Throughout the ACORN undercover sting video saga, no one has been more willing to assassinate the character of ACORN's opponents than the hired guns at the left-wing group Media Matters for America.
Headed by former journalist and confessed serial liar David Brock, the extremely well-funded Washington, D.C.-based defamation factory has gone out of its way to attack conservative activists James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles, online news entrepreneur Andrew Breitbart, and this website -- the truth be damned.
It's worth noting that even the New York Times describes Media Matters as a "highly partisan research organization."
Media Matters is only interested in generating a body count and won't let facts get in the way. Nothing better illustrates the depths to which Media Matters is willing to sink in order to protect its allies and smear its opponents than its outrageously irresponsible commentary on the ACORN undercover video saga.
Remember that ACORN provides the "shock troops" of the left. ACORN gets the vote out. ACORN wins elections. Those Democratic politicians who don't love ACORN fear it -- and for good reason. To the establishment left, ACORN must be defended at all costs.
This helps to explain why Media Matters has lashed out so viciously at the enterprising journalists O'Keefe and Giles. The pair have steadfastly insisted that every time they visited an ACORN office and acted out the same now-familiar scenario involving a pimp and prostitute seeking ACORN's help in establishing a brothel, ACORN employees helped them and provided advice on their make-believe illegal plans.
With the release of the latest video, this time showing ACORN's Philadelphia office offering helpful advice on the finer points of lawbreaking, Media Matters has once again been shown for what it is: a relentless attack machine determined to smear conservatives at all costs.
Slime first; ask questions later.
It turns out O'Keefe and Giles were telling the truth, but barely a word of truth has escaped the lips of Media Matters and ACORN.
Now that what really happened in Philadelphia has been revealed, let's recap and break down what Media Matters has said about ACORN's Philadelphia story and about the undercover sting video operation in general.
In a Sept. 17 blog post titled, "Police report filed by ACORN exposes false claims by individuals behind videos," Media Matters uncritically accepted ACORN's version of events even after a series of damning videos showing ACORN's illegal conduct in cities across America had already been released to the public. The Media Matters post states
However, in a newly released video, ACORN Housing Corp.'s Katherine Conway Russell directly rebuts those claims, citing a police report ACORN filed as evidence that she asked the filmmakers to leave the ACORN office in Philadelphia and called the police after the filmmakers asked suspicious questions.
The Philadelphia video shows that no one working for ACORN ejected O'Keefe or Giles from the office or asked them to leave. If the Philadelphia police complaint depicted in the blog post was actually filed, that fact still doesn't establish much because the video shows ACORN cooperating.
If ACORN called the police, it was only after O'Keefe and Giles departed, which was long after ACORN bent over backwards to counsel the couple on establishing a brothel. The only time in the video the ACORN employee discusses the police is to assure O'Keefe and Giles that she wouldn't call the police to turn them in.
Posted by: Fred ||
10/22/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
note to idiots: They were attempting to facilitate enslaving teens in brothels. It ain't gonna work. Ain't gonna fly.
It may seem okay to the terminally insane, but to everyone else, it's just plain insane.
#2
I don't care if James and Hannah were Bonnie and Clyde in a previous lifetime. Whatever the means, it was not immediately apparent to the ever-so-helpful folks at ACORN, who are obviously in need of a serious dose of morals. More serious than anything they could possibly dig up on the reporters. Ain't nuthin' they could dig up that would change that. Might as well go home before they get their tit caught in the wringer by association with ACORN.
#4
I thought ACORN's original claim was that they were pretending to cooperate with O'Keefe & Giles to try to keep them there until the police arrived.
#5
That's why they were having them fill out forms, asking them a bunch of questions and fill out a bunch of questionnaires as they were leaving. Didn't you catch that?
Posted by: M Defarge ||
10/22/2009 15:14 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Yes. In addition, it is well funded by the usual socia1ist fat cats. Soros funds it through his front groups. Standing behind Brock was John Podesta, a former chief of staff in the Clinton administration and the head of the "progressive" Washington, DC think tank, the Center for American Progress. In 2004 Podesta provided Brock with office space for his fledgling enterprise. Soon after, Media Matters received over $2 million in seed donations from a roster of affluent donors including Leo Hindery Jr., a former cable magnate; Susie Tompkins Buell, a co-founder of the fashion company Esprit and a close ally of Senator Hillary Clinton; James Hormel, a San Francisco philanthropist who nearly served as ambassador to Luxembourg during the Clinton administration; Bren Simon, a Democratic activist and the wife of shopping-mall developer Mel Simon; and New York psychologist and philanthropist Gail Furman. Media Matters, which can accept tax-deductible contributions under section 501(c)(3) of the tax code, has also benefited from the patronage of Peter Lewis, chairman of Progressive Corporation and a longtime consort of leftist financier George Soros.
...
To summarize, Soros and his Open Society Institute pour millions of dollars into the coffers of MoveOn, the Center for American Progress, and Democracy Alliance. In turn, these organizations funnel some of that money to Media Matters.
