I know this is from a blog, but this information is kind of important. It smells like a purge based on politics to me.
OPM is now claiming authority to weed out every former political appointee from being considered for ANY federal positions at EVERY level of the GS Pay Scale, for both the competitive AND excepted service made RETROACTIVE for the past 5 years! (This is a new, extra layer of scrutiny previously reserved for SES hires.) OPM will now check the recommended hires to ensure they comply with merit system principles and applicable civil service laws.
It is well established anti-discrimination law in the Federal sector the public (political appointees included) may not be excluded from consideration for federal jobs because of their political affiliation.
OPMs alleged rationale is to keep political appointees from burrowing in, but agencies would need to have already considered the applicant the best qualified to even reach this new hurdle.
Stated another way, but for the applicant having served as a political appointee within the past five years, all agencies would not be required to seek review from OPM for all agency positions. Effectively, the ONLY reason EVERY agency will now be REQUIRED to consult OPM is to ask permission to hire a person based on their political affiliation.
Why make the policy retroactive for 5 years? I leave you to draw your own conclusions.
GS's are civil servants and are suppose to be a non-political based employment. SES are another creature. The boys from Chicago are trying to undo a hundred years of reform to end patronage and bring it back. They probably also forgot why the reform was implemented in the first place.
We've just started to lay the groundwork on the Kenneth Gladney story and the shameful failure of the county prosecutor Bob McCullough to pursue criminal prosecution of SEIU assailants. Left wing blogs, mainstream newspapers, and of course SEIU, having concluded a smear the messenger campaign, have now resorted to a blackout strategy. The first rule of union beatings is you do not talk about union beatings.
With the healthcare bill having just passed the house, this story couldn't have come at a worse time for Democrats. Falling poll numbers for congressional Democrats and the President, waning support for the Pelosi/Reid bills, and renewed, often heated conflict between the progressive and moderate wings of the Democratic party gives a very small window to pass this bill. Discovering that the story of union members attacking a man outside a Townhall was covered up and ignored by politicians, unions, local papers and the mainstream media is a live grenade rolled into the middle of the healthcare debate. There is no hiding from the scandal if Gladney's story comes out. Careers and campaigns will be ruined in St Louis. Conservatives will have a convenient club with which to beat the St Louis Post Dispatch for their shameful coverage, and the strong ties of HCAN's Missouri members to the Obama administration will continue to taint all of the enablers.
But this isn't just about Kenneth Gladney. Let's set aside that travesty of justice and focus on the second assault that night. After the police arrive, an OFA volunteer by the name of Cheryl Johner struck a Tea Party activist in the face. A police officer saw the assault, and immediately arrested Ms. Johner. Furthermore, the entire event was recorded on video, as the Tea Party Activist had her camera on the entire time. We see Johner approach the camera, punch the girl in the face, and then we immediately see Johner cuffed and taken away.
There is no doubt what happened. There is no twisting of the video to suggest the girl threw her camera at Johner's fist. No amount of money from George Soros can make the second assault fade away, which is why Media Matters, Wonkette, Daily Kos, Think Progress, FiredogLake, The Washington Monthly, and others have ignored the affair. The second assault victim also hasn't sought the spotlight, even though her camera was broken.
This is important, because there are no attempts to explain away what happened. The witness is a police officer and the event is on video. Johner struck the woman in the face, and was arrested. And yet, no charges have been filed in this case, either. As in the Gladney case, prosecutors have done nothing for three months. They have called no witnesses. They have launched no investigations. They simply sit on the charges, waiting for...something. The second video also covers the arrests and the aftermath. In that second video, we hear Perry Molens challenging a man to a fight away from everyone. We hear Molens proclaiming that violence is the union way. And then we see Molens and McCowan clam up and say nothing once the police arrive. The only words we hear from them for the next week come from Elston McCowan in the Post Dispatch, claiming he was jumped on the way to his car. That version of the story would change one week later when SEIU hired top defense attorney Paul D'Grosa to defend Molens and McCowan from the charges. D'Agrosa regularly defends Democratic politicians, and has been in the news this year for major stories of fraud, perjury bribery, and campaign finance cases involving Democratic State Senators and political operatives. Using D'Agrosa for misdemeanor assault charges is a bit like bringing the late, great Johnnie Cochran in to fight a five dollar parking ticket. The day after he took over, the case disappeared from sight.
Cheryl Johner has been identified by local Tea Party activists who saw the picture that night, and her volunteer work with Organizing for America is still up on the site. Johner's assault, and any subsequent conviction, would be embarrassing to the Obama administration and the Democrats, who have sought to paint Tea Party activists as violent. And yet, the violence that occurred was not caused by high tensions on both sides as reported, but rather from these Healthcare Now volunteers and their union allies.
Attacking Gladney, his character, and his reputation has been effective, and the attempt to use force to silence and frighten the Tea Party activists worked as well. Democrats like Missouri's Russ Carnahan were able to hide from the public after the event, refusing to face their constituents because of fears of further "conflict." Three months later, the issue is still not settled. Two assault victims have been marginalized, and the healthcare bill passed the House, with Carnahan's vote being one of the two needed. A story like this, filled with union violence, prosecutorial misconduct, the savaging of a victim's character based on false news reports, and a media blackout that went into place by the local paper isn't just a problem for the Missouri Democrats. It's a problem for the Obama administration and its national army of organizers, bloggers and media sympathizers, who have been unmasked as the sycophants they are.
There are two assault victims who have not received justice from that night. Two assailants were ordered to the event by union bosses. McCowan even tried to claim workmen's comp for the incident. Cheryl Johner was urged to attend by OFA and HCAN leaders, and as planned, the story turned from the embarrassing performance of Russ Carnahan with constituents to a clash of protestors. That is a story that even the worst lickspittle reporter could cover. And yet you read it on Big Government. It's enough to make you believe in conspiracies.
