Here's what we know about how Carlos Allen, the latest White House party crasher, wound up at Barack Obama's first state dinner:
Five days before the event, Allen told a friend that he'd received an invitation from the White House to dine with the prime minister of India. In retrospect, it was an odd claim. Allen wasn't famous, a big political donor, or Indian. He wasn't even, it seemed, fully employed. Yet he gave no hint that he was surprised to have been invited. Nor was Allen's friend surprised to hear it. Allen, she later said, seemed like the kind of guy who might be asked to have dinner with Hillary Clinton and Deepak Chopra.
The evening of the event, Allen didn't go directly to the White House. He stopped first at the Willard Hotel a few blocks away because, in what his lawyer describes as a "purely coincidental" act, he had to use the men's room. As Allen was looking for the john, a group of Indian business executives were gathering in the hotel to depart for the dinner. For reasons that remain unclear, Allen joined them. Together Allen and the Indian CEOs passed through a Secret Service security checkpoint, climbed into a State Department van and drove to the West Wing.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Fred ||
01/12/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
The federal government sent 2.5 million stimulus dollars to North Carolina ZIP codes that don't exist.
The information came from the government's own Web site -- Recovery.gov. The site was set up to track the distribution of the $787 billion made available by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.
It lists 479 North Carolina ZIP codes as the destination of $4.2 billion in grants, contracts, and loans. Four of those ZIP codes -- 24858, 28389, 23854, and 27600 -- are nowhere to be found on U.S. Postal Service maps. In the four ZIP codes, the Web site reports, the $2.5 million created 0.5 jobs all told.
All North Carolina ZIP codes start with 27 or 28, so projects listed in 24858 and 23854 ZIP codes would not be based in North Carolina, even if such ZIP codes existed.
The Philadelphia-based Franklin Center for Government & Public Integrity reported last week that the federal government's Web site had assigned $375 million in stimulus spending nationally to 440 nonexistent ZIP codes.
In December, the Franklin Center found that nearly $6.4 billion in stimulus spending had been attributed to 440 phony congressional districts.
Deputy Press Secretary for the Recovery Act Jim Gilio said the illegitimate ZIP codes were probably innocent mistakes. He said the list was compiled based on information reported by recipients of the funding, and that they most likely made data entry errors.
Posted by: Fred ||
01/12/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Deputy Press Secretary for the Recovery Act Jim Gilio said the illegitimate ZIP codes were probably innocent mistakes.
Were any of the innocently mistaken checks cashed?
#4
Fraud galore going on in this country. What was once, "truth, justice, the American Way", is now "lie, cheat, and steal".
Acorn, NC ??
Back in Nov '09, didn't the Gov't list new stimulus jobs created in non-existent Arizona congressional districts?
Posted by: Tom- Pa ||
01/12/2010 8:29 Comments ||
Top||
#5
He said the list was compiled based on information reported by recipients of the funding, and that they most likely made data entry errors.
Whoever wrote the software that allows invalid zip codes to be entered should be fired. Whoever signed off on the software specification should be fired. Whoever ran the quality control testing to test for such simple, stupid things should be fired. Uh, there was QC, wasn't there?
It should be a simple matter to program a subroutine that would check zip codes as they are entered to make sure they match up with a valid zip code and whenever you can verify what users enter into a database, you damn well better verify it.
Innocent mistakes? Mistakes, maybe, but the kind that ought to get somebody sent to prison.
The White House Tuesday argued President Barack Obama's "steady diplomacy" had made America stronger and renewed its moral authority despite "unprecedented challenges" in his first year in office. (GAG....)
When House Democrats gathered on Friday for their end-of-the week caucus meeting in the basement of the Capitol, caucus chairman John Larson (D-Conn.) told the group he wanted them to hear first from Rep. Michael Capuano, who'd just returned from a primary campaign for the Senate seat in Massachusetts vacated by the death of Ted Kennedy.
Larson asked Capuano, who finished in second place, to share the wisdom he learned on the campaign trail.
Capuano took to the microphone, looked out at his colleagues and condensed what he'd learned into two words. "You're screwed," he told his friends in the House, according to one attendee. The room's silence was broken only by soft, nervous laughter.
Capuano confirmed the gist of the message -- "I'm not sure of the exact wording," he told HuffPost, chuckling -- and said that he doubted his wisdom was anything they didn't already know.
