey. But Reid was viewed unfavorably by 55 percent.

    Angle’s supporters are growing more certain of their support, too. Two weeks ago, 10 percent of Angle supporters said they could still change their minds. That number has dropped to 4 percent.

    While Angle’s lead is still within the poll’s 3-point margin of error, this is the first Fox battleground poll in Nevada to show a difference of more than 1 point.

    The survey generally reflects a sharpening of opinion in Nevada. A strengthening among Democrats lifted Obama’s job approval from 40 percent to 44 percent. Support for the Tea Party movement, meanwhile, rose from 25 percent to 30 percent.

    The race remains a true tossup, though, because voters aren’t very happy with their choices. Fifty six percent of all voters said Reid had been in office too long and 53 percent said Angle’s views were “too extreme.”

    Click here for the complete questionnaire

    Click here for additional demographics

    GOP Looks Strong in Missouri Match-up

    Missouri voters see a strong connection between President Obama and Democratic Senate nominee Robin Carnahan, and that’s not helping Carnahan.

    A new Fox News battleground state poll in Missouri shows Carnahan trailing Republican candidate Roy Blunt by 8 points among likely voters. Blunt, a seven-term congressman from the central part of the state, won the support of 50 percent compared to 42 percent for Carnahan, the second-term secretary of state.

    While 44 percent of voters had an unfavorable view of Blunt compared to 41 percent who viewed him favorably – Carnahan was viewed unfavorably by 52 percent compared to 43 percent who viewed her favorably. That view is not helped by the fact that 53 percent of respondents said Carnahan agrees with Obama “too often.”

    While Obama lost the Show Me State by less than one point in the 2008 election, his job approval in the state now stands at 38 percent and 52 percent said they would choose the Republican candidate over Obama in 2012. Ten percent were undecided about the next presidential election.

    Only 22 percent of respondents said that Obama’s policies had helped the state economically and 58 percent favored repealing Obama’s national health care law.

    The seat is currently held by retiring Republican Sen. Kit Bond.

    Click here for the complete questionnaire

    Click here for additional demographics

    Republicans Still Gaining in Ohio

    Republicans are still gaining ground in bellwether Ohio, a bad sign for Democrats trying to assess their party’s chances in the heartland this year.

    Republican Senate candidate Rob Portman leads Democrat Lee Fisher by 16 points in the latest Fox News battleground state poll — Portman’s widest lead yet.

    Portman, the former Cincinnati-area congressman and Bush administration budget boss, got 53 percent of the likely voters surveyed, compared to 37 percent for Fisher.

    Republican gubernatorial challenger John Kasich also saw his numbers rise against Democratic incumbent Gov. Ted Strickland. Kasich was the choice of 49 percent of respondents compared to 43 percent for Strickland. The 6-point lead is the largest in the four weeks of Fox battleground polling on the race.

    Obama’s low popularity in the state seems to be hurting his fellow Democrats – only 38 percent approve of Obama’s job performance and 53 percent say they will support the Republican candidate in 2012 instead of Obama. Obama won the state by a four-point margin in 2008.

    But voters have some reservations about the Democratic nominees in their own rights. Both Strickland and Fisher were viewed unfavorably by voters overall – Strickland’s positive rating trailed his negative rating by 7 points and Fisher’s negatives ran ahead of his positives by 14 points.

    Portman’s positives ran ahead of his negatives by 18 points. Kasich had a net positive rating of 10 points.

    The Senate seat is currently held by retiring Republican Sen. George Voinovic

  253. WOW, THIS IS GETTING EMBARRASSING…TOXIC COATTAILS

    Democrats campaigning with Groucho glasses on, saying, “I’m not a Democrat”. I guess being part of “Obama’s party” is the kiss of death.

    nytimes.com/2010/10/05/nyregion/05dems.html

    In Ads, Democratic Candidates Play Down Party
    ============================

    By DAVID W. CHEN
    Published: October 4, 2010

    One New York Democrat proclaims that he proudly opposed the federal government’s health care overhaul plan. Another one pledges, in the finest Tea Party spirit, to oppose any future financial bailouts. Still another has rolled out three Republicans in three separate commercials, all vouching for his credentials.

    But there is one word you will not hear mentioned in any of these campaign advertisements: Democrat.

    With the Democratic Party bracing for a dismal showing in the elections next month, many candidates are doing everything possible to convince voters that they are not tied at the hip to President Obama or Nancy Pelosi, the House speaker. A vulnerable Democratic incumbent in North Dakota, Representative Earl Pomeroy, praises former President George W. Bush in one of his commercials. But even Democrats in and near New York State are running away from their party.

    “In a year of insurgency and anti-incumbency, being a Republican in New York State is, for the first time in a long time, not a bad thing, because being a Democrat implies you’re an incumbent,” Hank Sheinkopf, a veteran Democratic consultant, said.

    “So why would you mention that you’re a Democrat?” Mr. Sheinkopf said. “The smarter thing to do is, don’t tell them what kind of party you are, tell them what you’re going to do.”

    It was only a year ago that Democrats like Jon S. Corzine, the former New Jersey governor, and William C. Thompson Jr., the former city comptroller who lost to Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, cultivated Mr. Obama’s support and cited their Democratic bona fides in commercials.

    This year, however, Democratic candidates have made it a point to keep images of fellow Democrats out of their commercials. And even as some Democrats and their supporters start to unleash negative advertisements, they almost never disclose their party affiliation. Instead, they boast of their votes against their own party.