Worth reading to learn the spiderweb of front groups used by the hard left. Very ACRONish or KGBish if you prefer.
Posted by: ed ||
10/22/2009 15:31 Comments ||
Top||
Upstate NY congressional candidate Dede Scozzafava appears at a photo op against a backdrop of her opponent Doug Hoffman's supporters:
This is what political campaign experts and PR consultants call "epic fail."
Posted by: Mike ||
10/22/2009 10:17 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Has anyone figured out if Birkenstock boy w/ the "Hoffman: stop lying" sign was with Lunch Lady Dede or agin' her?
Posted by: Mitch H. ||
10/22/2009 12:48 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Bill Owens must be beside himself with joy. Watching the right split their votes on ideology.
Posted by: Richard of Oregon ||
10/22/2009 12:51 Comments ||
Top||
#3
ideology matters, or don't you have any discomfort in a Daily-Kos-endorsed candidate?
Posted by: Frank G ||
10/22/2009 13:27 Comments ||
Top||
#4
What exactly distinguishes the right from the left if not ideology? How will the GOP brand succeed in elections if our platform is indistinguishable from the other side?
Better to lose this race than let Scozzafava vote in favor of every item in the Bammo agenda under the Republican banner.
#5
This is one election. This is exactly the time to teach the RNC that they can't put forward a socia!ist in Pub clothing and expect Pubs to vote for that person.
When we tried to educate the RNC in 2006 and 2008, we lost more than we gained. Right now is the time to educate the RNC.
Let Scozzafava come in third in the election. Make sure the RNC understands why.
Posted by: Steve White ||
10/22/2009 13:53 Comments ||
Top||
#6
I heard enough from these people during the late presidential election. The Northeast is full of "I've been a Republican all my life" blowhards who haven't the slightest goddamn clue what belonging to a party actually means.
If you ain't fiscally conservative - and she ain't - and you ain't socially conservative - and she ain't - and you ain't economically conservative - and she definitely ain't - then what the fuck are you doing in this party? It isn't as if New York isn't full of more-viable-than-average third parties.
Lunch Lady Dede apparently has made a career flashing red but working blue. Fuck her. She's a moby. Fuck all "moderates" like her.
Line in the sand, stand on that side or the other, Jack. We can put back up the big tent after we see who all's been sneaking inside by cutting holes in the tarp.
Posted by: Mitch H. ||
10/22/2009 15:25 Comments ||
Top||
#7
There is nothing remotely Republican about Dede, not even her big labor / UAW husband. Indeed SW, time for the RNC to catch a cluebat upside the head.
Posted by: Rex Mundi ||
10/22/2009 17:52 Comments ||
Top||
WASHINGTON — A top White House economist says spending from the $787 billion economic stimulus has already had its biggest impact on economic growth and will likely not contribute to significant expansion next year.
Christina Romer, the chair of President Barack Obama's Council of Economic Advisers, said Thursday that the $194 billion already spent gave a jolt to the economy that contributed to growth in the second and third quarters of the year. She told a congressional panel that by the middle of next year, the impact of the stimulus will level off. Romer said spending so far has saved or created 600,000 to 1.5 million jobs but warned that unemployment will remain high, above 9.5 percent, through the end of 2010.
The table below compares the White House's February 2009 projection of the number of jobs that would be created by the 2009 stimulus law (through the end of 2010) with the actual change in state payroll employment through September 2009 (the latest figures available). According to the data, 49 States and the District of Columbia have lost jobs since stimulus was enacted. Only North Dakota has seen net job creation following the February 2009 stimulus. While President Obama claimed the result of his stimulus bill would be the creation of 3.5 million jobs, the Nation has already lost a total of 2.7 million -- a difference of 6.2 million jobs.
Posted by: Fred ||
10/22/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
You'd think just in the number of czars created along with their staffs that DC would have into gone positive growth. On the other hand, that could have been offset by the number of journalist let go with the installation of direct fax lines to the White House Press office. /sarc off
#4
Looking at the projected total, 3.46 million vs the actual, 2.7 million loss is sobering.
I think at this point, anyone who still believes anything the government tells them about "saving" or "not costing" anything need to be shot for stupidity.
#6
Why is North Dakota different from the rest of us? A North Dakotan is smarter than the average bear. People there don't like the Kool Aid the rest of the country is addicted to.
#8
Why is North Dakota different from the rest of us?
Huge energy reserves, esp coal, and low population. Too bad the Obamanauts have vowed to destroy that.
Posted by: ed ||
10/22/2009 15:17 Comments ||
Top||
#9
The problem: financial institutions refuse to loan money for payroll and inventory. Bailouts without rationalization of capitalization, make no sense. However, once the Big Four (with 60% of US savings deposits) have written down more of the Derivative paper that they hold (90% of the total), then the Fed will end their tight money policy. Yah, the Fed is the player piano of the Big Four.
