The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights sent a letter in August to Attorney General Eric Holder, issuing a stinging rebuke to the Obama administration's Department of Justice (DOJ).
A footnote in the letter criticized the DOJ's dismissal of a Philadelphia voter intimidation case against a group called the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense (NBP). The footnote called the DOJ's voluntary dismissal of the case "even more corrosive to the rule of law than the dismissal without comment."
The DOJ filed a lawsuit in January under the Voting Rights Act against the NBP and three of its members alleging the defendants intimidated voters last election day. The complaint, filed in federal court in Philadelphia, alleged that NBP members Samir Shabazz and Jerry Jackson were standing at a polling location wearing a military-style NBP uniform while Mr. Shabazz repeatedly brandished a "police-style baton weapon."
The complaint said NBP Chairman Malik Zulu Shabazz confirmed that the placement of Mr. Shabazz and Mr. Jackson was part of a nationwide effort to deploy members at polling locations. The Justice Department initially sought an injunction to prevent any similar future actions.
None of the defendants responded to the lawsuit. However, instead of immediately filing for a routine default judgment, the DOJ voluntarily dismissed the lawsuit for two of the defendants -- including Mr. Jackson, who was a Democratic Party poll watcher.
The DOJ only obtained an injunction against Samir Shabazz, which was granted on May 18. However, this has been criticized because it contained none of the usual conditions for such a case.
As noted in the letter from the Commission on Civil Rights, the injunction prevents Mr. Shabazz from brandishing a weapon at a polling place in Philadelphia. The Commission thought it unusual that such an injunction in a voting rights case only would prohibit something so specific, and limit it to a specific area.
The Commission's six-page letter was sent following two inquiries sent in June to Acting Assistant Attorney General Loretta King, of the DOJ's Civil Rights Division (CRD). These letters wanted more information about what they said was the "unusual dismissal of the government's case against most of the defendants in United States v. New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense." Commission chair Gerald A. Reynolds and Vice-Chair Abigail Thernstrom signed the letter.
The Commission also noted that an earlier reply from Portia Robertson, director of the Office of Intergovernmental and Public Liaison was "non-responsive to our questions," adding that "to the extent it is responsive, it paints the [DOJ] in a poor light."
The Commission said that the letter from Ms. Robertson contained some of the "vague conclusions sent to members of Congress."
"These conclusions are more than weak," stated a footnote in the letter. "We believe the public rationale offered thus far is even more corrosive to the rule of law than the dismissal without comment."
The letter also notes that media reports have questioned Ms. King's involvement in the dismissal of the case and the role of political appointees -- specifically naming Associate Attorney General Thomas Perelli. Because of this the Commission wants Mr. Holder personally to direct responses to inquiries or appoint someone from the DOJ who does not have a potential conflict of interest.
Posted by: Fred ||
09/07/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
OK I will say it. President Wee Wee doesn't want to lose any street cred by convicting Black Panther Party members. Shame we can't get passed race.
#2
Can you imagine the furor on the left if any "right wing" "white supremacist" "Aryan Nation" group had used the same tactics?? Just sayin', ya know?
#3
President Obama said that aloud, while he still has to work with the man? Yes, indeed, his charm is changing the perception of America throughout the world.
#4
Pot, meet kettle. Let me introduce you to my pal Robert Mugabe, he will show you both how to f*ck a country properly. Share a limp hand-shake in the cubicle of your choice.
OK, so how are you fixed for a new refrigerator? Or maybe a new dishwasher or heat pump?
Brace yourself. A federal "cash for appliances" program is likely on its way to a store near you before the end of the year.
Comparatively unnoticed in the economic stimulus package approved by Congress earlier this year was a $300 million program offering rebates to buyers of more energy-efficient appliances and other products with the Energy Star label.
The Energy Star conservation program was created in 1992 by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and evolved into an international standard for energy-efficient consumer products. Products with the Energy Star seal -- they can range from a building to central air conditioners to computers -- typically are 10 percent to 30 percent more energy efficient than comparable products.
Just like the recently completed Cash for Clunkers program, the more modest cash for appliances program is designed to boost the U.S. economy through consumer spending and take less energy-efficient products out of circulation.
