The Birds Come Home But Not To Roost

Update: Chicago’s Daley is the new Chief of Staff.

————————————————————————————–

Update: It’s official. Boehner now the Speaker of the House. He received 241 votes. There were 19 protest votes against Nancy Pelosi though she did receive 173 votes total.

Nancy Pelosi’s final speech from her perch as Speaker was a hyper partisan recitation of the very policies most Americans rejected in November 2010. It was an odd farewell.

————————————————————————————–

For a moment wee thought it was 2012 and the Mayan predicted apocalypse came a year early. Birds dropped from the sky by the thousands. John Boehner poised today to be Speaker of the House and third in presidential succession line. The United States Constitution read in the House of Representatives. Sarah Palin possibly for the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. Barack Obama away from vacation, basketball, and the golf course! It’s the end of the world!

We don’t know if these strange events foretell doomsday. But they are strange. The suicidal birds, or murdered birds, or traumatized birds, are the easiest to explain. Either a flying saucer scared the birds out of the air, or these birds fear what is to come as Barack Obama drags us into a third year of nightmare.

Whatever the case is for the dead birds, we know that there is going to be a lot of “news” generated today. Already we have heard of one Obama thug, Robert Gibbs, headed out the door in order to defend Obama away from the supposed higher standards of official spokesman.

We’ll update as appropriate when news comes in today. Perhaps today is the day that another “jewel” in the Obama Crown Of Corruption will slither to D.C. from Chicago.


Chicago Clown

* * * * *

That “jewel” of course is Bill Daley who along with tax cheat Tom Daschle is under consideration to be Obama’s capo in the White House. John Kass who knows that ‘Rahm Emanuel is a Daley guy, not a Clinton guy’ (Bill and Hillary pushed Rahm into the basement when it was necessary and know to “keep your friends close, your enemies closer”), and that there are a lot of moving chess pieces in any political game. has some wry observations about Billy Daley:

“He’s a big-shot banker at JPMorgan Chase, and the bank is a major creditor in the Tribune Co. bankruptcy.

Once this newspaper emerges from bankruptcy, Daley’s bank will be a major stockholder. [snip]

Clearly, Bill needs another vocation, and I’m all for him running the White House. I’m almost as excited as I was a few years ago, when Obama selected another Daley machine guy, Rahm Emanuel, to become his first chief of staff.

Before the Rahmfather was tapped by Obama, there was far too much emotional oozing from the media. The media was so enraptured about Obama’s promise to “transcend the broken politics of the past,” that they forgot he was a Chicago politician. Instead, they wiggled like excited puppies and left many wet spots on the carpet.

The Emanuel appointment was the first honest indicator that the Obama White House had a new Washington address:

1600 Chicago Way. [snip]

To the Daleys, the political center is Chicago, their ancestral land.

So Billy goes out to Washington to run Barack’s government, and Rahm — the guy Billy’s been supporting for mayor — slides in to run Chicago for Billy’s brother, Mayor Richard Daley.

I asked a Chicago alderman about this when I bumped into him on Tuesday.

“I was talking to my wife about it, and we were saying, is this some kind of plan?” said the alderman. “Rahm runs the city. Billy runs the White House. I mean, really.”‘

“I mean really.” Birds of a feather and all that. No wonder there will be a crime show in February called “The Chicago Code“.



The Windy City thugs have moved to the Hot Air City with so many belching politicians. The question is how quickly the new Republican majority in the House will cast off their campaign promises and join in Obama’s corruptions. We’ll hope for the best and expect little though we do mostly agree these are wise rules for the GOP:

“1. Manage expectations.

2. Serve the people, not the press.

3. Neutralize the grievance-mongers: Confront the race card early and often.

4. Neutralize Alinsky’s avenging angels: Counter the human shield strategy early and often.

5. Don’t fall prey to Chicken Little Syndrome again. Don’t.

6. Never forget: Government does not “create jobs.” Politicians don’t create jobs. You are there to stop government from killing jobs in the name of “reform,” the “children,” “emergencies,” global warming, hope, change, etc., etc., etc.

7. Obstruction is not a dirty word.

8. Don’t be afraid to say it: Take Your Olive Branch and Shove It, Democrats.

9. Show, don’t tell: Transparency. Accountability. Integrity. When you fail, you’ll be called out. The “R” after your name doesn’t give you immunity. Ever.

10. This is your oath of office. Live it: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.”’

We’ll add: fight your own party when your principles are at stake. Like miners with caged canaries in the coal mine, have a strategy to know when you have sold out – gone beyond cooperation into collusion and corruption. When you see the dead canary in your cage you’ll know something is wrong.

And Obama better be careful of some of those birds. No doubt an unholy alliance of House Republicans and Big Bird along with other Sesame Street Muppets will conspire to drag out information from Mess-iah Obama.



Watch out for the birds. Some of the birds might be agents of Zionist plots – to be extradited to Saudi Arabia.

All these dead birds are trying to tell us something.

Angels and ministers of grace defend us.

Share

177 thoughts on “The Birds Come Home But Not To Roost

  1. I am LMAO….will she ever shutup, so he can get on…he seems to want to knock her off the stage….HILARIOUS!

  2. I wonder how man xanex that took for her to get thru that speech??? I bet the GreyGoose Vodka will be flowing tonight!!! LOL!

  3. Admin: I thought so too….I mean she made her exit a “grande one”. LOL! She even got a plug in for the Italian American’s. Oh I never realized she was italian…well that explains why she loves the Chicago mob. LOL!

    BTW That was a great article admin:

    MOP, LOL!

  4. Oh God, he almost started crying again…Geez Louise! One can’t get off the perch and the other one can’t quit crying and these are the people running our government. I rest my case! We are all freaked!

  5. I switched to c-span2 and the Senate is debating the filibuster rule. Interesting day in Washington DC.

  6. Ding! Dong! t6he ************* is GONE!!!!!!!!!

    HA-le-lu-jia!

    Just NOT having to see that smug POS face on every newscast, hear that grating voice, put up with her self-righteousness makes me feel LIBERATED!

    Notice how her speech was ALL about her. I was the first woman speaker. I was the first Italian American SOH. I ALSO come from a large family.

    Who CARES!!!!!!!!! Good riddance. My wish for her and the entire WH crew is indictment, conviction and imprisonment.

    I thought Boehner came off as a somewhat weepy class-act. He’s humbled. It’s about the people. I find his emotionality refreshing becasue it’s clearly so authentic.

    Let squat’s fate follow pooplosie’s. EVICTION!

  7. Its amazing that Obama is just completely checked now, the republicans hold the purse strings, Obama can do nothing about it.

  8. Well, I not sure I know how I feel about weeping republicans….they are all so fake, but maybe they’ve learned their lesson….I guess we will see! The govt. should be afraid…. the great unwashed has awoken and they are pist!

  9. Obama warns Republicans may cause country to ‘fall backward’ (hah chutzpah considering what you’ve done……..)

    http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/01/05/obama-warns-republicans-may-cause-country-to-fall-backward/

    While new House Speaker John Boehner received the gavel from the new House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi Wednesday, President Obama shot back at the Republican agenda saying:

    “It’s up to you to show that you care too much about this country to let it fall backward.”

    Via his political “BarackObama” Twitter account, which originates from the Democratic National Committee’s Organizing for America, the president linked to a statement on the OFA website that said Democrats must fight back against the GOP who are determined to roll back the progress of the past two years.

    “They’re starting with health care reform,” Obama wrote. “It’s up to us to fight back. We’re forming a campaign to protect our progress, showing just how our achievements are already improving lives across the country-and taking on the Republicans who are pushing for repeal.”

    The website that Obama linked to through his Twitter account asks viewers to sign up to support the Democratic cause and make a donation.

    House Republicans have already voiced intentions to vote to repeal health care reform passed by the Obama administration in the opening days of the new Congress.

  10. The media was so enraptured about Obama’s promise to “transcend the broken politics of the past,” that they forgot he was a Chicago politician. Instead, they wiggled like excited puppies and left many wet spots on the carpet.

    😆

    Perfect!

  11. Ron and Rand Paul on CNN currently saying there’s probably little chance the repubs can cut alot from the budget because they don’t have the votes. Rand is a little more optimistic that they can achieve some debt cuts. Well, the cutting govt promises didn’t last long.

  12. Big Bird and his basket gang were finally asking the right questions and gave the right comments.

    Great.

  13. “I’m not sure I know how I feel about weeping republicans.”

    I know what you mean but I have a hunch this is the last time we’ll see Boehner choked up. It seems to me he is truly overcome by achieving such a high position, unlike pooplosie and the CBC who think they are entitled to everything.

    Being from a large family myself, I can understand how his pulling-himself-up-by-the-bootstraps life might make him feel thankful and grateful to the people who elected him and the congress critters who nominated and voted him in as speaker. That’s how I read his demeanor today.

    Once he started his speech he seemed to regain his composure and I much prefer his brevity, his dry, no nonsense style to pooplosie’s histrionics.

  14. And elsewhere…

    US, China pledge cooperation
    (AFP) – 2 hours ago

    WASHINGTON — US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her Chinese counterpart Yang Jiechi vowed Wednesday that their countries would cooperate closely despite differences on China’s currency and other issues.

    “We are preparing diligently for the upcoming state visit by (Chinese) President Hu Jintao. It’s very much anticipated and looked forward to,” Clinton said as she posed for photographs with Yang at the State Department.

    Hu is due here on January 19.

    “And both the minister and I feel a great sense of responsibility to ensure that it continues the positive, cooperative comprehensive relationship between our two countries,” the chief US diplomat said.

    Yang said: “I think China-US relationship is on the right track. We are confronted with common challenges and we are enjoying common opportunities.

    “It’s in the best interests of China, the United States and the world for us to continue to work together so that our relationship will bring more benefits to both our two peoples and to the people of the world,” he said.

    Preparations for Hu’s visit are “proceeding very well,” Yang added.

    As part of the preparations, Yang met US President Barack Obama at the White House on Tuesday to discuss the row over the Chinese yuan, US-China trade, Iran, North Korea and the upcoming referendum in Sudan.

    The White House has signaled it will keep up pressure on Beijing to allow its yuan currency to appreciate. Critics say China keeps the yuan undervalued to gain an unfair trade advantage that has cost thousands of US jobs.

    “China plays an enormously important role in our global economy, and China has to take steps to rebalance its currency,” White House spokesman Robert Gibbs told reporters on Wednesday.

    “And the president will continue to make that point when President Hu is here, as he did with the foreign minister,” he said.

    Gibbs said human rights, the global economy, and North Korea will be on the agenda.

    Washington has been urging China to rein in its Communist ally North Korea, which in November shelled a South Korean island, killing four people.

    Gibbs also dismissed the criticism that Obama had soft pedalled human rights with China, saying he had raised the issue personally with Hu himself.

    Obama and Hu last met in Seoul on the fringes of the Group of 20 summit in November and are due to hold talks at the White House and a state dinner during the Chinese president’s visit.

    http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iYF_9-XKy5hE69iHQefrl_CzyPfA?docId=CNG.05a6e85bfb37cddd7fe037aaf5164bc0.4b1

  15. Speaker Boehner : We will cut spending in the current fiscal year back down to 2008 pre-bailout levels.

    Speaker Boehner : Over the coming weeks we will pass a repeal of last year’s health care bill to remove the strain on job creators.

  16. Sorry Moon, but Boehner only is majority over the House, he does not run the Senate nor Oval…so repealing ObamaCare is not possible by Rethugs, they can only limit the spending.

  17. Quote of the day, from a House Democrat asked how the minority was working out: “So far, it sucks.”

    hahahaha

  18. The way they fell right into to the trap, the way they shot themselves in the foot, the way they were made fools of… in 2008, one could say, ’serves them right’ but we are also part of ‘them’ in the end.
    ———————

    wbboei, yeah, 🙂 I noticed the problem with the wording after I hit submit but hoped people would get it anyway (since I felt lazy to go back and correct it). By ‘we are also part of them’, I meant that we (along with them) are all part of this same middle class that will get screwed (of course, because of their stupidity).

  19. January 5th, 2011 at 12:48 pm

    Mrs. Smith-

    This is a great site, with lots of info. I have been beating this drum for years…

    http://www.equalrightsamendment.org/

    The Equal Rights Amendment, first proposed in 1923 to affirm that women and men have equal rights under the law, is still not part of the U.S. Constitution.

    The ERA was passed out of Congress in 1972 and has been ratified by 35 of the necessary 38 states. When three more states vote yes, it is possible that the ERA could become the 28th Amendment. The ERA could also be ratified by restarting the traditional process of passage by a two-thirds majority in the Senate and the House of Representatives, followed by ratification by legislatures in three-quarters (38) of the 50 states.

    In these pages, find out about this historic amendment … and join the effort to achieve equal rights for women and men.

    —–
    Under the History link:

    [snip]

    Like the 19th Amendment before it, the ERA barreled out of Congress, getting 22 of the necessary 38 state ratifications in the first year. But the pace slowed as opposition began to organize – only eight ratifications in 1973, three in 1974, one in 1975, and none in 1976.

    Arguments by ERA opponents such as Phyllis Schlafly, right-wing leader of the Eagle Forum/STOP ERA, played on the same fears that had generated female opposition to woman suffrage. Anti-ERA organizers claimed that the ERA would deny woman’s right to be supported by her husband, privacy rights would be overturned, women would be sent into combat, and abortion rights and homosexual marriages would be upheld. Opponents surfaced from other traditional sectors as well. States’-rights advocates said the ERA was a federal power grab, and business interests such as the insurance industry opposed a measure they believed would cost them money. Opposition to the ERA was also organized by fundamentalist religious groups.

    [snip]

    The political tide continued to turn more conservative. In 1980 the Republican Party removed ERA support from its platform, and Ronald Reagan was elected president. Although pro-ERA activities increased with massive lobbying, petitioning, countdown rallies, walkathons, fundraisers, and even the radical suffragist tactics of hunger strikes, White House picketing, and civil disobedience, ERA did not succeed in getting three more state ratifications before the deadline. The country was still unwilling to guarantee women constitutional rights equal to those of men.

    The Equal Rights Amendment was reintroduced in Congress on July 14, 1982 and has been before every session of Congress since that time…

    more…

  20. I think thats what he meant, the house will pass a repeal.

    The thing is, the GOP may think there are enough vulnerable DEM senators in 2012 that they may go along with repeal. There are certainly more than a few there who are doomed if they veto a repeal bill from the house.

    This will be a game of who blinks first. The GOP are going to force the Dems up in 2012 Senate to vote repeal down, that is going to be equivalent to hanging themselves.

    Imagine if enough blink for the bill to land on Obama’s desk and he veto’s it going into the 2012 election.

    The GOP have him by the balls.

  21. actually when you think about it, this repeal bill is damn clever of them, it forces the Dems to keep the thing alive, the voters said no and the reps did what they said, put repeal through and force Dems to vote it down and if the senate doesnt then Obama has too, thus resulting in 2012 repeat of the healthcare fiasco.

    Damn thats clever.

  22. Moon

    The GOP have him by the balls.

    ———
    I have to agree with Admin, Mrs. S., confloyd and others, that the Rethughs are full garbage bags for the next two years.

    Passing a ‘repeal’ means nothing if it doesn’t repeal anything.

    I see you put a lot of hope in the Rethugs…

  23. As far as I’m concerned, they may indeed be garbage, they may be full of crap or they may turn out to be not half bad but i’m willing to see how it goes. At this point anythings a bonus what with the idiot in the WH and the idiots that were running congress.