Posted by: Fred ||
11/12/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
According to the legendary Greek Historian Plutarch, when asked why he divorced his wife, Caesar stated that: "All women shall be as Caesar would have his wife, not only free from sin, but from suspicion." At the time, Caesar's wife, Pompeia, was loosely associated with the commission of a sacrilege by someone else. As recent events have confirmed, Attorney General Jerry Brown is hardly burdened by suspicions -- let alone high ethical standards.
As most everyone in the political world now knows, ACORN is under investigation in many states, and by the federal government, for a host of crimes. The same holds true in California -- or does it?
Notwithstanding the purported investigation of ACORN by the California Attorney General's Office, according to David Lagstein, ACORN's chief organizer in the San Diego: the Attorney General Jerry Brown is a "political animal" and that "certainly every bit of communication we have had with them has suggested that the fault will be found with the people that did the video -- not with ACORN."
So much for investigating the supposed target of the investigation -- ACORN -- not to mention that it should be well beyond suspicious that an investigative unit of the government would tell an entity under investigation, i.e. ACORN, what will be found about others.
Perhaps, you say, the ACORN official was taking liberties with what was said to him and it can't be attributed to the actions of Jerry Brown? Unfortunately for Jerry Brown, his cavalier association with the rule of law precedes him and gives rise to real questions as to what really is going on with the ACORN investigation.
Consider, if you will, these brushes with the rule of law that Jerry Brown has had as Attorney General -- the official charged with upholding our laws:
Attorney General Brown's "spokesman" recently was given the boot for illegally taping telephone conversations with reporters -- ironic yes? That Brown will find someone illegally taped ACORN while his office does the same?, or
Brown's blatant mischaracterization of Senator George Runner's upcoming Voter ID initiative as the: LIMITS ON VOTING. INITIATIVE STATUTE. [which] Prohibits citizens from voting at the polls, unless they present a government-issued photo identification card. Under similar circumstances, Brown's Democrat predecessor dubbed the Voter ID initiative he reviewed as "VOTER IDENTIFICATION REQUIREMENT. INITIATIVE STATUTE. Requires that voters present one of four types of picture ID before voting." Brown was sued by Senator Runner for such misconduct; or
Attorney General Brown's decision to file lawsuit against San Bernadino County for "failing to consider how growth and new development will impact climate change" -- even though the regulations related to AB32 had yet to be written at the time of the lawsuit.
If that is not bad enough, we can go one step further back to note that Jerry Brown never should have been seated as Attorney General because he was not legally qualified to be Attorney General.
I was the lead Plaintiff in a lawsuit to stop the seating of Jerry Brown for Attorney General because California Government Code Section 12503 states that: "No person shall be eligible to the office of Attorney General unless he shall have been admitted to practice before the Supreme Court of the state for a period of at least five years immediately preceding his election or appointment to such office." Jerry Brown did not meet that requirement. Prior to his election, Brown had an inactive law license for 10 out of the last 14 years, and his license has been active only for three and a half of the preceding five years. As any attorney will tell you, an active license is required to practice before the Supreme Court of California.
Jerry Brown, however, was able to convince an activist Judge that he came close enough for government work and therefore the will of the people should not be thwarted. And you thought our nation was founded on the rule of law not men?
In this day and age, it would rather appear that that antiquated notion is under more suspicion than Jerry Brown. Sad as that is, it's time that a formal investigation of Jerry Brown was undertaken.
Posted by: Fred ||
11/12/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Sad to tell everyone this but unless the "R" candidates get some serious traction, moonbeam will be the next Govenor of California.
Two former Bear Stearns executives were found not guilty Tuesday on fraud and conspiracy charges. Ralph Cioffi and Matthew Tanin were the first Wall Street executives to face criminal charges arising from the collapse of the subprime mortgage market.
The verdict came relatively quickly. After seven hours of deliberations, Cioffi and Tannin looked at the jurors without much expression at first. But as the foreman repeated not guilty for each of the six charges they both finally broke into a smile. Their wives, and even some of their lawyers, immediately started to cry. Cioffi and Tannin didn't speak to reporters afterwards. But Cioffis lawyer said he was glad the jurors listened. And Tannin, in a written statement, said, quote, My family and I are eternally grateful.
The U.S. attorneys office said it was disappointed with the outcome, but that it accepts the jurys verdict and that enforcing and protecting honesty and integrity in the financial markets will continue to be one of the offices main priorities.
Posted by: Fred ||
11/12/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Seems to me if there is no punishment for being dishonest it doesn't matter what the US attorneys say.
The jury of nine women and three men selected for Baltimore Mayor Sheila Dixon's criminal theft trial will begin work Thursday morning, but first a judge will weigh new allegations involving another batch of gift cards said to have been donated by a developer not previously named in the case.
Two city developers, Patrick Turner and Ronald H. Lipscomb, have been identified as potential witnesses in the mayor's theft case, and a defense motion filed Tuesday reveals that prosecutors want a third developer to testify. The mayor is accused of buying personal items with at least $1,500 in retail gift cards donated to her office for use by needy families.
The newly named developer, Glenn Charlow, donated gift cards to Dixon to be used "in connection with her church activities," according to papers filed in court by the mayor's lawyers in an effort to block his testimony. There are no details about how State Prosecutor Robert A. Rohrbaugh believes the gift cards were used, or how much money may have been involved.
Dixon's attorneys object to the anticipated new testimony because, they say, prosecutors interviewed Charlow in June 2008 but did not disclose key information until Friday, on the eve of the trial.
