ACORN and other left-wing advocacy groups could be eligible for up to $3.99 billion in federal funding included in the $3.83 trillion fiscal 2011 budget blueprint that President Obama unveiled yesterday.
The $3.99 billion comes from a congressional slush fund known as the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program, which is part of the Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) $48.5 billion fiscal 2011 budget. CDBG grants, which are awarded to states and localities, pass indirectly to ACORN.
How is more funding of ACORN possible when Congress passed a ban on funding the group and its affiliates just last year?
Congress has already hinted it might vote to restore funding to ACORN. On Dec. 8 the House Appropriations Committee rejected on a party line vote of 9 to 5 an amendment offered by Rep. Tom Latham (R-Iowa) that would have blocked federal funding of ACORN.
And in December federal Judge Nina Gershon restored federal funding of ACORN by issuing a temporary injunction against the congressional funding ban. The Brooklyn-based Gershon, a Bill Clinton appointee, determined that depriving ACORN of taxpayer dollars was an unconstitutional "bill of attainder" that singled out ACORN for punishment without trial.
You might be familiar with Gershon's oeuvre. In 1999 she ruled then-New York mayor Rudy Giuliani had no right to cut off city funding of the Brooklyn Museum of Art when it displayed dead animals and a painting of the Virgin Mary decorated with elephant dung.
Gershon's order covered the federal government's temporary spending legislation that expired Dec. 18 but ACORN is asking that the injunction be modified to cover the remainder of fiscal 2010, which ends Sept. 30. If the litigation drags on, ACORN will undoubtedly seek another modification to cover fiscal 2011.
In the same court order Gershon also blocked the Obama administration from cutting off funding for ACORN, as Office of Management and Budget director Peter R. Orszag had ordered in a directive dated Oct. 7.
The judge's ruling could be made permanent when the case goes to trial, a move that would help to shore up ACORN's finances.
But an official with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York told me yesterday it was unclear when ACORN v. U.S.A. would proceed to trial. At this point ACORN and the government are still filing motions and other documents with the court, he said.
Although ACORN is President Obama's favorite activist group, his administration has done the right thing by appealing Gershon's ruling. Then again, it was the Obama administration in the first place that started looking for ways to keep tax dollars flowing to ACORN. In a legal memo unveiled by the Justice Department in November, the Obama administration invented a loophole that allowed the government to continue funding ACORN.
If ACORN receives fresh CDBG funding, it won't get anything close to the full $3.99 billion available because it has to compete with other community-based groups. However, most Americans would be shocked to learn that the congenitally corrupt radical group may continue to receive federal tax dollars.
The Manhattan Institute's Steven Malanga calls CDBG "America's worst urban program," noting that the money "it has lavished on poor neighborhoods has had little impact, because nothing in the funding formula requires grantees to show that they're actually improving things. Few ever 'graduate' from the program, having achieved their mission. Instead, the funding spigot stays open, year after year."
CDBG is indeed good old-fashioned graft, an area in which ACORN has great expertise. Politicians of both parties love CDBG because it is flexible. The program gives them wide latitude when spending grant money and allows local leaders to use federal dollars on local projects that they wouldn't dream of spending their own local tax dollars on. ACORN, which has been receiving funding under the Great Society-era program since at least 1996, loves CDBG because it is adept at lobbying state and local governments to give it CDBG funds.
Nonetheless CDBG-funded projects do have to meet at least one of three "national objectives," according to HUD.
Posted by: Fred ||
02/03/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Why don't 'right-wing' advocacy groups receive federal funding?
just askin
Posted by: Mike Hunt ||
02/03/2010 11:13 Comments ||
Top||
Mayor Oscar Goodman has a bone to pick with President Barack Obama after he suggested people shouldn't spend their college savings on a trip to Las Vegas.
On Tuesday, during a town hall meeting in New Hampshire, Obama was trying to make a point that the federal government needs to watch their spending the same way American families do. But he used Las Vegas as an example, for the second time.
You dont go buying a boat when you can barely pay your mortgage. You dont go blow a bunch of cash on Vegas when you're trying to save for college,' Obama said
Some Las Vegans said Obama should not have picked on Sin City.
Every time he says something, conventions cancelled, stuff like that. Thats probably whats going to happen,' said Las Vegan Neil Peterson.
But the mayor may be the most livid Las Vegan.
Hes not our friend. I dont know about Nevada, but Las Vegas, hes sure not our friend,' Goodman said. He has a real psychological hang-up about the entertainment capital of the world.'
Everybody says I shouldnt say it, but I've got to tell you the way it is. This president is a real slow learner,' Goodman said.
The last time the president referenced Las Vegas, he said, "You can't go take a trip to Las Vegas or go down to the Super Bowl on the taxpayer's dime."