Yet, it differs from Cash for Clunkers on key points. The individual states will run their own appliance rebate programs, and consumers will not have to haul their bulky appliances to a store in exchange for new ones.
State and federal officials, including those at the Department of Energy, which is overseeing appliance rebate funds, stressed last week that they're still working on the details. States and some U.S. territories have until Oct. 15 to present DOE with a plan for how they want to implement their cash for appliances programs.
That's one of the concerns.
Different states will likely propose varying products that qualify for varying rebate amounts, expected to range from $50 to $200.
Yet DOE insisted that states do the tailoring of programs for their jurisdictions.
"The Department of Energy has a lot of confidence that the states will implement it effectively," said DOE spokeswoman Jen Stutsman. "The rebate programs will build off existing (state and utility rebate) programs and make use of appliances in a particular climate that yield the most energy savings."
Posted by: Fred ||
09/07/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
So, let me get this straight - we have to pay for other peoples mortgages, other peoples new cars, and now their appliances? HELL NO!
#4
Yeah, that's all fine and dandy, but the people want to know, in fact, the people have a right to know... is obama gonna pay for MY liposuction??? Let's stay focused on the real issues, here, folks.
#7
Here comes the payoff to GE. Expect NBC news to be strangely silent on this subject.
Posted by: regular joe ||
09/07/2009 11:35 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Whirlpool Corp. announced Friday it will close its Evansville, Ind., factory next year, moving the plant's production of top-freezer refrigerators to a facility in Mexico.
Appears it may be too late for Whirlpool and Evansville. Oh well, Hoosiers are just unenlightened, astroturf conservatives anyway. Let them line the banks of the Ohio and fish all day for food.
#9
I just replaced my deep freeze last month, due to its being zapped by a lightning strike. (Don't even ask about all the food I lost because I didn't know about it for a couple of days.)
I put it on my credit card just for convenience, and for the supposed protection in case something went wrong with the purchase. Paid it off when the bill came, because I'd SAVED UP the money (actually in anticipation of having to replace my refrigerator and/or dryer, so I'm back in the save-for-that cycle).
Just sayin'....
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
09/07/2009 18:55 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Barbara,
1. Get a trip switch for the power-box.
2. Use a surge protector on anything valuable.
3. Get a UPS for your P.C.
This article should be subtitle: How a Marxist Wound Up in the White House.
A taste:
But other evidence supports the idea that Rep. Barbara Lee, one of the most extreme members of Congress and an apologist for Fidel Castro, played a key role in the Jones appointment. Lee, perhaps best known for casting the lone vote in the House against U.S. military action to remove the Taliban regime in Afghanistan after the 9/11 attacks, is a close friend of both Jones and President Obama.
But behind Lee and Jones is an influential network of communists known as the Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism (CCDS). Lee was a secret member of the group, a spin-off of the Communist Party USA, while Jones was the keynote speaker at a 2006 CCDS fundraiser.
#3
At this juncture, I'd be shocked if the Prez had any cohorts who *weren't* scurrilous.
When Jones bailed, I googled to see how many hours he had been on the job. Turns out he has been flying under the radar as part of the Big O's administration since March. Thank you, Main Stream Media, for your in-depth reporting! Lord knows who else is lurking out there.
#4
Jones had planned to move to Washington, DC, and had already landed a job and an apartment there. But in jail, he said, "I met all these young radical people of color -- I mean really radical, communists and anarchists. And it was, like, 'This is what I need to be a part of.'" Although he already had a plane ticket, he decided to stay in San Francisco. "I spent the next ten years of my life working with a lot of those people I met in jail, trying to be a revolutionary." In the months that followed, he let go of any lingering thoughts that he might fit in with the status quo. "I was a rowdy nationalist on April 28th, and then the [Rodney King] verdicts came down on April 29th," he said. "By August, I was a communist."
...
"I saw our little movement destroyed over a lot of shit-talking and bullshit," he said. "It just seemed like an ongoing train crash that was calling itself a political movement. It was much more destructive internally than anyone was talking about, and much less impactful externally than anyone was willing to admit."