WASHINGTON -- Rising death threats against President Barack Obama are prompting a debate about the Secret Service's resources and duties, officials say.
Some within the Secret Service are advocating the agency be relieved of its duties to investigate financial crimes and concentrate instead on protection of government leaders in the wake of growing anti-government sentiment, The Boston Globe reported Sunday.
"If there were an evaluation of the service's two missions, it might be determined that it is ineffective ... to conduct its protection mission and investigate financial crimes," an internal report issued in August by the Congressional Research Service and obtained by the newspaper said.
A government official whose named was not reported told the newspaper Secret Service leaders are discussing making changes.
"This is a discussion going on not only in some quarters in Congress, but inside the Secret Service," the official said. "Should there be a re-look at the mission?"
Secret Service spokesman Special Agent Edwin Donovan told the Globe that though "there is no doubt the protection mission has grown" the agency can fulfill its missions.
#1
Maybe if he'd stop threatening everyone who disagrees with him?
Al
Posted by: Frozen Al ||
10/22/2009 16:36 Comments ||
Top||
#2
I think this was a 'given' as soon as he ran. The nation has made a lot of progress against racism, but it only takes one, and there are many more than one psycho racists out there.
His arrogance does add to the difficulties faced by the Secret Service because it increases the number of motivated psycho-killers and probably also the likelihood of the psycho-killer actually being competent.
Secret Service ALWAYS has a tough job; now more than ever.
#5
Some within the Secret Service are advocating the agency be relieved of its duties to investigate financial crimes
Might that be 'financial crimes' involving organizations like ACORN and the DNC, which are action arms of the fellow they are supposed to be protecting?
#7
OTOH PAKISTANI DEFENCE FORUM > THE JFK ASSASSINATION [aka SSSSSSHHHHHHHH OBAMA ASSASSINATION??].
ARTIC > IIUC sometimes in Conpiracy Theory(s), STRONG INFERENCES OF AMLICES AFORETHOUGHT = HARM are derived NOT by the FACTS, etc. described within any Artic, but HOW THE ARTIC WAS FORMALLY DEVELOPED AND PRESENTED BEFORE THE WORLD???
#1
Nagin told The Associated Press on Tuesday that he thinks Cuba's repressive regime does "a much better job" than U.S. officials of identifying citizen needs and deploying resources in the face of hurricanes, which routinely batter the Caribbean nation.
THAT'S BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT IN CHARGE!!!! MORON!!
#4
Well, considering that Hizzhonor didn't do much besides hysterically meltdown on-camera and damn the Feds for not rushing to the rescue thisveryinstantnow! maybe we can hope that he did take a few notes about making quick and effective decisions in a crisis. He did f**k-all when it came to managing his own city in a crisis, except for blaming everyone else, so anything he learned in Cuba would be an improvement. And yes - Hizzhonor Mayor Nagin is a dictator-worshiping moron.
#6
Normally, Nagin's views raise middle fingers, so I guess eyebrows is an improvement. But what's with all the commie worship by the Democrats lately? Cuba this, Cuba that. And Mao? Even the ChiComs have backed off on that. The only place you find Maoists nowadays is Nepal and Peru. And, of course, the Obama administration.
Hey Ray! Did ya ever get all those buses dried out?
#9
Nagin oughtta get a first hand treatment of how los cubanos treat los negros. Talk about second class.....
Posted by: Frank G ||
10/22/2009 20:44 Comments ||
Top||
#10
the mayor told the AP's Havana correspondent that "one of the biggest weaknesses we had . . . (was that) it wasn't clear who was the top authority."
C. Ray Nagin was cowering in a luxury hotel when this was going down (thereby earning the nickname "See Ray?" among the locals.) In my experience the "top authority" was a corporal in the Oregon National Guard, just back from Iraq, who cut through stupid bureaucratic directives with a chainsaw and got things moving again.
Posted by: Matt ||
10/22/2009 22:25 Comments ||
Top||
President Obama is presiding over a slow-motion civil-military crash occasioned by his meandering Afghanistan strategy review. The crash has not yet happened and is avoidable, but it also foreseeable. Of concern, the latest reports out of the White House suggest that Obama's team is not yet fully aware of the dangers. If it happens, it will be a problem entirely of Obama's own making and it could have a lasting impact on the way his administration unfolds.
As Rich Lowry has observed, President Obama rarely misses a chance to blame a challenge he is confronting on his predecessor. This rhetorical tic served Obama well during the campaign and probably still resonates with partisans who post anonymous comments on blogs or who suffer from chronic Bush Derangement Syndrome. But it gives the impression that the Administration never left the campaign bubble and may even encourage self-defeating campaign-like behavior such as picking feuds with news organizations.