This time, other state leaders were quick to stand up for the city, including Nevada Sen. Harry Reid, who told Obama to lay off Las Vegas.'
Although Obama responded to Reid with a letter saying, I hope you know that during my Town Hall today, I wasnt saying anything negative about Las Vegas. I was making the simple point that families use vacation dollars, not college tuition money, to have fun. There is no place better to have fun than Vegas, one of our countrys great destinations. I have always enjoyed my visits, look forward to visiting in a few weeks, and hope folks will visit in record numbers this year.'
But Goodman said they letter was just not good enough.
You dont cite Las Vegas, a specific example each time youre talking about spending money. Thats what Im saying. You can tell people to save their money to send their kids to college. Theres nothing wrong with that. Thats the end of the statement. You dont have to say, And blow your money in Las Vegas. You can say, Blow it with the local (sports) book.' I know how to do that too," Goodman said.
It looks like the president might get a chilly reception during his next visit to Vegas.
I want the president to straighten this out. If not, hes not welcome in my city, as far as Im concerned,' Goodman said.
Obama is scheduled to arrive in Las Vegas Feb. 18 to campaign for Reid.
#4
I dont think the Vagas downturn has much to do with Obabas speech, over building and dependence on people s discretionary spending have landed the "entertainment capitol of the world" in the red. Too bad they didnt invest in "real" Metropolatin infrastructure. Would have saved them in the long run, but " the Long Run" is just what they like to avoid in vagas.
#6
Somehow this strikes me as mock outrage on the mayor's part. Does anyone really think that folks will cancel their Vegas trips just because Bambi has said something stupid? We should save our outrage for His truly outrageous acts, which are not in short supply.
Posted by: abu Chuck al Ameriki ||
02/03/2010 15:45 Comments ||
Top||
#7
I moved to Vegas a year ago. I love it here.
Goodman's speech was made for local consumption, and the fact that any publicity is good publicity.
Remember that Rush Limbaugh was in town this weekend for a very successful Miss America Pageant. He gave lots of good advertisments for Vegas on his show.
Also, saying he isn't welcomed in the city before an Obama visit here this month is pretty f-ing harsh.
It's amazing that the Nevada GOP still is strong considering John Ensign and Jim Gibbons.
#8
Does anyone really think that folks will cancel their Vegas trips just because Bambi has said something stupid?
just google 'canceled las vegas conventions'
Now some may have been dropped clearly from the economy. However, a lot of businesses in early '09 were looking to get on the bail out gravy and took the "boss's" comment and made adjustments. From over at Instapundit, 2 Feb
I work for a large bank and used to attend an annual conference in Las Vegas, until Obama declared war on that poor town. Las Vegas hosted the Asset Securitization Forum with about 8000-12000 attendees. It was the perfect place as the facilities are enormous and could handle large amounts of people comfortably, a room at the conference hotel (The Venetian, Wynn,etc.) or one right next door was half what a NY hotel room is, there are cheap, plentiful flights from everywhere and you could see enough clients and contacts to save 10-15 other trips. If you gambled it was with your own money, its not like the firm gave you a bundle of cash and told you have fun.
After the One attacked Vegas (And half the people didnt go last year) the conference was moved this year to Washington D.C..
Newfoundland Premier Danny Williams will undergo heart surgery later this week in the United States. Deputy premier Kathy Dunderdale confirmed the treatment at a news conference Tuesday, but would not reveal the location of the operation or how it would be paid for.
"He has gone to a renowned expert in the procedure that he needs to have done," said Ms. Dunderdale, who will become acting premier while Mr. Williams is away for three to 12 weeks. "In consultation with his own doctors, he's decided to go that route."
Mr. Williams' decision to leave Canada for the surgery has raised eyebrows over his apparent shunning of Canada's health-care system.
"It was never an option offered to him to have this procedure done in this province," said Ms. Dunderdale, refusing to answer whether the procedure could be done elsewhere in Canada.
Newfoundland has fewer people than Indianapolis. But he could have gone to McGill in Montreal or to Toronto General; both are world-class.
Mr. Williams, 59, has said nothing of his health in the media.
"The premier has made a commitment that once he's through this procedure and he's well enough, he's going to talk about the whole process and share as much detail with you as he's comfortable to do at that time," she said.
Ms. Dunderdale wouldn't say where in the U.S. Mr. Williams is seeking treatment.
A popular Progressive Conservative premier, Mr. Williams has also seen his share of controversy. During the 2008 federal election, Mr. Williams vehemently opposed the Conservative government, launching his "Anything But Conservative" -- which has been credited with keeping the Tories from winning any seats in the province. He's also drawn criticism for his support of the seal hunt.
