President Obama, 'Lame Duck' Democratic Congress bask in Zadroga bill, Don't Ask Don't Tell success
BY KENNETH R. BAZINET
NEW YORK DAILY NEWS -- December 26, 2010
President Barack Obama has reason to celebrate during his Christmas vacation in Hawaii after a great month for the 'Lame Duck' Democratic Congress.
In a swift and improbable political turnaround, the lame-duck Congress has revived a dead-duck President, pols and pundits believe.
"There was nothing lame about this Congress," Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) quipped about the flurry of bills passed in the final days of the postelection session.
President Obama, left limping after the Republicans scored a huge victory in the November midterm elections, was the major beneficiary.
Democrats managed to get their ducks in a row and help resuscitate Obama with some luck - and some well-played chess just weeks after what Obama bemoaned as a "shellacking" in the elections.
"Pundits wanted to write him off, but President Obama went right back to work and we delivered," said Gillibrand, who gained national attention for championing the 9/11 health care bill and an extension of unemployment benefits.
Political scientists have taken notice.
"It's official. Like it or not, this lame-duck session is the most productive of the 15 held since [World War] II," noted University of Virginia political scientist Larry Sabato.
A new CNN poll showed a majority of Americans have reversed course and say Obama is again taking the country on the right track.
Even Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-Brooklyn, Queens), a leading liberal White House antagonist, said the tally sheet shows Obama compiled an enviable legislative trophy case.
"Nobody is talking about a 'shellacking' anymore. . . . Things don't feel so bleak," Weiner told the Daily News. "When they look at the scorecard, most of Obama's [political] left will be celebrating a very merry Christmas."
In quick succession, Congress approved the tax deal, the repeal of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" ban on gays serving openly in the military, a nuclear arms accord with Russia and the $4.3 billion measure to care for ill Ground Zero responders.
"The timing was just right," Weiner said.
Sunday, December 26, 2010
Friday, December 24, 2010
Obama Wins The Triple Crown
The Washington Post -- December 23, 2010:
By Charles Krauthammer
Riding the lamest of ducks, President Obama just won the Triple Crown. He fulfilled (1) his most important economic priority, passage of Stimulus II, a.k.a. the tax cut deal (the perfect pre-re-election fiscal sugar high - the piper gets paid in 2013 and beyond); (2) his most important social policy objective, repeal of "don't ask, don't tell"; and (3) his most cherished (achievable) foreign policy goal, ratification of the New START treaty with Russia.
Politically, these are all synergistic. The bipartisan nature of the tax deal instantly repositioned Obama back to the center. And just when conventional wisdom decided the deal had caused irreparable alienation from his liberal base, Obama almost immediately won it back - by delivering one of the gay rights movement's most elusive and coveted breakthroughs.
The symbolism of the don't ask, don't tell repeal cannot be underestimated. It's not just that for the civil rights community, it represents a long-awaited extension of the historic arc - first blacks, then women, now gays. It was also Obama decisively transcending the triangulated trimming of Bill Clinton, who instituted don't ask, don't tell in the first place. Even more subtly and understatedly, the repeal represents the taming of the most conservative of the nation's institutions, the military, by a movement historically among the most avant-garde. Whatever your views, that is a cultural landmark.
Then came START, which was important for Obama not just because of the dearth of foreign policy achievements these past two years but because treaties, especially grand-sounding treaties on strategic arms, carry the aura of presidential authority and diplomatic mastery.
No matter how useless they are, or even how damaging. New START was significantly, if subtly, damaging, which made the rear-guard Republican opposition it engendered so salutary. The debate it sparked garnered the treaty more attention than it would have otherwise and thus gave Obama a larger PR victory. But that debate also amplified the major flaw in the treaty - the gratuitous reestablishment of the link between offensive and defensive weaponry.
One of the great achievements of the past decade was the Bush administration's severing of that link - first, by its withdrawal from the ABM Treaty, which had expressly prevented major advances in missile defense, and then with the 2002 Treaty of Moscow, which regulated offensive weapons but ostentatiously contained not a single word about any connection to missile defense. Why is this important? Because missile defense is essential for protecting ourselves from the most menacing threat of the coming century - nuclear hyper-proliferation.
The relinking that we acquiesced to in the preamble to New START is a major reversal of that achievement. Sure, Obama sought to reassure critics with his letter to the Senate promising unimpeded development of our European missile defense system. But the Russians have already watched this president cancel our painstakingly planned Polish and Czech missile defenses in response to Russian protests and threats. That's why they insisted we formally acknowledge an "interrelationship" between offense and defense. They know that their threat to withdraw from START, if the United States were to build defenses that displease them, will inevitably color - and restrain - future U.S. missile defense advances and deployments.
Obama's difficulty in overcoming the missile defense objection will serve to temper the rest of his nuclear agenda, including U.S. entry into the test-ban treaty, and place Obama's ultimate goal of total nuclear disarmament blessedly out of reach. Conservatives can thus take solace that their vigorous opposition to START is likely to prevent further disarmament mischief down the road. But what they cannot deny is the political boost the treaty's ratification gives Obama today, a mere seven weeks after his Election Day debacle.
The great liberal ascendancy of 2008, destined to last 40 years (predicted James Carville), lasted less than two. Yet, the great Republican ascendancy of 2010 lasted less than two months. Republicans will enter the 112th Congress with larger numbers but no longer with the wind - the overwhelming Nov. 2 repudiation of Obama's social-democratic agenda - at their backs.
"Harry Reid has eaten our lunch," said Sen. Lindsey Graham, lamenting his side's "capitulation" in the lame-duck session. Yes, but it was less Harry than Barry. Obama came back with a vengeance. His string of lame-duck successes is a singular political achievement. Because of it, the epic battles of the 112th Congress begin on what would have seemed impossible just one month ago - a level playing field.
By Charles Krauthammer
Riding the lamest of ducks, President Obama just won the Triple Crown. He fulfilled (1) his most important economic priority, passage of Stimulus II, a.k.a. the tax cut deal (the perfect pre-re-election fiscal sugar high - the piper gets paid in 2013 and beyond); (2) his most important social policy objective, repeal of "don't ask, don't tell"; and (3) his most cherished (achievable) foreign policy goal, ratification of the New START treaty with Russia.
Politically, these are all synergistic. The bipartisan nature of the tax deal instantly repositioned Obama back to the center. And just when conventional wisdom decided the deal had caused irreparable alienation from his liberal base, Obama almost immediately won it back - by delivering one of the gay rights movement's most elusive and coveted breakthroughs.
The symbolism of the don't ask, don't tell repeal cannot be underestimated. It's not just that for the civil rights community, it represents a long-awaited extension of the historic arc - first blacks, then women, now gays. It was also Obama decisively transcending the triangulated trimming of Bill Clinton, who instituted don't ask, don't tell in the first place. Even more subtly and understatedly, the repeal represents the taming of the most conservative of the nation's institutions, the military, by a movement historically among the most avant-garde. Whatever your views, that is a cultural landmark.
Then came START, which was important for Obama not just because of the dearth of foreign policy achievements these past two years but because treaties, especially grand-sounding treaties on strategic arms, carry the aura of presidential authority and diplomatic mastery.
No matter how useless they are, or even how damaging. New START was significantly, if subtly, damaging, which made the rear-guard Republican opposition it engendered so salutary. The debate it sparked garnered the treaty more attention than it would have otherwise and thus gave Obama a larger PR victory. But that debate also amplified the major flaw in the treaty - the gratuitous reestablishment of the link between offensive and defensive weaponry.
One of the great achievements of the past decade was the Bush administration's severing of that link - first, by its withdrawal from the ABM Treaty, which had expressly prevented major advances in missile defense, and then with the 2002 Treaty of Moscow, which regulated offensive weapons but ostentatiously contained not a single word about any connection to missile defense. Why is this important? Because missile defense is essential for protecting ourselves from the most menacing threat of the coming century - nuclear hyper-proliferation.
The relinking that we acquiesced to in the preamble to New START is a major reversal of that achievement. Sure, Obama sought to reassure critics with his letter to the Senate promising unimpeded development of our European missile defense system. But the Russians have already watched this president cancel our painstakingly planned Polish and Czech missile defenses in response to Russian protests and threats. That's why they insisted we formally acknowledge an "interrelationship" between offense and defense. They know that their threat to withdraw from START, if the United States were to build defenses that displease them, will inevitably color - and restrain - future U.S. missile defense advances and deployments.
Obama's difficulty in overcoming the missile defense objection will serve to temper the rest of his nuclear agenda, including U.S. entry into the test-ban treaty, and place Obama's ultimate goal of total nuclear disarmament blessedly out of reach. Conservatives can thus take solace that their vigorous opposition to START is likely to prevent further disarmament mischief down the road. But what they cannot deny is the political boost the treaty's ratification gives Obama today, a mere seven weeks after his Election Day debacle.
The great liberal ascendancy of 2008, destined to last 40 years (predicted James Carville), lasted less than two. Yet, the great Republican ascendancy of 2010 lasted less than two months. Republicans will enter the 112th Congress with larger numbers but no longer with the wind - the overwhelming Nov. 2 repudiation of Obama's social-democratic agenda - at their backs.
"Harry Reid has eaten our lunch," said Sen. Lindsey Graham, lamenting his side's "capitulation" in the lame-duck session. Yes, but it was less Harry than Barry. Obama came back with a vengeance. His string of lame-duck successes is a singular political achievement. Because of it, the epic battles of the 112th Congress begin on what would have seemed impossible just one month ago - a level playing field.
Thursday, December 23, 2010
America Dodged A Bullet When John McCain Lost
John McCain's Lasting Anger
by Shushannah Walshe
Old friends like Wes Gullett, a former aide in Arizona, say it is not anger that drives McCain but passion on issues, especially those involving the military, that he feels he knows best.
"John McCain is John McCain," Gullett said in an interview. "People mistake John McCain's passion for anger and he's a passionate guy on many, many issues. What drives him is his passion, and it's easy to say, 'Oh, he's angry.' I don't believe that."
Another former campaign aide said McCain's 2008 loss is not responsible for his changed stances, but it does fuel his contrarian side: "I don't believe the 2008 election has changed his position on the issues, but it has certainly energized him in his opposition to the Obama administration."
On Monday on MSNBC's Morning Joe, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) said she spoke with McCain "a lot" about DADT.
"He just had a concern of the welfare of the military. He felt that doing this at this time could undermine military readiness," said Gillibrand, who voted in favor of repeal. "I just think it is a generational issue. I think he had concerns about how it would affect troops and he's very sincere."
Fred Sainz, the vice president of the Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest gay rights organization, praised McCain and the sacrifices he made for the country, but said he is on the wrong side of history. "History will unfortunately record this as part of his legacy, and I think that's sad for someone who sacrificed so much for his country," he said. "I think some of it is just that he's old. Ideologically he's just not there."
Grant Woods, an old friend who has known McCain for 28 years and was his first chief of staff, said McCain believes Secretary Gates' support for a DADT repeal was "political" and that fundamentally McCain does what he pleases.
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., during a break in the committee's "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington on Dec. 2, 2010. (Photo by Alex Brandon / AP Photo)
"He doesn't mind popping people in the nose and taking the consequences," he said. "My opinion is that it just depends on who is getting popped in the nose. For a long time there it was various elements of the Republican Party and a lot of people, especially in the media, loved that. They saw it as courageous. He didn't see it as courageous; he always does what he wants to do. Now he's doing what he wants to do."
Woods said McCain would be more helpful if the White House reached out to him, but "they haven't talked to him at all."
McCain also voted no Saturday on the Dream Act, which would have granted citizenship to thousands of foreign-born college students. He initially sponsored the legislation. Gullett said McCain constantly faced voters on the campaign trail last year asking about border security and that affected his stance. His communications director, Brooke Buchanan, explained that on immigration, McCain believes the border needs to be secured above all else, citing the increasing border violence over the last four years. "His opinion has evolved with time," she said. "Don't we expect our leaders to base their opinions and policies, don't we expect them to change with the time? And that's what Sen. McCain has been doing. It's truly in the best interest of our country."
Woods said "it hurts" McCain to vote against legislation like the Dream Act after years of working on reform but said the senator felt betrayed when Latinos overwhelmingly supported Obama in 2008. "When you carry that fight at great sacrifice year after year and then you are abandoned during the biggest fight of your life, it has to have some sort of effect on you," he said.
And friends hasten to point out that McCain has traditionally always been a conservative, despite that pesky maverick label.
"Fundamentally John McCain is very conservative. His voting record is consistently conservative. The whole maverick concept, yes he is, because he wasn't a total litmus test guy, but he has a consistently conservative voting record," Gullett said. "It's not like he is some kind of liberal. I think people forget because they want to forget. He's had a lot of center votes, but he is fundamentally a conservative."
Of course, for most of the time that McCain was annoying Republicans, it was another former rival who was leading them.
Shushannah Walshe covers politics for The Daily Beast. She is the co-author of Sarah From Alaska: The Sudden Rise and Brutal Education of a New Conservative Superstar. She was a reporter and producer at the Fox News Channel from August 2001 until the end of the 2008 presidential campaign.
by Shushannah Walshe
Old friends like Wes Gullett, a former aide in Arizona, say it is not anger that drives McCain but passion on issues, especially those involving the military, that he feels he knows best.
"John McCain is John McCain," Gullett said in an interview. "People mistake John McCain's passion for anger and he's a passionate guy on many, many issues. What drives him is his passion, and it's easy to say, 'Oh, he's angry.' I don't believe that."
Another former campaign aide said McCain's 2008 loss is not responsible for his changed stances, but it does fuel his contrarian side: "I don't believe the 2008 election has changed his position on the issues, but it has certainly energized him in his opposition to the Obama administration."
On Monday on MSNBC's Morning Joe, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) said she spoke with McCain "a lot" about DADT.
"He just had a concern of the welfare of the military. He felt that doing this at this time could undermine military readiness," said Gillibrand, who voted in favor of repeal. "I just think it is a generational issue. I think he had concerns about how it would affect troops and he's very sincere."
Fred Sainz, the vice president of the Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest gay rights organization, praised McCain and the sacrifices he made for the country, but said he is on the wrong side of history. "History will unfortunately record this as part of his legacy, and I think that's sad for someone who sacrificed so much for his country," he said. "I think some of it is just that he's old. Ideologically he's just not there."
Grant Woods, an old friend who has known McCain for 28 years and was his first chief of staff, said McCain believes Secretary Gates' support for a DADT repeal was "political" and that fundamentally McCain does what he pleases.
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., during a break in the committee's "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington on Dec. 2, 2010. (Photo by Alex Brandon / AP Photo)
"He doesn't mind popping people in the nose and taking the consequences," he said. "My opinion is that it just depends on who is getting popped in the nose. For a long time there it was various elements of the Republican Party and a lot of people, especially in the media, loved that. They saw it as courageous. He didn't see it as courageous; he always does what he wants to do. Now he's doing what he wants to do."
Woods said McCain would be more helpful if the White House reached out to him, but "they haven't talked to him at all."
McCain also voted no Saturday on the Dream Act, which would have granted citizenship to thousands of foreign-born college students. He initially sponsored the legislation. Gullett said McCain constantly faced voters on the campaign trail last year asking about border security and that affected his stance. His communications director, Brooke Buchanan, explained that on immigration, McCain believes the border needs to be secured above all else, citing the increasing border violence over the last four years. "His opinion has evolved with time," she said. "Don't we expect our leaders to base their opinions and policies, don't we expect them to change with the time? And that's what Sen. McCain has been doing. It's truly in the best interest of our country."
Woods said "it hurts" McCain to vote against legislation like the Dream Act after years of working on reform but said the senator felt betrayed when Latinos overwhelmingly supported Obama in 2008. "When you carry that fight at great sacrifice year after year and then you are abandoned during the biggest fight of your life, it has to have some sort of effect on you," he said.
And friends hasten to point out that McCain has traditionally always been a conservative, despite that pesky maverick label.
"Fundamentally John McCain is very conservative. His voting record is consistently conservative. The whole maverick concept, yes he is, because he wasn't a total litmus test guy, but he has a consistently conservative voting record," Gullett said. "It's not like he is some kind of liberal. I think people forget because they want to forget. He's had a lot of center votes, but he is fundamentally a conservative."
Of course, for most of the time that McCain was annoying Republicans, it was another former rival who was leading them.
Shushannah Walshe covers politics for The Daily Beast. She is the co-author of Sarah From Alaska: The Sudden Rise and Brutal Education of a New Conservative Superstar. She was a reporter and producer at the Fox News Channel from August 2001 until the end of the 2008 presidential campaign.
Obama's Achievements --- In Only Two Years
From Starpopper:
Let's see, what has President Obama done to deserve a mid-term victory lap and pat on the back?!
Depression AVOIDED
Recession REVERSED
Job losses REVERSED
Housing meltdown REVERSED
Financial meltdown REVERSED
Auto industry SAVED
Healthcare REFORMED
Financial system REFORMED
Food safety REFORMED
Oil exploration REFORMED
Don't ask, don't tell REPEALED
Iraq war CONCLUDED
Afghanistan war FOCUSED
al Queda in Pakistan TARGETED
U.S. Torture TERMINATED
Student Aid REFORMED
9-11 first responders SUPPORTED
S. Korea free trade PASSED
START treaty RATIFIED...
...You know what, this list could go on and on...for a complete listing please visit the links below and learn, appreciate and applaud the accomplishments of a man who may very well go down as a top-5 President! Hope you have some time to take it all in because THIS President has earned his salary!
Let's see, what has President Obama done to deserve a mid-term victory lap and pat on the back?!
Depression AVOIDED
Recession REVERSED
Job losses REVERSED
Housing meltdown REVERSED
Financial meltdown REVERSED
Auto industry SAVED
Healthcare REFORMED
Financial system REFORMED
Food safety REFORMED
Oil exploration REFORMED
Don't ask, don't tell REPEALED
Iraq war CONCLUDED
Afghanistan war FOCUSED
al Queda in Pakistan TARGETED
U.S. Torture TERMINATED
Student Aid REFORMED
9-11 first responders SUPPORTED
S. Korea free trade PASSED
START treaty RATIFIED...
...You know what, this list could go on and on...for a complete listing please visit the links below and learn, appreciate and applaud the accomplishments of a man who may very well go down as a top-5 President! Hope you have some time to take it all in because THIS President has earned his salary!