Judge Dennis M. Sweeney said he will take up at least some of the numerous pretrial motions before jurors arrive in the downtown courtroom Thursday morning. Courts are closed today for Veterans Day.
The 12 jurors and six alternates - nearly three-quarters of whom are black - "certainly speaks to Baltimore City's demographics," said Douglas Colbert, a University of Maryland law professor who observed jury selection. "I would expect that both sides feel very satisfied with that."
No information about the jurors or alternates, including their names, ages or racial identities, has been made public, making it impossible to ascertain the precise demographic makeup of the panel that will decide the mayor's fate.
The jury appeared to be composed of five black women, two black men, two white women, one white man, one Asian woman and one woman whose ethnicity was unclear. The alternates include three black men and three black women.
Dixon, 55, faces seven theft-related counts in this trial and also is scheduled to stand trial in March on perjury charges. In that case, she is accused of failing to disclose gifts from Lipscomb, her former boyfriend. At the time, she was City Council president and Lipscomb was doing business with the city. If convicted on any charge in either case, Dixon would have to step down and would lose her $83,000 annual pension. She also could face a fine or jail time.
Posted by: Fred ||
11/12/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
First it was The Associated Press refuting the Obama administrations claims for jobs saved or created nationwide by Februarys $787 billion economic stimulus measure. Then it was The Sacramento Bee refuting the claims that state agencies had made for California. Then it was the Chicago Tribune refuting the claims that state agencies had made for Illinois.
The errors were not of a minor or technical nature. They were egregious.
AP reported that some jobs credited to the stimulus program were counted two, three, four or even more times. The Bee reported that California State University said the $268.5 million it received in stimulus funding through October allowed it to retain 26,156 employees more than half its statewide work force. The Tribune reported that Illinois education officials grossly inflated job-saved numbers, sometimes saying school districts had saved more jobs than their total number of employees.
This is a scandal and should be treated as such. Its not government as usual. Instead, it appears to reflect a decision to distort government data collection to support explicitly political agendas.
With U.S. unemployment now topping 10 percent, the Obama administration is struggling more than ever to fashion credible counterarguments to the assertion made by this editorial page and many pundits and economists that the massive stimulus measure was a poorly thought-out pork fest that wouldnt work. Whats the easiest way to defend the stimulus? Make up claims about its glorious results.
Politics also appears to be driving state agencies in their willingness to prop up this bogus narrative. It helps them make the case that they should get even more borrowed money from the federal government that they never will have to repay.
Such dishonesty should be completely unacceptable especially at the federal level. We trust the Office of Management and Budget to provide honest figures on the size of the deficit and the national debt. We trust the Labor Department to provide honest statistics on unemployment and job gains and losses by sector. We trust the Commerce Department to provide honest numbers on monthly imports and exports and the gross domestic product. We trust the Environmental Protection Agency to provide an honest accounting of air and water pollution levels.
All of these statistics end up helping shape the public debate on the most crucial issues of the day. If these numbers cant be trusted, we cant have an honest debate. When it comes to the economic stimulus package, it sure looks like the Obama White House doesnt want an honest debate. Instead, it is going to relentlessly push the very dubious claim that the stimulus was a huge success no matter what.
We are struck yet again by the contrast between the hopeful and idealistic tone of Barack Obamas presidential campaign and the bare-knuckles Chicago-style politics of his White House. If this hardball approach goes beyond the usual arm-twisting to the routine twisting of government statistics for political purposes, that will be a grim day for America.
#1
Instead, it appears to reflect a decision to distort government data collection to support explicitly political agendas.
Welcome to the Chicago Way(c).
Unfortunately, for those in power and position, that is what ultimately killed the Soviet Union. All the minions reported up the chain what the boys on top wanted to hear. When the collapse occurred it was a bleeding surprise to so many [including the CIA who were reading the same 'feel good' reports that the party were reading].
#4
Bottom line - don't believe ANYTHING that the Obama administration says. I'd call them accomplished liars, but they're not all that good at it despite considerable practice.
(CNNMoney.com) -- You've probably heard about the country's giant debt load - $12 trillion and rising. Did you know you can help reduce it? Actually you wouldn't be reducing it. You'd be sending some more money to Washington for pols to piss away.
Under a little-known law enacted in 1961, Uncle Sam accepts tax-deductible contributions to pay down the country's debt.
Not that the Treasury Department does much to publicize the program.
You can find it under the header "Accepting Gifts" in the U.S. Code. Or, if you're not an avid reader of dusty legal books, you can check the FAQ section on the Web site of the Bureau of Public Debt, an agency within Treasury. Or flip to page 91 of the IRS' 2009 Instruction Booklet for Form 1040.
Contributions made are typically small -- under $100. But there have been a few humdingers over the years.
Humdinger? Not a word commonly used in Financial Section articles.
The largest single gift ever made was in 1992 for $3.5 million, said Mckayla Braden, a spokesperson for the Bureau of the Public Debt.
For fiscal year 2009, all donations totaled just over $3 million. That's well more than what was donated in any single year in the decade prior. But it's far less than the nearly $21 million collected in 1994.
Posted by: Fred ||
11/12/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Pay them? So they can continue on this insane course? I'll get right on that.
#2
Under a little-known law enacted in 1961, Uncle Sam accepts tax-deductible contributions to pay down the country's debt.
When the rich limousine liberals who are grand at spending other people's money start tithing, above their tax returns, to cover their public generosity with the nation's money, give me a call.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger estimated Monday that California's budget will fall out of balance by $5 billion to $7 billion this fiscal year, on top of a $7.4 billion gap already projected for 2010-11.