"I think I was just confirming stuff they already knew," he said. "I focused on two things: the war in Afghanistan and jobs."
Everywhere Capuano went in his state, he said, he was bombarded with demands that the government do more to create jobs. He was also greeted by deep skepticism about Obama's escalation of the eight-year-old war in Afghanistan.
Capuano said he told the caucus that opponents of the war need to be given a chance to vote against funding for it on the House floor.
"If we do anything [on the war], we need to have a separate vote on it. People who can vote for it, can vote for it. But those of us who want to vote against it, [should] be given that opportunity, too," he said. "But I focused mostly on jobs. People are tired of the promises of jobs. They need them now."
There's been a lot of analysis lately of the various polls in the Massachusetts Senate race that are floating around the Internet. The polls are all over the place, but I think Scott Rasmussen hit the nail on the head with his analysis.
The bottom line is that almost all of these polls agree on one thing: Democrat Martha Coakley is hovering right around 50%.
Consider: PPP (D) has her at 47%. The Globe/UNH poll has her at 53%. Rasmussen has her at 50%. Even internal Democratic polling -- which usually represents the Democrat's best-case scenario -- has her leading state Senator Scott Brown 50%-36%. In other words, most of the variance comes from Brown's numbers -- which vary between 36% and 48% support -- not Coakley's. As I've noted before, when you see one candidate very stable and one candidate with a high degree of variance in their numbers, it means that the undecideds are trending toward the candidate with the higher variance. In other words, that candidate will tend to be toward the high end of their polling range.
This is where the "undecided rule" starts to come into play. It's a political science rule that predicts that undecided voters will break heavily for the challenger. It's come into a bit of disrepute of late, especially given Bush's strong showing among undecideds in the 2004 election. There were also some good examples in 2006 and 2008 of the rule failing to perform as expected, and a quick google of "undecided rule" links to various criticisms of it.
My take on it this that this is simply an example of people taking a political science "rule" and losing track of the reasons the rule existed in the first place, what might have changed to make it weaker, and what might still survive of it. The reasoning behind the undecided rule is that if voters haven't fallen in love with the incumbent by election day, they aren't going to vote for him (or her). The undecideds, therefore, can be expected to take a flier on the challenger.
But the undecided rule was formulated in the 1980s, in pre-internet America, when information moved much slower, and where expenses on television advertising were not nearly as high as they are today. And the dataset trickles down to state Attorneys General races, mayor races, and countywide contests. It even covered primaries. (If you want to read the original article giving the intellectual backdrop for the rule, click here). In other words, its dataset included an awful lot of races where people probably never heard a peep from the challenger. In those situations, it makes sense that voters who didn't like an incumbent would cast a default vote for the challenger.
Contrast that to POTUS, Senate, and even Congressional races today. Everyone knew everything about Bush and Kerry, and began focusing intently on the race early on. It was one of the longest, most intense races of my lifetime (at least until 2008). Similarly, Senate races, Governor's races, and even Congressional races receive a lot more scrutiny than they used to. In other words, the challenger today is probably much less likely to be a "default" option by the time election day rolls around, especially in high profile races that people tend to follow closely.
Indeed, take a look at the examples given in the original "undecided rule" article of cases where the undecideds broke against the challenger:
Last year in Minnesota, where Hubert Humphrey III challenged Sen. David Durenberger; and in Nebraska, where Bob Kerrey, the former governor, challenged David Karnes, who had been appointed to his Senate seat. In 1986 in Florida, when incumbent Sen. Paula Hawkins faced ex-Gov. Bob Graham. And in Chicago in 1979, where two-year incumbent Mayor Michael Bilandic split undecided voters with challenger Jane Byrne.
All of these examples included situations where a well-known challenger was involved, or where an incumbent without a full term under his belt was involved. You probably can't get a more well-known name in Minnesota than Hubert Humphrey, and Kerrey and Graham were popular Governors. It makes intuitive sense that these races would tend to break more evenly -- in the case of the well-known challenger, the people could potentially have equally negative feelings about the challenger, while in the case of the short-term incumbent, voters might be more willing to give the incumbent a chance. For a more recent example, look no further than Lisa Murkowski, who beat two-term Governor Tony Knowles despite trailing in almost every poll that cycle (this is the rare combination of short-term incumbent and well-known challenger).