Jones' fixation on solidarity dates from this experience. He took an objective look at the movement's effectiveness and decided that the changes he was seeking were actually getting farther away. Not only did the left need to be more unified, he decided, it might also benefit from a fundamental shift in tactics. "I realized that there are a lot of people who are capitalists -- shudder, shudder -- who are really committed to fairly significant change in the economy, and were having bigger impacts than me and a lot of my friends with our protest signs," he said.
First, he discarded the hostility and antagonism with which he had previously greeted the world, which he said was part of the ego-driven romance of being seen as a revolutionary. "Before, we would fight anybody, any time," he said. "No concession was good enough; we never said 'Thank you.' Now, I put the issues and constituencies first. I'll work with anybody, I'll fight anybody if it will push our issues forward. ... I'm willing to forgo the cheap satisfaction of the radical pose for the deep satisfaction of radical ends."
His new philosophy emphasizes effectiveness, which he believes is inextricably tied to unity. He still considers himself a revolutionary, just a more effective one, who has realized that the progressive left's insistence on remaining a counterculture destroys its potential as a political movement. "One of my big heroes is Malcolm X, not because I agree with Malcolm, but because he wasn't afraid to change in public," he said.
Devising a new strategy for the left went hand-in-hand with finding a new approach in his personal life and relationships. Jones said he arrived at that by harking back to his roots. Although he had spent many childhood summers in "sweaty black churches," and in college had discovered the black liberation theology that reinterprets the Christ story as an anticolonial struggle, he had pulled away from spirituality during his communist days. During his 2000 crisis, he looked for answers in Buddhism, the philosophy known as deep ecology, and at open-minded institutions such as the East Bay Church of Religious Science.
The last step was learning to ignore critics from within the movement who didn't appreciate his new philosophy and allies. "I'm confused half the time about what I'm doing, but none of the things that leftists use to discipline each other into marginality have any power over me anymore," he said. "It's like, 'Oh, you're working with white people.' Or 'Who are you accountable to?' A lot of the things that we say to each other to keep anybody from getting too uppity, too effective, I just don't listen to anymore. I care about the progressive movements as they are, but I mainly care about all of our movements becoming a lot bigger and a lot stronger."
Is Charlie Rangel worried that the House Ethics Committee -- notorious for handing out little more than a slap on the wrist for even the most egregious congressional misconduct -- might make an exception in his case?
Maybe that's why the embattled Harlem Democrat has been playing Santa Claus with his House colleagues, doling out more campaign cash from his own re-election kitty than almost any other member of Congress.
Among the 119 lucky recipients: three of the five Democrats on the House Ethics Committee.
The same people who are meant to be probing the growing list of his financial "oversights" and deciding what, if any, punishment to mete out.
(If they ever get around to finishing their investigation, that is -- the committee allegedly has been looking into Rangel's tangled fiscal affairs for the past 12 months.)
One member of the panel, Peter Welch of Vermont, wisely decided to return his $20,000 gift from Rangel, citing the need for "an abundance of caution."
But the other two -- Ben Chandler of Kentucky and G.K. Butterfield of North Carolina -- are holding on to Rangel's largesse, claiming it in no way interferes with their ability to sit in judgment on their benefactor.
So much for Speaker Nancy Pelosi's promise that this would be "the most ethical Congress ever."
Rangel, of course, faces probes on a whole host of issues, many of them first uncovered by The Post: illegally maintaining four rent-stabilized apartments; use of House stationery to solicit funds for a policy center; failure to pay property taxes; failure to report rental income, and acceptance of free Caribbean trips paid for by corporate lobbyists.
Then there's his most recent discloure filings -- which listed hundreds of thousands of dollars in previously unreported assets.
All of which makes Rangel's continued role as chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee -- Congress' primary tax-writing body -- a mockery.
The Washington Post recognizes this -- the paper just called on Rangel to step down as chairman, saying he has "violated [the public] trust continually and seemingly without care."
You'd think Speaker Pelosi would realize what an embarrassment Rangel has become. But no -- she still stands by her man, insisting his chairmanship is secure.
No surprise -- with all that cash he's doling out to House Democrats, Rangel certainly knows how to win friends and influence people.