If true, state leaders would confront at least a $12.4 billion to $14.4 billion problem when Schwarzenegger releases his budget in January. California currently has an $84.6 billion general fund budget.
The Republican governor spoke with The Fresno Bee editorial board Monday after signing a bill placing a water bond on the November 2010 ballot.
He emphasized deep spending cuts as a budget solution but did not mention tax increases. Schwarzenegger and legislators agreed to cuts to education and social services, as well as temporary tax hikes, in two budget deals earlier this year.
"We are not out of the woods yet. ... The key thing is, we have to go and still make cuts and still rein in the spending," Schwarzenegger said. "It will be tougher because I think the low-hanging fruits and the medium-hanging fruits are all gone. I think that now we are going to the high-hanging fruits, and very tough decisions still have to be made."
The state is $1 billion behind in tax revenues through the first three months of the 2009-10 fiscal year. Courts also have blocked some cuts in the current budget, such as in-home care reductions.
Posted by: Fred ||
11/12/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The state wastes a lot of money on school class size mandates. They reduced classroom size by 1/3 and got no increase in performance for it. Consider it a failed experiment. You would do better going back to a 30 student classroom, firing the worst 33% of the teachers and closing 33% of the schools that have been kept open solely from this class size mandate.
This would give more kids exposure to the best teachers and get dead wood out of the system.
We need to actually start executing condemned prisoners instead of treating death row as a welfare program for the prison guard union.
I would favor execution for people committing their third violent felony. Let's stop warehousing them for life. Sort of a "three major strikes and you are 'out' of the planet".
Reduce CalTrans bureaucracy. Allow local and county jurisdictions more leeway in doing their own projects without having to run to CalTrans every few minutes to get approval to repair a sidewalk just because the sidewalk abuts a state road.
Stop making MediCal such a great program that people prefer it over private insurance.
#2
Crosspatch, your wishes are so unrealistic you may as well wish for California to start planting money trees in place of all the agriculture that will soon be gone because of water restrictions.
Posted by: Rambler in Virginia ||
11/12/2009 7:08 Comments ||
Top||
#3
While we're on the Dream List theme, let's eliminate the Office of Stress Reduction that provides counseling to SEIU employees who work for the Victim Assistance Program (sarcasm added).
#4
"It will be tougher because I think the low-hanging fruits and the medium-hanging fruits are all gone. I think that now we are going to the high-hanging fruits, and very tough decisions still have to be made."
Who could have seen this coming?
In the wake of the Minnesota I-35 bridge collapse there was enormous public outcry and recognition of the need to repair our crumbling infrastructure. Americans expected public officials to respond to the tragedy with a large scale effort to address the nearly 73,000 structurally deficient bridges in this country. The findings in this report suggest that did not happen. I'm shocked, shocked, I tell you.
As Congress prepares a new multi-year, multibillion dollar transportation bill, we explored the intersection of money and politics and recent transportation funding decisions.
We analyzed two data sets and new information that shine light on the influence of campaign giving on transportation funding decisions at the state and federal level. First the report examines, on a state-by-state basis, how much money was
contributed to both federal and state campaigns by highway interests, defined as those from the development, automobile, transportation, and construction sectors. Then, the report looks at the number and dollar amounts of transportation
earmarks from the 2008 federal transportation appropriations bill that were funded in each state to highlight the priorities of members of Congress. Their own bank accounts, of course.
Key findings:
In 2008 there were 704 earmarked "member projects," in the 50 states and the District of Columbia, totaling more than a half a billion dollars in federal aid highway projects on the annual transportation appropriations bill.
Members of Congress earmarked funds in the 2008 appropriations bill for just 74 bridge repair projects. Only slightly more than 10 percent of the highway funds allocated for "member projects" in that year's appropriations
bill went to bridge repair or restoration. You can bet your sweet bippy any bridges the congresscritters have to pass over are in excellent repair.
At the same time, in 2008, highway interests gave over 133 million dollars to candidates for both federal and state office.
The findings suggest that elected officials often overlook preventative maintenance projects, especially when new capacity projects are encouraged by campaign contributions. No, really? Hooda thunk it?
PDF of report available at the link.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
11/12/2009 13:35 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The Texas PIRG, like other PIRGs has some deep institutional problems. One such problem is shallow knowledge.
The I-35 bridge went down because of a design error in the early 1960s. Preventive maintenance wouldn't have helped (in fact a maintenance project was underway at the time of the collapse and was an element in the collapse).
Of the structures that are structurally deficient in the US, the vast majority are low volume bridges that serve a few hundred vehicles a day. In many cases, it is better to put a weight limit on the bridge than to spend the $$$$$ to fix something that doesn't serve many vehicles.
Posted by: lord garth ||
11/12/2009 14:33 Comments ||
Top||
Hoffman was misled and so conceded. The people in charge say it was a 'technical error.' Pelosi moved faster than a leopard to seat Owens who returned the favor by voting for the health care bill.
Sound familiar?
Washington -- Conservative Doug Hoffman conceded the race in the 23rd Congressional District last week after receiving two pieces of grim news for his campaign: He was down 5,335 votes with 93 percent of the vote counted on election night, and he had barely won his stronghold in Oswego County.
As it turns out, neither was true.
But Hoffman's concession -- based on snafus in Oswego County and elsewhere that left his vote undercounted -- set off a chain of events that echoed all the way to Washington, D.C., and helped secure passage of a historic health care reform bill.Democratic Rep. Bill Owens was quickly sworn into office on Friday, a day before the rare weekend vote in the House of Representatives. His support sealed his party's narrow victory on the health care legislation.