#2
Prima facie evidence that socialized medicine is inferior to private.
Posted by: no mo uro ||
02/03/2010 5:58 Comments ||
Top||
#3
No, no, no, No Mo; it was just his choice ....
Say! Why does he get a choice? Were politician exempted from CanukCare?
Posted by: Bobby ||
02/03/2010 6:19 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Anguper, thanks for the quote. I'm blown away that no cardiothoracic surgeon in Canada will touch a thoracic aortic aneursym. You could go to the top 50 university medical programs here in the US and find a surgeon who would, and another top-50 private programs as well.
Posted by: Steve White ||
02/03/2010 9:33 Comments ||
Top||
#5
"The premier has made a commitment that once he's through this procedure and he's well enough, he's going to talk about the whole process and share as much detail with you as he's comfortable to do at that time,"
The evasion, assumptions and hand waving at the time ought to be very entertaining.
#1
now THAT is how each and every one of our Republican Senators and Representatives should be treated this sham administration. Judd Gregg - you've got stones.
Posted by: Frank G ||
02/03/2010 18:58 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Judd Gregg is a 'lame duck'this year, so perhaps that explains. (Just like we've been worrying about Dodd's actions until the end of his term this year with his forced retirement).
Posted by: Tom- Pa ||
02/03/2010 19:04 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Tom, I understand the skepticism. Wasn't he also slated for a job in O's admin, then bailed on principle? I'm willing to go along if he stays consistent
Posted by: Frank G ||
02/03/2010 19:11 Comments ||
Top||
#4
When it gets to the Breaker Morant court-martial level, ring me up.
#5
Frank, I think they asked him to serve on O's administration, because they thought they might be able to have the NH dem guv replace him with a dem replacement?? But of course part of the BHO-Gregg deal be the NH senate seat be replaced by an (R).. (It was all about 60/61 ??)
Posted by: Tom- Pa ||
02/03/2010 21:04 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Tom - I think you're absolutely right. Gregg realized he would be forced to tout positions he was personally opposed to, and the fill-appointment of his seat would affect the balance.
Posted by: Frank G ||
02/03/2010 21:09 Comments ||
Top||
Even in this winter of President Obama's discon tent, things appear likely to get much bleaker for him before they get any better.
The first casualties were Democratic governors who fell in New Jersey and Virginia. Then it was Camelot, seized by the enemy in Massachusetts. These Republican encroachments deep in Democratic territory appeared almost effortless. Obama's pleas on behalf of Democratic candidates -- words of gold just one year ago -- fell like millstones around their necks.
Today in Illinois, voters go to the polls, poised to send another stinging message to their adopted son. Eager to deliver a thundering rebuke to the corrupt Democratic machine from which Obama emerged in Chicago, voters are very close to booting Gov. Pat Quinn in his own party's primary.
Even more ominous for Obama today is that voters will choose which Republican and which Democrat will face off in the general election to fill Obama's old Senate seat. If all goes as widely expected, Republicans today will pick Rep. Mark Kirk, an experienced centrist, and Democrats will pick Alexi Giannoulias, an Obama pal and state treasurer. In a general election, Giannoulias -- who, through his family's bank, has shady ties to mob figures -- will become a seamy stand-in for Obama.
Things are so bad that even in Obama's alleged birthplace of Hawaii, Republicans are seriously talking about winning the House seat being vacated by a Democrat who wants to run for governor. The only place where Obama has roots that doesn't seem to be sick and tired of him these days is Kenya. Don't be surprised if Republicans start fielding candidates there soon.
Posted by: Fred ||
02/03/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[13 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
And for more news that Nobama will be thrilled to hear: ABC radio reported @ 9 PM West Coast time that John Murtha ( D-Pork) is in intensive care due to complications following gall bladder surgery.
Wouldn't that make things interesting if he slipped thru to the other side???
#5
Democrats will pick Alexi Giannoulias, an Obama pal and state treasurer. In a general election, Giannoulias -- who, through his family's bank, has shady ties to mob figures -- will become a seamy stand-in for Obama.
Giannoulias is also tied to Syrian felon Rezko, involved with the UN Oil-for-Food scandal and gave loans to the Mafia, and personally withdrew $70 million from the bank. I hope more than the voters take a closer look at the Illinois Treasurer and bring big trouble to Obama and the Chicago-way thugs at the WH.
One year later, the tea party protests are still the subject of much debate. The labels have shifted over time from "racist Astroturfers" and "disenchanted Republicans" to "angry mob" and now, following Sen.-elect Scott Brown's Massachusetts victory, "voting bloc."
How things have changed.