Posted by: Fred ||
09/07/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Whatever you do rangel, don't resign.
I like having your punk ass up there as a living breathing testament to the culture of corruption that ass party is.
#2
When Blair first came to power, he said his administration would be "whiter than white" when in fact they were institutionally corrupt from the start.
An interesting parallel I think? The U.S. is lucky as the Internet is now doing the job the MSM wouldn't do.
#3
You'd think Speaker Pelosi would realize what an embarrassment Rangel has become... This assumes Pelosi and most of the rest of Congress can overlook their own short comings.
Black Caucus backs Rangel, quitting not "on the table"
It's not much of a surprise, but..
The Congressional Black Caucus offered embattled Charlie Rangel its "100 percent support" and a pair of standing ovations during a meeting this morning, according to several people in attendance.
The caucus's backing which comes after Monday's inconclusive 90-minute meeting between Rangel and Nancy Pelosi makes it much less likely the Harlem Democrat will be ousted by his own troops.
Unless, of course, there's a major new revelation akin to reports about apparent reporting lapses involving vacation properties in the Dominican Republic and Florida.
"Nancy won't challenge us on this, even if she wants to," said a member who attended the Rangel meeting.
Last night, Pelosi responded nonverbally when asked if she'd requested Rangel to step down as Ways and Means chairman, nodding "no" to reporters as she emerged from her meeting.
Rangel will also address the entire Democratic caucus during their weekly meeting and is then scheduled to address New York State's Democratic delegation.
UPDATE: Rangel's attorney, Lanny Davis, just told reporters on a conference call that Rangel stepping down "is not even on the table. ... He will not be stepping down."
(CNSNews.com) -- During a town hall meeting at the Fredericksburg Expo Center, Senator Mark Warner (D-Va.) said there is "no place in the Constitution" that mentions health care or education, or even gives individuals the right to own a telephone.
"[L]isten, there is, there is no place in the Constitution that specifically says health care," Warner said to a government high school teacher at the event, who asked him to cite the article and section of the Constitution that gives the federal government the authority to run the health care system.
"There's no place in the Constitution that specifically says education," said Warner.
Moreover, he repeated five times that the Constitution does not guarantee individuals the right to own a telephone.
"There is no place in the competition, in the Constitution, there is no place in the Constitution, there is no place in the Constitution, there is no place in the Constitution, there is no place in the Constitution," he said, "that talks about you ought to have the right to get a telephone, but we have made those choices as a country over the years."
Posted by: Fred ||
09/07/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under:
Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Ever really read the document Mr. Warner?/rhet question. Since the government was not empowered to prohibit phone ownership, all it could do is regulate aspects of interstate commerce and coordinate standardizations.
Warner was a Congressional staffer who left and shortly thereafter won a very lucrative chunk of wireless spectrum from a Federal sale. Made a substantial fortune off of it, then went into politics.
#4
No right to own a telephone? He's got to be kidding. The concept of inalienable rights has been so horribly polluted by the Left that this jerk thinks he's talking logic here.
Posted by: Richard of Oregon ||
09/07/2009 10:09 Comments ||
Top||
#5
This little clip says a lot about Senator Warner and about the attitude of our rulers in general. A schoolteacher shows up at a townhall meeting and very politely asks an excellent question. Instead of responding in kind, Mr. Big Shot decides to embarrass her publicly with his superior knowledge of all forms of human endeavor.
His answer amounts to saying "Wassamatter, honey, ya never seen a bank robbery before?"
Posted by: Matt ||
09/07/2009 10:48 Comments ||
Top||
#6
He treated the teacher the same way a pusher treats a junkie who says they want to kick the habit.
"No constitutional basis for healthcare? Then you must want to get rid of Medicare, too, fight?" Until the answer to that question is yes, Hell yes!, we're all agreed on what the voter is, it's just a matter of price negotiation.
#9
Well if we're getting rid of Medicare, can I CASH OUT of Social Security as well?
You won't get "your" money out, and you'll still have to pay in to support those who don't opt out, but you aren't required to take your payout when the time comes, Besoeker. Does that help?