So if we look for a principle that survives this new age of saturation advertising and internet-driven intensity, we might say that when you have two well-known candidates, the undecided rule is probably inapplicable as a predictive device. But if there's a disparity between the candidates, the undecideds will still tend to break toward the lesser-known candidate. There's probably caveats and exceptions here, but I think that's probably about right.
So what does that tell us about the Massachusetts Senate race? We have a sitting Attorney General who came out of a contested primary, going up against a more-or-less completely unknown state Senator. She's struggling to get above 50%. All of this points toward a very close final race -- potentially much closer than a week ago when I guessed at a 54-46 spread. Again, this is also consistent with what we're seeing in the variance in the Coakley/Brown numbers. Coakley should be worried.
It's a political science rule that predicts that undecided voters will break heavily for the challenger. It's come into a bit of disrepute of late, especially given Bush's strong showing among undecideds in the 2004 election.
It depends on why people say they are "undecided". They might very well be decided but don't feel comfortable telling someone their choice. In a heavily liberal area, there might be social stigma attached to saying you are going to vote for a Republican so you say you haven't yet made up your mind.
#2
Rasmussen Report shows close race for Senate seat
Updated: Tuesday, 12 Jan 2010, 6:23 PM EST
Joe Battenfeld
FOX25 Political Editor
BOSTON (FOX25, myfoxboston) - The latest Rasmussen Reports show that there is a dead heat in the United States Senate race in Massachusetts.
The numbers show that Democrat Martha Coakley holds just a two-point lead over Republican Scott Brown. Just last week Coakley held a nine-point lead.
Among Independent voters, the bulk of the state's voters, Brown holds a 50 point lead. Brown even gets 18% of Democratic voters.
One issue that appears to be working for Brown is on terrorism. He has been hammering Coakley for wanting to try terror suspects in civilian courts. More than 60% of voters agree that the attempted plane bomber should be tried by the military.
I'm telling ya. He's got a shot.
Where's Martha tonight? In DC shaking down lobbyists...
In a debate last night, Republican state Sen. Scott Brown sought to knock the assumption that as the Democrat, Attorney General Martha Coakley is the rightful successor to the Massachusetts Senate seat long held by Ted Kennedy.
Asked by moderator David Gergen how he'd feel should he take over "the Kennedy seat" and become the deciding vote against health care reform, Brown said: "With all due respect, this isn't the Kennedy seat. It's the people's seat."
The comment was additionally noteworthy because the debate was held at UMass-Boston and sponsored by the Edward M. Kennedy Institute for the U.S. Senate, which will be housed on campus. Coakley said she'd "be proud to be the 60th vote" to allow health care reform to pass Congress this year.
The candidates entered the debate with momentum on the GOP side, as a poll released over the weekend found Brown ahead by 1 point. Although another poll found Coakley ahead by 15 points, and an internal Coakley campaign poll reportedly showed her ahead by a similar margin, the race appears closer than most expected.
Brown refused to take the bait as Coakley cited rising deficits under the "reckless" Bush administration and the latter stages of Republicans' 12-year control of Congress, saying he's "not looking to address the mistakes of the past." Instead, he focused on the need for tax cuts, the existing health care reform in Massachusetts and his support for Obama's decision to send additional troops into Afghanistan -- a move Coakley criticized.
"You can run against Bush-Cheney, but I'm Scott Brown," he said. "I live in Wrentham; I drive a truck that has 200,000 miles on it now. You're not running against them -- you're running against me."
To end the debate, Coakley sought to dispel any whispers that she was cruising through the campaign as the heir apparent to "the Kennedy seat." While admitting she took Christmas Day off, Coakley turned to the cameras and insisted she was taking nothing for granted.
Although he usually agrees with Brown on the issues, Joe Kennedy (no relation), the third party candidate, delivered a better blow to Brown than Coakley could. Kennedy, who centered his longshot campaign on cutting spending, called out Brown for not practicing what he preaches -- specifically, voting against a tax cut last year in the state Senate, then running on a platform for the U.S. Senate that includes a similar tax cut.
The night was capped off by news that Brown raised $1.3 million in 24 hours -- an important boost in his attempt to pull off a big upset.