A recent poll by the National Review Institute and Republican pollster McLaughlin & Associates found that 60 percent of respondents said the tea party comprises of concerned citizens, compared with the 20 percent who said it is an "anti-government fringe organization driven by anger."
Fifty-two percent were sympathetic to the goals of the movement -- "protesting deficit spending and Washington's expanded role in the private sector."
It's tempting to look at this development with astonishment. Coverage of the protests, outside of Fox News, was scant at first, then critical.
Many in the mainstream media asked, leadingly, about protesters holding signs and making comparisons between Obama and Hitler. Former Republican Senate Majority Leader Dick Armey's organization, FreedomWorks, was openly accused of engineering an Astroturf campaign against Obama.
Commentators, including CNN's Anderson Cooper, snickered at a crude term employed to describe the protesters (a term, ironically, that had been part of a joke initiated by the protesters themselves).
Yet most Americans look at these protests as a legitimate outgrowth of unrest among voters. It's easier to believe that soccer moms are concerned about a deficit than to believe that it was just some kooks gathering on the National Mall on Sept. 12, in what was probably the largest small-government protest in recent memory.
Profiles attempting to mine the depths of this movement have ranged from the Las Vegas Sun to the New Yorker, to varying degrees of success -- the former accuses protesters of paranoia and of bearing a stark similarity to radical conspiracy theorists of the mid-20th century, the latter nearly glorifies the tea party's genuine common-man element.
A Washington Post profile seizes on links with "inside the Beltway" organizations, suggesting hands-on roles in the tea party movement for old conservative lions who were looking "to engineer a political comeback, in the weeks following Obama's election."
The brick-and-mortar institutions of the conservative movement -- a confederacy, if you will, of activist groups (Americans for Prosperity), think tanks (the Heritage Foundation), and political operatives -- are always a marvel to behold for journalists eager to show "how it all fits together."
It's natural for some to assume that the tea parties are the product of the efforts of these organizations -- especially if you're critical of the message.
Yet, given the widespread nature of the protests throughout the country, it's clear that there's no way this feat could be managed by an organization, a media personality or even the most capable conspiracy. And truth be told, this very fact sits at the center of conservative skepticism of government.
The tea parties are the success of everyday citizens clamoring to protect something they feel is endangered by the growth of government. These are not political mavens -- they're better at running a business and a family than they are at developing talking points for prime time (a fact I learned while organizing the first D.C. tea party in front of the White House last February).
So they might not always be "on message," but one year after the movement's inception, they are always on guard. In other words, they're citizens, and they're growing in number.
Posted by: Fred ||
02/03/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
As far as I can tell, the tea-partiers get aligned with the conservative institutions because those institutions realized that the tea-partiers were shouting basically the same line on the need for fiscal conservatism and constitutional government that those institutions have been speaking about for years.
The organizations spoken of are getting on board a train they mostly believe in. They did not create nor power said train but seem willing to help it along.
#2
Once upon a time there was an engineer
Drove a locomotive both far and near
Accompanied by a monkey who would sit on a stool
Watching everything the engineer would move
One day the engineer wanted a bite to eat
He left the monkey sitting on the driver's seat
The monkey pulled the throttle, locomotive jumped the gun
Doing ninety miles an hour down the mainline run
Chorus
Big locomotive right on time
Big locomotive coming down the line
Big locomotive number ninety nine
Left the engineer with a worried mind
The engineer called up the despatcher on the phone
Tell him all about his locomotive was gone
Get on the wire, switch operator to right
'Cause the monkey's got the mainline sewed up tight
Switch operator got the message in time
Said there's a northbound train on the same mainline
Open up the switch, I'm gonna let it through the hole
'Cause the monkey's got the locomotive under control
(CNSNews.com) -- President Obama's budget director would not say whether the administration will recommend that taxes not be raised on Americans earning less than $250,000 annually. A fiscal commission, which has not yet been assembled, is expected to review ways to reduce the federal deficit.
Such an increase would violate the president's campaign pledge to hike taxes only on higher income earners.
"We've been clear on our position on taxes, but we have to let the commission -- it hasn't even been formed yet -- let's let it do its work," said Peter Orszag, director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
President Obama last week signed an executive order to assemble a bipartisan commission that would review ways to reduce the federal deficit.
The $3.8 trillion budget proposal that the president submitted to Congress on Monday increases taxes by letting the Bush tax cuts expire in 2011 for those making more than $250,000. Letting the Bush tax cuts lapse would bring in about $2 trillion in revenue over 10 years, the administration projects.
The president's fiscal year 2011 budget proposal also includes a three-year spending freeze on discretionary spending, despite a 20 percent increase in discretionary spending for fiscal year 2010.