And insofar as the Afghan strategy review goes, it is a narrative string that is thoroughly played out because the current civil-military problem confronting the Obama Administration is entirely of its own making. The problem is not that Afghanistan is a difficult combat theater, nor that Karzai is an inconvenient Afghan ally, nor even that President Obama is taking time to review his strategic options. All of that and more is true and, I suppose, some of it can be "blamed" on President Bush. The problem that cannot be blamed on Bush is that the way President Obama is reviewing his strategic options is generating needless civil-military friction and, unless the Obama team gets it under control, could generate a genuine civil-military crisis.
#2
We should cut Dear Leader some slack here. After all, Afghanistan just popped up on the radar - assuming you ignore the eight years we have been fighting there and all his campaign rhetoric about the 'right war', I mean.
#3
Unfortunately he has JohnQ - at least to Iraq during his campaign.
And the MSM networks anchorpeople went right along with him - knee-pads literally in hand. After not even mentioning the several trips McCain made over the years.
As I recall he made several photo-ops. Was supposed to visit a hospital (in Germany??) but skipped it - another photo-op was far more important to The One than (in his eye...) foolish soldiers who were wounded in battle......
I still don't think Katie (Couric) or Brian (Williams) have yet wiped off their mouths.... And yes it _was_ that disgusting.
(CNSNews.com) -- House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said that the individual health insurance mandates included in every health reform bill, which require Americans to have insurance, were "like paying taxes." He added that Congress has "broad authority" to force Americans to purchase other things as well, so long as it was trying to promote "the general welfare."
The Congressional Budget Office, however, has stated in the past that a mandate forcing Americans to buy health insurance would be an "unprecedented form of federal action," and that the "government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States."
Hoyer, speaking to reporters at his weekly press briefing on Tuesday, was asked by CNSNews.com where in the Constitution was Congress granted the power to mandate that a person must by a health insurance policy. Hoyer said that, in providing for the general welfare, Congress had "broad authority."
"Well, in promoting the general welfare the Constitution obviously gives broad authority to Congress to effect that end," Hoyer said. "The end that we're trying to effect is to make health care affordable, so I think clearly this is within our constitutional responsibility."
Hoyer compared a health insurance mandate to the government's power to levy taxes, saying "we mandate other things as well, like paying taxes."
The section of the Constitution Hoyer was referring to, Article I, Section 8, outlines the powers of Congress, including raising taxes, but not the purchasing any type of product or service. The opening paragraph of Section 8 grants Congress the power to raise taxes to, among other things, "provide for the ... general welfare of the United States."
Section 8 partly reads: "The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States."
The Constitution then details the specific powers of Congress, including raising an Army and Navy, regulating commerce between states, and to "make all laws necessary and proper" for the carrying out of these enumerated powers.
"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof," concludes Section 8.
CNSNews.com also asked Hoyer if there is a limit to what Congress can mandate that Americans purchase and whether there is anything that specifically could not be mandated to purchase. Hoyer said that eventually the Supreme Court would find a limit to Congress' power, adding that mandates that unfairly favored one person or company over another would obviously be unconstitutional.
"I'm sure the [Supreme] Court will find a limit," Hoyer said. "For instance, if we mandated that you buy General Motors' automobiles, I believe that would be far beyond our constitutional responsibility and indeed would violate the Due Process Clause as well -- in terms of equal treatment to automobile manufacturers."
U.S. ConstitutionHoyer said that the insurance mandate was constitutional because Congress is not forcing Americans to buy one particular policy, just any health insurance policy.
"We don't mandate that they buy a particular insurance [policy] but what we do mandate is that like driving a car -- if you're going to drive a car, to protect people on the roadway, and yourself, and the public for having to pay your expenses if you get hurt badly -- that you need to have insurance," said Hoyer.
Posted by: Fred ||
10/22/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
ION NEWSMAX > BIDEN DECLARES US IS IN A DEPRESSION, + GREGGS: US COULD BECOME A BANANA REPUBLIC.
#2
Buying health insurance sounds more like "Specific Welfare" to me. I don't see how my neighbor having health insurance improves my personal welfare. And I don't count the resulting increased taxes as detrimental to my welfare.
#4
His thought process is not his fault,as a child,tragically,Steny Hoyer was dropped on his head. Symptoms of this event manifest themselves in adulthood, with the person having short to medium bouts of irrational thinking, hyperactivity and exaggerated feelings of importance. Further, scientific evaluation of the Dropped on Head Syndrome*(DOH) indicates some common traits amongst the group. Generally as adults, these people have short attention spans, misinterpret commonly held social or legal beliefs,join the Democratic Party,and drive Volvos.
#9
There ain't no general welfare "clause" - that's in the preamble, not the body of the Constitution. Legally, I don't think it flies (though I'm not a lawyer). Not that that would stop Congress from passing stupid laws.
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"
the ic clause is later in the same section
"[The Congress shall have power] To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;"
Posted by: lord garth ||
10/22/2009 8:53 Comments ||
Top||
#11
Thats article 1
sorry
Posted by: lord garth ||
10/22/2009 8:54 Comments ||
Top||
#12
Lord Garth - So they can levy taxes from the general welfare clause, I don't see anything there about compulsory product purchases.