  24. I actually see Boehner as a nice man, at least today…but I don’t think passing a repeal that doesn’t repeal anything…is something worthwhile.

    There is nothing wrong with hoping someone, something stops Barry in his tracks, stops their crazy spending…but for me, I will believe it only when it happens.

    I am tired of symbolic gestures that don’t do anything. To me they are tricks and cute lies.

    I am not attacking you Moon, just expressing my loss of enthusiasm over the new congress.

    I would like to have hope for them, but right now, I only have hope when it comes to our Clinton’s.

  25. Shadowfax, i understand you completely, i also understand that one of the main reasons for the election results was that the public were unhappy with the Dem agenda and would like to have Obamacare and other things repealed or amended, if that is the case then i think the GOP has a duty to the voters to attempt to try that repeal and force the opposition to defend their positions on it going into a big election in 2012 where the voters will have the final say.

  26. I love the one about that each bill must be constitutionally viable and attached the relevant constitutional act, if they’d had that 2 years ago………….

  27. I would like to know the answer to this as well.

    —————–

    Why Isn’t Obama Pressuring the Palestinians?

    Mahmoud Abbas says he won’t negotiate with Israel. Why is Obama letting him get away with it?

    BY STEVEN J. ROSEN | JANUARY 4, 2011

    For the first time since the Oslo peace process started 18 years ago, Palestinian leaders are openly refusing to negotiate with the government of Israel, and U.S. President Barack Obama’s administration is doing very little about it. As Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian Authority president, explained the policy on Dec. 9, “We will not agree to negotiate as long as settlement building continues.” The Arab League is backing Abbas in this refusal, says League chief Amr Moussa, because “the direction of talks has become ineffective and it has decided against the resumption of negotiations.”

    But Abbas himself negotiated with seven previous Israeli prime ministers without such preconditions. For 17 years — from the Madrid conference of October 1991 through Abbas’s negotiations with then Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, which ended in 2008 — negotiations moved forward while Jerusalem construction continued. Madrid, Oslo I, Oslo II, the Hebron Protocol, the Wye River Memorandum, Camp David, Taba, the disengagement from Gaza, and Olmert’s offer to Abbas — all these events over the course of two decades were made possible by a continuing agreement to disagree about Israeli construction of Jewish homes in Jewish neighborhoods outside the pre-1967 line in East Jerusalem. But now, peace talks cannot even begin. Why the change?

    U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton acknowledges that the Palestinians are creating a new precondition for talks to begin. Settlements, she says, have “always been an issue within the negotiations.… There’s never been a precondition.” But Clinton has not stated any public objection to Abbas making this a new excuse not to negotiate.

    Abbas himself blames Obama. As he said in November, “At first, President Obama stated in Cairo that Israel must stop all construction activities in the settlements. Could we demand less than that?” Some in the West are sympathetic to Abbas’s maneuver, which they see as a form of protest against an Israeli policy to which the United States and the rest of the Middle East quartet, the four international players that steer peace efforts, also object. But when the Palestinians spurn negotiations, they are blocking the sole path to a solution of the settlement issue, which can only be a negotiated agreement over borders. As the State Department spokesman’s said on Aug. 2, “Absent a direct negotiation, there will be no end to the conflict, there will be no peace agreement, and there will be no Palestinian state. That’s a fact.”

    There is also the question of whether Abbas’s motive here is actually about the settlement issue, or rather to drive a wedge between Obama and Israel and induce the United States to impose a solution in lieu of negotiations. Isn’t this a reversion to the pre-Oslo strategy of rejecting contact with Israel and demanding instead that the great powers impose Arab terms on the Jewish state?

    http://www.hillaryis44.org/2011/01/05/the-birds-come-home-but-not-to-roost/

  28. It’s called the “flip-flop” dance

    January 5, 2011

    Obama on the Debt Limit: Then and Now.

    In 2006, Sen. Barack Obama voted against raising the debt ceiling to allow the U.S. to borrow more money, saying Washington was saddling future generations with its out-of-control spending. Now, his administration is implying that those who say the same are irresponsible.

    US President Barack Obama’s spokesman Robert Gibbs at the White House Wednesday.(Photo by Jewel Samad/AFP/Getty Images) Asked on Wednesday about the seeming contradiction, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said that in 2006, the outcome of the vote to raise the legal borrowing authority was not in doubt, and therefore the “full faith and credit” of the U.S. and its ability to repay its loans was not in question.

    When reminded that the Senate vote to raise the debt ceiling was a close 52-48, with Mr. Obama voting no, Mr. Gibbs said, “Well, we’ve had closer.” The vote was completely along party lines, with Republicans all voting yes and Democrats voting no.

    “The president (then a senator) used it to make a point about needing to get serious about fiscal discipline,” Mr. Gibbs said Wednesday. Many Republicans would say that’s the point they are trying to make now.

    The then-vs.-now shift in perspective is emblematic of the larger debate over spending in Washington.

    When Republicans were in charge, they borrowed money to cut taxes, add a prescription drug benefit to Medicare and prosecute two wars, moves most Democrats opposed and spending that, in their view, was unworthy of additional borrowing. The same is now true for the Democratic spending on the economic stimulus plan and health care expansion (though the cost of the health care bill was more than offset by tax increases and spending cuts elsewhere).

    In 2006, Mr. Obama struck a high moral tone in opposing legislation to raise the debt ceiling. “Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that `the buck stops here.’ Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better,” he said on the Senate floor.

    Many Republicans now argue much the same and say that they will demand spending cuts before agreeing to raise the debt ceiling. Many Republicans newly elected to Congress promised in their campaigns to cut spending and shrink the debt and several suggested they would oppose increasing the U.S.’s ability to borrow more.

    Over the weekend, Austan Goolsbee, chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, lashed out at those who would consider blocking an increase in the debt limit. “This is not a game. You know, the debt ceiling is not something to toy with,” he said on ABC’s “This Week.” “If we hit the debt ceiling, that’s essentially defaulting on our obligations which is totally unprecedented in American history. The impact on the economy would be catastrophic.”

    The U.S. currently has $13.7 trillion of debt outstanding, just shy of the $14.3 trillion limit Congress set in February. Barring big cuts in federal spending, tax increases or improvements in the economy, the government is expected to hit the ceiling by May, and administration officials have already said it will have to be raised by then.

    http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/01/05/obama-on-the-debt-limit-then-and-now/

  29. if Cheney gets a heart transplant and I’m ever denied any health care procedure under Obamacare, it will prove how corrupt the system is.

  30. Thanks, Shadowfax, for the link to the E.R.A site. 🙂

    Look what Sarah did!
    ____________________________________

    White House Changes End-of-Life Medicare Rules

    Source: CBS News/AP

    References to End-of-Life Counseling, Which Sparked “Death Panel” Debate, Dropped Before Health Care Repeal Vote

    (AP) WASHINGTON – Reversing a potentially controversial decision, the Obama administration will drop references to end-of-life counseling from the ground rules for Medicare’s new annual checkup, a White House official said Wednesday.

    The latest shift on the sensitive subject comes ahead of a vote next week in the new GOP-led House to repeal President Barack Obama’s landmark health care overhaul.

    The decision is not likely to have much impact on patients and doctors already discussing options for care in the last stages of life. For example, voluntary end-of-life planning is already covered as part of the “Welcome to Medicare” doctor visit, available to seniors within the first year of joining the program.

    The original House version of the overhaul legislation sought to expand coverage, allowing for discussions every few years. But the plan was dropped after Sarah Palin and other Republicans raised the specter of “death panels” deciding the fate of vulnerable seniors.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/01/05/national/main7216133.shtml?tag=stack

  31. [snip}

    The decision is not likely to have much impact on patients and doctors already discussing options for care in the last stages of life. For example, voluntary end-of-life planning is already covered as part of the “Welcome to Medicare” doctor visit, available to seniors within the first year of joining the program.

    ——————–
    That really sucks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Hello, Mr. or Mrs, Ms. X…now that you are 65 and are part of the Medicare coverage, let’s talk about how you want to die!!!!

    Heaven help the sucker that says that to me unless I have terminal something or other.

  32. I just gotta ask this question.

    Did anyone here that considered themselves a Democrat, vote for Raygun?

    I keep hearing the expression, ‘Raygun Democrat’, and I don’t know one Democrat in my life that voted for him. My mom, bless her sole voted for the idiot, over my protests, but she was a Rethug.

  33. I guess this is good news, but who can be sure. It’s in there then it’s not, then it’s sneaked back in, then it’s out. Who can believe them.

  34. The wimpy waffle eater chickened out.

    ———-
    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/05/health/policy/05health.html?_r=1
    U.S. Alters Rule on Paying for End-of-Life Planning
    By ROBERT PEAR
    Published: January 4, 2011

    WASHINGTON — The Obama administration, reversing course, will revise a Medicare regulation to delete references to end-of-life planning as part of the annual physical examinations covered under the new health care law, administration officials said Tuesday.

    The move is an abrupt shift, coming just days after the new policy took effect on Jan. 1.

    Many doctors and providers of hospice care had praised the regulation, which listed “advance care planning” as one of the services that could be offered in the “annual wellness visit” for Medicare beneficiaries.

    While administration officials cited procedural reasons for changing the rule, it was clear that political concerns were also a factor. The renewed debate over advance care planning threatened to become a distraction to administration officials who were gearing up to defend the health law against attack by the new Republican majority in the House.

    Although the health care bill signed into law in March did not mention end-of-life planning, the topic was included in a huge Medicare regulation setting payment rates for thousands of physician services. The final regulation was published in the Federal Register in late November. The proposed rule, published for public comment in July, did not include advance care planning.

  35. I LOVE the way Boehner referred to his faith – Catholicism – in his speech. So refreshing to hear someone proud of being a christian in this day and age.

    When I rejected Catholicism at the age of 8 (i found it unbelievable even then) I never thought that decades later I would be applauding even the mention (with pride) of any religion other than Islam.

  36. Shadowfax
    The story was that the conservative blue collar democrats switched to the Republican party under Reagan. Some may have but the liberal dems would never have voted for him.

  37. pm317,

    LOL. It has NO spine. I’m delighted it was forced to retreat yet again. May that be just the first of many reversals over the next few years.

  38. BigCatLover

    I guess this is good news, but who can be sure. It’s in there then it’s not, then it’s sneaked back in, then it’s out. Who can believe them.
    ———
    Sounds like the moves to a Texas square dance.

    Hey, you Texan’s…they still square dance in your state, don’t they?

  39. basil9

    When I rejected Catholicism at the age of 8 (i found it unbelievable even then) I never thought that decades later I would be applauding even the mention (with pride) of any religion other than Islam.

    ———–
    Wow basil, you beat me to the punch. I was 11 before I was kicked out of Saturday Catechism classes for not buying the Pope turns into ‘God’ when the smoke goes up the chimney story. My mom was disappointed and asked me why I didn’t just keep my mouth closed? 😉 I still had to do the Sunday drill until I was old enough to get my own apartment.

    High fives *****

  40. Thanks for the info BigCat, I never considered myself less than a liberal until Barry and his bros lowered the bar.

  41. JanH, the Palestinians were given a green light to stop all negotiations because Obama made the settlements the primary “obstacle”. Why would the the Pals negotiate against themselves when they have Obama doing their bidding? Hillary would have pushed on the settlements as well, but like Bill, would have madeit part of the broader peace process. Obama’s actions have made peace impossible as there is absolutely no incentive for the PA to re-engage. The Israelis, unfortunately, are facing two wars now: 1) the deligitimizing and political isolation as we see in Europe and S. America and 2) the imminent threat from Hamas, Hizbullah, and Iran.

  42. Shadowfax,
    I did not vote for Ronnie Raygun, but I didn’t vote for Bill Clinton either. I later learned to love Bill Clinton, but I was a Ross Perot fanatic. I now consider myself a Clinton Dem or a Blue Dog. I actually voted for Bush I when he lost, I never seem to vote for the winner of anything. Just my luck I guess, but that’s why I don’t dabble in the lottery either.
    You mean there are other catechism mates on this blog other than myself, although I still consider myself a Catholic, although not a practicing one, I had no idea there were so many ex-catholics here, LOL!

  43. Oh yes there’s still square dancing in Texas, mostly clubs that do it for exercise and companionship. Alot of seniors do it, but not this one…I never got that dosey doe or the promenade down in grade school. Yes in the 50’s and 60’s learning to square dance was part of the curriculum, LOL! I don’t think it is now though!

  44. BigCatLover,
    I did vote for LBJ, the only winner! Hubert Humphrey, George McGovern, Gore, who else lost, if they lost I voted for them. Perhaps Hillary will want me to change parties next time she runs, LOL!

  45. I think tim is pretty typical but I didn’t think the Reagan dems ever really came back to the dem party.

  46. tim,
    Thankgod for you, had there been many with my voting record the country would have been in the ditch long ago!

  47. basil9, this Islam thing is a big puzzle to me.

    Look at this result from a survey on FP:
    http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/01/02/the_fp_survey_terrorism?page=0,5

    India has the second largest Muslim population and most by and large live peacefully in that mixed society and enjoy the freedom that society offers. They contribute to art, music, science, technology and sports as they have for centuries. Majority of the North Indian Classical musicians are Muslims and they worship Hindu Gods and Goddesses and their own as well. I was having that exchange with JanH yesterday about the Muslim woman spy during WWII and her illustrious father who went all over the world to establish the peaceful message of Sufism. There were many like him at the turn of the last century. The virulent versions of Islam from some of the countries like Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran are anathema to these Muslims I know. But at the same time people back in India live in constant fear that their citizens will be corrupted and make way to become cauldrons of conflict. I don’t know where it is all going to go. That FP survey is troubling.

  48. Back in the early days I switched back and forth between parties because they were not so partisan then, until Reagan came along then I went dem for 30 years until Obama.

  49. BigCat,
    I can’t stand Ronnie, my Mom used to scream at the TV at him….he was the first puppet! Who actually ran the government…he had Alzheimer’s for quiet a while. I guess Ms. Nancy did it. Pretty scary when we have an Altzheimer’s patient as head of the free world, but hey look at what we have now, a crackhead!

  50. I have some news to share with you guys, I’ve been invited on my first cruise…so wish me luck getting the rest of my weight off before he retires in Sept.

  51. New bird dieoff theory. Ted Nugent is on CNN saying that some birds are colonizers and a virus or parasite can wipe them out very quickly. He claims that’s how the carrier pigeon went extinct. I always heard they were hunted to extinction.

  52. BigCatLover
    January 5th, 2011 at 9:30 pm

    probably, but I also voted for Gore and Kerry, thought both of them were and are elitist arrogant people and frankly I still think that.

    I frankly have probably been a constitutional type conservative independent, I remember listening to JFK’s speech, and I registered as a dem, his pro-America speeches; bringing out the best in people, smaller limited govt yet responsible govt, giving people a hand up but not a hand out; belief in the indivisual. On social issues I do tend to be more conservative, but in governance, I think liberatian and adherance to the 10th amendent might be best approach.

    the undemocratic party in the past used to be predominately conservative/moderate/centerist dems, and so there was a lot of overlaps with the same in the repub party. Now this is no longer the case.