Now a recanvassing in the 11-county district shows that Owens' lead has narrowed to 3,026 votes over Hoffman, 66,698 to 63,672, according to the latest unofficial results from the state Board of Elections. In Oswego County, where Hoffman was reported to lead by only 500 votes with 93 percent of the vote counted election night, inspectors found Hoffman actually won by 1,748 votes -- 12,748 to 11,000.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Steve White ||
11/12/2009 11:39 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
...Gee, that's funny: Al Gore conceded one very long night back in 2000, but then changed his mind - and no one on the other side seemed to have a problem with that.
Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski ||
11/12/2009 12:13 Comments ||
Top||
#2
"We sent a letter to the clerk laying out the totals," Conklin said. "The key is that Hoffman conceded, which means the race is not contested. However, all ballots will be counted, and if the result changes, Owens will have to be removed."
And Pelosi will do that, sure, sure, no problem ...
Actually happened in a IL or IN district in the mid-80s, the Donk Congress seated their man even though the final count said he lost. Next election, the difference was too big to ignore. Though, I suspect that is something we may see in less than a year.
#3
Well Al Freaken Franken kept counting the votes until he got the result he wanted. I don't know if Hoffman will win but he ought to be a lot closer to a win when all the votes are counted. I thought something was wrong because pre-election polls had him up on Owens.
#4
Whoever got the most votes won. If I understand election law correctly, Hoffman giving a concession speech doesn't have any legal effect.
Posted by: Mike ||
11/12/2009 14:12 Comments ||
Top||
#5
The new vote totals mean the race will be decided by absentee ballots, of which about 10,200 were distributed,
The absentee ballots were filled out before Hoffman surged and Scazzafava withdrew, so I would really doubt Hoffman can make up a 3000 vote deficit. Thanks Dede for staying in the race long after you were dead meat so your name remained on the ballot for the brain dead.
Posted by: ed ||
11/12/2009 15:17 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Ed: As soon as it became obvious she wouldn't win that was her plan. She even had the gall to say she hopes to run as a republican again. 1 year from now another election takes place and I doubt Owens can pull it off, especially after switching around on the Obamacare vote less than a day after he "won". I'm looking for a big win for us next election there.
Posted by: Charles ||
11/12/2009 17:39 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Owens has nothing to worry about. The vote is well within the Democrat margin of fraud.
#1
Independents will be key as well as Donks with buyer's remorse. The "0's" approval-disapproval spread went from 47% in Feb to just 15% in Nov. Still higher than I would have thought.
Former Connecticut Congressman Rob Simmons has an early lead in the Republican primary race for the 2010 U.S. Senate contest and runs better than any other challenger against Sen. Christopher Dodd, topping the Democratic incumbent 49 - 38 percent, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today.
Former World Wrestling Entertainment executive Linda McMahon gets 43 percent to Sen. Dodd's 41 percent, the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University poll finds.
Even potential Republican contenders with almost no name recognition and almost no Republican primary voter support give Dodd a run for his money.
Simmons leads a Republican primary matchup with 28 percent, followed by McMahon with 17 percent. No other contender tops 9 percent and 36 percent are undecided.
Connecticut voters disapprove 54 - 40 percent of the job Dodd is doing, compared to a 49 - 43 percent disapproval September 17, and say 53 - 39 percent that he does not deserve reelection.
"After inching up in the polls for months, Sen. Christopher Dodd is sliding back down again on job approval. He continues to struggle with independent voters as 60 percent disapprove of the way he is handling his job. President Barack Obama is still popular with independents, but voters say that his support of Dodd won't affect their Senate vote," said Quinnipiac University Poll Director Douglas Schwartz, PhD.
(CNSNews.com) -- Senator Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) said he has "no other choice" but to filibuster a health care bill that contains a government-run health insurance option, adding that while reform is needed, the public option would be harmful to America's future and that he would use his right as a senator to try "to stop it."
"I have no other choice," Lieberman told several reporters on Capitol Hill on Tuesday. "I've got to use the right I have as a senator to stop something that I think is going to be terrible for our future, which is the public option, not health care reform. I want to vote for health care reform." This is the principled Joe Lieberman that existed prior to becoming al-Gore's running mate. It's good to see he still exists, though I don't think he should be nominated for VP again.
Posted by: Fred ||
11/12/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#2
I've said it before and am happy to say it again. Even though ol' Joe and I would disagree on many things *cough*open borders*cough*, he's still the best approximation of a great and good man existing in either house of Congress today.
Posted by: Ricky bin Ricardo (Abu Babaloo) ||
11/12/2009 8:48 Comments ||
Top||
#3
I'd vote for Joe in a heartbeat. I think that even though he's a 'democrat', he's really closer to that compassionate conservatism that GW espoused. I don't agree with him on some issues, but he's a supporter of the military, he supports Israel (obviously) and he's pretty hawkish, he's also fairly fiscally conservative.
#5
Lieberman is an "honorable adversary." Even if you're on the opposite side, he's an honest man and you have to respect him.
If the Dems keep bashing him the way they are--you should see what the Julius Streicher wanabees on Kos and DU say about him--he could jump to the other caucus.
Posted by: Mike ||
11/12/2009 14:21 Comments ||
Top||
#6
There are 58 Democrats in the Senate and 40 Republicans the two Independents are Bernard Sanders of Vermont and Joe Lieberman of Connecticut. Without Liebermans support, the Democrats could not get cloture to end debate and bring the bill to the Senate floor for a vote.
Sanders was a Donk and it is hard to tell how he might vote. If the "reconciliation" option is invoked, debate (and fillibustering) will be limited. Health care will pass with a majority if there are not enough Democrats who are opposed to this albatross. The 2010 elections might limit the effects of this Senate arm-twisting. Is it one third of the Senate that is up for re-election?