I think there is a chance that the GW clause could apply but I'm almost certain that the IC clause would apply
in any event, it is far better to defeat bad policy by showing it is bad policy than to rely on a constitutional test which would occur years down the road
Posted by: lord garth ||
10/22/2009 9:39 Comments ||
Top||
#14
Then you could kick out illegals who don't have insurance.
Hey, BP, I think you just figured out how to pay for public health care! :-)
But creating a problem just to use it as a bargaining chip to push another problem through is not my idea of legal, or good governance.
#15
This happens to be the only clause these fools want to use or back in the Constitution. What is not understood is it means nothing of the sort that they believe it does.
Nowhere in the Constitution is a welfare state authorized.
I believe it would be in the "general welfare" of our country to dipose and imprision this congress for violating their oath to "protect and defend".
General welfare IS not a free ride or ticket to play robin hood with American taxpayers. It is merely and additional clause that proposes intent to ONLY be used to protect the other powers in the Constitution you illeterate fu@&s.
#16
We don't mandate that they buy a particular insurance [policy] but what we do mandate is that like driving a car -- if you're going to drive a car, to protect people on the roadway, and yourself, and the public for having to pay your expenses if you get hurt badly -- that you need to have insurance," said Hoyer.
By this logic the Fed should be mandating all citizens own a car, drive a car and pay insurance on the car.
#17
He added that Congress has "broad authority" to force Americans to purchase other things as well, so long as it was trying to promote "the general welfare."
These guys are just unbelievable. Let's see, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security are about broke. The financial bailout didn't work out too well. Job creation is not going well. Deregulation of the financial industry on the Clinton watch didn't go too well. The concept that everyone should be able to buy a house with no money down, and no money to pay didn't work out well. So why should anyone listen to what Steny Hoyer has to say. It's about time for the American people to leash these guys and pull hard on the leash.
#19
“…if you're going to drive a car, to protect people on the roadway, and yourself, and the public for having to pay your expenses if you get hurt badly --.”
Whenever the proponents for mandatory health care insurance use the auto insurance analogy they come off as either hustlers or fools. Usually the case is both, however, it’s obvious that Hoyer intentionally seeks to confuse the rubes. Auto insurance mandates are exclusively for the segment of the population that either own or operate motor vehicles – not the entire population. By using this logic, one could argue that everyone should be required to purchase flood insurance. After all, the rising cost of home-owners insurance can be directly attributed to the segment of the population that continue to build in flood plains or are victims of natural disaster. Moreover, by using the “Emergency Room Cunard” a portion of tax-payer dollars already go towards flood relief, rebuilding, and low interest loans. Presto…General Welfare!
#22
If Social Security and Medicare are programs in accordance with the Constitution, then mandated health insurance for the rest of the population would be also. Whether you or I like it or not. Sometimes I wish I had legal training.
#23
While I personally believe this mandate would violate the 10th Amendment it does seem considerably less un-Constitutional than a whole lot of other laws the Supreme Court has let stand over the past century.
#25
Sometimes I wish I had legal training. Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418
I don't know, legal training seems to destroy the part of the brain that manages common sense. I'm beginning to wish the military had provided me with sniper training.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
10/22/2009 18:15 Comments ||
Top||
#26
Car insurance is the worst analogy ever for federally mandating health insurance. Car insurance is a state law.
Posted by: Mike N. ||
10/22/2009 18:58 Comments ||
Top||
#27
By this logic the Fed should be mandating all citizens own a car, drive a car and pay insurance on the car.
BrerRabbit is exactly right. To own and drive a car is a privilege in this country, not a right. It's pretty simple really; if you don't want to pay auto insurance, don't own a car. The auto insurance analogy is a simplistic one and flawed on a couple of levels. Of course, the geniuses in DC can't seem to grasp such simple truths. Someone really needs to go down there with a cluebat and start swinging for the fences.
A group of Democrats joined all Republicans in blocking a 10-year freeze of scheduled cuts to doctors' Medicare payments, legislation that was considered important to getting a broader healthcare bill through later this year.
Prior to the 47-53 procedural vote, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) blamed the American Medical Association (AMA) for giving him bad information on the number of Republicans expected to support the measure.
Reid had offered the doctors group a deal to pass the "doctors' fix" in return for support from the doctors on President Barack Obama's broader healthcare initiative, which is slated for the Senate floor later this year.
Posted by: Fred ||
10/22/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Going to the Post Office for medical care? It will probably be more like going to Cuba or Haiti for medical care.
#4
This brouhahahaha is just to cover up the critical need to slash Medicare payments/benefits to pay for Obamacare. Whether Medicare payments are cut to doctors, Medicare benefits themselves slashed, or Medicare premiums jacked up is just a matter of semantics. Why current Medicare beneficiaries and those who will turn 65 within 10 years haven't already marched on Washington is beyond my poor power to understand.
#8
The main problem with public healthcare is that it is political untenable for it to be clearly inferior to private healthcare.