#3
I wouldn't get my hopes up. Never underestimate the power of the machine.
Posted by: Fred ||
01/12/2010 14:08 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Boston machine is at least as good as the Chicago, Baltimore and Philadelphia machines ...
Posted by: Steve White ||
01/12/2010 15:01 Comments ||
Top||
#5
I wonder how Ted Kennedy will vote? Along with the rest of the Kennedy clan - John, Bobby, Rose, and the rest.
If it is close - if Brown doesn't win by at least 10%, the Dems will hold it up with recounts, challenges, and found votes just like in Minnesota.
Posted by: Rambler in Virginia ||
01/12/2010 19:26 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Yeah, Menino's got his machine. But it could only turn out 38% of the electorate for his own election. Capuano took Boston in the primary. Coakley'll take the major cities, but not by as much as she has to, and the Moonbat enclaves (Cambridge, Amherst, etc.) but everything else is up for grabs or leaning Brown. He owns the independents. Right now he's got the momentum and his supporters are highly motivated. They'll show up to vote. I don't think I can say the same for her.
The African-Americans for Harry Reid Facebook Page lists 5 fans 4 are white....
Posted by: Mike ||
01/12/2010 06:17 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
is one Rod Blago? Cuz he says he's blacker than Obama
Posted by: Frank G ||
01/12/2010 7:16 Comments ||
Top||
#2
I do not want to ever hear another "He's a racists" declaration from any of the so called black negro leaders ever again. If you can't see this one, you so far into the koolaid there is no coming back.
The President today signed an Executive Order (attached) establishing a Council of Governors to strengthen further the partnership between the Federal Government and State Governments to protect our Nation against all types of hazards. When appointed, the Council will be reviewing such matters as involving the National Guard of the various States; homeland defense; civil support; synchronization and integration of State and Federal military activities in the United States; and other matters of mutual interest pertaining to National Guard, homeland defense, and civil support activities.
The bipartisan Council will be composed of ten State Governors who will be selected by the President to serve two year terms. In selecting the Governors to the Council, the White House will solicit input from Governors and Governors' associations. Once chosen, the Council will have no more than five members from the same party and represent the Nation as a whole.
Federal members of the Council include the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, the Assistant to the President for Intergovernmental Affairs and Public Engagement, the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and Americas' Security Affairs, the U.S. Northern Command Commander, the Commandant of the Coast Guard, and the Chief of the National Guard Bureau. The Secretary of Defense will designate an Executive Director for the Council.
The Council of Governors will provide an invaluable Senior Administration forum for exchanging views with State and local officials on strengthening our National resilience and the homeland defense and civil support challenges facing our Nation today and in the future.
The formation of the Council of Governors was required by the Fiscal Year 2008 National Defense Authorization Act which stated, "The President shall establish a bipartisan Council of Governors to advise the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the White House Homeland Security Council on matters related to the National Guard and civil support missions."
#1
Ten governors at five states per each. That gives you 10 distinctive federal defense districts (map to be forthcoming) with 20 administration appointed overseers, federal agents, offices and staffs numbering into the hundreds possibly tens of thousands.
What could possibly go wrong with this lovely scheme?
#5
An unconstitutional branch of government. Representation of the people regarding the above matters is through Congress. This is an another attempt by the Executve Branch to bypass the Legislative Branch by putting Governors under control of Executive Branch Czars ("Federal Officials")m
Posted by: Boss Snomotle8280 ||
01/12/2010 12:33 Comments ||
Top||
Hari Sevugan, the DNC's national press secretary, confirms he's headed to Boston to help with Martha Coakley's effort, a move that underscores how focused the party is on the race.
Sevugan's campaign and party role has been on offense, and I'd expect him to amp up the volume and intensity of attacks on Republican Scott Brown.
"While we think the Globe poll arrests the Beltway storyline over the past few days and is a sign that campaign is very well positioned, this should be read as that Democrats aren't taking anything for granted," said a party official.
UPDATE: A relevant GOP strategist spins back: "Interesting spin by the Democrats, but this is a clear sign of just how worried they are about this race. When you consider the political demographics of Massachusetts, the reality is that this race should not even be close. The fact that it is however, reflects how damaged the Democrat brand has become among independents in recent months, even in a dark blue state like Massachusetts."