#11
That's right, Mark - the Constitution does not give the federal gummint the right to interfere in health care, education, or welfare. It doesn't guarantee the right to a telephone, or health care, or education, or welfare. All that (except the telephone) is reserved to the states, or to the people.
So when precisely are you going to sponsor a bill to get the federal gummint OUT of the stuff it has NO CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY to be involved in?
(I'm not dumb enough to hold my breath waiting for an answer.)
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
09/07/2009 18:08 Comments ||
Top||
#12
> "There's no place in the Constitution that specifically says education," said Warner.
Another GOOD idea. Those responsible for those getting educated should be the ones paying.
#13
Another thing: Higher education was affordable until the federal gummint got involved. Health care was affordable until the federal gummint got involved.
I think I see a pattern here....
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
09/07/2009 19:06 Comments ||
Top||
#14
It's as if the state is based on violence and just isn't any good at providing non-violent stuff.
For Austin lawyer Greg Holloway, the idea behind the city's latest "tea party" protest was pretty simple.
"The point is that people are upset about representation from Democrats and Republicans," Holloway said. "At this point in the journey, we're more interested in informing and empowering people."
Holloway and his wife, Judy, were among the organizers of Saturday's rally, which drew more than 1,000 people to the south steps of the Capitol to protest the Obama administration's plans for health care reform and other government policies.
The event was the first statewide rally organized by the Texas Tea Party Patriots, a group that describes itself as a grass-roots organization that is "declaring independence from tax-and-spend politicians," according to the group's Web site. The group says it believes in limited government, fiscal responsibility and adherence to the Constitution.
"We'd love to see people calling up their congressmen" after the rally, Holloway said, "asking for them to follow the Constitution a little more closely."
Despite cloudy, sticky weather, people from all over the state gathered with fold-out chairs, coolers and signs that depicted President Barack Obama as a socialist, as the Joker and in other less-flattering ways.
The crowd chanted "Real Change Now" and "U.S.A." and listened to speeches from Samuel J. Wurzelbacher, the political celebrity also known as Joe the Plumber, and several others, including comedian and columnist Steven Crowder.
Local organizers also led the crowd in cheers and offered reading recommendations. Phillip Dennis, with the Dallas Tea Party, suggested Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" and Congress' health care reform bill.
Members of the Minuteman Project, an activist group that monitors the flow of illegal immigrants across the U.S.-Mexico border, were also on hand.
Organizers handed out wristbands to count of the number of people in attendance, Holloway said. By noon, an estimated 1,300 people were in attendance. Holloway said that organizers expected 5,000 by the time the three-hour rally was over.
Among those who attended was Brad Palmer, 47, who drove from Sugar Land with his dog, Duke. Palmer held a sign that read "In God We Trust, Not Obama"; a sign on Duke's back read "Don't Tread on my Master!"
He said he made the trip because of his concern for where the country's headed.
"I'm worried we're headed down the road to communism. I hope by seeing these rallies, the government will start to fear us, like it was when this country was founded," Palmer said.
"Too many people fear the government, but the government should fear us."
Posted by: Fred ||
09/07/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
More tea, please.
Posted by: Richard of Oregon ||
09/07/2009 10:00 Comments ||
Top||
The furor surrounding President Barack Obama's plans to address the nation's school children is "just silly," Education Secretary Arne Duncan said Sunday.
Duncan's department has taken heat for proposed lesson plans distributed to accompany Tuesday's speech, and he acknowledged that a section on writing to the president about how students can help him meet education goals was poorly written.
Imagine that, a bunch of educators writing something poorly ...
It has been changed.
Debate about conservative objections to the speech has dominated cable television and talk radio for several days, signaling again the stark divisions in the country both over politics and social issues. Some opponents to the speech claim Obama would try to indoctrinate school children with what they call his "socialist" agenda.
"That's just silly. They can go to school. They can not watch. It's just, you know, going an 18-minute speech," Duncan said.
It takes 18 minutes to tell the kids to do their homework, stay in school and eat the peas in their school lunches?
He said Obama had no intention beyond talking "about personal responsibility and challenging students to take their education very, very seriously."