    I don’t know if the reagan dems left the dem party, they tend to vote dem when faced with a bad repub choice, like I did with Gore and Kerry, but I am in no way putting people like Gore and Kerry in the same league as JFK or Bill Clinton; these 2 are solid conservative/moderate dems with a deep love and belief in America. I see this in very few repubs, Sarah Palin is one of them as well as many in the Tea Party movement.

    in ’12, if Hillary is not the nominee, not VP, but the pres. nominee, I am voting for a repub, I don’t care who it is, will hold my nose and vote straight repub.

  53. confloyd
    You’re going on a cruise with someone who is retiring in Sept.? You have time to lose some more weight, so good luck.

  54. confloyd — have fun on the cruise, enjoy the cuisines and then work it off by exploring the ship, they have great trails, you will enjoy the views.

  55. jbstonesfan

    January 5th, 2011 at 9:11 pm

    ——————–
    Thanks. I just don’t understand how any person of Jewish descent could support obama after the way he has treated Israel for the last two years.

  56. confloyd, not really, not all. 🙂 But I do think Indian Muslims are a pretty smart bunch.. I was listening to a song from a 1960 film (Mughal-E-Zam) about Akbar and his son Shah Jehan and a court dancer called Anarkali for whom Shah Jehan falls head over heels. Anyway, the woman singing says — “I don’t have to wear a burka in front of God and why should I wear one for mere mortals.” Apparently this song was deemed a woman’s lib song and was popular in Pakistan in those days.

    Incidentally on our New Year’s eve hike, I met two Muslim women who grew up here third generation — their grandfather came to this country, probably in the 30s. She was talking about how mixed and eclectic their family was with children marrying into other race and religion.

  57. and I cannot stand Pelosi, another reason I am no longer a demonrat. She is the epitome of a power hungry arrogant politician, and an ignorant one at that, and tone deaf to the american people. Maybe she should retire and try and sell her book that sold like 1/10 of what Hillary’s sold.

  58. Aaron David Miller: give Clinton – Hillary, that is – the Middle East peacemaking job

    By James Besser
    Created 01/05/2011

    Aaron David Miller, the longtime U.S. peace processor who now hangs his hat at the Wilson Center, thinks he knows what’s wrong with the Obama administration’s faltering Middle East efforts: a lack of “adult supervision.”

    The problem, he writes in Foreign Policy, is this: “when it comes to conducting the affairs of the country abroad, particularly toward the seemingly endless, seemingly intractable Arab-Israeli peace process, one historically proven bureaucratic model trumps all others: the willful president empowering the strong secretary of state who, in turn, runs everything. We don’t have that structure now. And although what ails the United States in the Middle East certainly won’t be fixed by rearranging the ship of state’s deck chairs, it wouldn’t hurt, might avoid needless failures, and may even set the stage for some success.”

    The combination of domestic politics, the overheated passions endemic to the Middle East conflict and the perpetual wild cards of terrorism and violence demands a “focused organizational approach to avoid drift and confusion, let alone to produce success.”

    And guess what: that’s missing in the Obama administration, which helps explain a series of missteps that has left the Israeli-Palestinian peace process on life support.

    Miller identifies “at least four” current power centers on the issue – the President and his political advisers, special envoy George Mitchell, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the National Security Council, a messy, confusing hierarchy that “hasn’t served the United States well..

    His answer: “Somebody — the secretary of state — has to take charge. And there’s no doubt she is capable of doing it.”

    I like his answer – which is based on years of hard-won experience and not a few failures in Middle East peacemaking. From the outset, Clinton has always struck me as the smartest player on the Obama team, the one with the best ability to cut through the crap. She’s knowledgeable about the conflict, she understands Israel’s special concerns, she gets along well with most of the Jewish community and her stature around the world is unparalleled.

    If Obama is serious about making progress in the Middle East, maybe it’s time to unleash his secretary of state

    http://www.thejewishweek.com/blogs/political_insider/aaron_david_miller_give_clinton_hillary_middle_east_peacemaking_job

  59. pm317 — I was asking my indian friends about that, and they were saying muslims in India tend to be very nationalist first, their loyalty to India is stronger, and so they identify themselves as Indian first and foremost, not as muslims first. I guess this makes integration much more smooth in that society.

  60. Jan H,
    Well this guy seems to understand what needs to be done. It’s Hillary who can fix it and Obama and his band of misfits should keep quiet and out of the pic.

  61. “Somebody — the secretary of state — has to take charge. And there’s no doubt she is capable of doing it.”

    Great, lets fire Waffles and put Hillary in charge.

  62. tim,
    I’ll go with that…just let her take over…she can do it! He can just go on a permanent vacation, of coarse without our tax dollars!

  63. tim, Muslim invasion of India started in the 12th century. Both Hindus and Muslims have learned to live and let live. 🙂

  64. The problem is that Hillary works her heart out and then obama sneaks in an ambassador to Syria and screws things up all over again.

  65. “obama sneaks in an ambassador to Syria and screws things up all over again.”

    Yes, absolutely true, but it is hard to keep track of everything from a golf course.

    I am liking this Boehner guy, seems like humble guy, no elitist. Was it me, or did Pelosi just keep droning on and on, didn’t she just lose her job?!?

  66. Don’t feel sorry for Pelosi in the least. It will be interesting to see how she handles her new position. Still can’t figure out why the dims picked her.

  67. …anyone notice how the talking point all the dems and the left pundits are reduced to is anything that the repubs are planning is “symbolic”…as in, if they cut 5% of congressional budget its only about $25 million or so…just a symbol…if they go right out of the gate with obabacare repeal…only a symbol…our poor old favorite Debbie Wasserman really reduced to spinning so hard her head is going to fall off…and Joan Walsh, another one caught in her own hypocritical web…her hysteria gives Ed Shultz a run for his money…if the repubs do this…only a symbol…if they do that…only a symbol…well, just what have the dems done for us lately?

    …suddenly the dems have awakened to the silly notion that people care about jobs…they have no one to blame but themselves…they wasted two years when they controlled everything…they could have use ACTIONS and symbols…and they wasted their golden opportunity…

    …if nothing else comes from all of this, the very least we all now have is a shot at checks and balances and a body of our govt providing oversight again

    …here’s to divided govt again…even if both parties serve the same masters…they should all be on notice…

  68. latimes.com/health/healthcare/la-fi-insure-rates-20110106,0,6975599.story

    Blue Shield of California seeks rate hikes of as much as 59% for individuals

    Insurer says the increases result from fast-rising healthcare costs and other expenses resulting from new healthcare laws. The move comes less than a year after Anthem Blue Cross tried and failed to raise rates as much as 39%.

    Another big California health insurer has stunned individual policyholders with huge rate increases — this time it’s Blue Shield of California seeking cumulative hikes of as much as 59% for tens of thousands of customers March 1.

    Blue Shield’s action comes less than a year after Anthem Blue Cross tried and failed to raise rates as much as 39% for about 700,000 California customers.

    San Francisco-based Blue Shield said the increases were the result of fast-rising healthcare costs and other expenses resulting from new healthcare laws.

    “We raise rates only when absolutely necessary to pay the accelerating cost of medical care for our members,” the nonprofit insurer told customers last month.

    In all, Blue Shield said, 193,000 policyholders would see increases averaging 30% to 35%, the result of three separate rate hikes since October.

    Nearly 1 in 4 of the affected customers will see cumulative increases of more than 50% over five months.

    While most policyholders received separate notices for the successive rate hikes, others were given the news all at once because they had contracts guaranteeing their rate for a year, Blue Shield spokesman Tom Epstein said.

    Michael Fraser, a Blue Shield policyholder from San Diego, learned recently that his monthly bill would climb 59%, to $431 from $271.

    “When I tell people, their jaws drop and their eyes bug out,” said Fraser, 53, a freelance advertising writer. “The amount is stunning.”

    Like many people who hold individual policies, Fraser is self-employed. Others who carry such insurance include people who aren’t covered by employer plans or who have been laid off.

    The Blue Shield increases triggered complaints to new Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones, and they could prove to be an early test of how the former Democratic state assemblyman deals with rate hikes and the insurance industry.

    Anthem’s attempt to raise rates by up to 39% led to national outrage and helped President Obama marshal support for his healthcare overhaul. The insurer was ultimately forced to back down, accepting maximum rate hikes of 20%.

    Jones said the Blue Shield move underscored the need for the Legislature to give the insurance commissioner legal authority to regulate insurance rates the same way he does automobile coverage.

    At present, the commissioner can block increases only if insurers spend less than 70% of premium income on claims. Jones’ office said Blue Shield’s March 1 increase was under review.

    “Blue Shield’s increases pose the same problem posed by Anthem Blue Cross last year and other health insurers as well,” Jones said in an interview. “My hope would be that Blue Shield would reexamine these rate hikes, particularly in the face of the impact they are having on individual policyholders.”

    Blue Shield said the cost of health coverage was being driven up by large hospital expenses, doctors’ bills and prescription drug prices. Blue Shield’s Epstein said other factors also contributed to the three increases in five months.

    On Oct. 1, he said, Blue Shield imposed increases averaging 18% and as high as 29%. Those hikes had been delayed for three months while state regulators examined Blue Shield’s filing, costing the company tens of millions of dollars.

    Epstein said Blue Shield raised rates again Jan. 1 to pay for changes under the national healthcare overhaul and a new state law that bars insurers from charging women more than men. (Some policyholders will pay less under the state gender law, while others will pay more.)

    A third round of hikes scheduled for March 1 comes in response to rising healthcare costs, Epstein said. Those increases will average 6.5% and be as high as 18%.

    Some policyholders have seen their bills rise gradually over the last five months, while others will see the charges lumped together March 1.

    “It’s unfortunate that they all came in a five-month period,” Epstein said. “Rates are going to continue to rise unless the cost of medical care is brought under control. We need to reduce what we pay to hospitals, medical groups and pharmaceutical companies.”

    Despite the large increases, Epstein said Blue Shield would again lose “tens of millions of dollars” on its individual business in 2011.

    Not included in the rate increases are 78,000 Blue Shield individual policyholders whose insurance is regulated by a second state agency, the Department of Managed Health Care. Those customers have seen two rate increases since October that together average 37%, Epstein said.

    While Blue Shield’s cumulative rate increases are high, Anthem Blue Cross’ increases last year affected more people.

    Anthem said Wednesday that it too expected to raise rates — an average of 9.8% for individual policyholders, effective April 1. That would come on top of increases in October averaging 14% that had been delayed for six months amid heightened scrutiny by state regulators.

    Anthem is taking a cautious approach to its rate hikes given the controversy generated by last year’s plan for 39% hikes.

    Spokeswoman Kristin Binns said the company priced its 2011 rates competitively, saying: “We understand that these are difficult economic times, and we are committed to working to moderate the impact of rate increases on our members.”

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

    and just think, Obamacare will soon force people to accept those big increases whether they like it or not…I’d like to hear Debbie Wasserman talk her way out of this one…

  69. “well, just what have the dems done for us lately?”

    ——————-

    Is that a trick question? 🙂

    To be honest, what has either party done lately. So busy with corrupt one-upmanship that nothing gets accomplished.

  70. Carrier pigeons were hunted into extinction. They were hunted for food and sport. I am sure some birds became extinct because of disease but not the pigeon. The Great Auk was also hunted into extinction, plus their eggs were stolen by the boatload.

    I am still on the lookout for the Ivory billed woodpecker. We have the pileated here. An awesome bird.

  71. Rethugs have been blocking the last 3 states to pass the ERA so it doesn’t become law, claiming it will make women and men share bathrooms

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

    In the 70s the anti-ERA people claimed it would lead to unisex restrooms. Guess what. Now we have the unisex restrooms without the equal rights.

  72. That ground zero victory mosque

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

    Is not what is proposed. The proposal is for a community center some distance from ‘gz’. It’s not about victory, it’s more like tribute from Muslims to non-Muslims to help repair the damage a few Muslim HERETICS caused.

    How far away would it have to be, for you to stop calling it a ‘ground zero’ object? Blocks? Miles? Give a figure for how far you think the ‘ground zero’ aura extends.

  73. to enable this so called Mosque to be built near ground zero.

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

    Hey, you got the first part right. It’s not a mosque. It’s a so-called mosque. 😉

    How far away should it be? Pls be specific.

  74. I am serious sick of reading on other places that Boner is a real person coming from a family of 12, holy cow…people have short memories…the guy is as plastic as an “American Express Card”, gimme a break!

    The whole govt. is corrupt….very few are for real…people need to get a grip!

  75. during a 60 Minutes interview about the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Rauf said: “I wouldn’t say that the United States deserved what happened. But the United States’ policies were an accessory to the crime that happened…we have been an accessory to a lot of innocent lives dying in the world. In fact, in the most direct sense, Osama bin Laden is made in the USA.”

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

    That quote may be somewhat inaccuratge (remember what the corporate media did to Palin’s interview). Iirc the same things were done to Rauf’s. A long rambling conversation full of interruptions, then they cut out big chunks of it to distort the context.

    What Rauf said about Osama is the same as many USians had been saying for years previous to 2001. The US FINANCED Osama and others to fight against the Russians.

  76. Here is another Glenn Beck style text, associating Soros with everything bad we can imagine. The imagination runs wild with words like “Big Brother”, “extreme”, “strict”, “radical”, “socialism”, “European”, “state”, “tightly regulates everything we do”, without specifying who the “we” is, and saying it is for the greater benefit of “society as a whole”, as if “we” are not part of society and “we” are not part of the “state” either. This is just libertarian fear-mongering.

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

    Yep. By their button-pushing words we shall know them.

  77. OkieAtty: “So sick of baby boomers and their rose colored glasses. They were self indulgent wastes of space. Their parents should have beaten them more and handed them less. Maybe their kids and grandkids wouldn’t suck so badly if they had….”

    [[ Heh, so how many generations is that she’s trashing? ]]

    gonzotx: “Gee, they only spawned Hillary and Bill… You can’t make generlized statements about an entire generation. I am a proud 60’s child”

    [[ Thanks for good sense. Yes, Hillary worked in some official legal committee that really did work up the Impeachment case against Nixon.

    Others pretend to be into ‘change’ and ‘protest’ — but she really DID it. ]]

  78. For example, voluntary end-of-life planning is already covered as part of the “Welcome to Medicare” doctor visit, available to seniors within the first year of joining the program.

    The original House version of the overhaul legislation sought to expand coverage, allowing for discussions every few years. But the plan was dropped after Sarah Palin and other Republicans raised the specter of “death panels”

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

    I’d like to think Sarah was misquoted on that. It’s inaccurate applied to a conversation with one’s own doctor one to one about a Living Will. It is accurate applied to the way insurance companies already decide whether to pay an individual’s claim to get treatment (often delaying till he dies so they don’t have to give it), But it’s more likely Sarah was referring to Obama’s FCCCR which IS a panel and WOULD make such decisions (tho nationwide, not something individuals COULD appear before to plead their own cases).

  79. The virulent versions of Islam from some of the countries like Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran are anathema to these Muslims I know. But at the same time people back in India live in constant fear that their citizens will be corrupted

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

    Thanks for a post with at least some good sense in it. Now, ask some of the Muslims you know, what their reaction is to the sort of thing that’s posted here and elsewhere against Islam etc.

    Does this stuff help the nice Muslims in India — or does it fuel anger and corruption among some Muslims there?

  80. I am also seriously sick of Glenn Beck, Obama, most of the democrats and most of the republicans and all of the media. Fear mongering that is what is going on, so when we are all scared half to death we won’t notice how they are filling their pockets with our tax money and making windfall profits while we middle classer’s suffer.

    That’s what their doing!