There are 2 ways out of this. One is the UK system where everyone is forced to use public healthcare, or the Australian system where people over certain income levels are forced to pay for private healthcare, which is regulated to be of the same or similar standard to public healthcare, in effect this is a special healthcare tax on everyone over a median income.
#9
"One is the UK system where everyone is forced to use public healthcare"
Except that the UK public health service has secretly (until now) taken taxpayers' money to buy private health care for their people because the waiting lines for public health are too long.
Our present gummint is different. They don't even hide the fact they intend to keep their gold-plated health care paid for by the peons taxpayers while forcing said taxpayers to settle for crumbs. I'm sure they'll approve the same for their pet doctors.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
10/22/2009 21:18 Comments ||
Top||
In a refrain that helped President Obama turn Virginia from red to blue during the 2008 presidential election, the Creigh Deeds gubernatorial campaign today released a new TV ad entitled "Fired Up" which features President Obama -- and only President Obama.
The Democratic gubernatorial candidate is behind in the polls to Republican Bob McDonnell. After some hesitation from the campaign if President Obama -- whose own poll numbers have took a hit in Virginia since becoming President --would help or hurt the campaign, they have, it appears, embraced the presidential pulpit.
The ad tries to drum up that same spirit that flipped the commonwealth for Obama during the presidential election, and say this will be essential to their get-out-the-vote effort leading up the Election Day.
"Last year, Virginia, you helped lead a movement of Americans who believed that their voices could make a difference," The President says in the 30 second ad, "That's what we need to do in this race. That's what Creigh Deeds is committed to."
Images of Mr. Obama's presidential campaign are juxtaposed with images of Deeds campaigning throughout Virginia.
"I need every one of you to get fired up once again so that we can go towards the future, with Creigh Deeds leading the great Commonwealth of Virginia," the President says.
The ad uses footage from President Obama's August appearance for Deeds in Northern Virginia. On Tuesday the President will once again campaign with Deeds, at Old Dominion University.
Posted by: Fred ||
10/22/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Deeds has avoided using Obama, so why is he using him now that Obama has slipped in the polls? Desperation?
Posted by: Richard of Oregon ||
10/22/2009 10:07 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Not new. They do this in Congress, debating a bill by showing giant plaquards of Obama quotes - makes me think of the INXS or Van Halen videos.
On Tuesday the President will once again campaign with Deeds, at Old Dominion University.
As a kid, I was told to finish my chores before I could go out and play, so I can assume he has his bed made?
Multiple sources have said former HillPac lawyer Reshma Saujani is considering a primary challenge to Representative Carolyn Maloney, the Manhattan Democrat who threatened to run for Senate earlier this year.
Saujani has a compelling biography for a candidate. She's the daughter of immigrants who fled from violence in Uganda, and has degrees from Harvard and Yale. Saujani reportedly interned in the White House at the same time as Monica Lewinsky. By the age of 28, Saujani had established herself politically as an effective fund-raiser for John Kerry's 2004 presidential campaign. At the time, she was quoted as saying, "I'll be into active politics myself in a few years. I hope to become a Senator someday."
Posted by: Fred ||
10/22/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
The race factor may not be a factor after all in a potential Democratic primary contest between Gov. Paterson and Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, according to a new poll released today.
The statewide Quinnipiac survey found a majority of black Democrats -- 51 percent to 24 percent -- would favor the attorney general over the New York's first black governor in a hypothetical matchup for the state's top job.
The massive poll of nearly 2,400 voters provides some of the strongest evidence yet of Paterson's weakness among a group many would expect to form a core base of support.
It also suggests Cuomo may have overcome some animosity among blacks since his failed primary bid in 2002 against former state Comptroller H. Carl McCall, the first black to top a major party's ticket in the state.
"If there's a racial issue in a matchup between Gov. David Paterson and Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, these numbers don't show it," Quinnipiac pollster Maurice Carroll said. "Black Democrats back Cuomo hands down, and black voters in general give Cuomo better grades than the Governor on every measure."
Cuomo also posted a favorability rating of 70 percent among blacks, compared to Paterson's 53 percent.
Among all Democrats, Cuomo tops Paterson 61 percent to 19 percent. In potential general election matchups, Republican Rudy Giuliani would beat Paterson 54 percent to 32 percent, but lose to Cuomo 40 percent to 50 percent.
Posted by: Fred ||
10/22/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
BBQ chicken and BBQ ribs...both still BBQ. Proves very, very little.
A new Quinnipiac University poll out today shows that Republican candidate Marco Rubio, the former Speaker of the Florida State House is closing the gap between himself and front-runner Gov. Charlie Crist in the 2010 Republican primary race for the U.S. Senate. Rubio, has cut Crist's lead in half, according to the poll's results among Florida Republicans to 50-35 percent.
"Gov. Charlie Crist's lead, which had been 29 points August 19, has come back down to earth. His margin is still formidable, but obviously Marco Rubio's focus on convincing Republican conservatives that he, not Crist, is their kind of guy is bearing fruit," said Peter Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute in a news release, that accompanied the poll's results.