Pelosi says maybe the voters will get a Christmas present for Christmas. This is not a Christmas present Queen Nancy. This country won't recover from this legislation--maybe that is the plan.
In a warning sign for the White House, Democratic Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska tells ABC News that he'll vote to block any health care bill that looks like the bill passed by the House.
"Well, first of all, it has more than a robust public option, it's got a totally government-run plan, the costs are extraordinary associated with it, it increases taxes in a way that will not pass in the Senate and I could go on and on and on," Nelson said in an interview that is part of ABC News' Subway Series with Jonathan Karl.
"Faced with a decision about whether or not to move a bill that is bad, I won't vote to move it," he added. "For sure."
The $1.1 trillion price tag on the House bill, Nelson said, is "absolutely" too high.
Nelson's vote is critical to getting a bill passed because Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid needs 60 votes before the Senate can even begin debating the bill. With all 40 Republicans currently opposed to it, Reid needs the votes of all 60 Democrats.
Dingy Harry isn't going to push through a bill predicated on getting 60 votes. When it's all said and done he'll use the reconciliation process and plan on 50 Dem votes plus the Drone Biden. Even if a few Dems lose in 2010 it'll be hard to go from 60 to 49 afterwards, so he's figuring on being Majority Leader for at least another two years regardless. If the Dems lose the House that's not his problem. So the statements by Nelson and Lieberman are nice but irrelevant, unless ten Dems up and declare themselves against the bill. I haven't seen that happen yet.
There is one thing about the House bill, however, that Nelson does like: the strict ban on any abortion coverage by insurance plans bought with government subsidies. Unless the Senate bill includes a similar provision, Nelson said, he'll vote against it.
"Federal taxpayer money ought not to be used to fund abortions," Nelson said. "So whether it is subsidies on premiums or whether it is tax credits or whatever it is...it should not be used to fund abortions." Nelson also talked about the message he heard from former President Bill Clinton, who talked to Senate Democrats at their weekly closed-door luncheon.
"What I heard him say is that you don't have to let the desire for perfection get in the way of the good," Nelson said. "And that makes a great deal of sense. But I would add the caveat that we have to be sure it is not a bad bill, that it doesn't add to the deficit, that it doesn't increase taxes, and that does, in fact, control the growth in costs."
Nelson took aim at former DNC Chairman Howard Dean and what he called "the Deaniacs," who don't like his stand against the public option.
"They are special interests and they have their own agenda," Nelson said. "And my agenda, I think, is the same as the people in Nebraska, their agenda, and I am going to do what I think is right."
Posted by: Fred ||
11/12/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
While Massachusetts recipients of federal stimulus money collectively report 12,374 jobs saved or created, a Globe review shows that number is wildly exaggerated. Organizations that received stimulus money miscounted jobs, filed erroneous figures, or claimed jobs for work that has not yet started.
The Globe's finding is based on the federal government's just-released accounts of stimulus spending at the end of October. It lists the nearly $4 billion in stimulus awards made to an array of Massachusetts government agencies, universities, hospitals, private businesses, and nonprofit organizations, and notes how many jobs each created or saved.
But in interviews with recipients, the Globe found that several openly acknowledged creating far fewer jobs than they have been credited for.
One of the largest reported jobs figures comes from Bridgewater State College, which is listed as using $77,181 in stimulus money for 160 full-time work-study jobs for students. But Bridgewater State spokesman Bryan Baldwin said the college made a mistake and the actual number of new jobs was "almost nothing.'' Bridgewater has submitted a correction, but it is not yet reflected in the report.
In other cases, federal money that recipients already receive annually - subsidies for affordable housing, for example - was reclassified this year as stimulus spending, and the existing jobs already supported by those programs were credited to stimulus spending. Some of these recipients said they did not even know the money they were getting was classified as stimulus funds until September, when federal officials told them they had to file reports.
"There were no jobs created. It was just shuffling around of the funds,'' said Susan Kelly, director of property management for Boston Land Co., which reported retaining 26 jobs with $2.7 million in rental subsidies for its affordable housing developments in Waltham. "It's hard to figure out if you did the paperwork right. We never asked for this.''
The federal stimulus report for Massachusetts has so many errors, missing data, or estimates instead of actual job counts that it may be impossible to accurately tally how many people have been employed by the massive infusion of federal money. Massachusetts is expected to receive an estimated $1 billion more in stimulus contracts, grants, and loans.
The stimulus bill - a $787 billion package of tax breaks, expanded government benefits, and infrastructure improvements - was signed into law in February by President Obama, who said it would create and save jobs by preserving local government services and spurring short- and long-term economic development.
To be sure, the legislation has accomplished an important goal: funding public services facing the ax after the recession created gaping shortfalls in state and local government budgets. So Worcester and Lynn, for example, were able to keep police officers targeted for layoffs, schools across the state lost far fewer teachers, and community agencies preserved staff in the face of mounting demands for social services.
The president also said the legislation demanded an unprecedented level of accounting from recipients, who report on the uses of the money and the jobs via a massive online system, www.Recovery.gov.
Clearly, the first comprehensive accounting had shortcomings.
Recipients said they found the reporting system confusing, leading them to submit information erroneously, and leaving them unable to correct mistakes in their reports. Additionally, the government files are massive and unwieldy. Reports do not distinguish between newly created positions and those that were "retained.''
Posted by: Fred ||
11/12/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Some people are going to be confused. Some people are manually entering data. We figured there would be innocent mistakes, Arvidson said. We anticipate that as we go forward . . . the data quality will be increasingly improved. We knew there was going to be a shake-out.