  81. Incidentally on our New Year’s eve hike, I met two Muslim women who grew up here third generation — their grandfather came to this country, probably in the 30s. She was talking about how mixed and eclectic their family was with children marrying into other race and religion.
    ***********
    They most likely would be murdered for their “eclectic” lifestyle in many parts of the world today by extremist.

  82. Glen Beck had done alot of educating on his programs.He is very dramatic and skewed at times, but I am thankful he is on air.

  83. Incidentally on our New Year’s eve hike, I met two Muslim women who grew up here third generation — their grandfather came to this country, probably in the 30s. She was talking about how mixed and eclectic their family was with children marrying into other race and religion.

  84. Boehner’s Speech

    The people of Ohio’s Eighth Congressional District continue to afford me the privilege to serve, for which I am deeply grateful.
    We gather here today at a time of great challenges. Nearly one in ten of our neighbors are looking for work. Health care costs are still rising for families and small businesses. Our spending has caught up with us, and our debt will soon eclipse the size of our entire economy. Hard work and tough decisions will be required of the 112th Congress.

    No longer can we fall short. No longer can we kick the can down the road. The people voted to end business as usual, and today we begin carrying out their instructions.

    In the Catholic faith, we enter into a season of service by having ashes marked on our foreheads. The ashes remind us that life in all its forms is fragile – our time on this Earth, fleeting. As the ashes are delivered, we hear those humbling words: “Remember you are dust, and to dust you shall return.”

    The American people have humbled us. They have refreshed our memories as to just how temporary the privilege to serve is. They have reminded us that everything here is on loan from them. That includes this gavel, which I accept cheerfully and gratefully, knowing I am but its caretaker. After all, this is the people’s House. This is their Congress. It’s about them, not us. What they want is a government that is honest, accountable and responsive to their needs. A government that respects individual liberty, honors our heritage, and bows before the public it serves.

    Let’s start with the rules package the House will consider today. If passed, it will change how this institution operates, with an emphasis on real transparency, greater accountability, and a renewed focus on the Constitution.

    Our aim will be to give government back to the people. In seeking this goal, we will part with some of the rituals that have come to characterize this institution under majorities Republican and Democratic alike. We will dispense with the conventional wisdom that bigger bills are always better; that fast legislating is good legislating; that allowing additional amendments and open debate makes the legislative process “less efficient” than our forefathers intended.

    These misconceptions have been the basis for the rituals of modern Washington. The American people have not been well served by them.

    Let us now move forward humble in our demeanor, steady in our principles, and dedicated to proving worthy of the trust and confidence that has been placed in us. If we brace ourselves to do our duty, and to do what we say we are going to do, there is no telling what together we can accomplish for the good of this great and honorable nation. More than a country, America is an idea, and it is our job to pass on to our posterity the blessings bestowed to us.

  85. Obama Administration Pays Google and Bing To Direct “ObamaCare” Searches To Their Personal Spin Sites, And Guess Who Paid? George Soros
    Wait Did I Say “George Soros?” I Meant You’re Paying For This
    —Ace

    Darrell Issa? Can we get with you on this?

    In case you don’t know, Google’s revenue comes from selling advertising in the form of search-term priority. If you pay ’em, you get your link put at the tippy-top of a search-term list. Much of the order of a Google list of cites is figured by fair considerations like recency, relevancy, and number of links in turn linking to that link; but usually the top slots are bought and paid for. What’s at the top of the list is there because someone’s advertising budget paid to have it come up at the top of the list.

    Obama is using your tax money to propagandize for his crap.

    Politico’s Ben Smith, in a post entitled “HHS Buys ‘ObamaCare,'” quotes an official from Secretary Kathleen Sebelius’s Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), who confirms that this clear attempt to influence what Americans read about Obamacare does, indeed, represent your tax dollars at work: “‘We are using a bunch of search term[s] to help point people to HealthCare.gov. [It’s] [p]art of our online efforts to help get accurate information to people about the new law (i.e. [we] also use Facebook, Twitter, blogs and webcasts),’ an HHS official confirmed by e-mail.”
    The “accurate information” that Americans will glean about the massive health care overhaul from this HHS website is of the same sort that President Obama has supplied all along — such as that Obamacare would lower health costs (only 17 percent of Americans believe this), increase the quality of care (only 22 percent believe this), and reduce deficits (only 17 percent believe this).

  86. Obama is a remarkable man. On the one hand he tells us that he is focused on job creation. But on the other hand is is passing by executive order new regulations which will cause millions of pink slips in the manufacturing sector, and in the opinion of experts such as the writer below will eliminate the United States as a manufacturing nation. And Obama kjows this full well. Both he and his EPA chief Lisa Jackson insist that the regulations he is passing by executive order will be “far more painful than the cap and trade legislation which failed in congress”. They will accelerate the outsourcing of jobs. The further concern is that the complexity and volume of these regulations designed as all of them are to reward his contributors (like General Electric, Soros, et al) will overwhelm state and federal regulators and create a nation wide moratorium on manufacturing. This is like a footrace to the court house. Before Obama can destroy our economy will the people wake up (doubtful) will the republicans mount an effective defense (unlikely) will big media call the game on Obama (does a cat bark), and will industrial state democrats vote with republicans to stop him (they backed down before and sure as god made little green apples, they will do it all over again when the chips are down.

    ————————————————-

    Obama’s New Regulations Will Produce More Pink Slips
    Ben Lieberman
    The Competitive Institute

    For all his talk of job creation, Presi dent Obama has targeted many occu pations for extinction. Using un elected bureaucrats to implement a host of job-killing measures, his administration is generating piles of pink slips:
    Oil: Even before the BP spill, Obama’s Interior Department had cracked down on domestic drilling. In 2009, regulators allowed less than $1 billion in new oil and natural gas leases on federally controlled areas — both onshore and offshore — compared to $10 billion under President George W. Bush the year before.

    Then, in response to the Gulf spill in April, Obama slowed down things even further, with a moratorium on deep-water drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. That proved so unpopular that the administration officially ended it — but it remains in force unofficially, as regulators bottle up drilling permits with red tape and delays, keeping workers idle. Most recently, Obama regulators placed the entire Atlantic and Pacific coasts off limits to drilling.

    AP
    Furious flotilla: Fisherman lined up their boats off Martha’s Vineyard last summer to protest job-killing regulations.

    Factories: Rising regulatory burdens, energy prices and health-care costs — Obama has left no stone unturned in making American manufacturing globally less competitive and in forcing jobs overseas.
    For example, several new Environmental Protection Agency permit requirements have shut down the construction of coal-fired power plants needed to provide manufacturers with affordable electricity. Jeffrey Holmstead, a former top air-quality EPA official, noted that in 2009 the incoming Obama bureaucrats “withdrew permits that had already been issued,” and that “dozens are being held up today because they have no way to meet a new standard that EPA has put out.”
    It will soon get worse. A barrage of new regulations, including measures intended to address global warming, will hit in January 2011 — directly targeted manufacturers, and far more costly and complex than anything imposed by America’s global competitors, like China, on their own industries.
    Mines: The decades-long regulatory squeeze on minerals mining continues unabated, and the Obama administration has now added coal mining to the hit list. The attack includes global-warming regulations that seek to restrict demand for coal and also direct attempts to stop new coal mines from opening.
    States that rely on coal-mining jobs are feeling the pinch. Joe Manchin, formerly West Virginia’s governor and now its newest US senator, boasts that, “over the past year and a half, we have been fighting Obama administration attempts to destroy the coal mining industry.” As governor, Manchin sued the EPA in an attempt to prevent the agency from blocking coal mines in his state. But Obama shows no sign of budging — even though Manchin is a fellow Democrat.
    Fishing: Obama’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is imposing strict fishing limits, even where there is little or no evidence of an overfishing problem. Its controversial catch-shares program is destroying jobs in such fishing communities as Gloucester and New Bedford in Massachusetts, both of which are challenging the program’s legality in federal court.
    And the White House’s new Ocean Policy Initiative would place more burdens on a US fishing industry that is already heavily regulated. Bonner Cohen, senior fellow at the National Center for Public Policy Research, fears that this scheme “circumvents existing state and local decision-making bodies and replaces them with made-in-Washington zoning with the power to declare areas off limits to fishing.”
    There’s a common thread among these and other beleaguered occupations: Environmentalists hate them. Green absolutists would be happy to see no oil or coal taken out of the ground or fish out of the sea and as many factories dismantled as possible, without any regard for the impact on jobs. Instead, they hype “green jobs” doing things like building wind turbines and solar panels, but these jobs are proving to be a mere trickle compared to those being lost.
    Radical environmentalists have all but declared war on high-wage blue-collar jobs in this country, and the Obama administration has sided with them. The nation’s stubbornly high unemployment rate is evidence they’re winning.
    Ben Lieberman is a senior fellow in envi ronmental policy with the Competitive En terprise Institute in Washington, DC.

    Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/the_jobs_hates_oXIsAxVOBCZmFNzSlF6uJJ#ixzz1AEoikFVN

  87. This is from Hot Air. It debunks an attempt by WashPo to put a happy face on the voter repudiation of Obama. The WashPo writer gets downright stupid when she characterizes what occurred in the lame duck session as productive, bi partisan and all the other euphemisms of a Republican collapse. Now of course, they have a second chance, and maybe their last chance to demonstrate to the American People that they are better stewards of this nations future than Obama. It makes no sense to talk any more about the Democratic Party. It is the Party of Obama and it no longer believes in democracy or democratic values. In due course we shall see whether the chastened and now re empowered Republican Party is any better. I am not prepared to throw in the towel on them just yet. But I do believe that they need to approach certain issues with fixed bayonets or else the American People will have nothing to do with them. The bottom line here is very clear: they were not elected to engage in bi partisanship. They were put in to stop Obama. If there is common ground for agreement then fine. But they must never again give the store away like they did in the lame duck session. Not if they hope to survive.
    ——————-
    Hot Air:

    Horrors: Dems forced to try … bipartisanship?Share14posted at 9:30 am on January 5, 2011 by Ed Morrissey
    printer-friendly Well, maybe if they’d practiced more of it in the last four years, they wouldn’t need to have that strategy forced on them now. The Washington Post reports on the extremity in which Congressional Democrats find themselves:
    Democratic leaders say they could take up the cause of deficit reduction, urge a free-trade agreement with South Korea and advocate for an overhaul of the nation’s immigration laws.

    All of these issues have something in common: They will require support from lawmakers in both parties to have any hope of passing. Each of the measures stalled during the previous Congress, as Democrats used their majorities in the House and Senate to advance health-care reform, Wall Street accountability and other priorities over the objections of Republicans.
    They no longer have that luxury.

    Democrats presided over one of most productive congressional sessions in decades, but the brisk pace and their strategy of rolling over Republicans instead of engaging them came at a heavy cost. Many voters thought Democrats had overreached and were governing by fiat, and they responded in November by giving Republicans control of the House and narrowing the Democratic hold on the Senate.

    Now, Democrats will try a different approach – attempting to re-create the unexpected cooperation of December’s lame-duck session, in which the parties got beyond their rhetoric to pass a tax-cut bill, extend unemployment benefits and ratify a nuclear arms treaty with Russia. Lawmakers approved more bipartisan legislation last month than at any other time in the long stretch since President Obama took office.

    First, you have to love Shailagh Murray’s framing of this as a strategic move. Democrats have no choice. They can no longer rule Capitol Hill by fiat because their authority for governing by diktat evaporated. Even Harry Reid, who will still run the Senate majority, has nearly half of his caucus (23 seats out of 53) up for re-election in 2012, and no small number of those in red or purple states. Their agenda disappeared, although again contra Murray, they still tried to ram it down the throats of the Republicans in the lame-duck session. Murray seems to forget about the DREAM Act, the omnibus spending bill with the ObamaCare funding folded into it, and so on.

    Claiming bipartisanship while out of power is the easiest thing to do in the Beltway; it requires no work at all. Especially in the House, the Speaker has all the power, as Democrats repeatedly demonstrated during the four years of Nancy Pelosi’s dictatorial power, where the GOP got blocked from offering amendments and participating in the writing of bills, where the committee process got routinely subverted, and where 3000-page bills only saw the light of day mere hours before Pelosi demanded votes on them.

    In fact, had Pelosi and Reid adopted a bipartisan approach from the beginning — or even after Barack Obama’s election — they might not find themselves on the outside looking in now. Pelosi locked the GOP out of the stimulus package, even though many in the Republican caucus clearly wanted to vote for some sort of ill-advised adventure in government intervention. Had she allowed it, both parties would have taken the blame for the failure of Porkulus, not just Obama and the Democrats. The Tea Party would have targeted a number of incumbent Republicans in the House and Senate as well as Democrats. Instead, Pelosi managed to hang all the blame on her own party.

    If Democrats were serious about bipartisanship, they would have adopted it when they had the power to allow it, as John Boehner appears prepared to do with his proposal for new rules this week. But even if they were serious about their sudden revelation about bipartisanship now, they would have chosen a different set of leaders for their caucuses on Capitol Hill, especially in the House. Putting Nancy Pelosi in charge of bipartisanship is somewhat akin to putting PETA in charge of the all-you-can-eat buffet at Outback Steakhouse.

    Blowback
    Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air’s community of registered readers. Please don’t assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

    Cold Fury » Better sit down for this one
    Comments

    Democrats presided over one of most productive congressional sessions in decades
    Yes and Pyrrhus was quite productive too, in his time.

    WaPo makes me laugh.

    Bishop on January 5, 2011 at 9:35 AM

    Now that Nancy Pelosi is no longer the speaker, can you please stop running photos of her on the top page? I get physically sick looking at them. Her face is no longer human.

    WesternActor on January 5, 2011 at 9:37 AM

    Compromising with evil is evil. I don’t have much hope that Republicans, even the real ones, will take that to heart, enough, but that’s the truth.

    RBMN on January 5, 2011 at 9:38 AM

    Democrats pre-November 2010 “We won…get over it.”
    Democrats post-November 2010 “It is time for bipartisanship”

    Elections do have consequences.

    fourdeucer on January 5, 2011 at 9:43 AM

    Nobody was elected to the new Congress running on bipartisanship. The voters are not expecting it and might even be a little pissed off to see it. It’s time for slash and burn.

    NeoKong on January 5, 2011 at 9:47 AM

  88. “green jobs” doing things like building wind turbines and solar panels, but these jobs are proving to be a mere trickle compared to those being lost.

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

    So more energy is being produced with less labor. Isn’t that terrible. Now those workers will be available for more productive (and less polluting) jobs.

  89. In case you don’t know, Google’s revenue comes from selling advertising in the form of search-term priority.

    ——————–

    Maybe the writer thinks that the ads in the right column of Google search results are run free?

  90. Just before the 2000 GE, CSPAN turned untypically partisan (toward Bush) and I delegated them to my trash bin. Now suddenly, the same source is once again a must-see. I caught a rerun of the debate yesterday re House rules and it was totally awesome to see how many Dems referred to the success of THEIR PHILOSOPHY during 1993. Hope Bill/Hill will be able to see a bit of it. Let the show continue!

  91. #turndownobama
    January 6th, 2011 at 1:38 am

    Thanks for a post with at least some good sense in it. Now, ask some of the Muslims you know, what their reaction is to the sort of thing that’s posted here and elsewhere against Islam etc.
    Does this stuff help the nice Muslims in India — or does it fuel anger and corruption among some Muslims there?
    —————-

    You can do away with the backhanded compliments because I don’t really care what you think of my posts. The nice Muslims in India would understand and join in condemning the impact of virulent forms of Islam discussed here and elsewhere — they are thankful they are in India and not in these other fucked up Muslim countries. Read this to get an idea from a leading Indian Muslim author/journalist — http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Columnists/M-J-Akbar-A-flawed-idea/articleshow/4240191.cms.