Posted by: Fred ||
02/03/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
(CNSNews.com) -- Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, has been named "Porker of the Month" by Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) because of his criticism of bonuses for AIG employees while Frank himself has supported bailouts for failing banks and lenders.
The CAGW, a non-partisan government watchdog group, noted that Frank has said that AIG's bonuses only "rewarded failure." Yet Frank voted for the Troubled Assets Relief Program, a financial bailout program with no enforceable strings attached, said the CAGW, and he defended Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac while those lending institutions were in financial trouble.
The CAGW noted Frank's defense of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac over the years, "even when it became clear that executives at the two giant government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) had manipulated earnings statements and gifted themselves with huge bonuses based on the bogus numbers, misled regulators, and steered the companies into such shoddy condition that they posed a systemic risk to the entire financial system," said the CAGW statement.
In September 2003, Frank told The New York Times that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac "are not facing any kind of financial crisis." Both Fannie and Freddie are now almost entirely owned by the government, and while Freddie Mac got $13.8 billion in bailout money last year, Fannie Mae is estimated to get $15.2 billion in 2009, according to the CAGW.
Also in 2003, Frank, in reference to the GSEs, said, "I want to roll the dice more in this situation towards subsidized housing."
"Even in this global capital of hot air, bait-and-switch politics, and double-talk, Chairman Frank deserves singular recognition," said CAGW President Tom Schatz. "It strains credulity to hear him rebuking anyone for rewarding failure after he helped create the disaster in the first place."
Tad DeHaven, a federal budget analyst with the Cato Institute, said that when it comes to issues involving government bailouts of financial titans, Frank has "negative credibility," so his claims of institutions rewarding failure should be questioned.
"I would call Congressman Frank getting reelected rewarding failure," DeHaven told CNSNews.com. "If everyone else responsible for this mess in the private sector has to take the fall, I don't understand why politicians are left out of the equation."
DeHaven suggested that Frank is only one of too many Capitol Hill legislators eager to push the blame onto Wall Street while quick to dodge taking any blame themselves.
"They love blaming the private sector," Edmunds said of lawmakers. "But to me, the private sector is barely private since you have this unholy relationship between these businesses and the government. That's not capitalism, that's crony capitalism."
The CAGW says that its "'Porker of the Month' is a dubious honor given to lawmakers, government officials, and political candidates who have shown a blatant disregard for the interests of taxpayers."
Posted by: Fred ||
02/03/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[9 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Oh, I thought the award related to his unofficial activities.
Posted by: Bobby ||
02/03/2010 6:13 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Thanks Bobby. Coffee spill.
Posted by: Mullah Richard ||
02/03/2010 10:06 Comments ||
Top||
Sen. Charles Schumer's approval rating is at a 10-year low -- falling below 50 percent at a time when Democratic incumbents nationally are on the ropes.
The share of voters who believe Schumer, the state's senior senator, is doing an "excellent" or "good" job is now 47 percent -- putting him below the magic measure of 50 percent, according to a Marist College Polling Institute survey released yesterday.
And his "fair" and "poor" ratings are 31 percent and 17 percent, respectively -- a combined 48 percent.
The last time his favorable number was below 50 percent was in April 2001, when it was 49 percent. He was at 39 percent in March 2000 -- a time when he was relatively new to office after his November 1998 election.
Schumer's numbers in Marist have generally been in the mid- to high- 50s for the past decade.
"These are tough times and polls go up and down, but the last time the senator's numbers were in this vicinity was in September 2004, two months before the voters overwhelmingly re-elected him," said Schumer spokesman Joshua Vlasto.
The Post's Knickerbocker blog first reported two weeks ago that Schumer's numbers were on a downslide.
The weak poll numbers come as the senator has cast his eye toward Washington and become an increasingly partisan Democratic figure. That's left him without a firewall against the national wave of anti-Democratic sentiment.
Schumer's biggest drop comes in New York City, where the majority of the Democratic primary electorate resides. He went from 57 percent in the city two weeks ago to 51 percent now. He was at 64 percent in November.
Schumer is widely considered near-invulnerable in his re-election bid this year. His only challenger at the moment is CNBC pundit Larry Kudlow, and their head-to-head poll numbers are 67 percent for Schumer to 25 percent for Kudlow.
But Schumer could get dinged up during a political year in which no Democratic incumbent is considered safe.
And several sources said Schumer has been anxiously watching his own numbers, especially after the shocking loss by Democrat Martha Coakley in the Massachusetts special election for the Senate.
"Senator Schumer is not immune from the anti-incumbent sentiment among voters, but it would take a major effort to unseat him," says Marist pollster Lee Miringoff.