Abraham Lincoln Today
When Abraham Lincoln said: "You can fool all of the people some of the time" -- he was referring to the 2010 Election.
When Abe Lincoln continued: "But you can't fool all of the people all of the time" -- he was referring to the 2012 Election.
When Abe Lincoln continued: "But you can't fool all of the people all of the time" -- he was referring to the 2012 Election.
A Tribute to Obama's Orphans
From The Washington Post -- December 22, 2010:
Paying Homage to the Fallen Democrats of the 111th Congress
By E.J. Dionne Jr.
At the beginning of 2009, the choice before Democrats who controlled the 111th Congress was whether they would enact historic legislation, even at the risk of their majority, or whether they would play it safe.
They gave the safe option a pass, with two results: This will go down as the most productive Congress since the 89th, which was even more Democratic because of Lyndon Johnson's 1964 landslide. And 52 Democratic House incumbents, most elected in 2006 or 2008, lost their seats .
The departing Democrats are, as one in their ranks put it, "Obama's Orphans." So many of them cast vote after vote for the president's program. They were then left at the side of the road while history moved by.
During the recent campaign, these loyalists were accused of being "out of touch," and they certainly were out of sync with the prevailing mood of those who chose to vote this year. But this accusation raises an important question: To whom did these members owe their real loyalty?
Instead of yielding to the feelings of the moment, they kept faith with those who supported them precisely because of their promises to change the direction of the country. And change the country they did.
Say what you will about the new health-care law. It was a response to (how easily we forget) a widely held sentiment that our health system was broken, that too many of us lacked coverage or feared we might lose it. The final product was a start in addressing these anxieties.
It is a tribute to the 111th Congress that its achievements will largely set the agenda for the 112th. The new Republican House majority is devoted less to a bold agenda of its own than to repealing, scaling back or derailing the accomplishments of the outgoing majority.
The fact that wiping out what they call "Obamacare" is a unifying priority for the conservative newcomers is a backhanded compliment to those who enacted it: Yes, it was a big deal after all, and in the forthcoming debate, reform's supporters will get a second chance to make the case for what they did.
Republicans also hope to undercut financial reform, giving the law's supporters the opportunity to explain more clearly why a financial system with loose rules becomes little more than a casino operated by people in much nicer suits than those worn by the average croupier.
And some of the 111th's achievements will stand without challenge because they so plainly reflected the country's will. Congressional leaders never gave up on ending "don't ask, don't tell," knowing they were building on a three-decade-long revolution in the attitudes of average Americans toward gays and lesbians. That really is a change we can believe in.
That so many other reforms have been virtually unheralded is another monument to the efforts of Obama's Orphans. Bills that in another Congress would have loomed large were passed with hardly a ripple in the media.
Consider: the new food-safety rules, the big repair in the student-loan program, stronger regulations on the credit-card industry, the creation of a financial consumer protection agency, an improved children's health-care program and a broad expansion of national service opportunities.
The startling achievements of this lame-duck session owed to the decision of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and outgoing House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to shun the counsel of those who said they should just pack it in after a bad election. If a certain amount of boldness had cost some of their colleagues at the polls in November, the same audacity would at least permit those on their way out to add to their record. They would use their majorities right to the end.
Our media and political systems are obsessed with presidents. We are also very tough on those who lose, in elections no less than in sports. As a result, end-of-year commentary will concentrate on how much stronger President Obama looks today than he did even a month ago, and on all he got done. The vanquished of 2010 will get barely a nod on their way to the rest of their lives.
But the president's accomplishments were possible only because a group of younger, largely unsung politicians - the infantry of political change - refused to think only about polls, politics and their personal ambitions. Obama's Orphans deserve to take a bow.
Paying Homage to the Fallen Democrats of the 111th Congress
By E.J. Dionne Jr.
At the beginning of 2009, the choice before Democrats who controlled the 111th Congress was whether they would enact historic legislation, even at the risk of their majority, or whether they would play it safe.
They gave the safe option a pass, with two results: This will go down as the most productive Congress since the 89th, which was even more Democratic because of Lyndon Johnson's 1964 landslide. And 52 Democratic House incumbents, most elected in 2006 or 2008, lost their seats .
The departing Democrats are, as one in their ranks put it, "Obama's Orphans." So many of them cast vote after vote for the president's program. They were then left at the side of the road while history moved by.
During the recent campaign, these loyalists were accused of being "out of touch," and they certainly were out of sync with the prevailing mood of those who chose to vote this year. But this accusation raises an important question: To whom did these members owe their real loyalty?
Instead of yielding to the feelings of the moment, they kept faith with those who supported them precisely because of their promises to change the direction of the country. And change the country they did.
Say what you will about the new health-care law. It was a response to (how easily we forget) a widely held sentiment that our health system was broken, that too many of us lacked coverage or feared we might lose it. The final product was a start in addressing these anxieties.
It is a tribute to the 111th Congress that its achievements will largely set the agenda for the 112th. The new Republican House majority is devoted less to a bold agenda of its own than to repealing, scaling back or derailing the accomplishments of the outgoing majority.
The fact that wiping out what they call "Obamacare" is a unifying priority for the conservative newcomers is a backhanded compliment to those who enacted it: Yes, it was a big deal after all, and in the forthcoming debate, reform's supporters will get a second chance to make the case for what they did.
Republicans also hope to undercut financial reform, giving the law's supporters the opportunity to explain more clearly why a financial system with loose rules becomes little more than a casino operated by people in much nicer suits than those worn by the average croupier.
And some of the 111th's achievements will stand without challenge because they so plainly reflected the country's will. Congressional leaders never gave up on ending "don't ask, don't tell," knowing they were building on a three-decade-long revolution in the attitudes of average Americans toward gays and lesbians. That really is a change we can believe in.
That so many other reforms have been virtually unheralded is another monument to the efforts of Obama's Orphans. Bills that in another Congress would have loomed large were passed with hardly a ripple in the media.
Consider: the new food-safety rules, the big repair in the student-loan program, stronger regulations on the credit-card industry, the creation of a financial consumer protection agency, an improved children's health-care program and a broad expansion of national service opportunities.
The startling achievements of this lame-duck session owed to the decision of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and outgoing House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to shun the counsel of those who said they should just pack it in after a bad election. If a certain amount of boldness had cost some of their colleagues at the polls in November, the same audacity would at least permit those on their way out to add to their record. They would use their majorities right to the end.
Our media and political systems are obsessed with presidents. We are also very tough on those who lose, in elections no less than in sports. As a result, end-of-year commentary will concentrate on how much stronger President Obama looks today than he did even a month ago, and on all he got done. The vanquished of 2010 will get barely a nod on their way to the rest of their lives.
But the president's accomplishments were possible only because a group of younger, largely unsung politicians - the infantry of political change - refused to think only about polls, politics and their personal ambitions. Obama's Orphans deserve to take a bow.
The Lame-Duck Session Was a Gigantic Triumph for Obama, Pelosi and Reid
From The Washington Post -- December 22, 2010:
Why Has the Lame-Duck Session Been So Productive?
By Ezra Klein
So far, the lame-duck session has managed to pass an $850 billion tax-cuts-and-stimulus deal, the repeal of DADT, the Defense Authorization bill, a continuing resolution to keep funding the federal government, the START treaty, the food-safety bill, and probably a few more pieces of legislation I'm forgetting.
This is vastly more than anyone expected, and even if I'm disappointed by the failure of the omnibus spending bill (for reasons explained here) and the DREAM act, I can see why Sen. Lindsey Graham summed up the session by saying, "When it's all going to be said and done, Harry Reid has eaten our lunch."
But it wasn't really Harry Reid who ate their lunch (and how much better would that quote have been if Graham had said, "Harry Reid drank our milkshake"?). It was the Republicans. DADT repeal passed because Sens. Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski and Scott Brown voted with the Democrats. The tax deal went through because a host of Republicans voted with the Democrats. Same for START, the food-safety bill and the DoD authorization. If the bill helping 9/11 responders get medical benefits passes, that too will be because of Republican support.
The question is why the Republicans didn't just drag their feet and let things expire and then come back to everything in 2011, when they'll have more allies in the Senate and control of the House? As Graham said, "with a new group of Republicans coming in, we could get a better deal on almost everything."
The answer, I think, is that there are plenty of Senate Republicans who aren't too comfortable with the class of conservatives who got elected in 2010. These legislators knew they had to stick with McConnell before the election, as you can't win back the majority by handing the president lots of legislative accomplishments. But now that the election was over, the bills that had piled up were, in many cases, good bills, and if they didn't pass now, it wasn't clear that they'd be able to pass later.
The incumbent -- and the outgoing -- Republicans know that the fact that Republicans will have more power in 2011 doesn't necessarily mean that they'll use that power to pass sensible legislation. So those of them who wanted to pass sensible legislation decided to get it all done now, even if that meant handing Reid and Obama a slew of apparent victories in the lame-duck session.
Why Has the Lame-Duck Session Been So Productive?
By Ezra Klein
So far, the lame-duck session has managed to pass an $850 billion tax-cuts-and-stimulus deal, the repeal of DADT, the Defense Authorization bill, a continuing resolution to keep funding the federal government, the START treaty, the food-safety bill, and probably a few more pieces of legislation I'm forgetting.
This is vastly more than anyone expected, and even if I'm disappointed by the failure of the omnibus spending bill (for reasons explained here) and the DREAM act, I can see why Sen. Lindsey Graham summed up the session by saying, "When it's all going to be said and done, Harry Reid has eaten our lunch."
But it wasn't really Harry Reid who ate their lunch (and how much better would that quote have been if Graham had said, "Harry Reid drank our milkshake"?). It was the Republicans. DADT repeal passed because Sens. Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski and Scott Brown voted with the Democrats. The tax deal went through because a host of Republicans voted with the Democrats. Same for START, the food-safety bill and the DoD authorization. If the bill helping 9/11 responders get medical benefits passes, that too will be because of Republican support.
The question is why the Republicans didn't just drag their feet and let things expire and then come back to everything in 2011, when they'll have more allies in the Senate and control of the House? As Graham said, "with a new group of Republicans coming in, we could get a better deal on almost everything."
The answer, I think, is that there are plenty of Senate Republicans who aren't too comfortable with the class of conservatives who got elected in 2010. These legislators knew they had to stick with McConnell before the election, as you can't win back the majority by handing the president lots of legislative accomplishments. But now that the election was over, the bills that had piled up were, in many cases, good bills, and if they didn't pass now, it wasn't clear that they'd be able to pass later.
The incumbent -- and the outgoing -- Republicans know that the fact that Republicans will have more power in 2011 doesn't necessarily mean that they'll use that power to pass sensible legislation. So those of them who wanted to pass sensible legislation decided to get it all done now, even if that meant handing Reid and Obama a slew of apparent victories in the lame-duck session.
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
The Petulant Party Now Governs America
The Rise of the Petulant Party
By Dana Milbank
The Washington Post -- December 22, 2010
The lame-duck session of Congress has introduced Americans to the three-party system of government: the Democratic Party, the Republican Party and the Petulant Party.
Eight founding fathers of the Petulants took the stage Tuesday morning in the Senate TV studio to provide an update on their latest cause: The defeat of the nuclear arms treaty with Russia. The New START treaty has the enthusiastic support of the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the rest of the top military brass, not to mention all six living secretaries of state who served in Republican administrations.
But the Petulants do not care about Republican wise men. They do not care about the wishes of the uniformed military. What they care about is preserving the sanctity of . . . Christmas vacation?
"The fact that we're doing this under the cover of Christmas," complained Sen. Jim DeMint (P-S.C.), "is something to be outraged about."
Sen. Lindsey Graham (P-S.C.) was outraged. "Here we are, the week of Christmas, about to pass potentially a treaty," he protested.
And the leader of the group, Sen. Jon Kyl (P-Ariz.), is already on record saying the Democrats' legislative agenda amounts to "disrespecting one of the two holiest of holidays for Christians."
So it has come to this: Members of the Petulant Party want to stop the START treaty (and block a bill that would help Ground Zero first responders pay medical bills) because they wish to get home to their figgy pudding. This might be called playing the Christmas card.
Of course, the Petulants' objections have little to do with yule. You don't defy the national security judgment of the U.S. military and reject the wisdom of generations of GOP elder statesmen simply because you have concerns related to the Advent calendar.
Petulant leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) spelled out the real reason on the Senate floor Monday. McConnell, who said Republicans' "single most important" goal was Obama's defeat, said that in this case he didn't want to facilitate "some politician's desire to declare a political victory and host a press conference before the first of the year."
So powerful has been the Petulants' desire to deny Obama a news conference that they defied the recommendation of Joint Chiefs Chairman Mike Mullen and Defense Secretary Robert Gates (a Bush administration holdover) in their unsuccessful defense on Saturday of the "don't ask, don't tell" ban on openly gay service members. And, separately, the Petulants' efforts to prevent the Sept. 11 bill from coming to the floor earned labels such as "disgrace" and "national shame" from the usually friendly hosts at Fox News.
Quizzed about the Sept. 11 bill on Fox News Sunday, Kyl belittled the "emotional appeal" made by the first responders.
But Kyl was the one making an emotional appeal on Tuesday. He started his START press conference with a complaint that Democrats took "a very partisan approach to this treaty."
That must be how they won the support of Colin Powell, Jim Baker and Richard Lugar, the ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Other Petulants complained that Democrats were trying to "rush it through" (John Thune, S.D.) or "jamming the Congress" (Graham).
This "rush" lasted eight months and included extensive hearings before three Senate committees.
Still, Sen. Jeff Sessions (P-Ala.) said the "rush" prevented a discussion of the fact that "the number one threat . . . comes from Iran, South Korea and other places."
"North Korea," corrected Kyl.
The Petulants were clearly less disturbed by the substance than by perceived slights in the legislative procedure. Graham said he objected a "fill up the tree, rule-14 vote" (try turning that into a political slogan) and Orrin Hatch (P-Utah) said the rush meant that "I have to withdraw my support for something that I would like to support."
This time, the petulance could not prevent an outbreak of reason on the Senate floor. "I will vote for the treaty because the last six Republican secretaries of state support its ratification," Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) announced, adding that ratification "would extend the policies of President Nixon, President Reagan, President George H.W. Bush, President George W. Bush."
A couple of hours later, Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) added his support. "If you look at the makeup of our Joint Chiefs," he argued, "every single one of these gentlemen was appointed by a Republican president," and "each of these people have firmly stated their support for this treaty."
"The question," Corker said, "is will we say 'yes' to yes?"
On Tuesday, enough Republicans said "yes" to send the treaty to likely ratification on Wednesday. But the Petulant Party is only getting organized. As McConnell told Politico this week: "If they think it's bad now, wait 'til next year."
By Dana Milbank
The Washington Post -- December 22, 2010
The lame-duck session of Congress has introduced Americans to the three-party system of government: the Democratic Party, the Republican Party and the Petulant Party.
Eight founding fathers of the Petulants took the stage Tuesday morning in the Senate TV studio to provide an update on their latest cause: The defeat of the nuclear arms treaty with Russia. The New START treaty has the enthusiastic support of the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the rest of the top military brass, not to mention all six living secretaries of state who served in Republican administrations.
But the Petulants do not care about Republican wise men. They do not care about the wishes of the uniformed military. What they care about is preserving the sanctity of . . . Christmas vacation?
"The fact that we're doing this under the cover of Christmas," complained Sen. Jim DeMint (P-S.C.), "is something to be outraged about."
Sen. Lindsey Graham (P-S.C.) was outraged. "Here we are, the week of Christmas, about to pass potentially a treaty," he protested.
And the leader of the group, Sen. Jon Kyl (P-Ariz.), is already on record saying the Democrats' legislative agenda amounts to "disrespecting one of the two holiest of holidays for Christians."
So it has come to this: Members of the Petulant Party want to stop the START treaty (and block a bill that would help Ground Zero first responders pay medical bills) because they wish to get home to their figgy pudding. This might be called playing the Christmas card.
Of course, the Petulants' objections have little to do with yule. You don't defy the national security judgment of the U.S. military and reject the wisdom of generations of GOP elder statesmen simply because you have concerns related to the Advent calendar.
Petulant leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) spelled out the real reason on the Senate floor Monday. McConnell, who said Republicans' "single most important" goal was Obama's defeat, said that in this case he didn't want to facilitate "some politician's desire to declare a political victory and host a press conference before the first of the year."
So powerful has been the Petulants' desire to deny Obama a news conference that they defied the recommendation of Joint Chiefs Chairman Mike Mullen and Defense Secretary Robert Gates (a Bush administration holdover) in their unsuccessful defense on Saturday of the "don't ask, don't tell" ban on openly gay service members. And, separately, the Petulants' efforts to prevent the Sept. 11 bill from coming to the floor earned labels such as "disgrace" and "national shame" from the usually friendly hosts at Fox News.
Quizzed about the Sept. 11 bill on Fox News Sunday, Kyl belittled the "emotional appeal" made by the first responders.
But Kyl was the one making an emotional appeal on Tuesday. He started his START press conference with a complaint that Democrats took "a very partisan approach to this treaty."
That must be how they won the support of Colin Powell, Jim Baker and Richard Lugar, the ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Other Petulants complained that Democrats were trying to "rush it through" (John Thune, S.D.) or "jamming the Congress" (Graham).
This "rush" lasted eight months and included extensive hearings before three Senate committees.
Still, Sen. Jeff Sessions (P-Ala.) said the "rush" prevented a discussion of the fact that "the number one threat . . . comes from Iran, South Korea and other places."
"North Korea," corrected Kyl.
The Petulants were clearly less disturbed by the substance than by perceived slights in the legislative procedure. Graham said he objected a "fill up the tree, rule-14 vote" (try turning that into a political slogan) and Orrin Hatch (P-Utah) said the rush meant that "I have to withdraw my support for something that I would like to support."
This time, the petulance could not prevent an outbreak of reason on the Senate floor. "I will vote for the treaty because the last six Republican secretaries of state support its ratification," Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) announced, adding that ratification "would extend the policies of President Nixon, President Reagan, President George H.W. Bush, President George W. Bush."