    On Staten Island, Representative Michael E. McMahon cites his vote against overhauling health care, as a narrator calls him “our independent voice.”

    On Long Island, Representative Timothy H. Bishop echoes constituents’ wrath toward Washington and Wall Street, stating in one commercial: “Like you, I’m sick and tired of Long Island families’ footing the bill while corporate America gets a free pass.” Mr. Bishop then vows to push for “no more bailouts.”

    In upstate New York, Representative Scott Murphy boasts that he voted against his party on one measure this year because he wanted to cut the budget deficit more.

    All three Democrats are facing stiff Republican challenges.

    Senator Kirsten E. Gillibrand, who recent polls suggest may also have a more difficult road to victory, portrays herself as a Washington outsider who believes in transparency, saying she was the first member of Congress to post her official schedule and personal finances on the Internet. Ms. Gillibrand also notes, “I took on my own party to end automatic pay raises for Congress.”

    New York’s senior senator, the Democrat Charles E. Schumer, does not implicitly criticize his own party in his four advertisements to date. Instead, he champions an issue usually dear to Republicans, tax cuts — ones that benefited commuters and families with children in college. “Chuck Schumer,” a narrator says in the advertisements. “The one New Yorkers count on, to fight for the middle class.”

    Even a Democrat in a major race who does mention his party identification, Thomas P. DiNapoli, the state comptroller, does so in cursory fashion. In a television commercial that begins by criticizing the Republican candidate, Harry Wilson, for his Wall Street background, a narrator hails Mr. DiNapoli, a former assemblyman, as an “independent voice challenging Albany dysfunction” while the words, “Democrat Tom DiNapoli” quickly scroll by.

    Republicans, in contrast, have promoted their partisan uniform.

    Carl P. Paladino, the Buffalo developer who is running for governor, embraces the Tea Party and criticizes the “liberal elites.”

    Randy Altschuler, a businessman who is running against Mr. Bishop, calls himself a conservative and in his advertisements frequently juxtaposes images of Mr. Bishop and Ms. Pelosi.

    And in central New York, Richard Hanna, a businessman, lumps images of his opponent, Representative Michael Arcuri, with Ms. Pelosi, Democrat of California, and the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada. He expresses outrage over Congressional spending and flashes his credentials as “Republican. Independent.”

    Democrats in New York may have been telegraphing their aversion to their traditional party brand this summer at their state convention in Rye Brook, when hundreds of banners heralded the arrival of the “New Democratic Party.”

    Since then, Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo, the party’s standard-bearer, has assiduously eschewed any mention of the word Democrat in his advertisements for governor — unless you count those citing Mr. Cuomo’s prosecutorial efforts against Democrats and Republicans.

    Mr. Cuomo does lean, however, on J. Patrick Barrett, a former state Republican chairman, who says in an advertisement that Mr. Cuomo is the only candidate with “the ability, independence and guts to take on Albany’s special interests.”

    “Sure, I’m a Republican,” Mr. Barrett adds. “But this year it can’t be about politics. It’s about fixing what’s broken.”

  254. WE KNEW OBAMA COULDN’T LEAD A COUNTRY, BUT NOT EVEN HIS DOG?

    news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20101004/pl_politico/click4676_1

    Milan: POTUS needs to train Bo
    ============================

    Patrick Gavin Patrick Gavin – Mon Oct 4, 8:27 am ET
    Cesar Milan’s major rule of dog training: Don’t let the dog lead you. And a few presidents could learn that lesson …

    Given his experience as the “Dog Whisperer,” Cesar Milan certainly knows how to keep four-legged friends in line. His major rule of dog training: Do not let the dog lead you. (See: Bo’s family vacation)

    “Americans who allow their dogs to walk them is one of his biggest peeves,” CBS’s Lesley Stahl said during her “Sunday Morning” profile of Milan. “If your dog doesn’t learn how to follow, you’ll never have a disciplined pet.”

    Well, guess who could stand to learn that lesson? A few American presidents. (See: Bo goes for a walk in the snow)

    Milan recalled pictures of President Barack Obama on Bo’s first day at the White House. (See: Bo’s first day at the White House)

    “Day one was not a good scene,” said Milan. “The dog always in front of the president of the United States.”

    Not that George W. Bush did any better.

    “He walked the dog in front,” said Milan. “Barney? Sometimes he didn’t want to go inside the helicopter!” (See: How dogs and politics are alike)

  255. Given his experience as the “Dog Whisperer,” Cesar Milan certainly knows how to keep four-legged friends in line. His major rule of dog training: Do not let the dog lead you. (See: Bo’s family vacation)

    “Americans who allow their dogs to walk them is one of his biggest peeves,” CBS’s Lesley Stahl said during her “Sunday Morning” profile of Milan. “If your dog doesn’t learn how to follow, you’ll never have a disciplined pet.”

    Well, guess who could stand to learn that lesson? A few American presidents. (See: Bo goes for a walk in the snow)

    Milan recalled pictures of President Barack Obama on Bo’s first day at the White House. (See: Bo’s first day at the White House)

    “Day one was not a good scene,” said Milan. “The dog always in front of the president of the United States.”

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

    Pfui! Letting the dog go ahead is the first decent Middle American thing I’ve seen Obama do!

Comments are closed.