Duncan said the guides distributed to schools "were put out by teachers, for teachers. And there is one that wasn't worded quite correctly. It was talking about helping the president hit his goal of having the highest percent of college graduates by 2020. He's drawn a line in the sand in that.
He's drawn a line in the sand in an18-minute speech to children about something out of his control even if he should somehow get re-elected? Silly doesn't come close.
"We just clarified that to say write a letter about your own goals and what you're going to do to achieve those goals. So again it's really about personal responsibility and being accountable, setting real goals and having the work ethic to see them through," the secretary said.
Declaring that viewing the speech is "purely voluntary," Duncan said the hubbub is something "I frankly don't pay any attention to." Rather, he said, he is focused "laser-like" on the big problems in the U.S. education system.
The secretary said the speech text will be posted on the White House Web site on Monday "and people can have a look. Again this is all about the president challenging our young people to take responsibility for their education."
Duncan spoke on CBS"s "Face the Nation."
Posted by: Fred ||
09/07/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Zero's supporters have seized on this issue to complain about the 'sudden' disrespect shown to the office of the presidency. This was pointed out to the viewers of Face the Nation by the assembled panel.
Crock of shit unless you've forgotten the Left's fondness for Bushitler, etc.
#2
I'd rather he did focus on "something silly" like this speech. The nation can't afford Mr Duncan concentrating his time and energy on bringing the rest of us to that stellar 60%+/- high school graduation rate he had at his previous job.
#6
Of his own public school experience, he appears to be quite proud of the fact that although he was a cokehead, he rejected heroin. Maybe he'll mention these tidbits from his book to the kids.
"Pot had helped, and booze; maybe a little blow when you could afford it. Not smack, though," he says.
"We were always playing on the white man's court . . . by the white man's rules," he writes. "If the principal, or the coach, or a teacher . . . wanted to spit in your face, he could, because he had the power and you didn't. . . . The only thing you could choose was withdrawal into a smaller and smaller coil of rage.
"And the final irony: should you refuse this defeat and lash out at your captors . . . they would have a name for that too. Paranoid. Militant."
#7
Arne ran the worst school system in the Milkey Way Galaxy! 47% graduation rate, gangs dealing and shooting all day long, phoney grades, they even corrupted the ACT and SAT! all for 5.1 billion in localtaxes each year.
The law that created the Dept of ED specifically prohibits the Dept of Ed to engage in curriculum.
#8
It's not the first speech that is disturbing. It's the precedence it sets for the second, the third, the fourth, and however many more he deems needed to reach "his goal."
This is just one of many action steps in meeting his goals --- a Bill Ayers/Saul Alinsky type take over.
He's hopeful Pelosi will discuss issues 'in a rational way'
During the August congressional recess, Parker Griffith got an earful from his constituents about what they want - and more specifically, don't want - in health care reform.
What he heard propelled the freshman Democrat to publicly censure his party and its leadership for trying to "shove" a government-run health insurance program "down the throats of America." At health care town hall meetings in Florence and Athens and in one newspaper interview, Griffith said he wouldn't again vote for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., because she's "divisive."
He even said if she didn't approve of or understand his more conservative stance on health care, he had a mental health gift certificate he'd share with her.
Shortly after he was sworn into office, Pelosi put Griffith on the science and technology, transportation, and small business committees. All are crucial to the 5th District, the congressman said, and that's why he voted for her as speaker.
But Griffith said he's not afraid that his "honest and candid" remarks about Pelosi will cause him to lose committee slots. He said he has the support of the chairmen, and "I've brought a lot to the table."
Still, the "Blue Dog Democrat" admits that some members of the "Democratic leadership" have called him since his remarks made it into the national media. He wouldn't say who has called him, but he said he told them "my response was a reasoned comment."
"My constituents feel we need to come together as Americans," Griffith said in an interview Friday. "If the Democratic leadership can't do that, perhaps we should look at altering that."
None of the Democrat leaders, he said, have asked him to consider changing parties. And he said he's not thinking about it, either: "I am a Blue Dog Democrat."
There are a total of 52 conservative Blue Dogs in the House.
According to a survey by the Pew Research Center for the People released last week, just 37 percent of Americans have a favorable opinion of Congress.