Posted by: Fred ||
01/12/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
In the old days when the DNC was based out of Washington, something like this would probably work. But now that the DNC is headquartered in Chicago, the Chicago machine ways of doing things might not go so well in Mass. While it might play on the wharves of Boston, it won't play in the rest of the state.
The DNC is owned by the Chicago machine now and they don't have a lot of cultural commonality with most of the rest of the country.
#2
Can you smell the sweat ? - The Dems will have a MASS stroke (pun intended) when Senator Scott P. Brown is elected on January 19, 2010 to a seat in the United States Senate held by a Democrat for the last 46 years.
Posted by: Ho Chi Ebbaiger4387 ||
01/12/2010 6:44 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Gee, they're sending a senior aide to help get Coakley elected.
I wish they would have sent in the big gun, you know, BHO.. I heard on the news that Prez O would NOT be making a campaign appearance for Coakley. Perhaps they learned their lesson from the Nov elections in NJ and Va.
Posted by: Tom- Pa ||
01/12/2010 7:09 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Her first order of business was to put out an attack ad that spelled it "Massachusettes". Yeah, she sounds slick...
Deval Patrick is the canary in the coal mine for Barack Obama in 2012.
And Martha Coakley is Deval's canary. And if I were Deval, right about now I'd be looking for the phone number of Herald veterinarian Dr. John de Jong.
The closer Scott Brown comes to winning the special Senate election next week, the worse it is for Deval's already-dim prospects for re-election. I mean, Martha has but a supporting role in what state Sen. Scott Brown calls "the machine."
As attorney general, Martha is the official custodian of the state broom. Whenever a hack gets in a jam - last week it was Dianne Wilkerson - Martha shifts into inspector mode, leaving no stone unturned, except of course the one the perp is hiding under.
Nothing to see here folks - move along. That's Martha's motto.
But the voters have figured out the grift - better late than never.
Consider what numbers Deval would be polling right about now if he were the Senate nominee. He's the nominal boss - figurehead, actually - of the state hackerama.
Deval et al had been counting on state Treasurer Tim Cahill's independent run to drain off just enough anti-Deval votes to re-elect him in November with, say, 41 percent. It's an interesting strategy. Gov. Jon Corzine tried it in New Jersey two months ago. He's now former Gov. Corzine.
Then Deval figured the economy would recover and save him - did anyone see the unemployment numbers Friday? Not even CNBC could put a shine on that sneaker. You can only say "unexpected" and "lagging indicator" so many times, especially when the real jobless number is more than 17 percent.
If Martha Coakley, who after all has built a career on not rocking the boat, is struggling to pull away, then what is going to happen next November to the guy who actually told the brain-dead voters of this state that he could improve their lives ... and cut their taxes?
You may be a Scott Brown voter if ... you've been wondering what Martha Coakley can start collecting for a state pension next month at age 56 if she's sworn into the U.S. Senate.
The answer is ... $41,000. I'm sure Martha would claim that she has no plans to do the double-dip, and I'm equally certain we can believe her.
Just like Deval Patrick was going to cut your property taxes. Just like Barack Obama wasn't going to raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 ...
Posted by: Fred ||
01/12/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Obviously a job for ACORN [et al] with assist from Mickey Mouse, Mickey Mantle, Donald Duck,....
Martha Coakley may be the state's attorney general, but her Senate rival is vying to match her law-and-order credentials. Republican Scott Brown was scheduled Monday to receive the endorsement of the State Police Association of Massachusetts. It represents rank-and-file troopers.
Association President Richard Brown says "the terrorist threat in this country is real and Scott Brown will always come down on the side of protecting our nation."
The association frequently backs Republican candidates, as it did in the 2006 gubernatorial race. Brown and Coakley are battling to succeed the late Sen. Edward Kennedy. He died in August of brain cancer. Businessman Joseph L. Kennedy -- no relation to the political family -- is also competing in the Jan. 19 election.
Posted by: Fred ||
01/12/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Considering the State Police Association of Massachusetts Representing the Troopers and NCO's of the Massachusetts State Police
is a UNION organization, I'd say the conservative Heart of Massachusetts has ROARED!