    The corruption the Indians (Muslims and all) fear is from Saudis with their money and ill intent/politics and terrorism emanating from Pakistan — the kind of thing you should fear happening in this country with people like Rauf and the Saudis, he is no saint — to see what a Muslim saint looks like, look up info on people like Hazrat Inayat Khan and what he did. Saudis have already mucked it up in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

  92. gonzotx
    January 6th, 2011 at 2:07 am
    —————–
    They would be fine in India. My point was that they are that way because of their Indian ancestry.

  93. Question: If you know that Obama is looting the public treasury to reward your competitors for their massive campaign contributions to him, and if those rewards give them competitive advantage over you that is prejudicial to your own bottom line and you refuse to make similar contributions to his campaign to alleviate that disparity have you breached your fiduciary obligations to your shareholders and diminished the value of their stock. By the same token if you obey the immigration laws, your competitors do not and Obama refuses to enforce them, then you will soon be out of business. Anyone who does not think this corrupt man is destroying this country is either corrupt, oblivious or lacks the common sense that God gave a jackass. Either way it aint good. But big media is happy whatever he does, so why worry.
    ————————————

    ObamaCare Rewards Friends, Punishes Enemies
    The administration waives allies through the health law’s onerous restrictions.
    Article
    Comments (156)
    MORE IN OPINION »
    EmailPrint
    Save This
    ↓ More

    + More
    Text
    By KARL ROVE

    Aprimary task for the new Republican House majority is to undo as many of the pernicious effects of ObamaCare that it can. One of these effects is the spectacle of employers going hat-in-hand to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) for waivers from some of the law’s more onerous provisions.

    In September, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius began granting waivers to companies that provided workers “mini-med” coverage—low-cost plans with low annual limits on what the insurance will pay out. This followed announcements by some employers that they would have to drop these plans because they did not meet the new health law’s requirement that 85% of premium income be spent on medical expenses.

    View Full Image

    Associated Press
    HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius

    By early December, HHS had granted 222 such waivers to provide mini-med policies for companies including AMF Bowling and Universal Forest Product, as well as 43 union organizations. According to the department’s website, the waivers cover 1,507,418 employees, of which more than a third (525,898) are union members. Yet unionized workers make up only 7% of the private work force. Whatever is going on here, a disproportionately high number of waivers are being granted to administration allies.

    Then, on Dec. 21, Ms. Sebelius announced that insurance companies seeking rate increases of 10% or more in the individual or small group market must publicly justify the hikes under standards set by her department.

    Insurance regulation has traditionally been a state responsibility, and 43 states must already approve proposed insurance-rate increases. ObamaCare does not authorize HHS to deny rate increases, but the agency said that if a state “lacks the resources or authority” to conduct the kind of review the agency wants, it will conduct its own.

    This proposed regulation will erode the states’ dominant role in insurance regulation, centralizing more power in Washington. The HHS announcement also mentioned that it will set different thresholds of what constitutes an “unreasonable” increase for every state by 2012.

    The Obama administration’s behavior to date suggests that it will not hesitate to take care of its friends. The Senate Republican Policy Committee’s health policy analyst, Chris Jacobs, points out that the administration has already given an extravagant gift to the AARP (American Association of Retired Persons), a key player in passing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

    The AARP provided a big chunk of the $121 million spent on ads supporting the bill’s passage, as well as $21 million on lobbying in 2009, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. HHS’s proposed regulations on Dec. 21 exempted the AARP’s lucrative “Medigap” plans from the rate review and other mandates and requirements.

    The AARP and other Medigap providers can require a waiting period before seniors with pre-existing conditions have to be covered. Insurers covering those under 65 cannot.

    About Karl Rove

    Karl Rove served as Senior Advisor to President George W. Bush from 2000–2007 and Deputy Chief of Staff from 2004–2007. At the White House he oversaw the Offices of Strategic Initiatives, Political Affairs, Public Liaison, and Intergovernmental Affairs and was Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy, coordinating the White House policy-making process.

    Before Karl became known as “The Architect” of President Bush’s 2000 and 2004 campaigns, he was president of Karl Rove + Company, an Austin-based public affairs firm that worked for Republican candidates, nonpartisan causes, and nonprofit groups. His clients included over 75 Republican U.S. Senate, Congressional and gubernatorial candidates in 24 states, as well as the Moderate Party of Sweden.

    Karl writes a weekly op-ed for the Wall Street Journal, is a Newsweek columnist and is the author of the book “Courage and Consequence” (Threshold Editions).

    Email the author atKarl@Rove.comor visit him on the web atRove.com. Or, you can send a Tweet to @karlrove.

    Click here to order his book,Courage and Consequence.

    The AARP is also exempt from the new law’s $500,000 cap on executive compensation for insurance executives. (The nonprofit’s last CEO received over $1.5 million in compensation in his last full year, 2009.) It won’t pay any of the estimated $14 billion in new taxes on insurance companies, though according to its 2008 consolidated financial statement, it gets more money from its insurance offerings than it does from dues, grants and private contributions combined. Nor will it have to spend at least 85% of its Medigap premium dollars on medical claims, as Medicare Advantage plans must do; the AARP will be held to a far less restrictive 65%.

    It’s not hard to connect the dots. The Obama administration is using waivers to reward friends. On the flip side, business executives will be discouraged from contributing to the president’s opponents or from taking any other steps that might upset the White House or its political appointees at HHS.

    This is not what people had in mind when candidate Obama promised in his acceptance speech in August 2008 to undo “the cynicism we all have about government.”

    In a speech at the University of Iowa last March, the president heralded health-care reform as “a new set of rules that treats everybody honestly and treats everybody fairly.” Determining whether that is true will be another task for House Republicans. They have an obligation to look into this matter, and Mr. Obama can hardly object. It was former Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, whom the president frequently quotes, who wrote in 1913 that sunlight “is the best of disinfectants.”

  94. I couldn’t say this from work last night, but WTF is Dick the Prick Cheney getting a new heart for??? I don’t mean to seem uncaring but for pete’s sake his time is up, he has to face the real judgement and he can’t set his office on fire to hide all his sins.

    So he’ waiting for some poor innocent soul to croak in an accident to get to finish screwing up America and making his wife richer? This is beyond ridiculous! I guarantee you if decides he wants a new heart….he’s going to the top of the list and all the lies the medical establishment will make regarding his place on the list will be a LIE!

    Well he’s started enough wars, why don’t he just ask for one of those Afganie hearts?

    Glenn Beck is nothing more than a paid “mouthpiece” and highly paid at that! He’s no different than Boner which I’m renaming from Boehner for the duration of the freaking that the republicans are going to do to America now! You all will see!

  95. Where is Mrs Smith and Shadowfax?
    No comments on the heart of Dick. What is it about men named Dick that so appals me???

  96. Do you really believe the people of this country recognize the gravity of the threat they are facing? I don’t. I think nearly half of them are totally bamboozled. Especially the young women, who seem to lust for him to a degree that makes no sense. You take people in their 20s 30s and early 40s and they are as mad about the boy as they ever were and as mired in hatred of the republicans as they ever were, and as willing to believe the moon is made of green cheese if big media, the Obama campaign or their favorite left wing blog as they ever were and if it does not turn out well for them in the end they will say it was all the Republicans fault and you can file this under the heading why nations fail. On the other hand, maybe they feel if they are working that this is not all that bad because he is saving the planet, and they themselves can profit off other peoples misery by buying houses dirt cheap. As you can see, I have little respect for these people.

  97. I don’t know but it seems to me I remember a budget surplus and low unemployment before the rethugs took over…now they’ve been out of power (which is debatable) for 2 years and everyone now thinks the rethugs will save us. LOL! I remember they are the ONES who got us in this shape so go ahead and believe they are going to save us! I prefer to live in reality! Obama is no democrat, never was and that’s whats wrong. He’s a crook and he’s joined at the hip with these crooks that got us here, so those previous crooks can’t save us!

  98. Regarding the video, why doesn’t someone ask him one simple question: why won’t you show the American People your birth certificate, and put this longstanding controversy to an end? Why? Why? Why? Why not clear the air? Why not show us the transparency which you preach to us about, and then fail to practice. Transparency is one hell of a lot more than inviting big media on lavish trips around the world while the nation is suffering. That is a boondoggle. Transparency is important on matters which the people need to know about in order to make informed choices about their future. On that point, he is the least transparent official we have ever had in that position, for good reason: because if the people of this country knew what that agenda was, then they would want none of it, and would run him out of office with pitchforks except the 50% who lack the capacity to think or have predatory designs on the rest of us.

  99. I don’t know but it seems to me I remember a budget surplus and low unemployment before the rethugs took over…now they’ve been out of power (which is debatable) for 2 years and everyone now thinks the rethugs will save us. LOL! I remember they are the ONES who got us in this shape so go ahead and believe they are going to save us! I prefer to live in reality! Obama is no democrat, never was and that’s whats wrong. He’s a crook and he’s joined at the hip with these crooks that got us here, so those previous crooks can’t save us!
    ——————————–
    There is a little thing called the business cycle which produces good times for a while and then lean times. It has been this way since biblical times, whenever you have a market driven economy. During the 1990s the country had tremendous gains in productivity with the introduction of the computer, which eliminated blue and pink collar jobs. That revolution gave us a surplus but led eventually to a dot com bubble. Both parties claim credit for the success of the 1990s, since Bill was President and Republicans held congress. Thereafter, we made the unholy deal with China–open access to our markets in exchange for cheap money, supported by the irrational exhuberance of Greenspan. That was a Republican problem. Simultaneously, you had a move by Congress to make credit available to people who were bad credit risks to raise the level of home ownership. That was a democratic problem. The Iraq invasion was primarily a Republican mistake, but the Democrats have doubled down on this and widened the war in Afghanistan. There are no virgins or saints in this whore house. They are all just people, which different motivations. But of all of them we have seen in the passing parade, no one is more intend on destroying this nation than Obama. And people do not seem to realize it. Believe me they don’t. They are uneducatable.

  100. The House is reading the Constitution now, sentence by sentence with each rep reading a line. Pelosi started and they are going dem, repub, dem, etc. Makes it hard to get a flow of the words.
    http://www.c-span.org

  101. BigCatLover
    January 6th, 2011 at 11:21 am
    —————-

    No, I won’t.

    I see that the comment was rescued from moderation. Pictures and comment were not about her weight but her sartorial choices — she is the ultimate fashion icon of the mighty USA, isn’t she?

  102. BigCatLover, haha, a clarification before you jump on me, “No, I won’t stop commenting on her appearance.”

  103. Someone in the House gallery is yelling in protest at the reading of the Constitution. They had to be removed.

  104. pm317
    Yes she does have a distinctive style of dressing and I too have complained about the press calling her a fashion icon. If you weren’t talking about her weight, then you are excused. 😆

  105. Can anyone understand why anyone would do this? I mean you would seek out counsel from your wife at home anyway, this just seems odd! No way she does this unpaid!

    Gov. Jerry Brown appointed his wife Anne Gust Brown to be his unpaid “special counsel” and named two executive secretaries as he began Wednesday to shape his new administration.

    Brown announced more than 20 appointees, all of them Democrats and many of them people who advised Brown when he was governor before.

    Jim Humes, 51, Brown’s chief deputy in the attorney general’s office, was appointed executive secretary for administration, legal affairs and policy. Nancy McFadden, also 51, a former adviser to Gov. Gray Davis, is executive secretary for legislation, appointments and policy.

    Brown is using the title “executive secretary” instead of chief of staff, the title used by recent governors. The appointments suggest some flattening of the administration.

    “It’s being set up with a number of direct reports to the governor,” Brown adviser Steve Glazer said.

    Gust Brown, 52, a former Gap Inc. executive, was an unpaid adviser to Brown when he was state attorney general and in his gubernatorial campaign. Gust Brown, around whom there is no reporting structure, has “always been a close adviser, professionally and personally,” Glazer said.

  106. More dead birds, crabs, fish..

    Dozens of dead birds were found laying around the city of Falkoping, Sweden, on Tuesday. The investigation found that they had all died from ‘external blows’. Internal bleeding was evident upon performing a necropsy.

    Thanet, England, is now reporting up to 40,000 ‘Devil Crabs’ scattered along the Kent Coast.
    New Zealand is reporting hundreds of dead Snapper fish in Coromandel….

    http://www.ghosttheory.com/2011/01/06/more-dead-animals-turn-up-birds-fish-crabs?

  107. I wonder if any rep refused to take part in the constitution reading. Bet both parties were threatened by their leaders to show up and take part. Is that against the Constitution?

  108. Way to go, House Democrats. Your first act of 2011 is to strenuously object to reading aloud the founding document of the nation.

  109. BigCatLover
    January 6th, 2011 at 11:36 am
    —————
    I would talk about her weight if I were skinny myself. I have an excellent sartorial sense though. I mean that outfit to the shaved ice place has to be the most hideous ever and the lapdogs jump for joy (or hide the truth). It is just another complaint about how fake this whole thing has been.

  110. pm317 its getting crazier and crazier, this is seriously going to affect the food chain. There will be repurcussions to all this.

  111. There are no virgins or saints in this whore house. They are all just people, which different motivations.
    ————————————————————————-
    Exactly, and that is why I said a 2 am that I was sick of all of them, they are all crooks and need to be replaced. Going back and forth between parties doesn’t do anything….yes we had to do this in 10′, but all we can do now is wait and watch and see if anything is going to change. I doubt it will as they aren’t concentrating repealing the hell care bill instead of the joblessness! It’s what they are doing!

  112. Its official, The Daleys will be running the WH.

    President Obama chooses William Daley as next White House chief of staff, sources tell AP

  113. moononpluto
    January 6th, 2011 at 11:43 am
    Way to go, House Democrats. Your first act of 2011 is to strenuously object to reading aloud the founding document of the nation.
    *************************
    what are you basing this on?

  114. Saw this on Drudge: no link..

    “Protester shouts ‘What about Obama?’ as congressman reads section of Constitution on presidential eligibility…developing…”

  115. White House just announced that they’ll formally unveil Daley Machine Takeover at 2:30pm Eastern.

    Big Cat, i was reading some of the reports from journalists embedded in the capitol buildings, that some house Dems were actively trying to disrupt and stop the reading of the constitution and trying to stop the GOP doing it today in the first place, apparently there were real hissy fits behind the scenes from house dems.

  116. I’ll be really watching now to see if the “retiring” Chicago mayor suddenly finds a new job in Washington. That one seemed to suspect of a quick departure.

  117. pm317
    thanks for the detail on the protestor in the House. I wasn’t paying close enough attention to hear if they were protesting a certain part of the reading, but that one makes sense.

  118. moomonpluto
    that would be really stupid of the dems to try to block this, even if they think it is just theater. They seem to be behaving today.

  119. So now the “head Don” is going to be running the WH. Well I wonder if MO and Valerie had anything to do with that since they both worked for him? So now we know that the insider was right Jarrett and MO have been running the WH while Obama had a nervous breakdown. What are the republicans doing….they adding 2+2 and coming up with 5, inotherwards not a damn thing.
    This is a travesty, if Ulsterman knows whats going on, so do the rethugs! It also looks like Hillary is staying at State, well at least she is doing her job, but I wonder if that will change since Daley is taking over.
    Daley is a combine guy, so the rethugs will love him!