"I'm hopeful Speaker Pelosi will see this as an opportunity to discuss things like health care, education and illegal immigration in a rational way," Griffith said.
Griffith, a retired doctor, said the eventual health care bill won't be 100 percent of what anyone wants: "There will have to be a lot of compromise."
But he said he will not veer from his opposition to a public option or from his support for patients being allowed to choose their own doctor and medical treatments.
Posted by: Fred ||
09/07/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
In 2006, Rep. Anthony Petruccelli fought a bill to let the governor of Massachusetts temporarily fill U.S. Senate vacancies while a five-month special election campaign was held.
If someone served only 145 to 160 days, as the bill proposed, "it would really be difficult for a replacement to make any kind of impact," he said, according to notes of the March 22, 2006, House session.
Three years later, following the death of fellow Democrat Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Petruccelli has a different view.
Petruccelli, now a senator, favors letting Democrat Gov. Deval Patrick make such an appointment, a top aide to the Boston lawmaker said Wednesday. Petruccelli did not return repeated calls or an e-mail seeking elaboration about his change of heart.
The shift exemplifies the 180-degree turns, tortured processes and contradictory claims made by Bay State lawmakers -- the vast majority of whom are Democrats -- as they consider undoing a change in the succession law they rushed through five years ago. Back then, legislators didn't want Republican Gov. Mitt Romney filling the Senate seat if Massachusetts Democrat Sen. John Kerry won the 2004 presidential election.
Today, the Legislature is considering reversing itself and letting the governor temporarily fill Senate vacancies after Kennedy gave a deathbed appeal to Patrick and House and Senate leaders. Kennedy didn't want the seat vacant during the national push for health care reform, his signature issue.
"The whole situation is ironical," said Rep. Bradley H. Jones Jr. of Reading, the House Republican leader. "We changed the law in 2004 primarily because of Sen. Kennedy. ... If we had done nothing in 2004, Gov. Patrick would have had the power today to appoint someone until November 2010, when we would have had an election to fill the seat permanently."
Among the many contortions in the current debate:
-- Lawmakers are pushing the same proposal they rejected in both 2004 and 2006, and moving ahead despite the fact the special election process has already begun: The state's chief law enforcement officer, Attorney General Martha Coakley, has already declared her candidacy.
-- Patrick is pledging to appoint someone who will promise not to be a candidate in the special election, even though the governor -- once the top civil rights official at the U.S. Justice Department -- concedes he's been told such a demand could be unconstitutional.
-- When they changed the law in 2004, lawmakers manipulated their rules with a tactic that allowed them to make the change during a single afternoon and evening, preventing Republicans from slowing them down. Now, they're reversing themselves under an accelerated schedule that's moved their first hearing on the matter from October to next Wednesday.
-- Kennedy interrupted the 2006 debate on a temporary appointment with his first-ever speech to the Massachusetts House, urging them to reject the idea. Three years later, Democrats have been inspired by Kennedy to do the opposite.
Posted by: Fred ||
09/07/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
Howie Carr You're Joe Kennedy, and there are only three ways this whole Senate thing can work out for you.
No. 1, you run and "win" a life sentence to the Senate, and a decade from now, you'll look in the mirror and see ... Chris Dodd.
No. 2, you run and you lose, as unlikely as that now seems, and that's the end of the Kennedy dynasty, once and for all, and it's your fault.
No. 3, you give the race a good leaving-alone. You keep collecting that $544,792 salary from your energy companies and never have to worry about getting a call from some newspaper wiseguy about what have you done lately for Pam Kelley, the girl who wound up in a wheelchair for life thanks to your crappy driving on Nantucket in 1973.
You're Joe Kennedy, and it's a pretty easy decision, isn't it, except that ... you're a Kennedy.
What would Hugo Chavez do?
If you stay out, you can work behind the scenes for Mike Capuano, the congressman from Somerville. You want Capuano because if he's elected, that sets off another special election next spring for his House seat, the one you and your uncle JFK both held, which means it really belongs to the Kennedys, just like Ted's Senate seat.