Posted by: Ho Chi Ebbaiger4387 ||
01/12/2010 6:39 Comments ||
Top||
#2
A little payback by the Cambridge police acting "STUPIDLY" ??
Posted by: Tom- Pa ||
01/12/2010 7:15 Comments ||
Top||
Democrats are preparing to throw the race card back in the laps of Republicans as part of a counterattack designed to help save Harry Reid's political career.
First, Reid's allies plan to distribute the NAACP vote ratings of Republican senators who have scolded him. The data will be made available to editorial boards, cable programs and the blogosphere -- including votes on minimum wage, community-oriented policing, education funding and HIV/AIDS programs.
Separately, the Congressional Black Caucus plans to issue a new statement Monday, defending Reid and brushing back Republicans.
"Senator Reid's record provides a stark contrast to actions of Republicans to block legislation that would benefit poor and minority communities -- most recently reflected in Republican opposition to the health bill now under consideration," CBC Chairwoman Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) said. "I look forward to Senator Reid continuing to serve as Majority Leader to guide this important agenda through the Senate."
These moves to turn the race issue back onto Republicans is risky, yet it shows how Reid and his allies are ready to pull out all the stops to help the majority leader recover from his disastrous comments about Barack Obama being "light-skinned" and having no "Negro dialect." The comments were revealed in the book "Game Change" by journalists John Heilemann and Mark Halperin.
"There are some Republicans who are trying to use this for political advantage," said a source close to the Reid camp. "If Senators [Jon] Kyl, [John] Cornyn and others want to have an open and honest debate about race -- and if they want to discuss their records on issues of importance to the African-American community -- we welcome that dialogue. But we are not going to stand idly by while hypocritical Republicans take swipes at Senator Reid, distorting his record of achievement and their own record of failure."
Top Democrats tell POLITICO that they have no doubt that that Reid, a former amateur boxer, will keep fighting and survive in his leadership job. Indeed, Reid's racial flub is already turning out differently than the one made by Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) in 2002. When Lott made a nostalgic remark about the segregationist Dixiecrat presidential run of Strom Thurmond, his Republican allies quickly abandoned him. Democrats are sticking by Reid so far.
Sen. Charles Schumer of New York, the No. 3 Democrat, is said to be quite certain Reid would ride out the controversy, particularly because Obama and the Rev. Al Sharpton had accepted Reid's apology and issued effusively supportive statements.
Posted by: Fred ||
01/12/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I'm curious to know whether or not the LLL sees any parallels between Reid's statements and Lott's.
They probably do but wouldn't admit it if it killed them.
#4
Ten more months until the Nov election. This is a free campaign ad against Reid whose approval ratings continue to tank. The longer the bickering, the better.
Posted by: Tom- Pa ||
01/12/2010 8:49 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Every news show I saw quickly changed the subject to something larger like the Democratic party becuse it has done much for negro folks. Hey if the negro leaders think this is nothing big then I have to let it stand. I hope my use of the word negro is accepted as much as Harry's was becuase I certainly want to keep up on the language and would not want to offend my negro friends. Note: That was difficult to write and post but hope it points at the utter comtmpt I have for race-baiting crowd.
#6
The only thing the Democratic party has offered blacks is the option of continued slavery as the price for welfare. Slavery included things like forced family breakups when slaves were traded or sold, etc.. I'd be pi$$ed off if I thought that was the best I could do, too.
I hope everyone, whites included, see the Democrapic party for what it is when they whip out the race card this time by posting the NAACP "vote ratings". Just because the NAACP is black doesn't mean it's in black people's favor. They're part of the engine that is profiting from promoting continued slavery.
With Democrat Martha Coakley in trouble in the Massachusetts special election to fill Ted Kennedy's seat, Democrats could lose vote No. 60 for President Obama's health-care bill. In response, an army of lobbyists for drug companies, health insurance companies, and hospitals has teamed up to throw a high-dollar Capitol Hill fundraiser for Coakley next Tuesday night.
Of the 22 names on the host committee--meaning they raised $10,000 or more for Coakley--17 are federally registered lobbyists, 15 of whom have health-care clients. Of the other five hosts, one is married to a lobbyist, one was a lobbyist in Pennsylvania, another is a lawyer at a lobbying firm, and another is a corporate CEO. Oh, and of course, there's also the political action commitee for Boston Scientific Corporation.