  120. I am already seriously sick of Congress and its speaker….reading the constitution when neither party goes one iota about it. Its all crap!

  121. I think the bi partisanship party will end . . rather quickly. Like almost before it has even began.

    The dims object to the reading of the constitution? The document they have never read but swore to support and defend as part of their oath. And now they object to someone reading it to them. Sounds like they do not want to be bound.

    This is similar to the health care bill which they voted on without reading. It is because they cannot read? No. I have it on good authority that Representative John Conyers is an avid reader of Playboy Magazine. So we all know he can read. He also reads National Geographic for the hot parts.

    But reading a piece of legislation he signs so he can know what is in it and what he is committing the people of this country to? Why, in his own words that would take several days and three lawyers to assist him/ So why bother? He is no better than Patrick Leahey in the senate who is reported to have the same predelictions. Grinning Deadhead that he is.

  122. Its official, The Daleys will be running the WH.

    President Obama chooses William Daley as next White House chief of staff, sources tell AP
    ——————–
    Seems like alot of false drama here. This was a Daley machine seat from the beginning of the Administration. Emanuel was one of their guys. So is this William Daley. Rouse? He just kept the seat warm–like the soldier of Pompey. I think the Republicans see this for what it is, and as far as going along with the Daley machine that is nuts. The Repubicans have not held the mayors seat in that town since 1932. They will not play ball with these pricks. No chance of that.

  123. I am already seriously sick of Congress and its speaker….reading the constitution when neither party goes one iota about it. Its all crap!
    ——————
    It is theater yes. But who can say where it will lead. Certainly the tea party members will listen and take heed. The Lugars the Hatches the Murkoswkis in short the establishment repubilicans will turn a deaf hear. But their days are numbered. They will also bring in a Supreme Court justice to reinforce those points. This is the right way to set the stage for the rest of the term and beyond.

  124. So how does Obama equate his all bankers are evil mantra by hiring Daley who was up to his neck in Fannie Mae and was/is a JP Morgan Chase Banker.

  125. Well this ought to be fun.

    Liberals scoff at Daley’s new job

    Adam Green, one of the most prominent progressive voices, was quick to criticize President Obama’s decision on Thursday to make William Daley his next chief of staff.

    “This was a real mistake by the White House,” Green, the co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, said in a statement. “Bill Daley consistently urges the Democratic Party to pursue a corporate agenda that alienates both Independent and Democratic voters. If President Obama listens to that kind of political advice from Bill Daley, Democrats will suffer a disastrous 2012.

    ………………………..

    Looks like the Dems aint happy with Daley in the WH.

  126. wbboei,
    I agree, but it doesn’t make it any easier to listen too. Washington and big media just suck so bad that I think I’m going to have to turn off Fox News and not listen to any news except what you guys post. Drudge is even on my nerves, but the dog woke me up too early this morning so I’m grouchy.

  127. She didn’t “barely lose.” It was stolen from her by the very ones who were supposed to stand for democracy and fairness.

    Anyway…
    —————————-

    Better Positioned for 2016: Hillary or Biden?

    By Akie Bermiss and Howard Megdal

    HOWARD MEGDAL: Six years is obviously a long time in politics, and could make this a moot exercise. But with few obvious Democrats next in line for a presidential bid, it is worth considering who is better positioned for 2016 right now: the sitting Vice President, Joe Biden, or 2008′s runner-up, Hillary Clinton. The answer, it seems to me, is Biden.

    Consider that the very same problems that plagued Hillary Clinton during her last run- a belief in some quarters that she was too hawkish on Iraq- was only reinforced by the debate over Afghanistan. Clinton, remember, won praise from Stanley McChrystal for her support of his plan. Joe Biden, meanwhile, has been publicly acknowledged as the lead voice within the administration for limiting/exiting Afghanistan.

    Which do you think will play better with Democratic primary voters?

    Those are precisely the voters who will be up for grabs in 2016, too. Remember, Clinton’s ability to connect to white, working-class Democrats helped keep her in the game against Obama. That is precisely Biden’s strength, with the anti-war bona fides to help deliver some of the rest. Biden’s weaknesses- his age, for one thing, his propensity for speaking his mind, for another- could also play well against Clinton. While he’ll be 74, Clinton will be 70- it will be hard for either one to use the age issue.

    And no one will accuse Biden of saying the politically sage thing to get elected- precisely the charge that helped bring down Clinton’s 2008 bid. In her role as Secretary of State, it isn’t as if Clinton will have the opportunity to change the public’s view of careful phrasing, either.

    Ultimately, this battle may be moot. One or both could decide not to run, and another Obama-like figure could rise. But remember- Obama seems like the norm now, but his rise was largely unprecedented in terms of speed. It may be that the parameters have changed- or it could be that we’ll see a return to a more normal, gradual rise within presidential politics.

    If that happens- and remember, chief executives in the two largest states held by Democrats are Jerry Brown in California and Andrew Cuomo in New York, neither one considered a leader with national appeal- 2016 could be the last battle for two warhorses within the Democratic Party. And if so, count out Joe Biden at your peril.

    AKIE BERMISS: I would never count out Joe Biden, but I think its fair to say that he’s really a Primary-level candidate. If Obama had never reared his youthful head, Hilary would have soundly trounced all her competition in the Democratic primaries. Biden included. If it really comes down to a battle between Clinton and Biden: I expect the Clinton name, legacy, and political savvy to simply overwhelm the brusque, gaff-iness of Joe Biden.

    There’s no question that when it comes to succinctly tearing down a Republican opponent, Joe Biden is one of my favorite quotables. He pretty much ended Rudy Giuliani’s career as a serious political heavyweight. Biden, for all his gaffes, can put words together that enrage and yet inspire his constituency. If there is one place where Hilary is weak, its an ability to really be inspiring or uplifting or emotional. She actually suffers a bit from the Al Gore syndrome. And next to someone like Biden she can easily come off a constrained and wooden.

    On the other hand, I think Biden is at a disadvantage everywhere else. He may be good with the White working class, but being associated so closely with Barack Obama is likely going to mean he’s pretty much considered a minion of Obama’s. It’ll be a hard sell for him to go back to being white, working-class America’s poster boy. Hilary Clinton, on the other hand, has stayed just far enough away from Obama’s present and future legacy that she’ll be able to seem like an independent Democratic entity come 2016. This is why, I’m sure, there was never any serious movement made towards having Clinton be Vice President. Secretary of State is an ideal position: high profile, but not directly underfoot.

    And we all know that the Clinton name plays very well among African-Americans. When Obama steps out of the way, that’s a voting block that is going to become a very valuable free-agent on the Democratic side. And I think, despite Biden’s closeness to Obama, Hilary simply puts Bill to work and wins that constituency with out much work.

    As per the liberal base, I think by the time 2016 rolls around, they’ll be good and sick of Joe Biden. He’s just too one-dimensional. You like him when he’s attacking Republicans, and you hate him when he’s attacking his own. He comes after Liberals without much tact. Tell’s them to “stop whining” and to get back to work supporting the President. I tell you, VP is a thankless and crappy job. And I’m not sure why people still think it leads to an automatic bid for the Presidency after two terms. After all, 2016 is a ways away and as Howard notes Biden will be 74 years old. Certainly Clinton, at 70, won’t be able to make MUCH hay over that, but 74 is still a good deal older than 70. Are we really expecting two terms out of someone who’ll be in their 80s if all goes exceedingly well by the time they leave the White House? No, Hilary is not in much better shape, but she at least will only be 70. Perception could be all the difference in that fight.

    Finally, I think its just a matter of political savvy — and Clinton has that in spades. Against an unknown quantity like Barack Obama, she could certainly be forced to take a back seat again. And we don’t know what names will be on the short list come 2016 (Cory Booker, perhaps?), but against some old hat like Joe Biden? Well, that’s just a walk in the park for Hilary Clinton. She’ll get all the big name endorsements, she’ll have all the international clout as Secretary of State, she’ll have her experience as First Lady, and with the Clinton Global Initiative. And she’ll have the same ability to draw people into her narrative as she’s always had. Rest assured, if Hilary Clinton runs for President in 2016 — its going to take another unknown quantity to bring her down. Biden doesn’t have the juice, doesn’t have the tact, and doesn’t have the longevity.

    Let’s not make the mistake of thinking that just because she (barely) lost to Barack Obama that she’s somehow less than she was. If anything, she returns stronger, more graceful, and more invulnerable than ever before.

    http://perpetualpost.com/

  128. moononpluto, fools like Green, who did they think Obama was? A lone virgin in the whorehouse of Chicago? If he really was a virgin, then that would make him incompetent which is also a problem in itself.

  129. Biden, positioned better for a run at the WH, lol, the guy is a gaffemachine and barely polled 1% in Iowa. If Biden is the only thing Dems have to offer besides Hillary in 2016, she’ll win in a landslide.

  130. But remember- Obama seems like the norm now, but his rise was largely unprecedented in terms of speed.
    *****************************
    You’d think this statement would give the author a clue that Obama’s candidacy was not as it seemed. Instead they speculate that another surprise star may rise and win in 2016. God help us.

  131. Obama White House sheds some of its hard men and Nancy Pelosi makes an ungracious exit

    By Janet Daley World Last updated: January 5th, 2011

    Watching Nancy Pelosi’s startlingly inappropriate farewell as House Speaker, in which she turned what should have been a gracious constitutional ceremony into a blatantly partisan defiance of the electorate’s judgement, I wondered whether her fingers were actually going to have to be peeled off the Speaker’s gavel. She really is a piece of work: unrepentant and self-congatulatory to the end, even in the face of overwhelming repudiation by the voters. It was left to John Boehner, the new Republican speaker, to make the generous, bipartisan speech that was fitting for the occasion. How long that bipartisanship can last in a Congress so bitterly divided remains to be seen – but at least he behaved well at the outset.

    And nothing can change the fact that the Republicans are now running the show on Capitol Hill – a development to which the Obama White House has had an interesting reaction. It has, it seems, decided to go for Nice rather than Nasty – or rather, even Nastier. The departure of the White House press secretary Robert Gibbs adds another name to the list of Obama hard men who are quitting the scene. Following on Rahm Emanuel’s decision to return to Chicago politics – which is where he perfected his peculiarly thuggish approach to the democratic process – this begins to look like a pattern. But the real question is, why did Obama – the most liberal president in living memory – surround himself with such a disagreeable army of henchmen in the first place? Hard-faced, foul-mouthed, vindictive and brazenly partisan, the original Obama team seems an odd choice for a man whose political philosophy was supposed to be based on compassion and tolerance.

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/janetdaley/100070665/obama-white-house-sheds-some-of-its-hard-men-and-nancy-pelosi-makes-an-ungracious-exit/

  132. ET TU, OBAMA?

    Good article on Obama’s environmental wimp outs.

    motherjones.com/environment/2011/01/obama-endangered-species-act#

    Obama: Not So Wild About Wildlife
    =============================

    Why isn’t he doing more to beat George W. Bush’s pathetic record on protecting polar bears and other endangered species?

    — By Josh Harkinson

    Thu Jan. 6, 2011 3:00 AM PST
    By the time he left office, President George W. Bush wasn’t exactly known as a friend of endangered wildlife. Over eight years, his administration protected 62 species of domestic animals and plants under the Endangered Species Act. By contrast, Bill Clinton had declared 522 species endangered during his two terms. (See chart below.) On average, Bush added eight new species to the list annually, the slowest pace of any president since Richard Nixon signed the ESA into law in 1973.

    When Barack Obama took office in 2009, conservationists expected him to pick up the slack as well as end the outgoing administration’s policy of blocking, delaying, and politicizing endangered-species listings. In April 2009, the president took a swipe at his predecessor, declaring that the ESA had been “undermined by past administrations,” and all but promising to apply the law more aggressively: “We should be looking for ways to improve it—not weaken it.”

    Yet two years later, little has changed, to the frustration of some wildlife advocates. Late last month, for example, the Interior Department upheld the Bush administration’s decision not to list the polar bear as endangered despite the rapid loss of its arctic habitat. If the bear were designated as endangered, it could legally obligate the government to adopt a more aggressive climate policy. “The Obama administration delivered a lump of coal to the polar bear for Christmas,” said the Center for Biological Diversity’s Kassie Siegel, the lead author of a 2005 petition to protect the bear. “Once again President Obama’s interior department has sacrificed sound science for political expediency, and the polar bear will suffer as a result.”

    Obama is barely beating Bush at protecting new endangered species—and he’s far behind his Democratic predecessors. So far, his administration has added 59 species to the endangered list. However, that includes 48 species from the Hawaiian island of Kauai that were originally cleared for approval by the Bush administration.

    “They have protected new species at a very slow rate,” says Andrew Wetzler, director of the Natural Resources Defense Council’s land and wildlife program, “and they have really not demonstrated that wildlife conservation is a priority.” Obama and Interior Secretary Ken Salazar “don’t have the ideological opposition to endangered species protection of the past administration,” says Noah Greenwald, the endangered species director at the Center for Biological Diversity, but “they haven’t really aggressively turned the program around or been effective at getting it started. They are sort of in this Neverland.”

    The Fish and Wildlife Service, which oversees ESA designations for most species, blames the slow pace on a lack of resources and a barrage of lawsuits from environmental groups suing to get species off the waitlist for protection. “It has nothing to do with the administration,” says Lora Zimmerman, a biologist with the FWS’s endangered species listing branch.

    Currently, 251 species are waiting for a final decision on whether they will join the endangered list; some, such as the Montana Arctic grayling and Oregon spotted frog, have been in limbo for more than two decades. Environmental groups estimate that it would cost $200 million to eliminate the backlog. However, the Obama administration proposes cutting the FWS’s 2011 listing budget by nearly 5 percent, to $20.9 million.

    Since it went into effect nearly 40 years ago, the Endangered Species Act has safeguarded nearly 600 species of animals and 800 species of plants. Although only 13 species have bounced back enough to be removed from the list, studies show that the longer a species is protected under the ESA, the less likely it is to go extinct. While some of these species may sound ridiculously inconsequential or obscure—like Brown’s pigweed or the ponderous siltsnail—giving them endangered status has the added benefit of preventing the bulldozing of the wild places they inhabit.

    Not surprisingly, that’s made the ESA a perennial target of developers and their allies in Washington, DC. At no point was the anti-ESA backlash stronger than during George W. Bush’s two terms. In 2007, the Interior Department inspector general found that a political appointee in the department had repeatedly and improperly overruled FWS scientists who wanted to add species to the endangered list. The administration also jeopardized endangered species, such as when it allowed up to 70,000 protected adult salmon in the Klamath River to die off in 2002. Late in his final term, Bush undercut the ESA by exempting thousands of federal activities, including the approval of coal mines and offshore oil rigs, from review by wildlife agencies.

    Obama’s stance on the ESA has broken with his predecessor’s in notable ways. Interior Secretary Salazar quickly undid many of Bush’s eleventh-hour exemptions. In late 2009, the administration proposed a 128-million-acre tract for polar bears in Alaska, which would be the nation’s largest refuge for a threatened species. Environmental groups have hailed a federal decision to protect threatened salmon by curtailing water projects on California’s Sacramento River. “The people running the show now have a long history of concern for conservation,” says John Kostyack, who oversees conservation efforts for National Wildlife Federation. “It’s just a different crowd and a different sentiment.”