An open Boston-Cambridge House seat would be made to order for Little Joe Kennedy, your 28-year-old son who graduated from Harvard Law School, which is a lot more impressive than your own Mumbles Menino-esque "life-experience" degree from UMass-Boston.
You're Joe Kennedy, and boy are you and everybody else in the family put out about this Martha Coakley broad, disrespecting Uncle Ted by making it clear for months that she's running, and then being the first one to pull papers last week.
Hey, Martha Coakley, don't you know who I am? Don't you know who we are?
And the worst thing she did was put out the word that she didn't care if the widow Vicki ran, she'd stay in the fight. You're Joe Kennedy, and you'd use the phrase lese majeste, if only you had a clue what it meant.
Tomorrow is Labor Day, and you know that Coakley will have the Park Plaza surrounded with her sign-holders for the big Labor Day breakfast, and boy, does that kind of corny political stunt make your eyes glaze over these days.
You're Joe Kennedy, and another thing you could do without this fall is Steve Lynch coming at you like he lunged for those Iranians on City Hall Plaza back in 1980. How dare Lynch run - he's publicly expressed qualms about Obamacare, and he was the only congressman who refused to sign the letter demanding a bailout for all the obsequious Kennedy rumpswabs at the Globe.
Why, he's practically a Republican.
And Lynch'll have all those other hotheads in his district with him, hoping to get him out of the way so they can run for his seat - Multiple Choice Joyce, Jackie Hart (D-Bunker Hill Day). And they called you a lightweight?
Same thing with all the state reps. Unless they're in Capuano or Lynch's districts, they'll all be pushing for Coakley, because if she's gone, the Legislature gets to fill that vacancy, which could mean, oh, how does Attorney General Robert DeLeo sound? Another Speaker's fight, for the right to get indicted by your predecessor.
Posted by: Fred ||
09/07/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
No one braces a Kennedy like Howie Carr.
Posted by: regular joe ||
09/07/2009 11:32 Comments ||
Top||
What sticks in my craw is this: If Teddy and Joe were named Hogan or Moran instead of Kennedy, they would have gone to prison for the auto wrecks. These people are never called to account for their behavior.
#3
If you cannot handle that executive office with the current appointment staff and have to double it, you are clearly incompetent.
These 40 something fools are not good managers anyway. What a train wreck. Maybe it is time to audit the executive branch - especially the white house to find out how much all this crap is costing us.
#7
I don't get it. Are these people working under existing departments and cabinet secretaries or are they independent? If they are working under existing departments and secretaries then why all the hoopla? If they are independent shouldn't there be some kind of legislation that authorizes their activities and any expenditure of funds for said activities?
Posted by: Abu Uluque ||
09/07/2009 13:17 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Therein lies the problem Abu.
They are 'outside' the departments but have near-presidential authority over the department. Separate but near equal to (and in some cases exceeding) the cabinet secretary.
They are also outside the normal checks and balances built into the system. While its normal for a president to appoint a special advisor in a certain area to 'advise him' in special circumstances - no president has appointed so may and with such wide-ranging authority. Just what the fark is the 'International Climate Czar' anyway?
All according to design - to circumvent the congressional approval process.
#9
Not only approval, but oversight and appropriations. Congress has little formal leverage over them because they have little formal authority or power. But their direct access to the oval office gives them tremendous informal, and unaccountable, power.
Both parties have used them, but it has gotten out of hand and will be reined in in 2011.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights sent a letter in August to Attorney General Eric Holder, issuing a stinging rebuke to the Obama administration's Department of Justice (DOJ).
OK, so how are you fixed for a new refrigerator? Or maybe a new dishwasher or heat pump?
Is Charlie Rangel worried that the House Ethics Committee -- notorious for handing out little more than a slap on the wrist for even the most egregious congressional misconduct -- might make an exception in his case? 
For Austin lawyer Greg Holloway, the idea behind the city's latest "tea party" protest was pretty simple.
In 2006, Rep. Anthony Petruccelli fought a bill to let the governor of Massachusetts temporarily fill U.S. Senate vacancies while a five-month special election campaign was held.
You're Joe Kennedy, and there are only three ways this whole Senate thing can work out for you.
Afghanistan Czar: 