A couple of hours later, Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) added his support. "If you look at the makeup of our Joint Chiefs," he argued, "every single one of these gentlemen was appointed by a Republican president," and "each of these people have firmly stated their support for this treaty."
"The question," Corker said, "is will we say 'yes' to yes?"
On Tuesday, enough Republicans said "yes" to send the treaty to likely ratification on Wednesday. But the Petulant Party is only getting organized. As McConnell told Politico this week: "If they think it's bad now, wait 'til next year."
It's Beginning to Look a Lot Like an Obama Landslide in 2012
From The Washington Post -- December 22, 2010:
A Lame-Duck Session with Unexpected Victories
By Perry Bacon Jr.
When the lame-duck session of Congress started more than a month ago, President Obama looked defeated and deflated, publicly acknowledging the "shellacking" his party had taken in the November midterm elections.
Now, a six-week session that was expected to reflect a weakened president has turned into a surprising success. On Wednesday, Obama signed into law the repeal of the military's ban on openly gay service members, and the Senate approved a new nuclear treaty with Russia that the president had declared a top priority.
Those accomplishments come after Obama successfully negotiated a free-trade agreement with South Korea, reached a deal with Republicans that extended unemployment benefits and prevented a tax hike for millions of Americans and signed a bill that will make school lunches healthier.
This blitz of bill signings completes a dramatic first two years for the nation's first black president that included the enactment of arguably the most major liberal policies since the Johnson administration but also the Democrats' biggest loss of House seats in 72 years.
After the election defeats and bitter battles over the health care and financial regulation legislation, the next two years were widely expected to be tied up by gridlock between the GOP-controlled House and the Democratic president. But the past month suggests the future could be different.
Obama and his team reinvented their political approach over the past several weeks to win key Republican votes, no longer relying mainly on the huge Democratic majorities in Congress that they won't have in the new year.
Republicans, meanwhile, said they would welcome working with Obama on issues where the two sides agree, as even as Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) reaffirmed that his top goal for the two next two years was ensuring that the president did not win a second term.
"With the lame duck, the 111th Congress may even surpass the 89th [of President Lyndon Johnson] in terms of accomplishments," said Norman Ornstein, a congressional expert at the American Enterprise Institute.
A Lame-Duck Session with Unexpected Victories
By Perry Bacon Jr.
When the lame-duck session of Congress started more than a month ago, President Obama looked defeated and deflated, publicly acknowledging the "shellacking" his party had taken in the November midterm elections.
Now, a six-week session that was expected to reflect a weakened president has turned into a surprising success. On Wednesday, Obama signed into law the repeal of the military's ban on openly gay service members, and the Senate approved a new nuclear treaty with Russia that the president had declared a top priority.
Those accomplishments come after Obama successfully negotiated a free-trade agreement with South Korea, reached a deal with Republicans that extended unemployment benefits and prevented a tax hike for millions of Americans and signed a bill that will make school lunches healthier.
This blitz of bill signings completes a dramatic first two years for the nation's first black president that included the enactment of arguably the most major liberal policies since the Johnson administration but also the Democrats' biggest loss of House seats in 72 years.
After the election defeats and bitter battles over the health care and financial regulation legislation, the next two years were widely expected to be tied up by gridlock between the GOP-controlled House and the Democratic president. But the past month suggests the future could be different.
Obama and his team reinvented their political approach over the past several weeks to win key Republican votes, no longer relying mainly on the huge Democratic majorities in Congress that they won't have in the new year.
Republicans, meanwhile, said they would welcome working with Obama on issues where the two sides agree, as even as Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) reaffirmed that his top goal for the two next two years was ensuring that the president did not win a second term.
"With the lame duck, the 111th Congress may even surpass the 89th [of President Lyndon Johnson] in terms of accomplishments," said Norman Ornstein, a congressional expert at the American Enterprise Institute.
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
The Difference Between Jews and Muslims -- Just the Simple Facts
ALL EUROPEAN LIFE DIED IN AUSCHWITZ
By Sebastian Vilar Rodrigez
I walked down the street in Barcelona , and suddenly discovered a terrible
truth - Europe died in Auschwitz ... We killed six million Jews and replaced
them with 20 million Muslims. In Auschwitz we burned a culture, thought,
creativity, talent. We destroyed the chosen people, truly chosen, because
they produced great and wonderful people who changed the world.
The contribution of this people is felt in all areas of life: science, art,
international trade, and above all, as the conscience of the world. These
are the people we burned.
And under the pretense of tolerance, and because we wanted to prove to
ourselves that we were cured of the disease of racism, we opened our gates
to 20 million Muslims, who brought us stupidity and ignorance, religious
extremism and lack of tolerance, crime and poverty, due to an unwillingness
to work and support their families with pride.
They have blown up our trains and turned our beautiful Spanish cities into
the third world, drowning in filth and crime.
Shut up in the apartments they receive free from the government, they plan
the murder and destruction of their naive hosts.
And thus, in our misery, we have exchanged culture for fanatical hatred,
creative skill for destructive skill, intelligence for backwardness and
superstition.
We have exchanged the pursuit of peace of the Jews of Europe and their
talent for a better future for their children, their determined clinging to
life because life is holy, for those who pursue death, for people consumed
by the desire for death for themselves and others, for our children and
theirs. What a terrible mistake was made by miserable Europe .
A lot of Americans have become so insulated from reality that they imagine
America can suffer defeat without any inconvenience to themselves.
Absolutely No Profiling! Pause a moment, reflect back, and take the
following multiple choice test.
These events are actual events from history. They really happened! Do you
remember?
HERE'S THE TEST:
1. 1968 Bobby Kennedy was shot and killed by: a. Superman b. Jay Leno c.
Harry Potter d. A Muslim male extremist between the ages of 17 and 40
2. In 1972 at the Munich Olympics, athletes were kidnapped and massacred
by: a. Olga Corbett b. Sitting Bull c. Arnold Schwarzenegger d. Muslim
male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
3. In 1979, the US embassy in Iran was taken over by: a. Lost Norwegians
b. Elvis c. A tour bus full of 80-year-old women d. Muslim male extremists
mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
4. During the 1980's a number of Americans were kidnapped in Lebanon by:
a. John Dillinger b. The King of Sweden c. The Boy Scouts d. Muslim male
extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
5. In 1983, the US Marine barracks in Beirut was blown up by: a. A pizza
delivery boy b. Pee Wee Herman c. Geraldo Rivera d. Muslim male
extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
6. In 1985 the cruise ship Achille Lauro was hijacked and a 70 year old
American passenger was murdered and thrown overboard in his wheelchair by:
a. The Smurfs b. Davey Jones c. The Little Mermaid d. Muslim male
extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
7. In 1985 TWA flight 847 was hijacked at Athens , and a US Navy diver
trying to rescue passengers was murdered by: a. Captain Kidd b. Charles
Lindberg c. Mother Teresa d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the
ages of 17 and 40
8. In 1988, Pan Am Flight 103 was bombed by: a. Scooby Doo b. The Tooth
Fairy c. The Sundance Kid d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the
ages of 17 and 40
9. In 1993 the World Trade Center was bombed the first time by: a.
Richard Simmons b. Grandma Moses c. Michael Jordan d. Muslim male
extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
10. In 1998, the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by: a.
Mr. Rogers b. Hillary Clinton, to distract attention from Wild Bill's women
problems c. The World Wrestling Federation d. Muslim male extremists
mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
11. On 9/11/01, four airliners were hijacked; two were used as missiles to
take out the World Trade Centers and of the remaining two, one crashed into
the US Pentagon and the other was diverted and crashed by the passengers.
Thousands of people were killed by: a. Bugs Bunny, Wiley E. Coyote, Daffy
Duck and Elmer Fudd b. The Supreme Court of Florida c. Mr Bean d. Muslim
male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
12. In 2002, the United States fought a war in Afghanistan against: a.
Enron b. The Lutheran Church c. The NFL d. Muslim male extremists
mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
13. In 2002 reporter Daniel Pearl was kidnapped and murdered by: a. Bonnie
and Clyde b. Captain Kangaroo c. Billy Graham d. Muslim male extremists
mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
14. And now we can add: In 2009, 31 people wounded and 13 American Soldiers
murdered on base at Fort Hood by a Major that was known as... a: You guessed
it - A Muslim male extremist between the age of 17 and 40.
No, I really don't see a pattern here to justify profiling, do you? So, to
ensure we Americans never offend anyone, particularly fanatics intent on
killing us, airport security screeners will no longer be allowed to profile
certain people. They must conduct random searches of 80-year-old women,
little kids, airline pilots with proper identification, secret agents who
are members of the President's security detail, 85-year old Congressmen with
metal hips, and Medal of Honor winner and former Governor Joe Foss, but
leave Muslim Males between the ages 17 and 40 alone lest they be guilty of
profiling.
Let's send this to as many people as we can so that the Nancy Pelosis,
Gloria Aldreds and other dunder-headed attorneys along with Federal Justices
that want to thwart common sense, feel ashamed of themselves - if they have
any such sense.
We can not allow the socialist transformation being brought on by the
current administration to continue. Look at what it has done to Europe . We
all must stand together before it's too late and everything America stands
for is lost.
The Global Islamic population is approximately 1,200,000,000; that is ONE
BILLION TWO HUNDRED MILLION or 20% of the world's population. They have
received the following Nobel Prizes:
Literature:
1988 - Najib Mahfooz
Peace:
1978 - Mohamed Anwar El-Sadat
1990 - Elias James Corey
1994 - Yaser Arafat:
1999 - Ahmed Zewai
Economics: (zero)
Physics: (zero)
Medicine:
1960 - Peter Brian Medawar
1998 - Ferid Mourad
TOTAL: 7 (SEVEN)
The Global Jewish population is approximately 14,000,000; that is FOURTEEN
MILLION or about 0.02% of the world's population. They have received the
following Nobel Prizes:
Literature:
1910 - Paul Heyse
1927 - Henri Bergson
1958 - Boris Pasternak
1966 - Shmuel Yosef Agnon
1966 - Nelly Sachs
1976 - Saul Bellow
1978 - Isaac Bashevis Singer
1981 - Elias Canetti
1987 - Joseph Brodsky
1991 - Nadine Gordimer
World Peace:
1911 - Alfred Fried
1911 - Tobias Michael Carel Asser
1968 - Rene Cassin
1973 - Henry Kissinger
1978 - Menachem Begin
1986 - Elie Wiesel
1994 - Shimon Peres
1994 - Yitzhak Rabin
Physics:
1905 - Adolph Von Baeyer
1906 - Henri Moissan
1907 - Albert Abraham Michelson
1908 - Gabriel Lippmann
1910 - Otto Wallach
1915 - Richard Willstaetter
1918 - Fritz Haber
1921 - Albert Einstein
1922 - Niels Bohr
1925 - James Franck
1925 - Gustav Hertz
1943 - Gustav Stern
1943 - George Charles de Hevesy
1944 - Isidor Issac Rabi
1952 - Felix Bloch
1954 - Max Born
1958 - Igor Tamm
1959 - Emilio Segre
1960 - Donald A. Glaser
1961 - Robert Hofstadter
1961 - Melvin Calvin
1962 - Lev Davidovich Landau
1962 - Max Ferdinand Perutz
1965 - Richard Phillips Feynman
1965 - Julian Schwinger
1969 - Murray Gell-Mann
1971 - Dennis Gabor
1972 - William Howard Stein
1973 - Brian David Josephson
1975 - Ben jamin Mottleson
1976 - Burton Richter
1977 - Ilya Prigogine
1978 - Arno Allan Penzias
1978 - Peter L Kapitza
1979 - Stephen Weinberg
1979 - Sheldon Glashow
1979 - Herbert Charles Brown
1980 - Paul Berg
1980 - Walter Gilbert
1981 - Roald Hoffmann
1982 - Aaron Klug
1985 - Albert A. Hauptman
1985 - Jerome Karle
1986 - Dudley R. Herschbach
1988 - Robert Huber
1988 - Leon Lederman
1988 - Melvin Schwartz
1988 - Jack Steinberger
1989 - Sidney Altman
1990 - Jerome Friedman
1992 - Rudolph Marcus
1995 - Martin Perl
2000 - Alan J. Heeger
Economics:
1970 - Paul Anthony Samuelson
1971 - Simon Kuznets
1972 - Kenneth Joseph Arrow
1975 - Leonid Kantorovich
1976 - Milton Friedman
1978 - Herbert A. Simon
1980 - Lawrence Robert Klein
1985 - Franco Modigliani
1987 - Robert M. Solow
1990 - Harry Markowitz
1990 - Merton Miller
1992 - Gary Becker
1993 - Robert Fogel
Medicine:
1908 - Elie Metchnikoff
1908 - Paul Erlich
1914 - Robert Barany
1922 - Otto Meyerhof
1930 - Karl Landsteiner
1931 - Otto Warburg
1936 - Otto Loewi
1944 - Joseph Erlanger
1944 - Herbert Spencer Gasser
1945 - Ernst Boris Chain
1946 - Hermann Joseph Muller
1950 - Tadeus Reichstein
1952 - Selman Abraham Waksman
1953 - Hans Krebs
1953 - Fritz Albert Lipmann
1958 - Joshua Lederberg
1959 - Arthur Kornberg
1964 - Konrad Bloch
1965 - Francois Jacob
1965 - Andre Lwoff
1967 - George Wald
1968 - Marshall W. Nirenberg
1969 - Salvador Luria
1970 - Julius Axelrod
1970 - Sir Bernard Katz
1972 - Gerald Maurice Edelman
1975 - Howard Martin Temin
1976 -Baruch S. Blumberg
1977 - Roselyn Sussman Yalow
1978 - Daniel Nathans
1980 - Baruj Benacerraf
1984 - Cesar Milstein
1985 - Michael Stuart Brown
1985 - Joseph L. Goldstein
1986 - Stanley Cohen & Rita Levi-Montalcini
1988 - Gertrude Elion
1989 - Harold Varmus
1991 - Erwin Neher
1991 - Bert Sakmann
1993 - Richard J. Roberts
1993 - Phillip Sharp
1994 - Alfred Gilman
1995 - Edward B. Lewis
1996 - Lu Rose Iacovino
TOTAL: 129!
The Jews are NOT promoting brain washing children in military training
camps, teaching them how to blow themselves up and cause maximum deaths of
Jews and other non Muslims. The Jews don't hijack planes, nor kill
athletes at the Olympics, or blow themselves up in German restaurants.
There is NOT one single Jew who has destroyed a church. There is NOT a
single Jew who protests by killing people.
The Jews don't traffic slaves, nor have leaders calling for Jihad and
death to all the Infidels.
Perhaps the world's Muslims should consider investing more in standard
education and less in blaming the Jews for all their problems.
Muslims must ask 'what can they do for humankind' before they demand that
humankind respects them.
Regardless of your feelings about the crisis between Israel and the
Palestinians and Arab neighbors, even if you believe there is more
culpability on Israel 's part, the following two sentences really say it
all:
'If the Arabs put down their weapons today, there would be no more
violence. If the Jews put down their weapons today, there would be no more
Israel '. "Benjamin Netanyahu"
General Eisenhower warned us: It is a matter of history that when the
Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces, General Dwight Eisenhower, found
the victims of the death camps he ordered all possible photographs to be
taken, and for the German people from surrounding villages to be ushered
through the camps and even made to bury the dead. He did this because
he said in words to this effect:
'Get it all on record now - get the films - get the witnesses - because
somewhere down the road of history some bastard will get up and say that
this never happened'
Recently, the UK debated whether to remove The Holocaust from its school
curriculum because it 'offends' the Muslim population which claims it never
occurred. It is not removed as yet. However, this is a frightening portent
of the fear that is gripping the world and how easily each country is
giving into it.
It is now more than 60 years after the Second World War in Europe ended.
This e-mail is being sent as a memorial chain, in memory of the, 6 million
Jews, 20 million Russians, 10 million Christians, and 1,900 Catholic priests
who were 'murdered, raped, burned, starved, beaten, experimented on and
humiliated' while the German people looked the other way.
Now, more than ever, with Iran , among others, claiming the Holocaust to be
'a myth,' it is imperative to make sure the world never forgets.
This e-mail is intended to reach 400 million people. Be a link in the
memorial chain and help distribute this around the world.
How many years will it be before the attack on the World Trade Center
'NEVER HAPPENED' because it offends some Muslim in the United States ?
By Sebastian Vilar Rodrigez
I walked down the street in Barcelona , and suddenly discovered a terrible
truth - Europe died in Auschwitz ... We killed six million Jews and replaced
them with 20 million Muslims. In Auschwitz we burned a culture, thought,
creativity, talent. We destroyed the chosen people, truly chosen, because
they produced great and wonderful people who changed the world.
The contribution of this people is felt in all areas of life: science, art,
international trade, and above all, as the conscience of the world. These
are the people we burned.
And under the pretense of tolerance, and because we wanted to prove to
ourselves that we were cured of the disease of racism, we opened our gates
to 20 million Muslims, who brought us stupidity and ignorance, religious
extremism and lack of tolerance, crime and poverty, due to an unwillingness
to work and support their families with pride.
They have blown up our trains and turned our beautiful Spanish cities into
the third world, drowning in filth and crime.
Shut up in the apartments they receive free from the government, they plan
the murder and destruction of their naive hosts.
And thus, in our misery, we have exchanged culture for fanatical hatred,
creative skill for destructive skill, intelligence for backwardness and
superstition.
We have exchanged the pursuit of peace of the Jews of Europe and their
talent for a better future for their children, their determined clinging to
life because life is holy, for those who pursue death, for people consumed
by the desire for death for themselves and others, for our children and
theirs. What a terrible mistake was made by miserable Europe .
A lot of Americans have become so insulated from reality that they imagine
America can suffer defeat without any inconvenience to themselves.
Absolutely No Profiling! Pause a moment, reflect back, and take the
following multiple choice test.
These events are actual events from history. They really happened! Do you
remember?
HERE'S THE TEST:
1. 1968 Bobby Kennedy was shot and killed by: a. Superman b. Jay Leno c.