    But some environmentalists see the current administration continuing the political meddling in scientific decision-making that became common during the Bush administration. Several environmental groups such as Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility and WildEarth Guardians strongly opposed Sam Hamilton, Obama’s pick to head the FWS. As the head of the agency’s southeastern division under Bush, Hamilton rubber-stamped suburban sprawl that has decimated the population of the endangered Florida panther. (Hamilton died in February 2010; Obama’s new nominee, Dan Ashe, is less controversial.) Under Bush, Interior officials concluded that the worst-case scenario of a deepwater-drilling spill in the Gulf of Mexico would not harm endangered species such as sperm whales and Kemp’s ridley sea turtles, allowing new drilling operations without detailed environmental reviews. This past August, in the wake of the BP disaster, the Obama administration ended the practice, but only for new deepwater-drilling permits. Wells in shallow water still do not have to comply with the ESA, nor do nearly 30 deepwater projects that were underway before the spill. And Salazar has also upheld a Bush-era policy that prevents the government from using environmental threats to ESA-protected species to justify taking action to reduce carbon emissions.

    Critics say much of the problem originates with Salazar, a former rancher who came to Washington with a reputation as a less-than-wholehearted supporter of the ESA. In 1999, shortly after taking over as Colorado attorney general from Gale Norton (who had become Bush’s interior secretary), Salazar threatened to sue the FWS if it listed the black-tailed prairie dog as a threatened species. (Prairie dogs are reviled by ranchers because they eat grass and dig holes that can injure cattle.) In late 2009, the Interior Department rejected a petition to give the rodent endangered status.

    Salazar has also joined an ongoing scuffle over the endangered Northern Rockies gray wolf, which was nearly wiped out by ranchers. He signed off on a plan, enacted shortly before Bush left office, in which the wolf would be removed from the endangered list in Montana and Idaho. Last August, a federal judge overruled Salazar, concluding that the wolf population throughout the northern Rockies, which includes parts of Wyoming, must be protected as a whole. In December, the Interior Department signaled that it could back a bill delisting the wolf and the grizzly bear in all three states, which would effectively prevent lawsuits from environmental groups. “Had Bush even tried something like this, there would have been people screaming bloody murder,” says Jeff Ruch, the president of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility.

    Rick Sayers, who oversees most endangered species issues for the FWS, says that despite the interior secretary’s involvement in the gray wolf case, Salazar has not put any undue pressure on agency staff. The administration puts “a very strong emphasis on making our decisions based on whatever the best scientific data directs us to do,” he says.

    Yet Ruch says that in 2010 alone, 25 federal wildlife scientists complained to him about political interference from the current administration. They say that their supervisors at the FWS and the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration have watered down their reports, barred them from issuing findings that might be used to protect species, and limited the collection of scientific data to mask bad news about struggling species. Several FWS and National Park Service scientists told Ruch that they were steamrolled in a recent decision to allow off-road “swamp buggies” in 40,000 acres of protected panther habitat in South Florida.

    Ruch believes that these kinds of decisions are being made by holdovers from the Bush administration whom Interior officials are reluctant to challenge. The Obama administration is “sort of on par with the Bush administration,” Ruch concludes. “There hasn’t been much change in policy or personnel. I think that they consider wildlife protection a distraction.”

  133. The nice Muslims in India would understand and join in condemning the impact of virulent forms of Islam discussed here and elsewhere

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

    It’s good that you seem to be distinguishing “virulent forms” from all Islam or Islam itself. What do your nice friends think of the writings over here (some of them unfortunately in this own blog) that do not make this distinction — that DO lump ALL Muslims and ALL Islam and say Islam itself is bad because of something in the Koran, etc.

    We condemn the virulent Western groups like Westboro Baptist Church, Terry Jones, etc. But we wouldn’t be very sympathetic to people elsewhere saying we are ALL like that, or Jones is the one who has Christianity right.

    Your post at least shows a little proportion, though it could be spelled out better.

  134. It’s almost as though Emanuel and the Daley’s just switched position. I know it’s Bill, and not Richard whose taking over as COS but it might just as well be his brother.

    Could someone in the know help shed more light on the significance of this? The shell game, I admit, has my head spinning.

    And where’s Dick going? The fact that bill was Jareett’s and the wife’s former employer is interesting.

    Also, why is Emanuel getting so much resistance from Chicago if he’s the heir apparent to the Daley machine? And I read Squat is not going to campaign for Emanuel and yet he’s hiring Dick’s bro. I confess I’m lost.

  135. “sort of on par with the Bush administration”

    Good article on Obama’s disappointing record on wildlife preservation. Not shown below, but in the link listed here:

    motherjones.com/environment/2011/01/obama-endangered-species-act#

    …is a chart showing that the numero uno prez at this was: William Jefferson Clinton. Somewhat surprising is that number 2 is Reagan, doubling Carter’s numbers (but he had two terms to Carter’s one).

    Obama: Not So Wild About Wildlife
    ===============================

    Why isn’t he doing more to beat George W. Bush’s pathetic record on protecting polar bears and other endangered species?

    — By Josh Harkinson

    Thu Jan. 6, 2011 3:00 AM PST
    By the time he left office, President George W. Bush wasn’t exactly known as a friend of endangered wildlife. Over eight years, his administration protected 62 species of domestic animals and plants under the Endangered Species Act. By contrast, Bill Clinton had declared 522 species endangered during his two terms. (See chart below.) On average, Bush added eight new species to the list annually, the slowest pace of any president since Richard Nixon signed the ESA into law in 1973.

    When Barack Obama took office in 2009, conservationists expected him to pick up the slack as well as end the outgoing administration’s policy of blocking, delaying, and politicizing endangered-species listings. In April 2009, the president took a swipe at his predecessor, declaring that the ESA had been “undermined by past administrations,” and all but promising to apply the law more aggressively: “We should be looking for ways to improve it—not weaken it.”

    Yet two years later, little has changed, to the frustration of some wildlife advocates. Late last month, for example, the Interior Department upheld the Bush administration’s decision not to list the polar bear as endangered despite the rapid loss of its arctic habitat. If the bear were designated as endangered, it could legally obligate the government to adopt a more aggressive climate policy. “The Obama administration delivered a lump of coal to the polar bear for Christmas,” said the Center for Biological Diversity’s Kassie Siegel, the lead author of a 2005 petition to protect the bear. “Once again President Obama’s interior department has sacrificed sound science for political expediency, and the polar bear will suffer as a result.”

    Obama is barely beating Bush at protecting new endangered species—and he’s far behind his Democratic predecessors. So far, his administration has added 59 species to the endangered list. However, that includes 48 species from the Hawaiian island of Kauai that were originally cleared for approval by the Bush administration.

    “They have protected new species at a very slow rate,” says Andrew Wetzler, director of the Natural Resources Defense Council’s land and wildlife program, “and they have really not demonstrated that wildlife conservation is a priority.” Obama and Interior Secretary Ken Salazar “don’t have the ideological opposition to endangered species protection of the past administration,” says Noah Greenwald, the endangered species director at the Center for Biological Diversity, but “they haven’t really aggressively turned the program around or been effective at getting it started. They are sort of in this Neverland.”

    The Fish and Wildlife Service, which oversees ESA designations for most species, blames the slow pace on a lack of resources and a barrage of lawsuits from environmental groups suing to get species off the waitlist for protection. “It has nothing to do with the administration,” says Lora Zimmerman, a biologist with the FWS’s endangered species listing branch.

    Currently, 251 species are waiting for a final decision on whether they will join the endangered list; some, such as the Montana Arctic grayling and Oregon spotted frog, have been in limbo for more than two decades. Environmental groups estimate that it would cost $200 million to eliminate the backlog. However, the Obama administration proposes cutting the FWS’s 2011 listing budget by nearly 5 percent, to $20.9 million.

    Since it went into effect nearly 40 years ago, the Endangered Species Act has safeguarded nearly 600 species of animals and 800 species of plants. Although only 13 species have bounced back enough to be removed from the list, studies show that the longer a species is protected under the ESA, the less likely it is to go extinct. While some of these species may sound ridiculously inconsequential or obscure—like Brown’s pigweed or the ponderous siltsnail—giving them endangered status has the added benefit of preventing the bulldozing of the wild places they inhabit.

    Not surprisingly, that’s made the ESA a perennial target of developers and their allies in Washington, DC. At no point was the anti-ESA backlash stronger than during George W. Bush’s two terms. In 2007, the Interior Department inspector general found that a political appointee in the department had repeatedly and improperly overruled FWS scientists who wanted to add species to the endangered list. The administration also jeopardized endangered species, such as when it allowed up to 70,000 protected adult salmon in the Klamath River to die off in 2002. Late in his final term, Bush undercut the ESA by exempting thousands of federal activities, including the approval of coal mines and offshore oil rigs, from review by wildlife agencies.

    Obama’s stance on the ESA has broken with his predecessor’s in notable ways. Interior Secretary Salazar quickly undid many of Bush’s eleventh-hour exemptions. In late 2009, the administration proposed a 128-million-acre tract for polar bears in Alaska, which would be the nation’s largest refuge for a threatened species. Environmental groups have hailed a federal decision to protect threatened salmon by curtailing water projects on California’s Sacramento River. “The people running the show now have a long history of concern for conservation,” says John Kostyack, who oversees conservation efforts for National Wildlife Federation. “It’s just a different crowd and a different sentiment.”

    But some environmentalists see the current administration continuing the political meddling in scientific decision-making that became common during the Bush administration. Several environmental groups such as Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility and WildEarth Guardians strongly opposed Sam Hamilton, Obama’s pick to head the FWS. As the head of the agency’s southeastern division under Bush, Hamilton rubber-stamped suburban sprawl that has decimated the population of the endangered Florida panther. (Hamilton died in February 2010; Obama’s new nominee, Dan Ashe, is less controversial.) Under Bush, Interior officials concluded that the worst-case scenario of a deepwater-drilling spill in the Gulf of Mexico would not harm endangered species such as sperm whales and Kemp’s ridley sea turtles, allowing new drilling operations without detailed environmental reviews. This past August, in the wake of the BP disaster, the Obama administration ended the practice, but only for new deepwater-drilling permits. Wells in shallow water still do not have to comply with the ESA, nor do nearly 30 deepwater projects that were underway before the spill. And Salazar has also upheld a Bush-era policy that prevents the government from using environmental threats to ESA-protected species to justify taking action to reduce carbon emissions.

    Critics say much of the problem originates with Salazar, a former rancher who came to Washington with a reputation as a less-than-wholehearted supporter of the ESA. In 1999, shortly after taking over as Colorado attorney general from Gale Norton (who had become Bush’s interior secretary), Salazar threatened to sue the FWS if it listed the black-tailed prairie dog as a threatened species. (Prairie dogs are reviled by ranchers because they eat grass and dig holes that can injure cattle.) In late 2009, the Interior Department rejected a petition to give the rodent endangered status.

    Salazar has also joined an ongoing scuffle over the endangered Northern Rockies gray wolf, which was nearly wiped out by ranchers. He signed off on a plan, enacted shortly before Bush left office, in which the wolf would be removed from the endangered list in Montana and Idaho. Last August, a federal judge overruled Salazar, concluding that the wolf population throughout the northern Rockies, which includes parts of Wyoming, must be protected as a whole. In December, the Interior Department signaled that it could back a bill delisting the wolf and the grizzly bear in all three states, which would effectively prevent lawsuits from environmental groups. “Had Bush even tried something like this, there would have been people screaming bloody murder,” says Jeff Ruch, the president of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility.

    Rick Sayers, who oversees most endangered species issues for the FWS, says that despite the interior secretary’s involvement in the gray wolf case, Salazar has not put any undue pressure on agency staff. The administration puts “a very strong emphasis on making our decisions based on whatever the best scientific data directs us to do,” he says.

    Yet Ruch says that in 2010 alone, 25 federal wildlife scientists complained to him about political interference from the current administration. They say that their supervisors at the FWS and the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration have watered down their reports, barred them from issuing findings that might be used to protect species, and limited the collection of scientific data to mask bad news about struggling species. Several FWS and National Park Service scientists told Ruch that they were steamrolled in a recent decision to allow off-road “swamp buggies” in 40,000 acres of protected panther habitat in South Florida.

    Ruch believes that these kinds of decisions are being made by holdovers from the Bush administration whom Interior officials are reluctant to challenge. The Obama administration is “sort of on par with the Bush administration,” Ruch concludes. “There hasn’t been much change in policy or personnel. I think that they consider wildlife protection a distraction.”

  136. “sort of on par with the Bush administration”

    Good article on Obama’s disappointing record on wildlife preservation. Not shown below, but in the link listed here:

    motherjones.com/environment/2011/01/obama-endangered-species-act#

    …is a chart showing that the numero uno prez at this was: William Jefferson Clinton. Somewhat surprising is that number 2 is Reagan, doubling Carter’s numbers (but he had two terms to Carter’s one).

  137. turndownobama
    January 6th, 2011 at 1:04 pm

    The nice Muslims in India would understand and join in condemning the impact of virulent forms of Islam discussed here and elsewhere

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

    It’s good that you seem to be distinguishing “virulent forms” from all Islam or Islam itself.
    ———————————

    This will be the last time I respond to you. Also you don’t deserve to hear what I share or what I feel. I will also venture to say that the commenters here make that distinction as well loudly and clearly. You are too fucked up to see it. You are probably the only one here too stupid to not make that distinction. You think all is well and rosy with these countries and their virulent form of religious practices.

  138. Here’s the text of the above link:

    Obama: Not So Wild About Wildlife
    ===============================

    Why isn’t he doing more to beat George W. Bush’s pathetic record on protecting polar bears and other endangered species?

    — By Josh Harkinson

    Thu Jan. 6, 2011 3:00 AM PST
    By the time he left office, President George W. Bush wasn’t exactly known as a friend of endangered wildlife. Over eight years, his administration protected 62 species of domestic animals and plants under the Endangered Species Act. By contrast, Bill Clinton had declared 522 species endangered during his two terms. (See chart below.) On average, Bush added eight new species to the list annually, the slowest pace of any president since Richard Nixon signed the ESA into law in 1973.

    When Barack Obama took office in 2009, conservationists expected him to pick up the slack as well as end the outgoing administration’s policy of blocking, delaying, and politicizing endangered-species listings. In April 2009, the president took a swipe at his predecessor, declaring that the ESA had been “undermined by past administrations,” and all but promising to apply the law more aggressively: “We should be looking for ways to improve it—not weaken it.”

    Yet two years later, little has changed, to the frustration of some wildlife advocates. Late last month, for example, the Interior Department upheld the Bush administration’s decision not to list the polar bear as endangered despite the rapid loss of its arctic habitat. If the bear were designated as endangered, it could legally obligate the government to adopt a more aggressive climate policy. “The Obama administration delivered a lump of coal to the polar bear for Christmas,” said the Center for Biological Diversity’s Kassie Siegel, the lead author of a 2005 petition to protect the bear. “Once again President Obama’s interior department has sacrificed sound science for political expediency, and the polar bear will suffer as a result.”

    Obama is barely beating Bush at protecting new endangered species—and he’s far behind his Democratic predecessors. So far, his administration has added 59 species to the endangered list. However, that includes 48 species from the Hawaiian island of Kauai that were originally cleared for approval by the Bush administration.