Despite Rubio's latest upward movement, the same poll shows that Crist still leads top Democratic candidate Rep.Kendrick Meek by 20 points by all voters, while Rubio's candidacy trails Meek by 3 points.
Posted by: Fred ||
10/22/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
Less than week after calling on lawmakers to address New York's budget crisis without raising taxes, Gov. Paterson fizzled out and suggested he would take another pop at passing a state soda tax.
"I promise I will put (the soda tax) back in my budget address and give the Legislature another chance to do it," Paterson said during an interview on WNYC. "But you can't keep voting down the ways to create revenues and then saying you don't want to make cuts."
The governor's testy remark came after he heard an audio clip of Assemblyman Hakeem Jeffries (D-Brooklyn) advocating a soda tax and an hike to out-of-state tuition as ways to help close the state's $3 billion budget gap.
Earlier this year, the Legislature rejected a Paterson proposal to raise more than $500 million annually with an 18 percent levy on sugary soft drinks in favor of a massive tax hike on the wealthy.
A similar tax has since gained favor with Democrats on the federal level as President Obama looks for ways to fund his health care reform plan.
While Paterson said he would open to another soda tax proposal next year, he rejected Jeffries' claim that such new taxes could help close the $3 billion gap in the state's current budget.
"He's right about different ways we can enhance revenues if the Legislature will agree to it," Paterson said. "But he's totally wrong because I'm talking about payments that must be met by Dec. 15."
"I don't know how many times I'm going to have to say this before people understand and are persuaded that we have to act now," the governor continued.
The governor in another interview also moved back to Oct. 28 the date he expects lawmakers to return to Albany to considering his gap-closing proposal. He had previously selected Oct. 27 for the special session, but Senate Democrats announced they planned to hold a public hearing on the budget proposal that day.
Posted by: Fred ||
10/22/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
enhance revenues
Don't you feel better when they 'enhance revenues' rather than raise taxes?
A top Senate Republican took to the Senate floor Wednesday morning to suggest that the Obama White House is plotting a political strategy similar to that of ex-President Richard Nixon and may be on the verge of preparing its own "enemies list."
Republican Conference Chairman Lamar Alexander (Tenn.), who served in the Nixon White House, offered what he said was a "friendly suggestion" to the White House not to repeat the errors he saw committed by the staff of the disgraced former president.
"Based upon that experience and my 40 years since then in and out of public life, I want to make what I hope will be taken as a friendly suggestion to President Obama and his White House: Don't create an enemies list," Alexander said.
Describing the actions of Vice President Spiro Agnew and Nixon operative Chuck Colson, Alexander said he sees "symptoms of this same kind of animus developing in the Obama administration."
Alexander read off a list of examples he says support his contention, including: a reported effort by the White House to marginalize the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a supposed effort by the Health and Human Services Department to put a "gag order" on the insurer Humana, the White House move to take on Fox News, Obama's repeated criticisms of banks and investment houses, his alleged "taking names" of "bondholders who resisted the GM and Chrysler bailouts," and the president's move to make insurers the bogeyman of the health care debate.
Alexander claimed that the incipient White House "enemies" campaign extends even to Congress. He suggested that Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) was the victim of a sort of payback, saying that after Kyl suggested the stimulus plan wasn't working, the White house subsequently wrote the governor of Arizona that, "If you don't want the money, we won't send it."
He said that after he and Sen. Bob Bennett (R-Utah) questioned the power of White House "czars," they both were "called out" on the White House blog.
"This behavior is typical of street brawls and political campaign consultants," Alexander said. "If the president and his top aides treat people with different views as enemies instead of listening to what they have to say, they're likely to end up with a narrow view and a feeling that the whole world is out to get them. And as those of us who served in the Nixon White House know, that can get you into a lot of trouble."
After Alexander's remarks, Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) rose to speak on a different topic, but he first commented that it appeared Alexander was accusing the administration of "Nixifying" the White House -- adding that he hoped the term would enter into "the lexicon." Alexander replied that he was "seeing some signs" in the Obama White House that he had seen "at the early stages of Nixon."
Posted by: Fred ||
10/22/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
they're likely to end up with a narrow view and a feeling that the whole world is out to get them.
In addition to simple paranoia, it can also lead to aloofness, arrogance, feelings of superiority, acute chip-on-shoulder, cult victim or 'you owe me' syndrone, group think, and other more serious non-treatable dimentia such as racism.
#4
I don't understand Alexander. How can they not do something that they have already done? And they are increditably open about it. The Senator needs to move on to the next phase of the conversation.
Posted by: Richard of Oregon ||
10/22/2009 10:01 Comments ||
Top||
#6
I don't understand Alexander. How can they not do something that they have already done?
I don't think he's expecting Obama to actually listen to him. He's planting a meme. He wants people to start associating the concept of "Nixon" and "paranoia" with the concept of "Obama."