All the leading drug companies have lobbyists on Coakley's host committee: Pfizer, Merck, Amgen, Sanofi-Aventis, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Astra-Zeneca, and more. On the insurance side of things, Blue Cross/Blue Shield, Cigna, Humana, HealthSouth, and United Health all are represented on the host committee.
Those HMOs (like Aetna) or drug companies who don't have lobbyists in Coakley's top tier of fundraisers? They're covered, because the host committee includes four lobbyists representing the Pharmaceutical Researchers and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), two representing America's Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), and one representing the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO)
So think of these top donors to health-care reform's 60th vote next time President Obama claims that he's battling the special interests in this battle. The army listed below is on Obama's side, and these clients will all benefit from "reform."
Posted by: Fred ||
01/12/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
And yet, the mainstream press refuses to pull back the curtain and show the truth. The continue to paint the people who oppose this boondoggle bill as the "tools" of the very same monied interests and power brokers who are now propping up the rotting and putrid zombie corpse that used to be John F Kennedy's Democrat Party.
#2
Massachusetts will elect a Republican to the Senate in this next week.
After more than sixty years of JFK/RFK/EMK (EMK - Edward Moore Kennedy - Teddy to You) Dynasty, the serfs of have but one chance to raise the yoke of involuntary and indentured servitude established by the Autocratic Kennedy Family and Democratic Party of Massachusetts.
The election of BROWN will be the Emancipation Proclamation of 2010.
Posted by: Ho Chi Ebbaiger4387 ||
01/12/2010 6:28 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Depends on how mobilized the zombie vote is. I hear they have a hell of a get out the vote effort up there.
Posted by: Bobby ||
01/12/2010 7:59 Comments ||
Top||
#5
I can't believe some prog-leftist turd was actually blovating the other day about how they needed to frame Coakley as "the true change agent in the election".
Posted by: Mitch H. ||
01/12/2010 9:55 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Well, Coakley would truly change something, alright. Hopefully people have gotten past falling for empty, hard-to-define terms like "hope", "change", "true", etc. and start looking at the substance of the words.
Among other things, ACTA creates international guidelines that mean consumers lose internet access if they are believed to be digital copyright scofflaws.
Internet service providers could lose safe harbor' protection for failing to police their customers' digital content for copyright infringement violations. Such a move would heap copyright liability onto the ISP, and fundamentally alter U.S. copyright law.
The questions came weeks after leaked documents from the European Union suggested the United States was taking those positions on the accord's draft internet section.
According to leaked documents on WikiLeaks, the proposed treaty would require ISPs to terminate repeat copyright scofflaws, criminalize peer-to-peer file sharing, subject iPods to border searches and even interfere with the legitimate sale of brand-name pharmaceutical products.
The details of the latest ACTA language that will be negotiated in secret in South Korea January 25th.
The government initially declined to divulge who saw the proposed treaty, saying it would undermine the national security of the United States.
The agreement does not require congressional approval.
#2
Bambi paying off his Hollywood cronies at the expense of business & in a way that invades the privacy of and heaps mountains of costs on tens of millions of consumers? Meh, nothing to see here ... move along.
#7
They Internet scares them as much as right wing talk radio, maybe ever more, because it gives the people a voice. They're looking for a way to control it.
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 federal government sent 2.5 million stimulus dollars to North Carolina ZIP codes that don't exist.
Hari Sevugan, the DNC's national press secretary, confirms he's headed to Boston to help with Martha Coakley's effort, a move that underscores how focused the party is on the race. 
Deval Patrick is the canary in the coal mine for Barack Obama in 2012.
Martha Coakley may be the state's attorney general, but her Senate rival is vying to match her law-and-order credentials. Republican Scott Brown was scheduled Monday to receive the endorsement of the State Police Association of Massachusetts. It represents rank-and-file troopers.
Democrats are preparing to throw the race card back in the laps of Republicans as part of a counterattack designed to help save Harry Reid's political career.
With Democrat Martha Coakley in trouble in the Massachusetts special election to fill Ted Kennedy's seat, Democrats could lose vote No. 60 for President Obama's health-care bill. In response, an army of lobbyists for drug companies, health insurance companies, and hospitals has teamed up to throw a high-dollar Capitol Hill fundraiser for Coakley next Tuesday night.