Posted by: Fred ||
02/03/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I was wondering the other day why it is NY seems to need to find carpetbaggers to be their senators - Clinton, maybe Ford, now. Aren't there any qualified New Yorkers? Then this reminded me...... nope.
As President Barack Obama and Democratic congressional leaders scramble to find a new message after a string of election defeats, Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords appears increasingly vulnerable for her loyalty to the White House.
Just four months ago, the two-term Democrat looked so secure in her re-election that her district was rated solidly Democratic by the "Cook Political Report," a nonpartisan newsletter that analyzes congressional races. Since then, the rating has slipped to "likely Democratic" and then to "leans Democratic."
The latest drop came shortly after Republican state Sen. Jonathan Paton announced he was joining three other GOP candidates to challenge Giffords.
"Giffords will have to use all of her considerable campaign-trail talents to defend her votes for the stimulus package and the health-care and energy bills in a district that has a track record supporting 'middle of the road' candidates," wrote analyst David Wasserman for the "Cook Political Report."
Giffords, whose 8th Congressional District encompasses parts of Tucson and communities in Arizona's southeastern corner, voted with the president 90 percent of the time last year, according to an analysis by the nonpartisan publication Congressional Quarterly.
Although Democratic Reps. Harry Mitchell and Ann Kirkpatrick also are considered vulnerable, they are less closely identified with Obama at a time when his priorities have been losing support in public-opinion polls and at the ballot box.
Those policies, including health-care reform and government spending on stimulus projects, were successfully attacked by Republicans who won the Massachusetts Senate seat last month and governorships in Virginia and New Jersey last fall.
Posted by: Fred ||
02/03/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
An Obama backlash, compounded by anti-incumbent sentiment going back to Bush. A fire started and stoked by the Dems.
Posted by: Bobby ||
02/03/2010 6:29 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Hate to admit it but since I started substituting in middle school a few months ago, I read the Harry Potter books.
In the last one the phenomenon of "fiendfyre" is introduced. I burns anything and everything and cannot be put out by normal means. The person that started it gets killed because no one else knows how to put it out.
Bobby, I think that you are right and the Dems have started a political fiendfyre storm that they can not extinguish. By the time it burns itself out the carnage will likely be vast.
#3
The only problem with these vulnerable Dems is that the Repubs are ganging up to be the nominee. This takes money away from the general campaign especially if the primaries are closer to the general election. In 2008 you couldn't find good conservative or right-thinking Republicans to even run in a general election much less a primary. Now the flood gates are open it looks like all the vulnerable seats have multiple candidate Republican primaries.
Posted by: Jack is Back! ||
02/03/2010 12:13 Comments ||
Top||
#4
I've read them all, AlanC. They're great fun, good but not great children's literature... significantly better than much of what's out there for the age group.
#5
"I think that you are right and the Dems have started a political fiendfyre storm that they can not extinguish. By the time it burns itself out the carnage will likely be vast."
I'll order extra popcorn, Alan. :-D
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
02/03/2010 19:27 Comments ||
Top||
The second- and third-ranking Senate Democratic leaders are doling out huge sums of cash, laying the groundwork for a leadership race should Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid lose reelection.
Sen. Charles Schumer (N.Y.), the vice chairman of the Democratic Conference, has been the biggest giver to Democratic Senate candidates, contributing $210,000 to colleagues and candidates.
During the same span, Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) has given $110,000 to Senate candidates.
The leaders gave money to newcomers and candidates facing tough races. But they also contributed to those whose reelection prospects seem solid, such as Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), who last won in liberal Vermont with 71 percent of the vote. While Leahy probably does not need the money for reelection, Durbin and Schumer may feel they need to contribute to his campaign to cement his loyalty.
Both lawmakers gave the money through their leadership political action committees (PACs), which allies say is a sign that they are preparing for a possible leadership battle if Reid (D-Nev.) loses reelection, a prospect that is looking more likely.
Spokesmen for Durbin and Schumer declined requests for comment.
"You have a leadership PAC for a reason: You give to people that you want to support you at some point in the future," said a former aide to one of the Democratic leaders. "Is a future leadership race part of the calculation when you give? Yes, it is."
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.), on the other hand, seems to be strengthening his grip on the top job, giving away $330,000 through his leadership PAC in 2009. That exceeds the $310,000 he doled out in 2008 and the $275,000 in 2007.
But McConnell is facing pressure from conservatives to move the party rightward. Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), who has emerged as the strongest voice in the chamber for that movement, gave away $148,000 to candidates.
The situation with Schumer and Durbin is a delicate one. Both support Reid and do not want to do anything to undermine his reelection effort. But at the same time, they realize -- as do many political analysts -- that Reid faces a serious threat.