Harry Potter d. A Muslim male extremist between the ages of 17 and 40
2. In 1972 at the Munich Olympics, athletes were kidnapped and massacred
by: a. Olga Corbett b. Sitting Bull c. Arnold Schwarzenegger d. Muslim
male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
3. In 1979, the US embassy in Iran was taken over by: a. Lost Norwegians
b. Elvis c. A tour bus full of 80-year-old women d. Muslim male extremists
mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
4. During the 1980's a number of Americans were kidnapped in Lebanon by:
a. John Dillinger b. The King of Sweden c. The Boy Scouts d. Muslim male
extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
5. In 1983, the US Marine barracks in Beirut was blown up by: a. A pizza
delivery boy b. Pee Wee Herman c. Geraldo Rivera d. Muslim male
extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
6. In 1985 the cruise ship Achille Lauro was hijacked and a 70 year old
American passenger was murdered and thrown overboard in his wheelchair by:
a. The Smurfs b. Davey Jones c. The Little Mermaid d. Muslim male
extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
7. In 1985 TWA flight 847 was hijacked at Athens , and a US Navy diver
trying to rescue passengers was murdered by: a. Captain Kidd b. Charles
Lindberg c. Mother Teresa d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the
ages of 17 and 40
8. In 1988, Pan Am Flight 103 was bombed by: a. Scooby Doo b. The Tooth
Fairy c. The Sundance Kid d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the
ages of 17 and 40
9. In 1993 the World Trade Center was bombed the first time by: a.
Richard Simmons b. Grandma Moses c. Michael Jordan d. Muslim male
extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
10. In 1998, the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by: a.
Mr. Rogers b. Hillary Clinton, to distract attention from Wild Bill's women
problems c. The World Wrestling Federation d. Muslim male extremists
mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
11. On 9/11/01, four airliners were hijacked; two were used as missiles to
take out the World Trade Centers and of the remaining two, one crashed into
the US Pentagon and the other was diverted and crashed by the passengers.
Thousands of people were killed by: a. Bugs Bunny, Wiley E. Coyote, Daffy
Duck and Elmer Fudd b. The Supreme Court of Florida c. Mr Bean d. Muslim
male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
12. In 2002, the United States fought a war in Afghanistan against: a.
Enron b. The Lutheran Church c. The NFL d. Muslim male extremists
mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
13. In 2002 reporter Daniel Pearl was kidnapped and murdered by: a. Bonnie
and Clyde b. Captain Kangaroo c. Billy Graham d. Muslim male extremists
mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
14. And now we can add: In 2009, 31 people wounded and 13 American Soldiers
murdered on base at Fort Hood by a Major that was known as... a: You guessed
it - A Muslim male extremist between the age of 17 and 40.
No, I really don't see a pattern here to justify profiling, do you? So, to
ensure we Americans never offend anyone, particularly fanatics intent on
killing us, airport security screeners will no longer be allowed to profile
certain people. They must conduct random searches of 80-year-old women,
little kids, airline pilots with proper identification, secret agents who
are members of the President's security detail, 85-year old Congressmen with
metal hips, and Medal of Honor winner and former Governor Joe Foss, but
leave Muslim Males between the ages 17 and 40 alone lest they be guilty of
profiling.
Let's send this to as many people as we can so that the Nancy Pelosis,
Gloria Aldreds and other dunder-headed attorneys along with Federal Justices
that want to thwart common sense, feel ashamed of themselves - if they have
any such sense.
We can not allow the socialist transformation being brought on by the
current administration to continue. Look at what it has done to Europe . We
all must stand together before it's too late and everything America stands
for is lost.
The Global Islamic population is approximately 1,200,000,000; that is ONE
BILLION TWO HUNDRED MILLION or 20% of the world's population. They have
received the following Nobel Prizes:
Literature:
1988 - Najib Mahfooz
Peace:
1978 - Mohamed Anwar El-Sadat
1990 - Elias James Corey
1994 - Yaser Arafat:
1999 - Ahmed Zewai
Economics: (zero)
Physics: (zero)
Medicine:
1960 - Peter Brian Medawar
1998 - Ferid Mourad
TOTAL: 7 (SEVEN)
The Global Jewish population is approximately 14,000,000; that is FOURTEEN
MILLION or about 0.02% of the world's population. They have received the
following Nobel Prizes:
Literature:
1910 - Paul Heyse
1927 - Henri Bergson
1958 - Boris Pasternak
1966 - Shmuel Yosef Agnon
1966 - Nelly Sachs
1976 - Saul Bellow
1978 - Isaac Bashevis Singer
1981 - Elias Canetti
1987 - Joseph Brodsky
1991 - Nadine Gordimer
World Peace:
1911 - Alfred Fried
1911 - Tobias Michael Carel Asser
1968 - Rene Cassin
1973 - Henry Kissinger
1978 - Menachem Begin
1986 - Elie Wiesel
1994 - Shimon Peres
1994 - Yitzhak Rabin
Physics:
1905 - Adolph Von Baeyer
1906 - Henri Moissan
1907 - Albert Abraham Michelson
1908 - Gabriel Lippmann
1910 - Otto Wallach
1915 - Richard Willstaetter
1918 - Fritz Haber
1921 - Albert Einstein
1922 - Niels Bohr
1925 - James Franck
1925 - Gustav Hertz
1943 - Gustav Stern
1943 - George Charles de Hevesy
1944 - Isidor Issac Rabi
1952 - Felix Bloch
1954 - Max Born
1958 - Igor Tamm
1959 - Emilio Segre
1960 - Donald A. Glaser
1961 - Robert Hofstadter
1961 - Melvin Calvin
1962 - Lev Davidovich Landau
1962 - Max Ferdinand Perutz
1965 - Richard Phillips Feynman
1965 - Julian Schwinger
1969 - Murray Gell-Mann
1971 - Dennis Gabor
1972 - William Howard Stein
1973 - Brian David Josephson
1975 - Ben jamin Mottleson
1976 - Burton Richter
1977 - Ilya Prigogine
1978 - Arno Allan Penzias
1978 - Peter L Kapitza
1979 - Stephen Weinberg
1979 - Sheldon Glashow
1979 - Herbert Charles Brown
1980 - Paul Berg
1980 - Walter Gilbert
1981 - Roald Hoffmann
1982 - Aaron Klug
1985 - Albert A. Hauptman
1985 - Jerome Karle
1986 - Dudley R. Herschbach
1988 - Robert Huber
1988 - Leon Lederman
1988 - Melvin Schwartz
1988 - Jack Steinberger
1989 - Sidney Altman
1990 - Jerome Friedman
1992 - Rudolph Marcus
1995 - Martin Perl
2000 - Alan J. Heeger
Economics:
1970 - Paul Anthony Samuelson
1971 - Simon Kuznets
1972 - Kenneth Joseph Arrow
1975 - Leonid Kantorovich
1976 - Milton Friedman
1978 - Herbert A. Simon
1980 - Lawrence Robert Klein
1985 - Franco Modigliani
1987 - Robert M. Solow
1990 - Harry Markowitz
1990 - Merton Miller
1992 - Gary Becker
1993 - Robert Fogel
Medicine:
1908 - Elie Metchnikoff
1908 - Paul Erlich
1914 - Robert Barany
1922 - Otto Meyerhof
1930 - Karl Landsteiner
1931 - Otto Warburg
1936 - Otto Loewi
1944 - Joseph Erlanger
1944 - Herbert Spencer Gasser
1945 - Ernst Boris Chain
1946 - Hermann Joseph Muller
1950 - Tadeus Reichstein
1952 - Selman Abraham Waksman
1953 - Hans Krebs
1953 - Fritz Albert Lipmann
1958 - Joshua Lederberg
1959 - Arthur Kornberg
1964 - Konrad Bloch
1965 - Francois Jacob
1965 - Andre Lwoff
1967 - George Wald
1968 - Marshall W. Nirenberg
1969 - Salvador Luria
1970 - Julius Axelrod
1970 - Sir Bernard Katz
1972 - Gerald Maurice Edelman
1975 - Howard Martin Temin
1976 -Baruch S. Blumberg
1977 - Roselyn Sussman Yalow
1978 - Daniel Nathans
1980 - Baruj Benacerraf
1984 - Cesar Milstein
1985 - Michael Stuart Brown
1985 - Joseph L. Goldstein
1986 - Stanley Cohen & Rita Levi-Montalcini
1988 - Gertrude Elion
1989 - Harold Varmus
1991 - Erwin Neher
1991 - Bert Sakmann
1993 - Richard J. Roberts
1993 - Phillip Sharp
1994 - Alfred Gilman
1995 - Edward B. Lewis
1996 - Lu Rose Iacovino
TOTAL: 129!
The Jews are NOT promoting brain washing children in military training
camps, teaching them how to blow themselves up and cause maximum deaths of
Jews and other non Muslims. The Jews don't hijack planes, nor kill
athletes at the Olympics, or blow themselves up in German restaurants.
There is NOT one single Jew who has destroyed a church. There is NOT a
single Jew who protests by killing people.
The Jews don't traffic slaves, nor have leaders calling for Jihad and
death to all the Infidels.
Perhaps the world's Muslims should consider investing more in standard
education and less in blaming the Jews for all their problems.
Muslims must ask 'what can they do for humankind' before they demand that
humankind respects them.
Regardless of your feelings about the crisis between Israel and the
Palestinians and Arab neighbors, even if you believe there is more
culpability on Israel 's part, the following two sentences really say it
all:
'If the Arabs put down their weapons today, there would be no more
violence. If the Jews put down their weapons today, there would be no more
Israel '. "Benjamin Netanyahu"
General Eisenhower warned us: It is a matter of history that when the
Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces, General Dwight Eisenhower, found
the victims of the death camps he ordered all possible photographs to be
taken, and for the German people from surrounding villages to be ushered
through the camps and even made to bury the dead. He did this because
he said in words to this effect:
'Get it all on record now - get the films - get the witnesses - because
somewhere down the road of history some bastard will get up and say that
this never happened'
Recently, the UK debated whether to remove The Holocaust from its school
curriculum because it 'offends' the Muslim population which claims it never
occurred. It is not removed as yet. However, this is a frightening portent
of the fear that is gripping the world and how easily each country is
giving into it.
It is now more than 60 years after the Second World War in Europe ended.
This e-mail is being sent as a memorial chain, in memory of the, 6 million
Jews, 20 million Russians, 10 million Christians, and 1,900 Catholic priests
who were 'murdered, raped, burned, starved, beaten, experimented on and
humiliated' while the German people looked the other way.
Now, more than ever, with Iran , among others, claiming the Holocaust to be
'a myth,' it is imperative to make sure the world never forgets.
This e-mail is intended to reach 400 million people. Be a link in the
memorial chain and help distribute this around the world.
How many years will it be before the attack on the World Trade Center
'NEVER HAPPENED' because it offends some Muslim in the United States ?
The "Grand Old (Screw The People) Party" Strikes Again
GOP Delays Confirmation Of Obama Nominee Because He Might Want To Help Underwater Homeowners
By Pat Garofalo Center for American Progress -- December 21, 2010
The Wall Street Journal reported earlier this month that the Obama administration has been trying to cajole Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into writing down loan principal for troubled homeowners. Incoming House Financial Services Chairman Spencer Bachus (R-AL), however, is not on-board with the effort. And he’s evidently not alone.
In fact, the GOP is so dead-set against helping borrowers who are underwater on their mortgages — meaning they owe more than their house is currently worth — that they are delaying confirmation of the administration’s nominee to lead the Federal Housing Finance Agency (Fannie and Freddie’s chief regulator) because he might be sympathetic to loan write-downs:
Senate Republicans are pressing to delay the confirmation of Joseph A. Smith, the North Carolina banking commissioner, to head the Federal Housing Finance Agency. They are concerned he might allow Fannie and Freddie to participate in an Obama administration initiative to write down loan balances, say people familiar with the matter.
Mr. Smith first appeared to be headed for a quick confirmation. But he has become tripped up by a broader fight between the White House, which wants to use the firms to help heal housing markets, and GOP critics that say they shouldn’t be run as policy vehicles that create more losses.
The administration’s foreclosure prevention efforts have largely flopped, and the banking industry is on pace to foreclose on one million homes both this year and next. Allowing Fannie and Freddie to write-down loans could help put a dent in these huge numbers.
Republicans, however, are arguing that such a move is unfair, as Fannie and Freddie would be forced to eat losses while helping only specific homeowners. Senate Banking Committee Ranking Member Richard Shelby (R-AL) said that write-downs amount to “redistribution from taxpayers in general to certain classes of home owners.”
But this basically ignores the wider negative effects foreclosures, which drag down home values for everyone. As The American Prospect’s Tim Fernholz explained:
[Republicans have a] rather short-sighted approach, given that Fannie and Freddie are already propping up almost the entire housing market, and that the costs of both foreclosure and consumer debt overhang are a drag on the broader economy. Foreclosure is everyone’s problem, especially when many of these borrowers are underwater not because of their own irresponsibility but because of dramatic drops in the price of housing.
According to Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner there “is a pretty good economic case for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to participate in those programs.” FDIC Chair Sheila Bair has also called for principal write-downs, saying that they “could help reduce defaults, keep people in their homes, avoid costly foreclosures, and enhance the value of these loans.” But the GOP has stood in the way of every effort to help troubled borrowers, and this is no exception.
By Pat Garofalo Center for American Progress -- December 21, 2010
The Wall Street Journal reported earlier this month that the Obama administration has been trying to cajole Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into writing down loan principal for troubled homeowners. Incoming House Financial Services Chairman Spencer Bachus (R-AL), however, is not on-board with the effort. And he’s evidently not alone.
In fact, the GOP is so dead-set against helping borrowers who are underwater on their mortgages — meaning they owe more than their house is currently worth — that they are delaying confirmation of the administration’s nominee to lead the Federal Housing Finance Agency (Fannie and Freddie’s chief regulator) because he might be sympathetic to loan write-downs:
Senate Republicans are pressing to delay the confirmation of Joseph A. Smith, the North Carolina banking commissioner, to head the Federal Housing Finance Agency. They are concerned he might allow Fannie and Freddie to participate in an Obama administration initiative to write down loan balances, say people familiar with the matter.
Mr. Smith first appeared to be headed for a quick confirmation. But he has become tripped up by a broader fight between the White House, which wants to use the firms to help heal housing markets, and GOP critics that say they shouldn’t be run as policy vehicles that create more losses.
The administration’s foreclosure prevention efforts have largely flopped, and the banking industry is on pace to foreclose on one million homes both this year and next. Allowing Fannie and Freddie to write-down loans could help put a dent in these huge numbers.
Republicans, however, are arguing that such a move is unfair, as Fannie and Freddie would be forced to eat losses while helping only specific homeowners. Senate Banking Committee Ranking Member Richard Shelby (R-AL) said that write-downs amount to “redistribution from taxpayers in general to certain classes of home owners.”
But this basically ignores the wider negative effects foreclosures, which drag down home values for everyone. As The American Prospect’s Tim Fernholz explained:
[Republicans have a] rather short-sighted approach, given that Fannie and Freddie are already propping up almost the entire housing market, and that the costs of both foreclosure and consumer debt overhang are a drag on the broader economy. Foreclosure is everyone’s problem, especially when many of these borrowers are underwater not because of their own irresponsibility but because of dramatic drops in the price of housing.
According to Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner there “is a pretty good economic case for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to participate in those programs.” FDIC Chair Sheila Bair has also called for principal write-downs, saying that they “could help reduce defaults, keep people in their homes, avoid costly foreclosures, and enhance the value of these loans.” But the GOP has stood in the way of every effort to help troubled borrowers, and this is no exception.
Friday, December 17, 2010
"Government Takeover Of Health Care" Is FOX News "Lie Of The Year" -- Congratulations, FOX!
PolitiFact's "Lie Of The Year" Is One Of Fox's Favorite Health Care Lies -- December 16, 2010:
PolitiFact recently named "a government takeover of health care" as its 2010 "Lie of the Year" -- a lie that Fox News hosts and contributors have repeatedly promoted.
PolitiFact: "Government Takeover Of Health Care" Is The "Lie Of The Year"
PolitiFact: "Government Takeover Of Health Care" Is The "Lie Of The Year." In its article declaring "a government takeover of health care" the Lie of the Year, PolitiFact wrote:
"Government takeover" conjures a European approach where the government owns the hospitals and the doctors are public employees. But the law Congress passed, parts of which have already gone into effect, relies largely on the free market:
· Employers will continue to provide health insurance to the majority of Americans through private insurance companies.
· Contrary to the claim, more people will get private health coverage. The law sets up "exchanges" where private insurers will compete to provide coverage to people who don't have it.
· The government will not seize control of hospitals or nationalize doctors.
· The law does not include the public option, a government-run insurance plan that would have competed with private insurers.
· The law gives tax credits to people who have difficulty affording insurance, so they can buy their coverage from private providers on the exchange. But here too, the approach relies on a free market with regulations, not socialized medicine.
PolitiFact reporters have studied the 906-page bill and interviewed independent health care experts. We have concluded it is inaccurate to call the plan a government takeover because it relies largely on the existing system of health coverage provided by employers.
It's true that the law does significantly increase government regulation of health insurers. But it is, at its heart, a system that relies on private companies and the free market.
Republicans who maintain the Democratic plan is a government takeover say that characterization is justified because the plan increases federal regulation and will require Americans to buy health insurance.
But while those provisions are real, the majority of Americans will continue to get coverage from private insurers. And it will bring new business for the insurance industry: People who don"t currently have coverage will get it, for the most part, from private insurance companies.
PolitiFact recently named "a government takeover of health care" as its 2010 "Lie of the Year" -- a lie that Fox News hosts and contributors have repeatedly promoted.
PolitiFact: "Government Takeover Of Health Care" Is The "Lie Of The Year"
PolitiFact: "Government Takeover Of Health Care" Is The "Lie Of The Year." In its article declaring "a government takeover of health care" the Lie of the Year, PolitiFact wrote:
"Government takeover" conjures a European approach where the government owns the hospitals and the doctors are public employees. But the law Congress passed, parts of which have already gone into effect, relies largely on the free market:
· Employers will continue to provide health insurance to the majority of Americans through private insurance companies.
· Contrary to the claim, more people will get private health coverage. The law sets up "exchanges" where private insurers will compete to provide coverage to people who don't have it.
· The government will not seize control of hospitals or nationalize doctors.
· The law does not include the public option, a government-run insurance plan that would have competed with private insurers.