    “They have protected new species at a very slow rate,” says Andrew Wetzler, director of the Natural Resources Defense Council’s land and wildlife program, “and they have really not demonstrated that wildlife conservation is a priority.” Obama and Interior Secretary Ken Salazar “don’t have the ideological opposition to endangered species protection of the past administration,” says Noah Greenwald, the endangered species director at the Center for Biological Diversity, but “they haven’t really aggressively turned the program around or been effective at getting it started. They are sort of in this Neverland.”

    The Fish and Wildlife Service, which oversees ESA designations for most species, blames the slow pace on a lack of resources and a barrage of lawsuits from environmental groups suing to get species off the waitlist for protection. “It has nothing to do with the administration,” says Lora Zimmerman, a biologist with the FWS’s endangered species listing branch.

    Currently, 251 species are waiting for a final decision on whether they will join the endangered list; some, such as the Montana Arctic grayling and Oregon spotted frog, have been in limbo for more than two decades. Environmental groups estimate that it would cost $200 million to eliminate the backlog. However, the Obama administration proposes cutting the FWS’s 2011 listing budget by nearly 5 percent, to $20.9 million.

    Since it went into effect nearly 40 years ago, the Endangered Species Act has safeguarded nearly 600 species of animals and 800 species of plants. Although only 13 species have bounced back enough to be removed from the list, studies show that the longer a species is protected under the ESA, the less likely it is to go extinct. While some of these species may sound ridiculously inconsequential or obscure—like Brown’s pigweed or the ponderous siltsnail—giving them endangered status has the added benefit of preventing the bulldozing of the wild places they inhabit.

    Not surprisingly, that’s made the ESA a perennial target of developers and their allies in Washington, DC. At no point was the anti-ESA backlash stronger than during George W. Bush’s two terms. In 2007, the Interior Department inspector general found that a political appointee in the department had repeatedly and improperly overruled FWS scientists who wanted to add species to the endangered list. The administration also jeopardized endangered species, such as when it allowed up to 70,000 protected adult salmon in the Klamath River to die off in 2002. Late in his final term, Bush undercut the ESA by exempting thousands of federal activities, including the approval of coal mines and offshore oil rigs, from review by wildlife agencies.

    Obama’s stance on the ESA has broken with his predecessor’s in notable ways. Interior Secretary Salazar quickly undid many of Bush’s eleventh-hour exemptions. In late 2009, the administration proposed a 128-million-acre tract for polar bears in Alaska, which would be the nation’s largest refuge for a threatened species. Environmental groups have hailed a federal decision to protect threatened salmon by curtailing water projects on California’s Sacramento River. “The people running the show now have a long history of concern for conservation,” says John Kostyack, who oversees conservation efforts for National Wildlife Federation. “It’s just a different crowd and a different sentiment.”

    But some environmentalists see the current administration continuing the political meddling in scientific decision-making that became common during the Bush administration. Several environmental groups such as Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility and WildEarth Guardians strongly opposed Sam Hamilton, Obama’s pick to head the FWS. As the head of the agency’s southeastern division under Bush, Hamilton rubber-stamped suburban sprawl that has decimated the population of the endangered Florida panther. (Hamilton died in February 2010; Obama’s new nominee, Dan Ashe, is less controversial.) Under Bush, Interior officials concluded that the worst-case scenario of a deepwater-drilling spill in the Gulf of Mexico would not harm endangered species such as sperm whales and Kemp’s ridley sea turtles, allowing new drilling operations without detailed environmental reviews. This past August, in the wake of the BP disaster, the Obama administration ended the practice, but only for new deepwater-drilling permits. Wells in shallow water still do not have to comply with the ESA, nor do nearly 30 deepwater projects that were underway before the spill. And Salazar has also upheld a Bush-era policy that prevents the government from using environmental threats to ESA-protected species to justify taking action to reduce carbon emissions.

    Critics say much of the problem originates with Salazar, a former rancher who came to Washington with a reputation as a less-than-wholehearted supporter of the ESA. In 1999, shortly after taking over as Colorado attorney general from Gale Norton (who had become Bush’s interior secretary), Salazar threatened to sue the FWS if it listed the black-tailed prairie dog as a threatened species. (Prairie dogs are reviled by ranchers because they eat grass and dig holes that can injure cattle.) In late 2009, the Interior Department rejected a petition to give the rodent endangered status.

    Salazar has also joined an ongoing scuffle over the endangered Northern Rockies gray wolf, which was nearly wiped out by ranchers. He signed off on a plan, enacted shortly before Bush left office, in which the wolf would be removed from the endangered list in Montana and Idaho. Last August, a federal judge overruled Salazar, concluding that the wolf population throughout the northern Rockies, which includes parts of Wyoming, must be protected as a whole. In December, the Interior Department signaled that it could back a bill delisting the wolf and the grizzly bear in all three states, which would effectively prevent lawsuits from environmental groups. “Had Bush even tried something like this, there would have been people screaming bloody murder,” says Jeff Ruch, the president of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility.

    Rick Sayers, who oversees most endangered species issues for the FWS, says that despite the interior secretary’s involvement in the gray wolf case, Salazar has not put any undue pressure on agency staff. The administration puts “a very strong emphasis on making our decisions based on whatever the best scientific data directs us to do,” he says.

    Yet Ruch says that in 2010 alone, 25 federal wildlife scientists complained to him about political interference from the current administration. They say that their supervisors at the FWS and the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration have watered down their reports, barred them from issuing findings that might be used to protect species, and limited the collection of scientific data to mask bad news about struggling species. Several FWS and National Park Service scientists told Ruch that they were steamrolled in a recent decision to allow off-road “swamp buggies” in 40,000 acres of protected panther habitat in South Florida.

    Ruch believes that these kinds of decisions are being made by holdovers from the Bush administration whom Interior officials are reluctant to challenge. The Obama administration is “sort of on par with the Bush administration,” Ruch concludes. “There hasn’t been much change in policy or personnel. I think that they consider wildlife protection a distraction.”

  139. Listing out the above link:

    Obama: Not So Wild About Wildlife
    ===============================

    Why isn’t he doing more to beat George W. Bush’s pathetic record on protecting polar bears and other endangered species?

    — By Josh Harkinson

    Thu Jan. 6, 2011 3:00 AM PST
    By the time he left office, President George W. Bush wasn’t exactly known as a friend of endangered wildlife. Over eight years, his administration protected 62 species of domestic animals and plants under the Endangered Species Act. By contrast, Bill Clinton had declared 522 species endangered during his two terms. (See chart below.) On average, Bush added eight new species to the list annually, the slowest pace of any president since Richard Nixon signed the ESA into law in 1973.

    When Barack Obama took office in 2009, conservationists expected him to pick up the slack as well as end the outgoing administration’s policy of blocking, delaying, and politicizing endangered-species listings. In April 2009, the president took a swipe at his predecessor, declaring that the ESA had been “undermined by past administrations,” and all but promising to apply the law more aggressively: “We should be looking for ways to improve it—not weaken it.”

    Yet two years later, little has changed, to the frustration of some wildlife advocates. Late last month, for example, the Interior Department upheld the Bush administration’s decision not to list the polar bear as endangered despite the rapid loss of its arctic habitat. If the bear were designated as endangered, it could legally obligate the government to adopt a more aggressive climate policy. “The Obama administration delivered a lump of coal to the polar bear for Christmas,” said the Center for Biological Diversity’s Kassie Siegel, the lead author of a 2005 petition to protect the bear. “Once again President Obama’s interior department has sacrificed sound science for political expediency, and the polar bear will suffer as a result.”

    Obama is barely beating Bush at protecting new endangered species—and he’s far behind his Democratic predecessors. So far, his administration has added 59 species to the endangered list. However, that includes 48 species from the Hawaiian island of Kauai that were originally cleared for approval by the Bush administration.

    “They have protected new species at a very slow rate,” says Andrew Wetzler, director of the Natural Resources Defense Council’s land and wildlife program, “and they have really not demonstrated that wildlife conservation is a priority.” Obama and Interior Secretary Ken Salazar “don’t have the ideological opposition to endangered species protection of the past administration,” says Noah Greenwald, the endangered species director at the Center for Biological Diversity, but “they haven’t really aggressively turned the program around or been effective at getting it started. They are sort of in this Neverland.”

    The Fish and Wildlife Service, which oversees ESA designations for most species, blames the slow pace on a lack of resources and a barrage of lawsuits from environmental groups suing to get species off the waitlist for protection. “It has nothing to do with the administration,” says Lora Zimmerman, a biologist with the FWS’s endangered species listing branch.

    Currently, 251 species are waiting for a final decision on whether they will join the endangered list; some, such as the Montana Arctic grayling and Oregon spotted frog, have been in limbo for more than two decades. Environmental groups estimate that it would cost $200 million to eliminate the backlog. However, the Obama administration proposes cutting the FWS’s 2011 listing budget by nearly 5 percent, to $20.9 million.

    Since it went into effect nearly 40 years ago, the Endangered Species Act has safeguarded nearly 600 species of animals and 800 species of plants. Although only 13 species have bounced back enough to be removed from the list, studies show that the longer a species is protected under the ESA, the less likely it is to go extinct. While some of these species may sound ridiculously inconsequential or obscure—like Brown’s pigweed or the ponderous siltsnail—giving them endangered status has the added benefit of preventing the bulldozing of the wild places they inhabit.

    Not surprisingly, that’s made the ESA a perennial target of developers and their allies in Washington, DC. At no point was the anti-ESA backlash stronger than during George W. Bush’s two terms. In 2007, the Interior Department inspector general found that a political appointee in the department had repeatedly and improperly overruled FWS scientists who wanted to add species to the endangered list. The administration also jeopardized endangered species, such as when it allowed up to 70,000 protected adult salmon in the Klamath River to die off in 2002. Late in his final term, Bush undercut the ESA by exempting thousands of federal activities, including the approval of coal mines and offshore oil rigs, from review by wildlife agencies.

    Obama’s stance on the ESA has broken with his predecessor’s in notable ways. Interior Secretary Salazar quickly undid many of Bush’s eleventh-hour exemptions. In late 2009, the administration proposed a 128-million-acre tract for polar bears in Alaska, which would be the nation’s largest refuge for a threatened species. Environmental groups have hailed a federal decision to protect threatened salmon by curtailing water projects on California’s Sacramento River. “The people running the show now have a long history of concern for conservation,” says John Kostyack, who oversees conservation efforts for National Wildlife Federation. “It’s just a different crowd and a different sentiment.”

    But some environmentalists see the current administration continuing the political meddling in scientific decision-making that became common during the Bush administration. Several environmental groups such as Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility and WildEarth Guardians strongly opposed Sam Hamilton, Obama’s pick to head the FWS. As the head of the agency’s southeastern division under Bush, Hamilton rubber-stamped suburban sprawl that has decimated the population of the endangered Florida panther. (Hamilton died in February 2010; Obama’s new nominee, Dan Ashe, is less controversial.) Under Bush, Interior officials concluded that the worst-case scenario of a deepwater-drilling spill in the Gulf of Mexico would not harm endangered species such as sperm whales and Kemp’s ridley sea turtles, allowing new drilling operations without detailed environmental reviews. This past August, in the wake of the BP disaster, the Obama administration ended the practice, but only for new deepwater-drilling permits. Wells in shallow water still do not have to comply with the ESA, nor do nearly 30 deepwater projects that were underway before the spill. And Salazar has also upheld a Bush-era policy that prevents the government from using environmental threats to ESA-protected species to justify taking action to reduce carbon emissions.

    Critics say much of the problem originates with Salazar, a former rancher who came to Washington with a reputation as a less-than-wholehearted supporter of the ESA. In 1999, shortly after taking over as Colorado attorney general from Gale Norton (who had become Bush’s interior secretary), Salazar threatened to sue the FWS if it listed the black-tailed prairie dog as a threatened species. (Prairie dogs are reviled by ranchers because they eat grass and dig holes that can injure cattle.) In late 2009, the Interior Department rejected a petition to give the rodent endangered status.

    Salazar has also joined an ongoing scuffle over the endangered Northern Rockies gray wolf, which was nearly wiped out by ranchers. He signed off on a plan, enacted shortly before Bush left office, in which the wolf would be removed from the endangered list in Montana and Idaho. Last August, a federal judge overruled Salazar, concluding that the wolf population throughout the northern Rockies, which includes parts of Wyoming, must be protected as a whole. In December, the Interior Department signaled that it could back a bill delisting the wolf and the grizzly bear in all three states, which would effectively prevent lawsuits from environmental groups. “Had Bush even tried something like this, there would have been people screaming bloody murder,” says Jeff Ruch, the president of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility.

    Rick Sayers, who oversees most endangered species issues for the FWS, says that despite the interior secretary’s involvement in the gray wolf case, Salazar has not put any undue pressure on agency staff. The administration puts “a very strong emphasis on making our decisions based on whatever the best scientific data directs us to do,” he says.

    Yet Ruch says that in 2010 alone, 25 federal wildlife scientists complained to him about political interference from the current administration. They say that their supervisors at the FWS and the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration have watered down their reports, barred them from issuing findings that might be used to protect species, and limited the collection of scientific data to mask bad news about struggling species. Several FWS and National Park Service scientists told Ruch that they were steamrolled in a recent decision to allow off-road “swamp buggies” in 40,000 acres of protected panther habitat in South Florida.

    Ruch believes that these kinds of decisions are being made by holdovers from the Bush administration whom Interior officials are reluctant to challenge. The Obama administration is “sort of on par with the Bush administration,” Ruch concludes. “There hasn’t been much change in policy or personnel. I think that they consider wildlife protection a distraction.”

  140. “It’s almost as though Emanuel and the Daley’s just switched position.”

    ——————-

    And it’s a toss up for me as to which one is more evil. I think probably Daly but I welcome discussion if I am wrong.

  141. already seriously sick of Congress and its speaker….reading the constitution
    ——————–
    But look what/who it inspired:
    Members of the House of Representatives today read the Constitution on the floor of the House chamber, marking a first for Congress. While lawmakers read the amended version to skirt the original’s controversial passages, the reading wasn’t without its own share of controversy. A woman sitting in the House gallery was arrested for yelling while a lawmaker read a passage about a requirement that a U.S. president must be a natural born citizen. The woman, according to Politico, shouted, “Except Obama, except Obama. Help us Jesus.”

    The yeller was arrested while the recitation went on as scheduled.
    The reading — which lasted roughly an hour and a half — was a nod to Tea Party activists, who helped propel many virtually unknown lawmakers into House and Senate seats, gaining a Republican majority in the House.
    http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/house-representatives-read-constitution-floor/story?id=12555114

  142. Still behind on the posts…

    Confloyd, I agree…the Rethugs will turn out to be Rethugs. I am sick of the pretending going on in our government and congress.

    They are all to blame and they all claim to be the one that will save the world as we know it.

    Fake repeals, reading the constitution, as if that will make them be more honorable for the next two years…bs.

    What next, reading the Bible so politicians will no longer lie?

    ————

    MO looked like crap in that photo!

  143. Althouse has a thread up about Pelousi’s comment before handing Boehner the gavel — something about its size. Of course Pelousi was making a snide comment kind of directed toward Boehner’s junk and there was nervous laughter from those who recognized it. You would not expect anything else from that classless nasty old woman, would you?

  144. Obama has managed to piss off Moveon with the Daley Appointment, Obama is going to have a lot of enemes come 2012. He’s pissing off those who he used in 2008.

  145. MoveOn calls Daley pick for CoS – “troubling and sends the wrong message to the American people”

    haha, well you guys put him there, see what you got now.

Comments are closed.