Posted by: Mike ||
10/22/2009 10:48 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Nixon?? Look more closely at UK politics, he's more like Brown.
Never worked in a real Job.
Jinxed.
Chip on Shoulder.
Paranoid.
Narcissist.
Rep. Edolphus Towns (D-N.Y.) locked Republicans out of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee room to keep them from meeting when Democrats aren't present.
Towns' action came after repeated public ridicule from the leading Republican on the committee, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), over Towns's failure to launch an investigation into Countrywide Mortgage's reported sweetheart deals to VIPs.
For months Towns has refused Republican requests to subpoena records in the case. Last Thursday Committee Republicans, led by Issa, were poised to force an open vote on the subpoenas at a Committee mark-up meeting. The mark-up was abruptly canceled. Only Republicans showed up while Democrats chairs remained empty.
Republicans charged that Towns canceled the meeting to avoid the subpoena vote. Democrats first claimed the mark-up was canceled due to a conflict with the Financial Services Committee. Later they said it was abandoned after a disagreement among Democratic members on whether to subpoena records on the mortgage industry's political contributions to Republicans.
A GOP committee staffer captured video of Democrats leaving their separate meeting in private chambers after the mark-up was supposed to have begun. He spliced the video to other footage of the Democrats' empty chairs at the hearing room, set it to the tune of "Hit the Road, Jack" and posted it on the Oversight and Government Reform Committee's minority webpage, where it remained as of press time.
Towns's staffers told Republicans they were not happy about the presence of the video camera in the hearing room when they were not present. Issa's spokesman said the Democrats readily acknowledged to Republicans that they changed the locks in retaliation to the videotape of the Democrats' absence from the business meeting even though committee rules allow meetings to be taped.
Posted by: Fred ||
10/22/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Was your Representative one of the Dems doing the locking out? If so, they really need to know how you feel about that. I checked and no Oregon Reps are on that committee, but if they were they would have heard from me.
Posted by: Richard of Oregon ||
10/22/2009 9:57 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Here's a link to the list:
http://oversight.house.gov/about/members.asp
An article on another page listed "Dennis Kucinich (D-OH)". How appropriate!
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.
Throughout the ACORN undercover sting video saga, no one has been more willing to assassinate the character of ACORN's opponents than the hired guns at the left-wing group Media Matters for America.
WASHINGTON — A top White House economist says spending from the $787 billion economic stimulus has already had its biggest impact on economic growth and will likely not contribute to significant expansion next year.
The table below compares the White House's February 2009 projection of the number of jobs that would be created by the 2009 stimulus law (through the end of 2010) with the actual change in state payroll employment through September 2009 (the latest figures available). According to the data, 49 States and the District of Columbia have lost jobs since stimulus was enacted. Only North Dakota has seen net job creation following the February 2009 stimulus. While President Obama claimed the result of his stimulus bill would be the creation of 3.5 million jobs, the Nation has already lost a total of 2.7 million -- a difference of 6.2 million jobs.
President Obama is presiding over a slow-motion civil-military crash occasioned by his meandering Afghanistan strategy review. The crash has not yet happened and is avoidable, but it also foreseeable. Of concern, the latest reports out of the White House suggest that Obama's team is not yet fully aware of the dangers. If it happens, it will be a problem entirely of Obama's own making and it could have a lasting impact on the way his administration unfolds.
(CNSNews.com) -- House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said that the individual health insurance mandates included in every health reform bill, which require Americans to have insurance, were "like paying taxes." He added that Congress has "broad authority" to force Americans to purchase other things as well, so long as it was trying to promote "the general welfare."
A group of Democrats joined all Republicans in blocking a 10-year freeze of scheduled cuts to doctors' Medicare payments, legislation that was considered important to getting a broader healthcare bill through later this year.
In a refrain that helped President Obama turn Virginia from red to blue during the 2008 presidential election, the Creigh Deeds gubernatorial campaign today released a new TV ad entitled "Fired Up" which features President Obama -- and only President Obama. 
The race factor may not be a factor after all in a potential Democratic primary contest between Gov. Paterson and Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, according to a new poll released today.
A new Quinnipiac University poll out today shows that Republican candidate Marco Rubio, the former Speaker of the Florida State House is closing the gap between himself and front-runner Gov. Charlie Crist in the 2010 Republican primary race for the U.S. Senate. Rubio, has cut Crist's lead in half, according to the poll's results among Florida Republicans to 50-35 percent.
Less than week after calling on lawmakers to address New York's budget crisis without raising taxes, Gov. Paterson fizzled out and suggested he would take another pop at passing a state soda tax.
A top Senate Republican took to the Senate floor Wednesday morning to suggest that the Obama White House is plotting a political strategy similar to that of ex-President Richard Nixon and may be on the verge of preparing its own "enemies list." 
Rep. Edolphus Towns (D-N.Y.) locked Republicans out of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee room to keep them from meeting when Democrats aren't present.