Sure we figured all along stimulus checks could possibly be sent to convicts and dead people. And remember when we promised that unemployment wouldnt rise higher then 8% if we quickly passed the stimulus bill? What you thought that was a hard number? No no, no we knew from the beginning that number was going to fluctuate. Look theres a boat load of money here and its going in every which direction. Of course we anticipate there will be some glitches from time to time. Dont worry rubes itll all shake out. Oh, and BTW, did I forget to mention we inherited this mess.
(CNSNews.com) -- When asked where specifically the Constitution authorized Congress to mandate that individuals buy health insurance, Sen. Jack Reed (D.-R.I.) said that he "would have to check the specific sections" but said that it was like making people "sign up for the draft."
"Specifically where in the Constitution does Congress get its authority to mandate that individuals purchase health insurance?" CNSNews.com asked Reed.
"Let me see," said Reed. "I would have to check the specific sections, so I'll have to get back to you on the specific section. But it is not unusual that the Congress has required individuals to do things, like sign up for the draft and do many other things too, which I don't think are explicitly contained [in the Constitution]. It gives Congress a right to raise an army, but it doesn't say you can take people and draft them. But since that was something necessary for the functioning of the government over the past several years, the practice on the books, it's been recognized, the authority to do that."
Posted by: Fred ||
11/12/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
But it is not unusual that the Congress has required individuals to do things, like sign up for the draft and do many other things too, which I don't think are explicitly contained [in the Constitution]. It gives Congress a right to raise an army, but it doesn't say you can take people and draft them.
Idiot. It's not a "draft" Jack. It's the selective activation of the militia which Article I, Section 8 says Congress defines and does so under Title X USC, para 3.1.1.
"Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia areâ
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia."
When you get around to a term limits amendment for Congresscritter, throw in a requirement to pass an written exam on the Constitution that is publicly posted after completion.
#2
Speaker Pelosi constantly demands that health care is a right not a privilege. Yet under their plan not only are they mandating that everyone exercise that right all must pay to exercise that right. And if someone doesnt pay they can be criminally charged. Further, if they are convicted they can be fined or even jailed. Jeesh and she gets all squishy if someone suggests that people should have proper identification to vote.
#4
This is why you can't argue with liberals. The are either so ignorant or so dishonest that they can't give straight answers to reasonable questions. Then they can either mumble incoherently, change the subject or they can try to shout you down. They have nothing else...or, as Joe Mendiola would say, they "gut nuthin".
After years of trailing far behind Democrats, Republicans have now surpassed Democrats as the public's choice in the 2010 congressional elections. In response to the latest so-called "generic ballot" question from the Gallup organization -- "If elections for Congress were being held today, which party's candidate would you vote for in your congressional district?" -- the new results are 48 percent for Republicans versus 44 percent for Democrats among registered voters, and 46 percent for Republicans versus 44 percent for Democrats among adults nationwide.
It's an extraordinary turnaround for the GOP. Last July, Democrats held a six-point lead. Last December, Democrats held a 15-point lead. At one point in 2007, Democrats held a 23-point lead, and for all of that year, 2007, Democrats held a double-digit lead.
The new Republican lead is the result of a dramatic move of independents toward the Republican party. In the new poll, according to Gallup, the GOP leads among independents, 52 percent to 30 percent -- whopping 22-point margin. Last month, the Republican lead among independents was just nine points, and in July, the GOP lead was a single point. So among independents, the Republican lead has gone from one point to 22 points in less than six months -- with much of lead accumulating in the last month.
'This administration has pulled off an astonishing hat trick -- they have irritated Democrats, alienated independents and energized Republicans," says the Republican National Committee in a statement on the poll released this morning. "Last Tuesday's election made it official -- Americans, and especially they independent-minded voters, are soundly rejecting the big-government, over-reaching policies of President Obama and Washington Democrats. The voters have demonstrated tremendous backlash to the Obama administration's hard turn to the left. Republicans are the party of conservative problem-solvers while the Democrats have clearly demonstrated they are the party of big-government simply by the policies they have supported -- a failed stimulus package, a trillion dollar government-run health care experiment, and a job-killing national energy tax."
Posted by: Fred ||
11/12/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I hve no doubt tha whatever "Lead" the GOP has with voters will be squandered by some self-serving stupid act. Anothter congressman will have an affair, pass love notes to pages, or get caught in a bathroom looking for love. Afterwards we will hear that the leadership knew all along but because he was "one of us" we let it go. Or we will get another RINO candidate that the difference in opinion from the Democrat need to be measured with a micrometer. Moderate Republicans are like moderate Muslims IMHO.
Republican leaders in a South Carolina county have censured their own U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham for working with Democrats on a climate bill and other legislation. The Republican has often worked with Democrats in Congress, but Charleston County Chairwoman Lin Bennett says his work on climate legislation is the last straw.
The party resolution passed Monday says Graham has weakened the Republican brand. Bennett expects a similar resolution to be introduced at the state GOP convention next year. Graham spokesman Kevin Bishop says Graham is looking for a way forward on energy legislation.
Posted by: Fred ||
11/12/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
wan tto hear this at a campaign rally
"hey hey, ho ho, Lindsey Graham's a RINO"
Posted by: abu do you love ||
11/12/2009 0:40 Comments ||
Top||
#2
The Axis of Pansies: Graham, McShame and Specter. Glad to see Specter gone, now let's pray for the other two.
Last week the left-wing activist group MoveOn announced that it had raised $3.6 million to attack any Democratic senator who does not fully support "health care with a public option." Now, MoveOn is raising money to attack the House Democrats who voted against Obama-PelosiCare.