Reid's job approval rating has hovered around 40 percent in recent polls, and the national political environment is shaping up as a challenging one for Democrats.
The Nevada lawmaker gave far less to Democratic candidates in 2009 than he did in 2007, the last off-year before an election year. In 2007, Reid contributed $197,500 to federal candidates and other political committees. Last year, he gave away $126,000.
Reid has given $95,000 to Senate Democratic candidates but targeted his gifts to challengers such as Rep. Paul Hodes, who is running in New Hampshire, and Rep. Charlie Melancon in Louisiana.
Reid did not give money to incumbents in cushy seats, focusing instead on his own reelection. He showered dozen of local candidates and political organizations in Nevada with money, including $5,000 to the Nevada Assembly Democratic Caucus and $2,500 to the Clark County Democratic Hispanic Caucus.
"While the size and number of contributions to candidates may vary, the goal of the fund has always remained the same: electing individuals who share Sen. Reid's commitment to creating jobs and turning the economy around," said Zac Petkanas, Reid's campaign spokesman.
A Durbin ally said the possibility of replacing Reid is "far more in the mind of Chuck Schumer than anyone else" but acknowledged that Durbin has by no means ignored the possibility.
Posted by: Fred ||
02/03/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
In a letter to congressional leaders sent Monday night, White House adviser John Brennan, the assistant to President Obama for homeland security and counterterrorism, argued that President Obama had made "significant improvements to the detainee review process" under President Bush and pointed out that all the former detainees released or transferred who have returned to terrorist activities were released or transferred under President Bush.
Brennan met with members of Congress on January 13, and in a follow-up letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., obtained by ABC News, Brennan writes that the "Intelligence Community assesses that 20 percent of detainees transferred from Guantanamo are confirmed or suspected of recidivist activity."
This includes 9.6 percent of detainees who have been confirmed as having returned to terrorist activities, and 10.4 percent whom the Intelligence Community "suspects, but is not certain, may have engaged in recidivist activities."
"I want to underscore the fact that all of these cases relate to detainees released during the previous administration and under the prior detainee review process," Brennan writes. "The report indicates no confirmed or suspected recidivists among detainees transferred during this Administration, although we recognize the ongoing risk that detainees could engage in such activity."
This is the first time the Obama administration has made such a statement so starkly.
The 20 percent recidivism rate has been previously reported by ABC News' Luis Martinez, but this letter marks the first time a US official has confirmed it on the record.
Brennan writes that the task force President Obama has established for reviewing detainees consists of "60 career prosecutors, agents, analysts and attorneys from across the government, including civilian, military, and intelligence officials. Every decision to transfer a detainee to a foreign country during this Administration has been made unanimously by all agencies involved with the review process after a full assessment of intelligence and threat information."
Those weighing in on the task force include officials from the Pentagon, Joint Chiefs of Staff, the director of National Intelligence, and the Departments of State, Justice and Homeland Security.
Brennan also took the occasion to rebut an argument made during the January 13 briefing by Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Va., who also received a copy of Brennan's letter.
Wolf has said that Ayman Batarfi, a detainee from Yemen transferred to that country by the Obama administration last December, "has worked closely with Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan and trained with a microbiologist who taught al Qaeda how to produce anthrax in August 2001, according to unclassified Pentagon documents from 2004."
Brennan said, apparently in response to this assertion, that during the January 13 briefing, Wolf "made allegations that one detainee repatriated to Yemen had been involved in weapons of mass destruction. As it has done in every case, the task force thoroughly review all information available to the government about this individual and concluded that there is no basis for the assertions Representative Wolf made during this session."
Brennan included a classified addendum to the letter detailing the case. Batarfi was cleared for release by the Obama administration in March 2009. You can read more on Batarfi here and here.
Posted by: Fred ||
02/03/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under: al-Qaeda
#1
So, the campaign for Bama's 'legacy' has officially begun...
They can 'try' to insulate this President from serious policy mandates, but I think we all know where this is going...
The embattled chief of the UN's climate change body has hit out at his critics and refused to resign or apologise for a damaging mistake in a landmark 2007 report on global warming.
In an exclusive interview with the Guardian, Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said it would be hypocritical to apologise for the false claim that Himalayan glaciers could melt away by 2035, because he was not personally responsible for that part of the report. "You can't expect me to be personally responsible for every word in a 3,000 page report," he said.
Posted by: lord garth ||
02/03/2010 10:08 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
"You can't expect me to be personally responsible for every word in a 3,000 page report,"
Pelosi-Reid-Obama on Nationalized Health Care. "Trust Us", the refrain of the ruling elite. However, while they love the power - THEY ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE for the fraud, corruption, mismanagement, or failure involved.