· The law gives tax credits to people who have difficulty affording insurance, so they can buy their coverage from private providers on the exchange. But here too, the approach relies on a free market with regulations, not socialized medicine.
PolitiFact reporters have studied the 906-page bill and interviewed independent health care experts. We have concluded it is inaccurate to call the plan a government takeover because it relies largely on the existing system of health coverage provided by employers.
It's true that the law does significantly increase government regulation of health insurers. But it is, at its heart, a system that relies on private companies and the free market.
Republicans who maintain the Democratic plan is a government takeover say that characterization is justified because the plan increases federal regulation and will require Americans to buy health insurance.
But while those provisions are real, the majority of Americans will continue to get coverage from private insurers. And it will bring new business for the insurance industry: People who don"t currently have coverage will get it, for the most part, from private insurance companies.
The New Comeback Kid -- Barack Obama
From The Washington Post -- December 17, 2010:
The New Comeback Kid
By Charles Krauthammer
If Barack Obama wins reelection in 2012, as is now more likely than not, historians will mark his comeback as beginning on Dec. 6, the day of the Great Tax Cut Deal of 2010.
When it comes to politics, Obama's ego keeps getting in the way
Obama had a bad November. Self-confessedly shellacked in the midterm election, he fled the scene to Asia and various unsuccessful meetings, only to return to a sad-sack lame-duck Congress with ghostly dozens of defeated Democrats wandering the halls.
Now, with his stunning tax deal, Obama is back. Holding no high cards, he nonetheless managed to resurface suddenly not just as a player but as orchestrator, dealmaker and central actor in a high $1 trillion drama.
Compare this with Bill Clinton, greatest of all comeback kids, who, at a news conference a full five months after his shellacking in 1994, was reduced to plaintively protesting that "the president is relevant here." He had been so humiliatingly sidelined that he did not really recover until late 1995 when he outmaneuvered Newt Gingrich in the government-shutdown showdown.
And that was Clinton responding nimbly to political opportunity. Obama fashioned out of thin air his return to relevance, an even more impressive achievement.
Remember the question after Election Day: Can Obama move to the center to win back the independents who had abandoned the party in November? And if so, how long would it take? Answer: Five weeks. An indoor record, although an asterisk should denote that he had help - Republicans clearing his path and sprinkling it with rose petals.
Obama's repositioning to the center was first symbolized by his joint appearance with Clinton, the quintessential centrist Democrat, and followed days later by the overwhelming 81 to 19 Senate majority that supported the tax deal. That bipartisan margin will go a long way toward erasing the partisan stigma of Obama's first two years, marked by Stimulus I, which passed without a single House Republican, and a health-care bill that garnered no congressional Republicans at all.
Despite this, some on the right are gloating that Obama had been maneuvered into forfeiting his liberal base. Nonsense. He will never lose his base. Where do they go? Liberals will never have a president as ideologically kindred - and they know it. For the left, Obama is as good as it gets in a country that is barely 20 percent liberal.
The conservative gloaters were simply fooled again by the flapping and squawking that liberals ritually engage in before folding at Obama's feet. House liberals did it with Obamacare; they did it with the tax deal. Their boisterous protests are reminiscent of the floor demonstrations we used to see at party conventions when the losing candidate's partisans would dance and shout in the aisles for a while before settling down to eventually nominate the other guy by acclamation.
And Obama pulled this off at his lowest political ebb. After the shambles of the election and with no bargaining power - the Republicans could have gotten everything they wanted on the Bush tax cuts retroactively in January without fear of an Obama veto - he walks away with what even Paul Ryan admits was $313 billion in superfluous spending.
Including a $6 billion subsidy for ethanol. Why, just a few weeks ago Al Gore, the Earth King, finally confessed that ethanol subsidies were a mistake. There is not a single economic or environmental rationale left for this boondoggle that has induced American farmers to dedicate an amazing 40 percent of the U.S. corn crop - for burning! And the Republicans just revived it.
Even as they were near unanimously voting for this monstrosity, Republicans began righteously protesting $8.3 billion of earmarks in Harry Reid's omnibus spending bill. They seem not to understand how ridiculous this looks after having agreed to a Stimulus II that even by their own generous reckoning has 38 times as much spending as all these earmarks combined.
The greatest mistake Ronald Reagan's opponents ever made - and they made it over and over again - was to underestimate him. Same with Obama. The difference is that Reagan was so deeply self-assured that he invited underestimation - low expectations are a priceless political asset - whereas Obama's vanity makes him always needing to appear the smartest guy in the room. Hence that display of prickliness in his disastrous post-deal news conference last week.
But don't be fooled by defensive style or thin-skinned temperament. The president is a very smart man. How smart? His comeback is already a year ahead of Clinton's.
The New Comeback Kid
By Charles Krauthammer
If Barack Obama wins reelection in 2012, as is now more likely than not, historians will mark his comeback as beginning on Dec. 6, the day of the Great Tax Cut Deal of 2010.
When it comes to politics, Obama's ego keeps getting in the way
Obama had a bad November. Self-confessedly shellacked in the midterm election, he fled the scene to Asia and various unsuccessful meetings, only to return to a sad-sack lame-duck Congress with ghostly dozens of defeated Democrats wandering the halls.
Now, with his stunning tax deal, Obama is back. Holding no high cards, he nonetheless managed to resurface suddenly not just as a player but as orchestrator, dealmaker and central actor in a high $1 trillion drama.
Compare this with Bill Clinton, greatest of all comeback kids, who, at a news conference a full five months after his shellacking in 1994, was reduced to plaintively protesting that "the president is relevant here." He had been so humiliatingly sidelined that he did not really recover until late 1995 when he outmaneuvered Newt Gingrich in the government-shutdown showdown.
And that was Clinton responding nimbly to political opportunity. Obama fashioned out of thin air his return to relevance, an even more impressive achievement.
Remember the question after Election Day: Can Obama move to the center to win back the independents who had abandoned the party in November? And if so, how long would it take? Answer: Five weeks. An indoor record, although an asterisk should denote that he had help - Republicans clearing his path and sprinkling it with rose petals.
Obama's repositioning to the center was first symbolized by his joint appearance with Clinton, the quintessential centrist Democrat, and followed days later by the overwhelming 81 to 19 Senate majority that supported the tax deal. That bipartisan margin will go a long way toward erasing the partisan stigma of Obama's first two years, marked by Stimulus I, which passed without a single House Republican, and a health-care bill that garnered no congressional Republicans at all.
Despite this, some on the right are gloating that Obama had been maneuvered into forfeiting his liberal base. Nonsense. He will never lose his base. Where do they go? Liberals will never have a president as ideologically kindred - and they know it. For the left, Obama is as good as it gets in a country that is barely 20 percent liberal.
The conservative gloaters were simply fooled again by the flapping and squawking that liberals ritually engage in before folding at Obama's feet. House liberals did it with Obamacare; they did it with the tax deal. Their boisterous protests are reminiscent of the floor demonstrations we used to see at party conventions when the losing candidate's partisans would dance and shout in the aisles for a while before settling down to eventually nominate the other guy by acclamation.
And Obama pulled this off at his lowest political ebb. After the shambles of the election and with no bargaining power - the Republicans could have gotten everything they wanted on the Bush tax cuts retroactively in January without fear of an Obama veto - he walks away with what even Paul Ryan admits was $313 billion in superfluous spending.
Including a $6 billion subsidy for ethanol. Why, just a few weeks ago Al Gore, the Earth King, finally confessed that ethanol subsidies were a mistake. There is not a single economic or environmental rationale left for this boondoggle that has induced American farmers to dedicate an amazing 40 percent of the U.S. corn crop - for burning! And the Republicans just revived it.
Even as they were near unanimously voting for this monstrosity, Republicans began righteously protesting $8.3 billion of earmarks in Harry Reid's omnibus spending bill. They seem not to understand how ridiculous this looks after having agreed to a Stimulus II that even by their own generous reckoning has 38 times as much spending as all these earmarks combined.
The greatest mistake Ronald Reagan's opponents ever made - and they made it over and over again - was to underestimate him. Same with Obama. The difference is that Reagan was so deeply self-assured that he invited underestimation - low expectations are a priceless political asset - whereas Obama's vanity makes him always needing to appear the smartest guy in the room. Hence that display of prickliness in his disastrous post-deal news conference last week.
But don't be fooled by defensive style or thin-skinned temperament. The president is a very smart man. How smart? His comeback is already a year ahead of Clinton's.
Thursday, December 16, 2010
FOX News Has Commanded Its Reporters to Lie and Spread Ignorance about Climate Change
From The Washington Post -- December 15, 2010:
Fox News on Climate: Ignorant, Manipulative -- or Both?
By Stephen Stromberg
Media Matters says it has uncovered a directive that Bill Sammon, Fox News's Washington bureau chief, sent to the network's reporters, commanding them to "refrain from asserting that the planet has warmed (or cooled) in any given period without IMMEDIATELY pointing out that such theories are based upon data that critics have called into question. It is not our place as journalists to assert such notions as facts, especially as this debate intensifies."
This reflects ignorance, ideological manipulation -- or both.
It would have been about as fair if Sammon had instructed Fox's reporters to "refrain from asserting that President Obama was born in America without IMMEDIATELY pointing out that such theories are based upon data that critics have called into question."
Such notions? I'm an opinions journalist, so even at Fox, I might be allowed to say this: The world is currently warming. The 2000s were warmer than the 1990s, the 1990s were warmer than the 1980s, etc. Thermometers say so. Plant characteristics and animal behaviors say so. The energy content of the oceans says so. Sinking islands say so. "The warming of the climate system is unequivocal," the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported over the summer. "If the land surface records were systematically flawed and the globe had not really warmed, then it would be almost impossible to explain the concurrent changes in this wide range of indicators produced by many independent groups."
Serious climate-science skeptics, and there are a few, don't really contest the idea that global warming is happening. More coherent criticisms of the commonly accepted temperature record focus on scientists' estimates of much earlier periods and how they compare to the climate change we're seeing now. Sammon, though, makes even the most obvious climate science seem like it might be the sort of superstition that would compel your grandmother to keep a ball of cat fur in a leather glove under her holiday crèche. You know, just in case.
And what's the intensifying "debate" to which Sammon was referring? He wrote his directive last December, during the worst of the so-called Climategate e-mail scandal, which showed that a few climate scientists took some criticism a little too seriously in their private correspondence. But, ultimately, multiple independent review panels found that it didn't demonstrate any real wrongdoing -- and it certainly said little about the actual science.
I also wonder if Sammon would insist his reporters take such care in reporting on climate skeptics' claims about the Medieval Warm Period that they care so much about.
Whether by design or not, Sammon's directive implies a strategy to sneak some of the most improbable climate know-nothingism into supposedly objective newscasts. It used to be that opinions writers constructed their own straw men. Now Fox News is saving everyone else the trouble.
Fox News on Climate: Ignorant, Manipulative -- or Both?
By Stephen Stromberg
Media Matters says it has uncovered a directive that Bill Sammon, Fox News's Washington bureau chief, sent to the network's reporters, commanding them to "refrain from asserting that the planet has warmed (or cooled) in any given period without IMMEDIATELY pointing out that such theories are based upon data that critics have called into question. It is not our place as journalists to assert such notions as facts, especially as this debate intensifies."
This reflects ignorance, ideological manipulation -- or both.
It would have been about as fair if Sammon had instructed Fox's reporters to "refrain from asserting that President Obama was born in America without IMMEDIATELY pointing out that such theories are based upon data that critics have called into question."
Such notions? I'm an opinions journalist, so even at Fox, I might be allowed to say this: The world is currently warming. The 2000s were warmer than the 1990s, the 1990s were warmer than the 1980s, etc. Thermometers say so. Plant characteristics and animal behaviors say so. The energy content of the oceans says so. Sinking islands say so. "The warming of the climate system is unequivocal," the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported over the summer. "If the land surface records were systematically flawed and the globe had not really warmed, then it would be almost impossible to explain the concurrent changes in this wide range of indicators produced by many independent groups."
Serious climate-science skeptics, and there are a few, don't really contest the idea that global warming is happening. More coherent criticisms of the commonly accepted temperature record focus on scientists' estimates of much earlier periods and how they compare to the climate change we're seeing now. Sammon, though, makes even the most obvious climate science seem like it might be the sort of superstition that would compel your grandmother to keep a ball of cat fur in a leather glove under her holiday crèche. You know, just in case.
And what's the intensifying "debate" to which Sammon was referring? He wrote his directive last December, during the worst of the so-called Climategate e-mail scandal, which showed that a few climate scientists took some criticism a little too seriously in their private correspondence. But, ultimately, multiple independent review panels found that it didn't demonstrate any real wrongdoing -- and it certainly said little about the actual science.
I also wonder if Sammon would insist his reporters take such care in reporting on climate skeptics' claims about the Medieval Warm Period that they care so much about.
Whether by design or not, Sammon's directive implies a strategy to sneak some of the most improbable climate know-nothingism into supposedly objective newscasts. It used to be that opinions writers constructed their own straw men. Now Fox News is saving everyone else the trouble.
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
The Republican Party Should Get Two Percent of the Popular Vote Since It Only Represents Two Percent of the Population
The Republican Party should never receive more than two percent of the popular vote -- since the Republican Party only represents two percent of the population. The Republican party represents the wealthiest two percent of the American people, period.
Every single thing the Republican Party does -- every move it makes, every breath it takes, every word it utters, every vote it casts -- is strictly, totally and purely on behalf of the wealthiest two percent of the people.
The only reason the Republican Party exists at all is to enable the wealthiest two percent to pay the lowest possible income taxes and, if possible, to eliminate all estate taxes. The GOP would eliminate all income taxes, too, if they could.
Of course, by reducing taxes on the wealthiest two percent to the absolute minimum, the GOP also manages to gut all government programs and assure that any state which tries to help ordinary people slides into bankruptcy.
Programs that help education are the first to go. The GOP abhors an educated population. Educated people understand that Republican policies are only good for the wealthiest two percent, and cripple everybody else. A vast uneducated population is Heaven for the GOP. Uneducated voters rabidly consume the GOP's faux patriotism and perverted religious arguments.
To the GOP, Religion is a weapon of Hate -- a sword with which to divide and conquer. The GOP is the Party of Us vs. Them. Republicans always create the Other -- the straw Bogeyman . One year it's Willie Horton -- a few years later, it's Obama. If Obama is Black, he can't be a real American. He must have been born in Kenya. As for Hawaii -- can a place as exotic as Hawaii truly be part of America?
Gays are certainly the Other. They are Different from Us. Therefore, Gays shouldn't be allowed to Marry, and they certainly should not be allowed to serve in the military. It doesn't matter what damage the DADT policy does to our armed forces. It's irrelevant that outstanding soldiers, translators, people with brains, are kept out of the military simply because of their sexual orientation -- not because of anything they have done.
All that matters to the GOP is that the wealthiest two percent of Americans retain their power, continue paying the lowest possible taxes, and contribute as little as possible to the costs of running this country. Republicans don't care if America sinks into the slime pit of becoming a third world country, so be it -- as long as the wealth of the two percent at the top is protected.
Uneducated people vote for the Republican Party because they cling to their flag, guns and religion. They are like bulls in a china shop. The Republican Party waves a Red Flag in front of them and they charge. As long as these uneducated suckers are blinded by their focus on being anti-black, anti-Gay, and anti any other phony targets the GOP invents, they'll vote Republican.
They don't realize that their real Public Enemy Number One is the Republican Party. All the GOP wants from these poor fools is their votes. The GOP has no policies whatsoever to help ordinary people. The entire Republican Party exists to serve only one Master -- the wealthiest two percent of the American population.
Let those poor unfortunate Tea Party suckers read it and weep. How many of them will ever be in the top two percent -- or, even in the top seventy percent? Not only are most Tea Partiers now at the bottom of the economic ladder -- worse yet, they continually vote for candidates and policies that will keep themselves and their children stuck at the bottom of the ladder.
How on Earth did the once Greatest Generation give birth to, and spawn, today's Dumbest Generation? Was it by reducing funding for education -- or by saturating the airwaves with phony propaganda on behalf of the top two percent?
Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh have made it into the top two percent -- but only by selling out the entire rest of the country.
Every single thing the Republican Party does -- every move it makes, every breath it takes, every word it utters, every vote it casts -- is strictly, totally and purely on behalf of the wealthiest two percent of the people.
The only reason the Republican Party exists at all is to enable the wealthiest two percent to pay the lowest possible income taxes and, if possible, to eliminate all estate taxes. The GOP would eliminate all income taxes, too, if they could.
Of course, by reducing taxes on the wealthiest two percent to the absolute minimum, the GOP also manages to gut all government programs and assure that any state which tries to help ordinary people slides into bankruptcy.
Programs that help education are the first to go. The GOP abhors an educated population. Educated people understand that Republican policies are only good for the wealthiest two percent, and cripple everybody else. A vast uneducated population is Heaven for the GOP. Uneducated voters rabidly consume the GOP's faux patriotism and perverted religious arguments.
To the GOP, Religion is a weapon of Hate -- a sword with which to divide and conquer. The GOP is the Party of Us vs. Them. Republicans always create the Other -- the straw Bogeyman . One year it's Willie Horton -- a few years later, it's Obama. If Obama is Black, he can't be a real American. He must have been born in Kenya. As for Hawaii -- can a place as exotic as Hawaii truly be part of America?
Gays are certainly the Other. They are Different from Us. Therefore, Gays shouldn't be allowed to Marry, and they certainly should not be allowed to serve in the military. It doesn't matter what damage the DADT policy does to our armed forces. It's irrelevant that outstanding soldiers, translators, people with brains, are kept out of the military simply because of their sexual orientation -- not because of anything they have done.
All that matters to the GOP is that the wealthiest two percent of Americans retain their power, continue paying the lowest possible taxes, and contribute as little as possible to the costs of running this country. Republicans don't care if America sinks into the slime pit of becoming a third world country, so be it -- as long as the wealth of the two percent at the top is protected.
Uneducated people vote for the Republican Party because they cling to their flag, guns and religion. They are like bulls in a china shop. The Republican Party waves a Red Flag in front of them and they charge. As long as these uneducated suckers are blinded by their focus on being anti-black, anti-Gay, and anti any other phony targets the GOP invents, they'll vote Republican.
They don't realize that their real Public Enemy Number One is the Republican Party. All the GOP wants from these poor fools is their votes. The GOP has no policies whatsoever to help ordinary people. The entire Republican Party exists to serve only one Master -- the wealthiest two percent of the American population.
Let those poor unfortunate Tea Party suckers read it and weep. How many of them will ever be in the top two percent -- or, even in the top seventy percent? Not only are most Tea Partiers now at the bottom of the economic ladder -- worse yet, they continually vote for candidates and policies that will keep themselves and their children stuck at the bottom of the ladder.
How on Earth did the once Greatest Generation give birth to, and spawn, today's Dumbest Generation? Was it by reducing funding for education -- or by saturating the airwaves with phony propaganda on behalf of the top two percent?
Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh have made it into the top two percent -- but only by selling out the entire rest of the country.
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Republicans Bring Back 19th Century Feudalism to 21st Century America
From Common Dreams -- December 14, 2010:
Why America’s Two Economies Continue to Drift Apart, and What Washington Isn’t Doing About It
by Robert Reich
America’s two economies are getting wider apart.
The Big Money economy is booming. According to a new Commerce Department report, third-quarter profits of American businesses rose at an annual record-breaking $1.659 trillion – besting even the boom year of 2006 (in nominal dollars). Profits have soared for seven consecutive quarters now, matching or beating their fastest pace in history.
Executive pay is linked to profits, so top pay is soaring as well.
Higher profits are also translating into the nice gains in the stock market, which is a boon to everyone with lots of financial assets.
And Wall Street is back. Bonuses on the Street are expected to rise about 5 percent this year, according to a survey by compensation consultants Johnson Associates Inc.
But nothing is trickling down to the Average Worker economy. Job growth is still anemic. At October’s rate of only 50,000 new private-sector jobs, unemployment won’t get down to pre-recession levels for twenty years. And almost half of October’s new jobs were in temporary help.
Meanwhile, the median wage is barely rising, adjusted for inflation. And the value of the major asset of most Americans – their homes – continues to drop.
Why are America’s two economies going in opposite directions? Two reasons.
First, big profits are coming from overseas sales of goods and services made abroad, not here. The world’s fastest-growing markets are China and India, whose inhabitants are eager to buy “American” products, and just as eager to work for the American companies that sell them. The U.S. market is barely moving.
Increasingly, American corporations are able to extract healthy gains from their global operations without adding much in the United States except executive talent.
Second, American businesses are boosting productivity by having U.S. employees do more work for less pay. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, between the third quarter of 2009 and the third quarter of 2010, productivity rose 2.5 percent, output increased 4.1 percent, the number of hours worked was up 1.6 percent, and unit labor costs dropped by 1.9 percent.
In other words, American workers are losing even more bargaining power as a sizeable chunk of corporate profit goes into software and digital equipment that can do what people used to do – but more cheaply.
So what is Washington doing about all this?
Making the tax code more progressive so more Americans reap the benefits enjoyed by those at the top? Increasing the bargaining power of American workers? Forcing Wall Street banks to reorganize under bankruptcy mortgage loans that are dragging down the housing market? Expanding early childhood education, hiring more teachers, putting fewer kids into each classroom, and making higher education more affordable – so more working and middle-class kids can become tomorrow’s high-priced “talent”?
No. None of this. In fact, Washington is busily separating the two economies even further.
It’s extending the Bush tax cuts – the lion’s share of which go to the very wealthy; reducing the reach and rate of the estate tax; and giving corporations additional tax breaks for investing in software and equipment. Meanwhile, the states are cutting back on pre-schools, firing teachers, and yanking up tuitions and fees at public universities.
Oh, and yes, Washington is also extending unemployment benefits for the long-term jobless. Which is the least it can do, given that their ranks continue to swell.
Why America’s Two Economies Continue to Drift Apart, and What Washington Isn’t Doing About It
by Robert Reich
America’s two economies are getting wider apart.
The Big Money economy is booming. According to a new Commerce Department report, third-quarter profits of American businesses rose at an annual record-breaking $1.659 trillion – besting even the boom year of 2006 (in nominal dollars). Profits have soared for seven consecutive quarters now, matching or beating their fastest pace in history.
Executive pay is linked to profits, so top pay is soaring as well.
Higher profits are also translating into the nice gains in the stock market, which is a boon to everyone with lots of financial assets.
And Wall Street is back. Bonuses on the Street are expected to rise about 5 percent this year, according to a survey by compensation consultants Johnson Associates Inc.
But nothing is trickling down to the Average Worker economy. Job growth is still anemic. At October’s rate of only 50,000 new private-sector jobs, unemployment won’t get down to pre-recession levels for twenty years. And almost half of October’s new jobs were in temporary help.
Meanwhile, the median wage is barely rising, adjusted for inflation. And the value of the major asset of most Americans – their homes – continues to drop.
Why are America’s two economies going in opposite directions? Two reasons.
First, big profits are coming from overseas sales of goods and services made abroad, not here. The world’s fastest-growing markets are China and India, whose inhabitants are eager to buy “American” products, and just as eager to work for the American companies that sell them. The U.S. market is barely moving.
Increasingly, American corporations are able to extract healthy gains from their global operations without adding much in the United States except executive talent.
Second, American businesses are boosting productivity by having U.S. employees do more work for less pay. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, between the third quarter of 2009 and the third quarter of 2010, productivity rose 2.5 percent, output increased 4.1 percent, the number of hours worked was up 1.6 percent, and unit labor costs dropped by 1.9 percent.
In other words, American workers are losing even more bargaining power as a sizeable chunk of corporate profit goes into software and digital equipment that can do what people used to do – but more cheaply.
So what is Washington doing about all this?
Making the tax code more progressive so more Americans reap the benefits enjoyed by those at the top? Increasing the bargaining power of American workers? Forcing Wall Street banks to reorganize under bankruptcy mortgage loans that are dragging down the housing market? Expanding early childhood education, hiring more teachers, putting fewer kids into each classroom, and making higher education more affordable – so more working and middle-class kids can become tomorrow’s high-priced “talent”?
No. None of this. In fact, Washington is busily separating the two economies even further.
It’s extending the Bush tax cuts – the lion’s share of which go to the very wealthy; reducing the reach and rate of the estate tax; and giving corporations additional tax breaks for investing in software and equipment. Meanwhile, the states are cutting back on pre-schools, firing teachers, and yanking up tuitions and fees at public universities.
Oh, and yes, Washington is also extending unemployment benefits for the long-term jobless. Which is the least it can do, given that their ranks continue to swell.
Thursday, December 9, 2010
A Statement By Shane Larson About the American Traitor Party -- formerly known as The Republican Party
By Shane Larson, Washington, DC -- December 9, 2010:
Today, we were added to a growing list of groups that have seen their fight for progress and hope destroyed by the Republican Senators obsession with tax cuts for millionaires.
In a week, the Republican have filibustered the motion to proceed to debate on critical bills. That is, they have blocked the Senate from even debating the issues on a number of important bills all in a childish effort to ensure that their base - millionaires and corporate interests - get a tax cut.
This week, besides seeing them block progress on repeal of DADT, through abuse of the filibuster process, we have seen them:
- deny debate on a bill that would provide health care and compensation for the rescue workers on 9-11
- deny basic and fundamental collective bargaining and workplace rights for public safety officers (firefighters, police officers emts, prison guards, etc)
- deny debate or consideration of the DREAM Act - which would provide a pathway for citizenship for children of illegal immigrants who came here through no fault of their own and have attended college or served in the armed forces.
- denied a one time cost of living payment of $250 for social security recipients whose COLA will not go up next year, but whose basic costs will.
- and previously denied debate or consideration of the Fair Pay Act, which would address pay disparity in the workforce for women.
None of this was because of the President. None of this was because of Senate Democratic Leadership. All of this was because of the abuse of Senate rules by a radical and obstinate Republican Party. And all of them were held up for one reason - because all 42 of the Republican Senators believe that it is much more important for this country to pass tax cuts for millionaires. The same Senate rules that prevent passage of Unemployment assistance for those struggling now for 99 + weeks to find work. The same Senate rules that allow this radical Republican minority to prevent tax cuts for the middle class to continue unless millionaires get one too.
This past week should make it clear that these Senate Republicans have the power and ability to hold up anything until they get their tax cuts. And they have no shame, no morals, nor no hesitation to stop everything until they get what they want.
Blame can be thrown around. But the reality is that the current antiquated, outdated and never intended to be used this way Senate rules are what is preventing our democracy from functioning and serving those that it should. Its given power to a group of dedicated and shameless partisans and special interests who will stop at nothing until they get everything they want and halt all progress.
Today, we were added to a growing list of groups that have seen their fight for progress and hope destroyed by the Republican Senators obsession with tax cuts for millionaires.
In a week, the Republican have filibustered the motion to proceed to debate on critical bills. That is, they have blocked the Senate from even debating the issues on a number of important bills all in a childish effort to ensure that their base - millionaires and corporate interests - get a tax cut.
This week, besides seeing them block progress on repeal of DADT, through abuse of the filibuster process, we have seen them:
- deny debate on a bill that would provide health care and compensation for the rescue workers on 9-11
- deny basic and fundamental collective bargaining and workplace rights for public safety officers (firefighters, police officers emts, prison guards, etc)
- deny debate or consideration of the DREAM Act - which would provide a pathway for citizenship for children of illegal immigrants who came here through no fault of their own and have attended college or served in the armed forces.
- denied a one time cost of living payment of $250 for social security recipients whose COLA will not go up next year, but whose basic costs will.
- and previously denied debate or consideration of the Fair Pay Act, which would address pay disparity in the workforce for women.
None of this was because of the President. None of this was because of Senate Democratic Leadership. All of this was because of the abuse of Senate rules by a radical and obstinate Republican Party. And all of them were held up for one reason - because all 42 of the Republican Senators believe that it is much more important for this country to pass tax cuts for millionaires. The same Senate rules that prevent passage of Unemployment assistance for those struggling now for 99 + weeks to find work. The same Senate rules that allow this radical Republican minority to prevent tax cuts for the middle class to continue unless millionaires get one too.
This past week should make it clear that these Senate Republicans have the power and ability to hold up anything until they get their tax cuts. And they have no shame, no morals, nor no hesitation to stop everything until they get what they want.
Blame can be thrown around. But the reality is that the current antiquated, outdated and never intended to be used this way Senate rules are what is preventing our democracy from functioning and serving those that it should. Its given power to a group of dedicated and shameless partisans and special interests who will stop at nothing until they get everything they want and halt all progress.
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
The Republican Re-Distribution of the Wealth
The Wealth has already been Re-Distributed ---- to the 2% wealthiest Americans.
And --- There's No Going Back.
Anyone who thinks they will participate in any of the benefits going to the Top 2% is a Chump. That Bad Fool won't even receive Chump Change.
PT Barnum used to say: "There Is a Sucker Born Every Minute". PT would be in Heaven today. He would be seeing Orchards of Suckers blooming all over America. These Damn Fools believe they may participate in what the top 2% are getting. Not for a minute --- Not for a Dime. Their only prayer is to buy a Winning Lottery Ticket. Good Luck, Sucker.
Re-Distributing the Wealth is what the Republican Party is All About --- To the Wealthiest --- Out of the Pockets of Everybody Else.
Fortunately for today's Republicans --- America has Gone from The Greatest Generation (60 Years Ago ) to The Dumbest Generation (Today!). America's Greatest Generation would neve have stood for this Crap. They were too smart. They were able to see through Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, and all the Moron Manipulators of Today. Today's Generation is Too Damn Dumb -- they don't have a clue as to how badly they're being manipulated.
Welcome to the New Republican Depression!
And --- There's No Going Back.
Anyone who thinks they will participate in any of the benefits going to the Top 2% is a Chump. That Bad Fool won't even receive Chump Change.
PT Barnum used to say: "There Is a Sucker Born Every Minute". PT would be in Heaven today. He would be seeing Orchards of Suckers blooming all over America. These Damn Fools believe they may participate in what the top 2% are getting. Not for a minute --- Not for a Dime. Their only prayer is to buy a Winning Lottery Ticket. Good Luck, Sucker.
Re-Distributing the Wealth is what the Republican Party is All About --- To the Wealthiest --- Out of the Pockets of Everybody Else.
Fortunately for today's Republicans --- America has Gone from The Greatest Generation (60 Years Ago ) to The Dumbest Generation (Today!). America's Greatest Generation would neve have stood for this Crap. They were too smart. They were able to see through Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, and all the Moron Manipulators of Today. Today's Generation is Too Damn Dumb -- they don't have a clue as to how badly they're being manipulated.
Welcome to the New Republican Depression!
Obama Is Compromising His Presidency Into Oblivion
From The Washington Post -- December 7, 2010:
By Katrina vanden Heuvel
Ronald Reagan famously quipped that the Democratic Party left him before he left the party. Like many progressive supporters of Barack Obama, I'm beginning to have the same feeling about this president.
Consider what we've seen since the shellacking Democrats took in the fall elections.
On Afghanistan, the administration has intimated that the 2011 pullout date is "inoperable," with the White House talking 2014 and Gen. David H. Petraeus suggesting decades of occupation. On bipartisanship, the president seems to think that cooperation requires self-abasement. He apologized to the obstructionist Republican leadership for not reaching out, a gesture reciprocated with another poke in the eye. He chose to meet with the hyper-partisan Chamber of Commerce after it ran one of the most dishonest independent campaigns in memory. He appears to be courting Roger Altman, a former investment banker, for his economic team, leavening the Goldman Sachs flavor of his administration with a salty Lehman Brothers veteran.
On the economy, the president has abandoned what Americans are focused on - jobs - to embrace what the Beltway elites care about - deficits. His freeze of federal workers' pay, of more symbolic than deficit-reducing value, only reinforced right-wing tripe: that federal employees are overpaid; that overspending is our problem, as opposed to inane tax cuts for the top end; that we should impose austerity now, instead of working to get the economy going.
Now the not-so-subtle retreats are turning into a rout. The president is touting a NAFTA-like corporate trade deal with South Korea. He appears to be headed toward supporting cuts in Social Security and Medicare and irresponsible reductions in domestic investment. And he's on the verge of kowtowing to Republican bluster and cutting a deal to extend George W. Bush's tax cuts for the rich in exchange (one hopes) for extending unemployment insurance and possibly getting a vote on the New START treaty.
This is political self-immolation. Blue-collar workers abandoned Democrats in large numbers in the fall; wait until they learn what the trade deal means for them. Seniors went south, probably because of Republican lies about cuts in Medicare; wait until anyone over 40 who's lost their savings hears about Alan Simpson's plan to take it to the "greedy geezers." The $60 billion each year in Bush tax cuts for the richest Americans could pay for universal preschool for America's children, or tuition and board for half of America's college students.
The stakes are much higher than the distant election. The president has suggested unconvincingly that he'd prefer to be a successful one-term president than a two-term president who didn't get anything done. But there are other alternatives. If the president continues on his current course, we're looking at a failed one-term presidency that the nation cannot afford.
Forget about electoral mandates or campaign promises. This president has a historic mandate. Just as Abraham Lincoln had to lead the nation from slavery and Franklin Roosevelt from the Depression, this president must lead the nation from the calamitous failures of three decades of conservative dominance. This requires beginning to reverse the perverse tax policies that have contributed to gilded-age inequality and starved the government of resources needed for vital investments. This demands correcting destabilizing global imbalances, laying a new foundation for reviving American manufacturing and shackling financial speculation. It means ensuring the United States leads rather than lags in the green industrial revolution. And it requires unwinding the self-destructive military adventures abroad. The president must strengthen America's basic social contract in a global economy, not weaken it.
This daunting project is not a matter of ambition or appetite - or even unconscious Kenyan socialism. It is the necessary function of a progressive president elected in the wake of calamitous conservative misrule. Every entrenched corporate and financial interest stands in the way; it is easier to take a less confrontational path. President Bill Clinton, for example, found it convenient to join in the conservative project of corporately defined trade, financial deregulation and social welfare constriction. From NAFTA to the repeal of welfare and the failure of labor law reform, to deregulating derivatives and repealing Glass-Steagall, he got his agenda wrong. He was seduced far more by Wall Street's Robert Rubin than by Monica Lewinsky.
Now Obama faces the same challenge. This isn't about conventional politics. This is simply about the fate and future of our country. This president has a clear and imperative historic mandate. If he shirks it, he risks more than failing to get reelected. He risks a failed presidency.
By Katrina vanden Heuvel
Ronald Reagan famously quipped that the Democratic Party left him before he left the party. Like many progressive supporters of Barack Obama, I'm beginning to have the same feeling about this president.
Consider what we've seen since the shellacking Democrats took in the fall elections.
On Afghanistan, the administration has intimated that the 2011 pullout date is "inoperable," with the White House talking 2014 and Gen. David H. Petraeus suggesting decades of occupation. On bipartisanship, the president seems to think that cooperation requires self-abasement. He apologized to the obstructionist Republican leadership for not reaching out, a gesture reciprocated with another poke in the eye. He chose to meet with the hyper-partisan Chamber of Commerce after it ran one of the most dishonest independent campaigns in memory. He appears to be courting Roger Altman, a former investment banker, for his economic team, leavening the Goldman Sachs flavor of his administration with a salty Lehman Brothers veteran.
On the economy, the president has abandoned what Americans are focused on - jobs - to embrace what the Beltway elites care about - deficits. His freeze of federal workers' pay, of more symbolic than deficit-reducing value, only reinforced right-wing tripe: that federal employees are overpaid; that overspending is our problem, as opposed to inane tax cuts for the top end; that we should impose austerity now, instead of working to get the economy going.
Now the not-so-subtle retreats are turning into a rout. The president is touting a NAFTA-like corporate trade deal with South Korea. He appears to be headed toward supporting cuts in Social Security and Medicare and irresponsible reductions in domestic investment. And he's on the verge of kowtowing to Republican bluster and cutting a deal to extend George W. Bush's tax cuts for the rich in exchange (one hopes) for extending unemployment insurance and possibly getting a vote on the New START treaty.
This is political self-immolation. Blue-collar workers abandoned Democrats in large numbers in the fall; wait until they learn what the trade deal means for them. Seniors went south, probably because of Republican lies about cuts in Medicare; wait until anyone over 40 who's lost their savings hears about Alan Simpson's plan to take it to the "greedy geezers." The $60 billion each year in Bush tax cuts for the richest Americans could pay for universal preschool for America's children, or tuition and board for half of America's college students.
The stakes are much higher than the distant election. The president has suggested unconvincingly that he'd prefer to be a successful one-term president than a two-term president who didn't get anything done. But there are other alternatives. If the president continues on his current course, we're looking at a failed one-term presidency that the nation cannot afford.
Forget about electoral mandates or campaign promises. This president has a historic mandate. Just as Abraham Lincoln had to lead the nation from slavery and Franklin Roosevelt from the Depression, this president must lead the nation from the calamitous failures of three decades of conservative dominance. This requires beginning to reverse the perverse tax policies that have contributed to gilded-age inequality and starved the government of resources needed for vital investments. This demands correcting destabilizing global imbalances, laying a new foundation for reviving American manufacturing and shackling financial speculation. It means ensuring the United States leads rather than lags in the green industrial revolution. And it requires unwinding the self-destructive military adventures abroad. The president must strengthen America's basic social contract in a global economy, not weaken it.
This daunting project is not a matter of ambition or appetite - or even unconscious Kenyan socialism. It is the necessary function of a progressive president elected in the wake of calamitous conservative misrule. Every entrenched corporate and financial interest stands in the way; it is easier to take a less confrontational path. President Bill Clinton, for example, found it convenient to join in the conservative project of corporately defined trade, financial deregulation and social welfare constriction. From NAFTA to the repeal of welfare and the failure of labor law reform, to deregulating derivatives and repealing Glass-Steagall, he got his agenda wrong. He was seduced far more by Wall Street's Robert Rubin than by Monica Lewinsky.
Now Obama faces the same challenge. This isn't about conventional politics. This is simply about the fate and future of our country. This president has a clear and imperative historic mandate. If he shirks it, he risks more than failing to get reelected. He risks a failed presidency.
Saturday, December 4, 2010
Republican Cowards Like John McCain Tell American Heroes to Turn and Run
From The New York Daily News -- December 4, 2010:
Heroes of 9/11 hear you loud and clear, Republicans; next time they should turn and run
By JOANNA MOLLOY
Congratulations, Republican senators. Our brave 9/11 first responders hear your message loud and clear: Next time, run.
Why be a hero, you're saying by stonewalling the James Zadroga Act, which would help the sick and dying heroes of the worst attack on our country since Pearl Harbor.
Your message is that if you ran toward the attack site to help, or came back and searched the smoldering pile for survivors for days or worked 12-hour shifts for months trying to locate remains so the heroes and the innocents could have a decent burial, that's your problem.
Oh, you seem to be saying, it's too bad if people got very, very sick or might have to pay most of the medical tab or might die and leave families unsupported.
So what? you say. We Republicans really don't care enough. Not enough to pay for it, anyway.
Wyoming Sen. Mike Enzi, the top Republican on the Senate Health Committee, is leading the opposition to the $7.4 billion bill.
He says the sick workers of Ground Zero - shouldn't it be Ground Hero by now? - have already gotten paid $625 million.
Enzi has an accounting degree, but his math is fuzzy: That money is only for the 10,000 sick folks who sued. There are 20,000 more 9/11 patients who didn't.
Enzi, John McCain and other Senate Republicans don't want to close the tax loophole for foreign corporations to pay for the benefits.
They claim it would hurt profits, oh, sorry, JOBS. We wouldn't want BP to have to pony up and pay its share for our heroes now, would we?
Here's some math for Enzi: Wyoming only has 544,270 people, and New York State has 14 million. You're out there safe with the antelopes and you're telling New York heroes their medical bills aren't worth paying?
McCain, a former fighter pilot and prisoner of war before he decided to become just another politician, should know better.
Instead, he sent his message loud and clear the other day to tow truck driver and construction worker T.J. Gilmartin.
As Daily News reporter Mike McAuliff reports today, McCain refused Gilmartin's four attempts to see him; then, when Gilmartin happened upon McCain in a Senate hallway, the Republican said, "I can't help you."
More like: I don't want to help you. Not if we have to pick up the tab.
Maybe he's forgotten what it's like to make sacrifices for your country.
Maybe all that money from his wife's gigantic beer distributorship made him forget what it's like to be on the front lines.
NYPD Detective James Zadroga was 34 when he died in 2006. His daughter Tyler Ann was just 4 at the time.
She'll grow up without her father - and because of a bunch of tight-fisted Republican senators - she may come to wish he had just turned and run.
Shame on you, John McCain.
Heroes of 9/11 hear you loud and clear, Republicans; next time they should turn and run
By JOANNA MOLLOY
Congratulations, Republican senators. Our brave 9/11 first responders hear your message loud and clear: Next time, run.
Why be a hero, you're saying by stonewalling the James Zadroga Act, which would help the sick and dying heroes of the worst attack on our country since Pearl Harbor.
Your message is that if you ran toward the attack site to help, or came back and searched the smoldering pile for survivors for days or worked 12-hour shifts for months trying to locate remains so the heroes and the innocents could have a decent burial, that's your problem.
Oh, you seem to be saying, it's too bad if people got very, very sick or might have to pay most of the medical tab or might die and leave families unsupported.
So what? you say. We Republicans really don't care enough. Not enough to pay for it, anyway.
Wyoming Sen. Mike Enzi, the top Republican on the Senate Health Committee, is leading the opposition to the $7.4 billion bill.
He says the sick workers of Ground Zero - shouldn't it be Ground Hero by now? - have already gotten paid $625 million.
Enzi has an accounting degree, but his math is fuzzy: That money is only for the 10,000 sick folks who sued. There are 20,000 more 9/11 patients who didn't.
Enzi, John McCain and other Senate Republicans don't want to close the tax loophole for foreign corporations to pay for the benefits.
They claim it would hurt profits, oh, sorry, JOBS. We wouldn't want BP to have to pony up and pay its share for our heroes now, would we?
Here's some math for Enzi: Wyoming only has 544,270 people, and New York State has 14 million. You're out there safe with the antelopes and you're telling New York heroes their medical bills aren't worth paying?
McCain, a former fighter pilot and prisoner of war before he decided to become just another politician, should know better.
Instead, he sent his message loud and clear the other day to tow truck driver and construction worker T.J. Gilmartin.
As Daily News reporter Mike McAuliff reports today, McCain refused Gilmartin's four attempts to see him; then, when Gilmartin happened upon McCain in a Senate hallway, the Republican said, "I can't help you."
More like: I don't want to help you. Not if we have to pick up the tab.
Maybe he's forgotten what it's like to make sacrifices for your country.
Maybe all that money from his wife's gigantic beer distributorship made him forget what it's like to be on the front lines.
NYPD Detective James Zadroga was 34 when he died in 2006. His daughter Tyler Ann was just 4 at the time.
She'll grow up without her father - and because of a bunch of tight-fisted Republican senators - she may come to wish he had just turned and run.
Shame on you, John McCain.
Friday, December 3, 2010
Treasonous Republican Lies Attack American Heroes and 9-11 First Responders
From The New York Daily News -- December 3, 2010:
9/11 victims fume as Sen. Mike Enzi, GOP circulate 'pack of lies' in bid to sink Zadroga health bill
BY MICHAEL MCAULIFF
Outraged victims of the 9/11 attacks are ripping callous Republicans for circulating "a pack of lies" in a bid to torpedo aid for Ground Zero's dying first responders.
With the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act on the verge of a Senate vote, GOP foes are circulating a document arguing Uncle Sam has paid back the ailing heroes.
Providing more aid would lead to fraud and abuse funded by "job-killing taxes," the Republicans claimed.
"This is an insult to the entire 9/11 community," John Feal, an injured Ground Zero worker who runs the Fealgood Foundation, told the Daily News.
"The Republican Party is hiding behind baseless attacks. They need to man-up and grow a set of Abe Lincolns," said Feal, who lost half his foot at The Pile.
Sources told The News the prime senator behind the opposition is Wyoming's Mike Enzi, the top Republican on the Senate Health Committee.
Feal, who had been impressed with Enzi's sympathy at past 9/11 hearings, called him out in a letter describing his opposition as unfathomable.
"I could not believe when I heard that you have asked the Republican caucus to again delay consideration of the 9/11 bill," Feal wrote.
Enzi did not respond to a request for comment.
Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-Manhattan) described the Republican effort as "a pack of lies" thrown together to kill a bill helping the heroes of 9/11.
"It's an outrage, it's a shame and it's what people can't stand about Washington," she said.
The Zadroga bill would spend $7.4 billion over 10 years to provide health care and pay victims.
It calls for closing tax loopholes on foreign corporations to raise the money - a move opposed by Republicans. New York's senators have offered a menu of other funding options.
The GOP document ignores the new offers, calling the foreign tax provision a job-killer.
It also says 95% of the workers were provided for in the recent $625 million legal settlement.
That agreement only covers 10,000 people who sued, not the 30,000 people who received some form of treatment - let alone the estimated 90,000 people who rushed to the toxic scene.
"If these were legitimate concerns, why are Senate Republican leaders only raising them now, at the last minute, instead of years ago?" Maloney asked.
The document sparked outrage across the 9/11 community, including a storm of angry emails to its author - a staffer on the Republican Policy Committee whose address was included with the talking points.
The analyst, Chris Jacobs, declined to respond.
"It was very disappointing for me to read your recent assessment," wrote retired Correction Department Bureau Chief Peter Curcio, noting the government helped his injured veteran father after the Korean War.
"Any good attorney can draft concerns with any bill you passed this year, but this bill doesn't need attorneys, it needs patriots, and this is your call to duty," Curcio added.
Retired cop James Ryder, who also responded to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, took a shot at Jacobs.
"It is easy and simple to assume what your important desk job was on that day, while employed with my money," he wrote.
"Need I remind you it is [on] the people's time you spent writing your grossly inaccurate diatribe?" Ryder said. "I found it predictable and sad that you felt the insistence to call us Heroes while taking every effort to make false claims about supporting us."
Senate leaders have committed to a vote on the bill before the lame-duck session expires before Christmas, and it nearly came up this week.
Feal predicted the GOP would relent at the last moment.
"They are going to have a moment of clarity, stop drinking the ideological Kool-Aid and start acting like patriots," he said.
9/11 victims fume as Sen. Mike Enzi, GOP circulate 'pack of lies' in bid to sink Zadroga health bill
BY MICHAEL MCAULIFF
Outraged victims of the 9/11 attacks are ripping callous Republicans for circulating "a pack of lies" in a bid to torpedo aid for Ground Zero's dying first responders.
With the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act on the verge of a Senate vote, GOP foes are circulating a document arguing Uncle Sam has paid back the ailing heroes.
Providing more aid would lead to fraud and abuse funded by "job-killing taxes," the Republicans claimed.
"This is an insult to the entire 9/11 community," John Feal, an injured Ground Zero worker who runs the Fealgood Foundation, told the Daily News.
"The Republican Party is hiding behind baseless attacks. They need to man-up and grow a set of Abe Lincolns," said Feal, who lost half his foot at The Pile.
Sources told The News the prime senator behind the opposition is Wyoming's Mike Enzi, the top Republican on the Senate Health Committee.
Feal, who had been impressed with Enzi's sympathy at past 9/11 hearings, called him out in a letter describing his opposition as unfathomable.
"I could not believe when I heard that you have asked the Republican caucus to again delay consideration of the 9/11 bill," Feal wrote.
Enzi did not respond to a request for comment.
Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-Manhattan) described the Republican effort as "a pack of lies" thrown together to kill a bill helping the heroes of 9/11.
"It's an outrage, it's a shame and it's what people can't stand about Washington," she said.
The Zadroga bill would spend $7.4 billion over 10 years to provide health care and pay victims.
It calls for closing tax loopholes on foreign corporations to raise the money - a move opposed by Republicans. New York's senators have offered a menu of other funding options.
The GOP document ignores the new offers, calling the foreign tax provision a job-killer.
It also says 95% of the workers were provided for in the recent $625 million legal settlement.
That agreement only covers 10,000 people who sued, not the 30,000 people who received some form of treatment - let alone the estimated 90,000 people who rushed to the toxic scene.
"If these were legitimate concerns, why are Senate Republican leaders only raising them now, at the last minute, instead of years ago?" Maloney asked.
The document sparked outrage across the 9/11 community, including a storm of angry emails to its author - a staffer on the Republican Policy Committee whose address was included with the talking points.
The analyst, Chris Jacobs, declined to respond.
"It was very disappointing for me to read your recent assessment," wrote retired Correction Department Bureau Chief Peter Curcio, noting the government helped his injured veteran father after the Korean War.
"Any good attorney can draft concerns with any bill you passed this year, but this bill doesn't need attorneys, it needs patriots, and this is your call to duty," Curcio added.
Retired cop James Ryder, who also responded to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, took a shot at Jacobs.
"It is easy and simple to assume what your important desk job was on that day, while employed with my money," he wrote.
"Need I remind you it is [on] the people's time you spent writing your grossly inaccurate diatribe?" Ryder said. "I found it predictable and sad that you felt the insistence to call us Heroes while taking every effort to make false claims about supporting us."
Senate leaders have committed to a vote on the bill before the lame-duck session expires before Christmas, and it nearly came up this week.
Feal predicted the GOP would relent at the last moment.
"They are going to have a moment of clarity, stop drinking the ideological Kool-Aid and start acting like patriots," he said.
America Dodged A Bullet When Doddering Old John McCain Was Defeated for the Presidency -- What a Dumbo McCain Is
From The Washington Post -- December 2, 2010:
"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Report Dismissed by McCain
By Ed O'Keefe
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a leading Republican critic of ending the "don't ask, don't tell" law, dismissed a new Pentagon report on the issue Thursday and said Congress should not vote to change military personnel policy during a time of war.
"At this time, we should be inherently cautious about making any changes that would affect our military, and what changes we do make should be the product of careful and deliberate consideration," McCain said Tuesday during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing.
The panel heard from Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen and the co-authors of the report released Tuesday, Defense Department General Counsel Jeh C. Johnson and Army Gen. Carter F. Ham.
Concerns expressed by troops in the report about ending the ban on gays in the military "do not present an insurmountable barrier" to successfully ending the law, Gates said.
Despite those assurances, McCain said more time is needed to consider whether the military should change the law. The Pentagon studied the issue for 10 months, but "The members of this committee received it 36 hours ago, and my staff and I are still going through it and analyzing it carefully," McCain said.
He once again voiced his disagreement with the scope of the report, saying it failed to study whether the law should be repealed. "Unfortunately, that key issue was not the focus of this study," he said. Further, he worried that a study sent to troops last summer only accounts for 6 percent of the total armed forces.
"I find it hard to view that as a fully-representative sample set," McCain said.
Mullen acknowledged some of McCain's concerns, noting that some troops quoted in the report worry about having to bunk or shower with openly gay troops.
"We'll deal with that," Mullen said. "But I believe and history tells us that most of them will put aside personal proclivities for something larger than themselves and for each other."
"There are some for whom this debate is all about gray areas," Mullen said. "There is no gray area here. We treat each other with respect, or we find another place to work. Period. That's why I also believe leadership will prove vital."
Emerging as the Pentagon's most forceful, emotional proponent for ending the law, Mullen said current policy "doesn't make any sense to me," because it requires troops to lie about their identity while serving for a military that values integrity.
Gates pressed senators to act this month to end the ban, warning that, "Those that choose not to act legislatively are rolling the dice that this policy will not be abruptly overturned by the courts."
Johnson said repeal of the law should be handled by political leaders and not federal judges, noting that the Pentagon was forced to shift course on the policy twice in the span of eight days by two federal court rulings.
"This legal uncertainty is not going away any time soon," he said, because a legal challenge brought by the Log Cabin Republicans remains under consideration by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.
The clock is ticking on legislative efforts to end the law. With three weeks left before Christmas, it is unclear whether the Senate will consider the defense policy bill that includes language ending the ban. First, Senate leadership is expected to introduce legislation addressing the expiration of tax cuts, a government spending plan and possibly a nuclear disarmament treaty with Russia.
"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Report Dismissed by McCain
By Ed O'Keefe
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a leading Republican critic of ending the "don't ask, don't tell" law, dismissed a new Pentagon report on the issue Thursday and said Congress should not vote to change military personnel policy during a time of war.
"At this time, we should be inherently cautious about making any changes that would affect our military, and what changes we do make should be the product of careful and deliberate consideration," McCain said Tuesday during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing.
The panel heard from Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen and the co-authors of the report released Tuesday, Defense Department General Counsel Jeh C. Johnson and Army Gen. Carter F. Ham.
Concerns expressed by troops in the report about ending the ban on gays in the military "do not present an insurmountable barrier" to successfully ending the law, Gates said.
Despite those assurances, McCain said more time is needed to consider whether the military should change the law. The Pentagon studied the issue for 10 months, but "The members of this committee received it 36 hours ago, and my staff and I are still going through it and analyzing it carefully," McCain said.
He once again voiced his disagreement with the scope of the report, saying it failed to study whether the law should be repealed. "Unfortunately, that key issue was not the focus of this study," he said. Further, he worried that a study sent to troops last summer only accounts for 6 percent of the total armed forces.
"I find it hard to view that as a fully-representative sample set," McCain said.
Mullen acknowledged some of McCain's concerns, noting that some troops quoted in the report worry about having to bunk or shower with openly gay troops.
"We'll deal with that," Mullen said. "But I believe and history tells us that most of them will put aside personal proclivities for something larger than themselves and for each other."
"There are some for whom this debate is all about gray areas," Mullen said. "There is no gray area here. We treat each other with respect, or we find another place to work. Period. That's why I also believe leadership will prove vital."
Emerging as the Pentagon's most forceful, emotional proponent for ending the law, Mullen said current policy "doesn't make any sense to me," because it requires troops to lie about their identity while serving for a military that values integrity.
Gates pressed senators to act this month to end the ban, warning that, "Those that choose not to act legislatively are rolling the dice that this policy will not be abruptly overturned by the courts."
Johnson said repeal of the law should be handled by political leaders and not federal judges, noting that the Pentagon was forced to shift course on the policy twice in the span of eight days by two federal court rulings.
"This legal uncertainty is not going away any time soon," he said, because a legal challenge brought by the Log Cabin Republicans remains under consideration by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.
The clock is ticking on legislative efforts to end the law. With three weeks left before Christmas, it is unclear whether the Senate will consider the defense policy bill that includes language ending the ban. First, Senate leadership is expected to introduce legislation addressing the expiration of tax cuts, a government spending plan and possibly a nuclear disarmament treaty with Russia.
Despite Republicans' Almost Treasonous Efforts to Sabotage and Destroy This Country, Obama Is Leading Our Nation on a Steady Path of Economic Recovery
Consumers show renewed strength on positive retail, housing data
From The Washington Post -- December 3, 2010:
By Ylan Q. Mui
After two years on the sidelines, American consumers are spending again and raising hopes that they are ready to shoulder the burden of the nation's economic recovery.
Consumers' growing strength was evident in data released in recent days across a wide array of sectors: Pending home sales shot up a surprising 10 percent, according to an industry group, a record increase. Sales at the Big Three automakers have increased by double-digit percentages. And many of the nation's largest retailers reported better-than-expected sales from door-buster deals and midnight openings last month, with Cyber Monday alone raking in a historic $1 billion.
"The American consumer is off the mat," said Craig R. Johnson, president of the consulting firm Customer Growth Partners. "This is not a one-time flash in the pan. All the signals are all moving in the correct direction."
There is still a long march to return to pre-recession conditions, however. The stagnant job market remains one of the principal drags on the economy. A key government unemployment report Friday showed the economy added only 39,000 jobs last month, less than most economists expected, while the overall jobless rate climbed to 9.8 percent.
During the Great Recession, a wave of job losses combined with sinking home prices and a volatile stock market battered consumers, the driving force of the nation's economic growth. Spending on everything from fast food to designer clothes slumped. Since then, consumers have trodden warily, slowing the pace of recovery.
But signs of a turnaround are emerging. The jump in pending home sales in October offered hope that the housing market is on the mend, even if those sales are at a significantly lower level overall from the boom years. The National Association of Realtors said Thursday that its index of pending home sales, which reflects the number of signed contracts to buy existing houses, rose 10.4 percent in October to 89.3. The index peaked in May 2006 at 112.6.
"The housing market clearly is in a recovery phase and will be uneven at times, but the improving job market and consequential boost to household formation will help the recovery process going into 2011," said Lawrence Yun, the association's chief economist.
Meanwhile, major stock indexes have largely recouped their losses from the financial crisis and are up more than 60 percent from their lows in the spring of 2009. On Thursday, investors cheered several positive economic reports, sending the Dow Jones industrial average up nearly 1 percent a day after a 2.3 percent gain.
The wave of positive economic news has helped boost consumer sentiment. A monthly survey by Reuters and the University of Michigan came in more cheerful than expected, rising to the highest level since June.
Improvement in consumer sentiment typically translates into gains in actual spending. Almost all of the roughly 30 retail chains that reported monthly sales at established stores Thursday experienced a solid boost in November. Target posted a 5.5 percent jump in sales compared with a year ago, when they dropped 1.5 percent. Macy's said sales shot up 6.1 percent, with 4.5 million visits to its Web site on Black Friday.
The returns are "bolstering our confidence," Macy's chief executive Terry J. Lundgren said in a statement.
According to an analysis by the International Council of Shopping Centers, a trade group, monthly sales for all the reporting chains rose 5.8 percent, the biggest increase in eight months. Retailers reported heavier traffic in stores and online as they began touting holiday sales just before Halloween. The council said last month's results were so encouraging that it is considering raising its annual forecast of holiday sales as much as a percentage point.
Michael McNamara, vice president of research and analysis for MasterCard Advisors SpendingPulse, which tracks consumer spending, said he was also encouraged by the types of retail that have seen improvement. Sales of women's clothing, hit particularly hard during the recession, rose 3.9 percent in November, according to his data. That suggests women feel confident enough in the future to spend on themselves again, McNamara said.
In addition, he said, shoppers previously split their dollars between buying new goods and purchasing services, such as hotel rooms and airline tickets. But now both sectors are reporting stronger sales instead of seesawing.
"There's somewhat more durability to this wave than where we were before," McNamara said.
Leading the way in consumer spending has been auto sales, demonstrating that Americans are more willing to open their wallets and borrow money to buy big-ticket items. General Motors, Chrysler and Ford enjoyed double-digit percentage gains in sales last month, on top of a strong October.
Economists cautioned, however, that Americans should not expect to rewind to 2007. But speculation of a double-dip recession - widespread just a few months ago - has largely died down amid the stream of positive data.
"You put it all together and I think it tells a story of an economy that is shaking off the doldrums," said Stuart Hoffman, chief economist for PNC Financial Services. "It's broad-based enough and the trends are there to suggest that this isn't a false start."
Instead, he said, he prefers to see the glass as half-full - and filling up.
From The Washington Post -- December 3, 2010:
By Ylan Q. Mui
After two years on the sidelines, American consumers are spending again and raising hopes that they are ready to shoulder the burden of the nation's economic recovery.
Consumers' growing strength was evident in data released in recent days across a wide array of sectors: Pending home sales shot up a surprising 10 percent, according to an industry group, a record increase. Sales at the Big Three automakers have increased by double-digit percentages. And many of the nation's largest retailers reported better-than-expected sales from door-buster deals and midnight openings last month, with Cyber Monday alone raking in a historic $1 billion.
"The American consumer is off the mat," said Craig R. Johnson, president of the consulting firm Customer Growth Partners. "This is not a one-time flash in the pan. All the signals are all moving in the correct direction."
There is still a long march to return to pre-recession conditions, however. The stagnant job market remains one of the principal drags on the economy. A key government unemployment report Friday showed the economy added only 39,000 jobs last month, less than most economists expected, while the overall jobless rate climbed to 9.8 percent.
During the Great Recession, a wave of job losses combined with sinking home prices and a volatile stock market battered consumers, the driving force of the nation's economic growth. Spending on everything from fast food to designer clothes slumped. Since then, consumers have trodden warily, slowing the pace of recovery.
But signs of a turnaround are emerging. The jump in pending home sales in October offered hope that the housing market is on the mend, even if those sales are at a significantly lower level overall from the boom years. The National Association of Realtors said Thursday that its index of pending home sales, which reflects the number of signed contracts to buy existing houses, rose 10.4 percent in October to 89.3. The index peaked in May 2006 at 112.6.
"The housing market clearly is in a recovery phase and will be uneven at times, but the improving job market and consequential boost to household formation will help the recovery process going into 2011," said Lawrence Yun, the association's chief economist.
Meanwhile, major stock indexes have largely recouped their losses from the financial crisis and are up more than 60 percent from their lows in the spring of 2009. On Thursday, investors cheered several positive economic reports, sending the Dow Jones industrial average up nearly 1 percent a day after a 2.3 percent gain.
The wave of positive economic news has helped boost consumer sentiment. A monthly survey by Reuters and the University of Michigan came in more cheerful than expected, rising to the highest level since June.
Improvement in consumer sentiment typically translates into gains in actual spending. Almost all of the roughly 30 retail chains that reported monthly sales at established stores Thursday experienced a solid boost in November. Target posted a 5.5 percent jump in sales compared with a year ago, when they dropped 1.5 percent. Macy's said sales shot up 6.1 percent, with 4.5 million visits to its Web site on Black Friday.
The returns are "bolstering our confidence," Macy's chief executive Terry J. Lundgren said in a statement.
According to an analysis by the International Council of Shopping Centers, a trade group, monthly sales for all the reporting chains rose 5.8 percent, the biggest increase in eight months. Retailers reported heavier traffic in stores and online as they began touting holiday sales just before Halloween. The council said last month's results were so encouraging that it is considering raising its annual forecast of holiday sales as much as a percentage point.
Michael McNamara, vice president of research and analysis for MasterCard Advisors SpendingPulse, which tracks consumer spending, said he was also encouraged by the types of retail that have seen improvement. Sales of women's clothing, hit particularly hard during the recession, rose 3.9 percent in November, according to his data. That suggests women feel confident enough in the future to spend on themselves again, McNamara said.
In addition, he said, shoppers previously split their dollars between buying new goods and purchasing services, such as hotel rooms and airline tickets. But now both sectors are reporting stronger sales instead of seesawing.
"There's somewhat more durability to this wave than where we were before," McNamara said.
Leading the way in consumer spending has been auto sales, demonstrating that Americans are more willing to open their wallets and borrow money to buy big-ticket items. General Motors, Chrysler and Ford enjoyed double-digit percentage gains in sales last month, on top of a strong October.
Economists cautioned, however, that Americans should not expect to rewind to 2007. But speculation of a double-dip recession - widespread just a few months ago - has largely died down amid the stream of positive data.
"You put it all together and I think it tells a story of an economy that is shaking off the doldrums," said Stuart Hoffman, chief economist for PNC Financial Services. "It's broad-based enough and the trends are there to suggest that this isn't a false start."
Instead, he said, he prefers to see the glass as half-full - and filling up.
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Wikileaks Prove that U. S. Officials are Doing a Superb Job and that Julian Ass-ange is a World-Class Ass-Hole
From The Daily Beast -- Dec. 1, 2010:
By Leslie H. Gelb
Julian Assange clearly intended the State Dept. cable leaks to smear the U.S. as evil and selfish. He inadvertently proved the opposite.
The Wikileakers dumped a vast pile of secrets to prove that the United States was selfish, stupid and wicked–but their revelations proved just the opposite. When you remove the gossip and obvious trivia that mesmerized the press, you clearly see what the Wikileakers never expected: A United States seriously and professionally trying to solve the most dangerous problems in a frighteningly complicated world, yet lacking the power to dictate solutions. U.S. policymakers and diplomats are shown, quite accurately, doing what they are supposed to do: ferreting out critical information from foreign leaders, searching for paths to common action, and struggling with the right amount of pressure to apply on allies and adversaries. And in most cases, the villain is not Washington, but foreign leaders escaping common action with cowardice and hypocrisy.
• WikiLeaks Fun Facts Don’t think for a New York minute that Julian Assange, the Wikileaker, unloaded this trove to save humankind. Why did he toss in those cables about Italy’s leader being a rake and Germany’s chancellor being a cautious fuddy-duddy, and President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan being “paranoid”? To save the world? Not a chance. He did it to get attention, and he got attention from a drooling press, which then went on to call the very material they were highlighting trivial. Did Assange leak critical conversations with Chinese or Arab leaders to help solve the problems in Korea and Iran? Not by the hair on your chinny chin chin. He did it to show that he could do it–and for the attention. Anyone who is not a hopeless left-wing ideologue knows that such leaks will crush future serious conversations with those leaders for some time to come. Just think: if you told someone a serious and critical confidence about someone else, and your confidant went out and told others, would you soon repeat that mistake? Assange did not leak these cables to help solve world problems. These leaks were absolutely gratuitous and served only the purpose of making him a media marvel.
When you actually read the cables, here’s what you see: American leaders and American diplomats trying to solve crucial world problems.
In explaining his deed publicly, Assange suggests that what he’s doing is uncovering American misdeeds and lies. His aim, he says, is to inform citizens of democracies and peoples around the world about what their leaders are really doing. Assange also insists he did this for transparency’s sake. Yet when he got to look inside, he didn't see what was plain: that our diplomats were doing a good job. Indeed, when you turn off his nonsense and stop listening to the strange commentary on cable news and even on the front pages of great newspapers, when you actually read the cables, here’s what you see: American leaders and American diplomats trying to solve crucial world problems.
Washington needs China’s help in bolstering sanctions against Iran, and China balks for fear of jeopardizing its oil and gas flow from that country. The Obama team arranges for Saudi Arabia to guarantee any loss in supply to China. If the world wants to slow or even prevent Iran’s march to nuclear weaponry, this is a key path to doing so.
The U.S. discovers that North Korea has manufactured new medium-range missiles and is trying to deliver them to Iran through China. The Obama team discovers this, informs Beijing, and asks Beijing to stop the transfer. Beijing declines. Really creepy.
Yemen’s leader takes public responsibility for American missile attacks against Al Qaeda in Yemen. He wants to diminish the power of these terrorists, as do Americans and most others in the world. The “lie” by the Yemeni president is a harmless way to get a critical job done–that is, the job of fighting international terrorism. Wikileaks tears away the political cover of Yemen’s leaders.
No country has anywhere near as much influence over nutty North Korea as China. So, U.S. diplomats are searching desperately to figure out Chinese thinking about North Korea in order to compose a plan for avoiding war on the Korean Peninsula. So, the Wikileakers expose some Chinese leaders who are actually trying to give us some insight into Chinese thinking about North Korean craziness. They won’t do that again soon.
Time and again, as one actually reads these cables, one has to be heartened by the professionalism and the insights of U.S. diplomats. What are they doing? They are not lying, and U.S. leaders are not lying. They are actually, believe it or not, trying to solve problems. That seriousness of purpose and the professionalism to execute it is what jumps out at you in these materials.
So, the naïve say, it’s good to show the effectiveness of our diplomats. Give me a break. Ask any American diplomat to choose between looking intelligent in leaked cables and making progress toward avoiding war.
None of this is to say that there should not be leaks, or that the press should not pursue classified information that is necessary or very helpful to a sensible public debate on policy. If a U.S. administration is lying, or distorting the facts, or telling one story to the public and another to itself, then by all means, let’s have it out in public. If the U.S. government is concocting intelligence in order to justify wars, let’s hope an enterprising reporter finds it out for the rest of us.
But the Wikileaks dump is not about providing essential information to Americans or to others–information they need for serious policy discussion. This massive trashing by Wikileaks of a legitimate effort by the U.S. government to preserve confidentiality is the very least a shame and at the most, a crime.
By Leslie H. Gelb
Julian Assange clearly intended the State Dept. cable leaks to smear the U.S. as evil and selfish. He inadvertently proved the opposite.
The Wikileakers dumped a vast pile of secrets to prove that the United States was selfish, stupid and wicked–but their revelations proved just the opposite. When you remove the gossip and obvious trivia that mesmerized the press, you clearly see what the Wikileakers never expected: A United States seriously and professionally trying to solve the most dangerous problems in a frighteningly complicated world, yet lacking the power to dictate solutions. U.S. policymakers and diplomats are shown, quite accurately, doing what they are supposed to do: ferreting out critical information from foreign leaders, searching for paths to common action, and struggling with the right amount of pressure to apply on allies and adversaries. And in most cases, the villain is not Washington, but foreign leaders escaping common action with cowardice and hypocrisy.
• WikiLeaks Fun Facts Don’t think for a New York minute that Julian Assange, the Wikileaker, unloaded this trove to save humankind. Why did he toss in those cables about Italy’s leader being a rake and Germany’s chancellor being a cautious fuddy-duddy, and President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan being “paranoid”? To save the world? Not a chance. He did it to get attention, and he got attention from a drooling press, which then went on to call the very material they were highlighting trivial. Did Assange leak critical conversations with Chinese or Arab leaders to help solve the problems in Korea and Iran? Not by the hair on your chinny chin chin. He did it to show that he could do it–and for the attention. Anyone who is not a hopeless left-wing ideologue knows that such leaks will crush future serious conversations with those leaders for some time to come. Just think: if you told someone a serious and critical confidence about someone else, and your confidant went out and told others, would you soon repeat that mistake? Assange did not leak these cables to help solve world problems. These leaks were absolutely gratuitous and served only the purpose of making him a media marvel.
When you actually read the cables, here’s what you see: American leaders and American diplomats trying to solve crucial world problems.
In explaining his deed publicly, Assange suggests that what he’s doing is uncovering American misdeeds and lies. His aim, he says, is to inform citizens of democracies and peoples around the world about what their leaders are really doing. Assange also insists he did this for transparency’s sake. Yet when he got to look inside, he didn't see what was plain: that our diplomats were doing a good job. Indeed, when you turn off his nonsense and stop listening to the strange commentary on cable news and even on the front pages of great newspapers, when you actually read the cables, here’s what you see: American leaders and American diplomats trying to solve crucial world problems.
Washington needs China’s help in bolstering sanctions against Iran, and China balks for fear of jeopardizing its oil and gas flow from that country. The Obama team arranges for Saudi Arabia to guarantee any loss in supply to China. If the world wants to slow or even prevent Iran’s march to nuclear weaponry, this is a key path to doing so.
The U.S. discovers that North Korea has manufactured new medium-range missiles and is trying to deliver them to Iran through China. The Obama team discovers this, informs Beijing, and asks Beijing to stop the transfer. Beijing declines. Really creepy.
Yemen’s leader takes public responsibility for American missile attacks against Al Qaeda in Yemen. He wants to diminish the power of these terrorists, as do Americans and most others in the world. The “lie” by the Yemeni president is a harmless way to get a critical job done–that is, the job of fighting international terrorism. Wikileaks tears away the political cover of Yemen’s leaders.
No country has anywhere near as much influence over nutty North Korea as China. So, U.S. diplomats are searching desperately to figure out Chinese thinking about North Korea in order to compose a plan for avoiding war on the Korean Peninsula. So, the Wikileakers expose some Chinese leaders who are actually trying to give us some insight into Chinese thinking about North Korean craziness. They won’t do that again soon.
Time and again, as one actually reads these cables, one has to be heartened by the professionalism and the insights of U.S. diplomats. What are they doing? They are not lying, and U.S. leaders are not lying. They are actually, believe it or not, trying to solve problems. That seriousness of purpose and the professionalism to execute it is what jumps out at you in these materials.
So, the naïve say, it’s good to show the effectiveness of our diplomats. Give me a break. Ask any American diplomat to choose between looking intelligent in leaked cables and making progress toward avoiding war.
None of this is to say that there should not be leaks, or that the press should not pursue classified information that is necessary or very helpful to a sensible public debate on policy. If a U.S. administration is lying, or distorting the facts, or telling one story to the public and another to itself, then by all means, let’s have it out in public. If the U.S. government is concocting intelligence in order to justify wars, let’s hope an enterprising reporter finds it out for the rest of us.
But the Wikileaks dump is not about providing essential information to Americans or to others–information they need for serious policy discussion. This massive trashing by Wikileaks of a legitimate effort by the U.S. government to preserve confidentiality is the very least a shame and at the most, a crime.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