Even though it was a part of Pelosi's plan? This is just noise. The reason the Dems had 220 votes is that Pelosi gave a pass to as many of the endangered Blue Dogs as she could. She's not mad at them, she's just calculating. She knew exactly how many votes she had, and she let a few of them 'slip' so they could go home and say they voted 'no', while the bill passes.
"We won a big victory on health care on Saturday when the House of Representatives passed a bill that includes a public health insurance option," writes MoveOn's political team. "But dozens of conservative Democrats sided with Big Insurance to vote against it."
MoveOn says it is essential to show those conservative Democrats that "voters will make them pay a political price for standing in the way of health care reform." Therefore, MoveOn is "rushing to launch a major new TV ad campaign in the home districts of Democrats who voted against the bill."
Pelosi already has made that calculation; that's why she let some of the Blue Dogs -- but not too many -- vote no.
It is important to make an example of the errant Democrats, MoveOn says, "because fence-sitting Democrats in Congress are watching carefully to see what happens to those who oppose real change." If those fence-sitters see there is no price to be paid for opposing health care, that will make it harder to pass a final bill. "So we've got to act quickly and forcefully to demonstrate that any politician who sides with corporate special interests will suffer for it back home."
Even though it has been in high gear for more than a week, MoveOn's campaign against both House and Senate Democrats has so far received little attention in the press -- far less than the attention paid to divisions in the Republican party.
Posted by: Fred ||
11/12/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
the Move On attacks on these blue dogs will help these same blue dogs who will be able to tell voters, "see, I stood up for you against the powerful"
Posted by: lord garth ||
11/12/2009 12:24 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Heh. Yeah, lord garth, it's nice of the Move-ees to spend all that money helping reelect those representatives. :-D
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
11/12/2009 13:52 Comments ||
Top||
Massachusetts Democrat Barney Frank said on Wednesday that "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT), the current military policy handling homosexuals in the armed forces, is likely to be repealed in the next year's Department of Defense authorization bill, according to The Advocate.
Frank said that he has been in communication with the White House, Nancy Pelosi, and other congressional leaders. He said that the White House was committed to repealing the measure, mentioning as an anecdote that the Secretary of Defense Robert Gates had switched from speaking about 'if' DADT would be repealed to speaking about 'when' DADT would be repealed. "That's because Rahm called him up," Frank continued. "The White House has been consistently committed."
Such action would fulfill President Obama's recent promises delivered in a speech to the homosexualist Human Rights Campaign.
"We cannot afford to cut from our ranks people with the critical skills we need to fight any more than we can afford -- for our military's integrity -- to force those willing to do so into careers encumbered and compromised by having to live a lie," the President said. "So I'm working with the Pentagon, its leadership, and the members of the House and Senate on ending this policy."
Frank's remarks, however, are some of the first that indicate the timing and the method whereby the White House would attempt to lift ban on homosexuals in the military. President Obama has been harshly criticized by homosexual advocates for failing to act quickly enough to lift the ban.
Adding their voice to those crying for the ban's repeal, the American Medical Association also voted on Tuesday to oppose the DADT policy, contending that such a policy harms homosexuals by keeping them from being honest with their doctors.
Not all of those lobbying the White House are attempting to lift the ban, however; much evidence suggests that members of the armed forces largely wish to retain it.
An open letter recently signed by more than one-thousand military flag and general officers urges President Obama to retain the current law prohibiting homosexuals from serving in the military, saying that changing it "would undermine recruiting and retention, impact leadership at all echelons, have adverse effects on the willingness of parents who lend their sons and daughters to military service, and eventually break the All-Volunteer Force."
Such arguments have been echoed by other members of the military.
"The presence of openly gay men ... would elevate tensions and disrupt unit cohesion and morale," according to Sergeant Major Brian Jones, Ret., in testimony before Congress in 2008 regarding the repeal of the ban.
"I find it surprising that we are here today to talk about this issue of repealing the 1993 law," he said. "Our Soldiers are over-tasked with deploying, fighting, redeploying, refitting, and deploying again. ... With all of the important issues that require attention, it is difficult to understand why a minority faction is demanding that their concerns be given priority over more important issues."
Despite such objections, the Defense Department reauthorization bill could be voted on next year and take effect by October 1, 2010, according to Frank. He also said than an executive order could prevent homosexuals from being discharged from the military even before then.
"Once the bill is passed, even if it hasn't yet taken effect at that point, the president could justify a stop-loss order because it would no longer be the law -- it's just a matter of time," Frank said.
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 jury of nine women and three men selected for Baltimore Mayor Sheila Dixon's criminal theft trial will begin work Thursday morning, but first a judge will weigh new allegations involving another batch of gift cards said to have been donated by a developer not previously named in the case.
(CNNMoney.com) -- You've probably heard about the country's giant debt load - $12 trillion and rising. Did you know you can help reduce it?
(CNSNews.com) -- Senator Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) said he has "no other choice" but to filibuster a health care bill that contains a government-run health insurance option, adding that while reform is needed, the public option would be harmful to America's future and that he would use his right as a senator to try "to stop it."
In a warning sign for the White House, Democratic Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska tells ABC News that he'll vote to block any health care bill that looks like the bill passed by the House. 
While Massachusetts recipients of federal stimulus money collectively report 12,374 jobs saved or created, a Globe review shows that number is wildly exaggerated. Organizations that received stimulus money miscounted jobs, filed erroneous figures, or claimed jobs for work that has not yet started.
Republican leaders in a South Carolina county have censured their own U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham for working with Democrats on a climate bill and other legislation. The Republican has often worked with Democrats in Congress, but Charleston County Chairwoman Lin Bennett says his work on climate legislation is the last straw. 