#6
You have to admit that he fits right in at the UN, along with the the oil-for-food racket, the child molestation branch, the we MUST have a world tax for one world government conspiracy, the anti-human rights branch, and the "kill the joos" branch.
Seriously, what's left? To offer to turn the world into a human abattoir for the hideous insectoid alien invaders? To start a biological war to exterminate all white people? To blind all females at birth? To save the world by requiring cannibalism of the dead?
Appearing on the January 29 "Rachel Maddow Show," fellow MSNBCer Chris Matthews compared Republican conservatives to the Khmer Rouge, the murderous Communist regime that racked up a body count of some two million during its reign of terror:
What's going on out there in the Republican Party is kind of a frightening, almost Cambodia re-education camp going on in that party, where they're going around to people, sort of switching their minds around saying, if you're not far right, you're not right enough.
Matthews was on the program to discuss President Obama's live televised exchanges with Republican Congressmen earlier in the day at the House GOP retreat in Baltimore.
His comparison is, of course, patently offensive not just to conservative Republicans but more importantly to the survivors of the Khmer Rouge, many of whom became refugees in the United States and who still bear in their souls hellish nightmares of the regime as well as survivor's guilt for being among the fortunate to have escaped with their lives.
Posted by: Fred ||
02/03/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#4
Look at it this way, Chris: If you were right, you'd be dead.
Posted by: Bobby ||
02/03/2010 5:59 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Remember Chris, it was the left and the apologists for the left in America that make the Khmer Rouge and their atrocities possible. Their blood is on those hands just as stained as Lady MacBeth's.
#6
I guess Chrissy forgot to mention the communist in the White House.
Posted by: ed ||
02/03/2010 8:39 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Ever since he got bit by the malaria infested bug in the Lagos airport... he's been a full blown lune. Makes one wonder about what happened in an African hospital to Chris.
#8
We're not the ones trying to implement an American Year Zero, Mr. Christ Complex.
Posted by: Mitch H. ||
02/03/2010 10:36 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Oh, and the re-education camps were run by the Stalinist North Vietnamese after y'all abandoned South Vietnam, Matthews. The Khmer Rouge ran the Killing Fields - they were more about butchering the middle classes and elites, not propagandizing or brainwashing them. Even the feeblest products of American public education ought to be up on that particular cliche.
Posted by: Mitch H. ||
02/03/2010 10:40 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Reminds me of a conversation I had with a random fellow at a random bar in Colorado; dude was going on about how under booosh we were in a totalitarian drag you away in the middle of the night situation. I challanged, "You cannot possibly believe that or else you would not be broadcasting it to everyone at a public bar."
I ended up having my vehicle soaped with some fairly juvinile writing. Guess that showed me, huh? Must have been a compasionate else it would have been keyed into the paint...firefighter plate by the way, in case anyone is concerned about what these kind of discussioners are really about and what they think about you.
#14
Well, they have over used the word "Nazi", so now they need a new analogous boogeyman and I guess Khmer Rouge won out in the perverted Left sweepstakes.
/Khmer Rouge - the new Nazi
Posted by: Jack is Back! ||
02/03/2010 12:06 Comments ||
Top||
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.
ACORN and other left-wing advocacy groups could be eligible for up to $3.99 billion in federal funding included in the $3.83 trillion fiscal 2011 budget blueprint that President Obama unveiled yesterday.
Even in this winter of President Obama's discon tent, things appear likely to get much bleaker for him before they get any better.
One year later, the tea party protests are still the subject of much debate. The labels have shifted over time from "racist Astroturfers" and "disenchanted Republicans" to "angry mob" and now, following Sen.-elect Scott Brown's Massachusetts victory, "voting bloc."
(CNSNews.com) -- President Obama's budget director would not say whether the administration will recommend that taxes not be raised on Americans earning less than $250,000 annually. A fiscal commission, which has not yet been assembled, is expected to review ways to reduce the federal deficit.
(CNSNews.com) -- Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, has been named "Porker of the Month" by Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) because of his criticism of bonuses for AIG employees while Frank himself has supported bailouts for failing banks and lenders.
Sen. Charles Schumer's approval rating is at a 10-year low -- falling below 50 percent at a time when Democratic incumbents nationally are on the ropes.
As President Barack Obama and Democratic congressional leaders scramble to find a new message after a string of election defeats, Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords appears increasingly vulnerable for her loyalty to the White House.
The second- and third-ranking Senate Democratic leaders are doling out huge sums of cash, laying the groundwork for a leadership race should Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid lose reelection.
Appearing on the January 29 "Rachel Maddow Show," fellow MSNBCer Chris Matthews compared Republican conservatives to the Khmer Rouge, the murderous Communist regime that racked up a body count of some two million during its reign of terror:
