Is it the unemployment situation? Is it the volatility in the markets? The weakening greenback? Perhaps the generally perceived level of incompetence amongst our political and corporate leaders? Is it a media that does not hold our public officials and corporate leaders accountable?

While I could write extensively – and I have – on each of these questions, I am firmly convinced the ever increasing levels of populist rage go much deeper than any of these questions. How deep? To the very core of this great nation. What is at the core of any individual, institution, or nation?

Honesty and integrity.

Americans are a strong people. America is a proud land. That said, I believe we have allowed a semblance of moral decay to increasingly infiltrate our very core and we are now paying the price for it. How is this growing moral decay exemplified?

I am not suggesting that those who might hold differing opinions than mine on specific questions addressing ethical and moral topics as being the root of our current problems. I would like to think I am not so narrow-minded or judgmental. I do believe, however, that the rage sweeping our country on both sides of the political aisle stems from the reality that Americans are increasingly convinced that our political representatives, government officials, financial leaders, and their selected constituents have not been honest with America.

This lack of integrity and its growing level of awareness enrages Americans. They are voicing their rage. Congress is starting to hear this rage and is redirecting the anger and frustration toward leaders in Washington, state capitols, and Wall Street. We are now seeing this reality each and every day. America knows a lack of integrity when it sees it or feels it, despite the fact that large swaths of our media (exceptions include Susan Antilla and Jonathan Weil of Bloomberg, to name a few) provide the establishment cover.

Where have we seen a lack of integrity and honesty?

1. Select government reports to the contrary, the massive failings within the financial regulatory structure with specific emphasis on FINRA and the SEC.

2. Goldman Sachs CEO Llloyd Blankfein’s confession just this week that Goldman had engaged in activities that were clearly wrong and led to the economic crisis.

3. I have no doubt that many within our nation believe the Obama administration fundamentally believes in the principle of redistributing wealth via a number of programs. This emphasis on redistribution in one direction while simultaneously bailing out financial institutions leaves a very large percentage of those in the middle and on both sides of the aisle feeling totally disenfranchised. Not only do these people feel disenfranchised, but they feel that the government is not being honest with them regarding its motivations.

Will this situation turn around quickly? No. We did not get here just in the last year. While America is enraged currently, ultimately America itself needs to be held accountable for allowing this lack of integrity and honesty to promulgate over the years.

The cauldron is boiling. Washington and Wall Street feel it. I would expect we will witness more and more statements and acts from our leaders on Wall Street and in Washington to appease the electorate and assuage the pain.

Washington and Wall Street can keep their acts and statements.

Stop lying to America. Only then might we be able to make real progress.

LD

And I am not talking about all of the acorns all over my yard (the raccoons and squirrels are having a field day!). Nope, I am talking about ACORN, Obama’s former employer. They never fail to disappoint in the level of hubris and entitlement they bring, which can be downright laughable (if not so serious). But this one is a doozy. It is so funny, it just has to be a joke.

Are you ready? Get this: they are suing Congress to get our money back! Isn’t that hysterical??? Wait – hold on a second – I am getting word that is NOT a joke, that this is, in fact, true, ACORN Sues Over ‘Unconstitutional’ Funding Cuts By Congress. Oh, sweet mother you have GOT to be kidding!

Yeah, no – this is what ACORN alleges:

In an attempt to regain the millions in funding it lost in the wake of a hidden-camera scandal, ACORN is suing the federal government over congressional legislation that cut off funding to the community organizing group.

Representatives for ACORN sued the federal government Thursday morning in an attempt to regain the millions of dollars in funding the community organizing group lost after filmmakers videotaped its workers offering advice on how to commit tax fraud and various other felonies.

The suit charges Congress with violating the Constitution when it passed legislation in September that specifically targeted ACORN to lose federal housing, education and transportation funds.

That qualifies the legislation as bills of attainder, according to the Center for Constitutional Rights, which filed the suit on behalf of ACORN. A bill of attainder punishes a person or group without the benefit of a trial, and is illegal under Article 1 of the Constitution.

Bills of attainder have traditionally been understood to have more serious legal consequences — including the seizure of private property and even capital punishment — than Congress’ decision to withhold funds that are at its discretion to disseminate. Though members of Congress have accused ACORN of corruption, it is not clear how the exercise of its own prerogative is outside the bounds of legislative power.

Critics of the group in Congress blasted the lawsuit as a last-ditch effort to save the foundering organization’s bottom line.

“ACORN’s baseless lawsuit is the first public acknowledgement we’ve seen from ACORN of just how desperate they are to use any mechanism available to subsidize an organization that is teetering on bankruptcy and financial insolvency,” said Kurt Bardella, spokesman for Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif.

I’ll say this is baseless. What the hell makes them think they, a partisan organization, are entitled to OUR money? I am pretty sure that taxpayers do NOT have to subsidize partisan groups or political parties with which they disagree. Never mind the activities in which ACORN has been involved, like voter registration fraud, voter fraud, or who could forget those videos:

Congress began cracking down on its funding to ACORN after its employees were secretly videotaped in a number of cities offering to help a man and woman posing as a pimp and prostitute to lie to the IRS and acquire illegal home loans.

Footage showed staffers advising the “pimp” and “prostitute” on how to falsify tax forms and seek illegal benefits for 13 “very young” girls from El Salvador that the pair said they wanted to bring to the country to work as child prostitutes. The videos set off a firestorm in Congress.

ACORN pledged an internal inquiry and fired the staffers who were caught on tape, but it was only the latest of many legal troubles for the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now.

State investigators raided ACORN offices in Louisiana last week, seizing computer hard drives and documents in a probe of alleged embezzlement and tax fraud. Staffers in multiple states have been accused of committing voter registration fraud.

Congress took the “prostitute” videos as clear evidence of systematic problems within ACORN and voted with bipartisan support in the House and Senate to freeze funding for the group in appropriations bills in September.

Yes, those funds are frozen now, though they could be reinstated in the coming year budget. Well, until ACORN decided to file this lawsuit. Not so smart on the timing, I’d say. But hey, whaddya I know? They’re claiming their “contstitutional rights” are being trampled:

Thursday’s lawsuit claims that Congress violated the right to due process enshrined in the Fifth Amendment — declaring the group guilty of a crime and punishing its members without completing an investigation within the Department of Justice or the IRS.

“It’s not the job of Congress to be the judge, jury, and executioner,” said Jules Lobel, an attorney representing the Center for Constitutional Rights.

“We have due process in this country, and our Constitution forbids lawmakers from singling out a person or group for punishment without a fair investigation and trial.”

The lawsuit itself singles out three defendants — Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner; Director of the Office of Management and the Budget Peter Orszag, and Housing and Urban Development Secretary Shaun Donovan.

The three were responsible for facilitating the defunding of ACORN by Congress, according to attorneys for the Center for Constitutional Rights.

ACORN claims it has been badly hurt by the congressional actions, and has had to fire workers and close some of its 1,200 branches around the country.

Though it remains unclear precisely how much money the national organization was receiving from federal sources and aid programs, a lawyer pressing the suit said ACORN has already lost an amount “in the millions” since the freeze took effect.

Why is it the amount of money they have received is unclear? Just wondering.

But if the voter fraud, the voter registration fraud, the mortgage crisis thanks in large part to ACORN and those who support it, and those VIDEOS aren’t enough, check out THIS LINK. In it, you will find an audio tape and transcript of an ACORN worker acknowledging that they are indeed partisan, and worked to get Obama into office, as well as how every vote they got went to Obama, none to McCain. Oh, yeah, I am not kidding. This is an astonishing admission.

Add to that the raid on the New Orleans office, and what that is bound to turn up, and I’d think ACORN would want to shut the hell up already before they end up behind bars. But that’s not their way. No doubt, they assume their “Friends in High Places” (i.e., Obama) will look out for them.

Obama’s new legal counsel, Bob Bauer, husband to Anita Dunn (she of “Fox News Is The Devil Spawn” fame), is expected to do just that, according to Rep. Steve King (R-NY). Rep. King is afraid Bauer’s deeply partisan ties will lead to letting ACORN off the hook. They might also allow this frivolous lawsuit (IMHO – I am not an attorney) to proceed.

We’ll see what happens. This would be hilarious – if it wasn’t true…

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will be endorsing Rep. Michael Capuano in the Massachusetts Senate special election, choosing her House colleague over Attorney General Martha Coakley, who is seeking to become the first female senator in the state.

Pelosi will be heading to Boston tomorrow morning to make the formal endorsement.

In her statement, Pelosi noted Capuano’s support for the historic health care legislation that she shepherded through the House. Coakley said she opposed the legislation that passed through the House because it contained a provision restricting federal funds from going to abortion providers.

“Saturday the House of Representatives passed a historic health care bill that was a great victory for the American people,” Pelosi said. “Mike Capuano not only cast a courageous vote for this historic legislation, but was a constructive force in improving this bill and moving it to the Senate.”

This would be the “historic” bill featured the Stupak amendment which has pro-choice legislators, feminists and organizations like NOW and NARAL furious. And here’s why. According to Planned Parenthood:

“…This amendment would violate the spirit of health care reform, which is meant to guarantee quality, affordable health care coverage for all, by creating a two-tiered system that would punish women, particularly those with low and modest incomes…

“While Rep. Stupak claims that his amendment simply applies the Hyde amendment to health reform, nothing could be farther from the truth. The Stupak/Pitts amendment would result in a new restriction on women’s access to abortion coverage in the private health insurance market, undermining the ability of women to purchase private health plans that covers abortion, even if they pay for most of the premium with their own money…

“Rep. Stupak’s amendment would dramatically shift current federal policy related to abortion coverage and would undermine the principle of abortion neutrality in health care reform. A vote for Rep. Stupak’s amendment is a vote to weaken women’s access to comprehensive reproductive care and to take away private benefits that women currently have.”

Once again, women are the first to be asked to make “compromises” so the man can get his “historic” legislation passed. Where have I heard that before?

And let me get this straight – Capuano’s payback for voting for this thing is the endorsement of the Speaker of the House?

Attorney General Martha Coakley is a fierce advocate for women, children and working families. She’s squeaky clean, tough, and principled but that’s not good enough for Ms. Pelosi? Is she so threatened by having another tough woman in a position of power in government? Could this be more payback for the fact that Martha Coakley endorsed Hillary and refused to give up her vote at the Convention? Or that Coakley has her own ideas about health care and refused to endorse Pelosi’s 2,000 page monstrosity because of the Stupak amendment?

Here is AG Coakley’s statement regarding her opposition:

The House’s vote is in many ways a significant step toward the goal of health care reform. However, I am deeply disturbed that the House adopted the Stupak/Pitts amendment, which would deny millions of women access to reproductive services. The inclusion of the Stupak/Pitts amendment violates the very intent of health care reform, which is meant to guarantee quality, affordable health care coverage for everyone. I believe that the Senate has a responsibility to fix this by eliminating the provision in whatever reform legislation moves forward.

Boston Globe weighed in on the issue pointing out that Capuano is mired in the typical Washington wheeling and dealing, supporting the Stupak Amendment but now that Pelosi is taking a great deal of heat for her action, Capuano now looks to be waffling:

…Capuano’s message to voters quickly became mired in inconsistency.

“You deserve leaders that don’t try to thread the needle,’’ he said at his Monday night rally. Yet, in this case, he threaded it, and then blasted Coakley for saying she wouldn’t do the same. Then, instead of sticking with the principle he said he believed in, Capuano shifted. He said he would vote against health care legislation if a final version included the restrictive amendment.

So he was ‘for’ it before he was ‘agin’ it? I prefer Coakley, who did not feel the need to equivocate and stated, “I do not believe we have to take a step back on women’s rights to get health care reform.”

In the Boston Globe, Ellen Goodman stated:

“We now have pro-life Republicans and Democrats — most notably Rep. Bart Stupak of Michigan — demanding that any health plan offering abortion be banned from the newly created health-care exchange. And guess what that will mean? More than 80 percent of private insurance plans cover abortions. But any insurance plan that wants to be eligible for the huge wave of new clients would have to drop the abortion coverage it offers.”

Guess Capuano doesn’t care to thread the needle on that one.

Pelosi led the charge last year saying Republicans would overturn Roe v. Wade if elected, thereby threatening Hillary’s Democratic holdouts if they failed to fall in line and support Barack Obama. The DNC made a big show of how they were the only party to protect women. Yet in order to pass this health care behemoth that most in Congress did not have the time to read, Pelosi’s first act was to throw pro-choice women under the bus. Here’s hoping Pelosi’s endorsement will not help Capuano’s sagging primary bid.

Capuano is lagging behind in the four-way Democratic primary against Coakley, according to public polling. A Suffolk University poll released today showed Coakley leading with 44 percent of the vote, Boston Celtics co-owner Stephen Pagliuca in second with 17 percent, and Capuano in third with 16 percent.

The special election primary will be held December 8 and the winner will be the favorite to fill the Senate seat held by the late Ted Kennedy. Sen. Paul Kirk (D-Mass.) is holding the seat on an interim basis.

Ultra liberal Massachusetts has never had a woman Senator. Now that we have a chance at someone who would really stand up for the working voter and for women, Pelosi says no deal?

What say you?

Ironic that yesterday, NY Times columnist Charles Blow, certainly an Obama cheerleader from way back, penned a column entitled Obama’s to Fix, in which he cautions the President to stop blaming George Bush for the “mess” he inherited. Clearly, our President, far from undoing such a mess, is daily making a bigger one of his own. Mr. Blow begins with this ominous phrase:

What a difference a year makes.

In October 2008, the candidate Barack Obama delivered a major economic speech in Toledo, Ohio. In it he said: “Right now, we face an immediate economic emergency, and that requires urgent action. We can’t wait to help workers and families and communities who are struggling right now — who don’t know if their job or their retirement will be there tomorrow; who don’t know if next week’s paycheck will cover this month’s bills. … We need to pass an economic rescue plan for the middle-class, and we need to do it not five years from now, not next year, we need to do it right now.

“So today I’m proposing a number of steps that we should take immediately to stabilize our financial system, provide relief to families and communities and help struggling homeowners. It’s a plan that begins with one word that’s on everybody’s mind, and it’s easy to spell: J-O-B-S.”

“Right now,” “immediate economic emergency,” “requires urgent action,” “can’t wait.” Wow! He gave the impression that job creation would be his top priority, that action would be swift and effective, that his solutions would not only stanch the hemorrhaging, but reverse the trend.

He has not made jobs his top priority. This health care debacle, bailing out Wall Street, getting into the car business and generally putting money into the pockets of everyone except those who need it have all taken priority over putting Americans back to work. And, no, putting an extra $13 a week into people’s paychecks is not going to do the trick when as Mr. Blow points out the new official labor statistics have us at 10.2 unemployment, which is an increase of “more than 50 percent from the time Obama gave that speech.”

“(By the way, the underemployment rate, which includes part-time workers who want to work full time and those who’ve given up searching, is a staggering 17.5 percent.)”

I am still at a loss to understand why there was such a great urgency to pass health care legislation that is not supposed to go into effect for more than three years. Someone on another blog made the observation that Obama and Pelosi et al are using the economic crisis and joblessness as a weapon to pass their agenda. As people are panicked at losing their jobs and their healthcare, they are more likely to look to government to bail them out – and more amenable. As Rahm Emanuel said, “never waste a good crisis.” What better time to ram this through. Mr. Blow continues:

Job creation has dropped from top priority to one of many, and President Obama has been remanded to pandering for patience and offering excuses. On the one hand, he argues the tortured rationale that there is good news in the awful numbers: Things are still getting worse but at a slower pace. On the other, he incessantly reminds us that he inherited the crisis. The implication: Don’t blame me, blame Bush.

But this president can’t keep deflecting to the last one. Pain is presently felt. The crisis that took form on Bush’s watch is being experienced on Obama’s. Fair or not, finger-pointing is not effective policy.

This is now Obama’s crisis, and it carries political consequences. During Tuesday’s gubernatorial races in New Jersey and Virginia, nearly 9 in 10 voters said that they were worried about the direction of the nation’s economy in the next year. And the majority of those who held that view voted for the Republican candidates. This could portend a flashback to 1994.

It isn’t President Obama’s fault that he inherited this mess, but it is his to fix, and he must make haste. To paraphrase his Toledo prelection: you need to do it not five years from now, not next year, you need to do it right now. J-O-B-S.

There were many options to put people back to work this year if that was really the priority. Clearly it was not. This President spent almost a billion dollars to get his job. I don’t want to hear complaints now. Obviously, he inherited a mess, which he has made worse with reckless spending. No one expects him to fix everything in the space of a year, but I thought his “good judgment” meant he knew how to prioritize. We need leadership and part of that involves sacrificing one’s ego to help those who need it most. That is far more important than pushing legislation just for the purpose of putting a check mark next to one’s name. You don’t not spend billions, even trillions, you don’t have at a time like this. Since this bunch so miscalculated on their $787 billion stimulus package, I am not inclined to trust them now by handing over 1/6 of the economy to their stewardship.

It is interesting that Mr. Blow, who played the race card on Mr. Obama’s behalf last year, is now joining the ever increasing number of his pundit supporters who are having problems with his endless campaigning, blaming and wrongheaded focus.

As to the health care debate, I called my Congressman’s office Friday morning to complain about the bill and his assistant debated the merits with me. At least she took the time to do so. It was a shame she was wrong on the facts. I told her to go back and read the thing. Now we have a 2,000 page beast that the Senate must contend with and we are told it will never pass in its current form. So why the rush? Why wouldn’t this Administration be in the same kind of rush to help get people back to work?

There are 237 millionaires in Congress. Perhaps that explains why they have difficulty relating to the urgent need to put millions of Americans back of work, instead manufacturing an urgent need to pass labrynthian legislation for the mere purpose of saying “Mission Accomplished.”

Hmm. Where have we heard that phrase before?

No, no, I am not going to focus on their insanity this morning. Rather, the run for the ages was none of those things. It was the running of the 2009 Breeders’ Cup, with a stacked field you wouldn’t believe. There was Mine That Bird, with Calvin Borel on board, the little wonder horse who won the Kentucky Derby this year (and who had had a stellar career in Canada with rider Chantal Sutherland guiding him to a number of victories). And Summer Bird, the Belmont Stakes Winner of 2009. And yes, they have the same sire, Birdstone. The Preakness winner, Rachel Alexandra, with her historic win*, did not make the trip. Her owner and trainer did not want her running on the artificial surface of Santa Anita. Still, as I said, the field was LOADED with exceptional horses. A number of fillies have raced in the Breeders’ Cup Classic, but none have ever won it.

There was quite a bit of drama as they were loading the horses into the starting gate for the Breeders’ Cup Classic. The horse at the number 12 position (out of 13 horses), Quality Road, would not load. It was a tense few minutes as they tried to get him in. He was bucking, rearing, and would have none of it. They put a blindfold on and tried to trick him into going into the gate. They did get him in, but he freaked out again, scratching his hind leg, which meant an immediate scratch (while they were fairly sure it was nothing serious, they weren’t going to take any chances). All of the horses had to be unloaded, and reloaded, into the starting gate, which makes for a tense situation for all of them, and can be quite confusing for the horses.

A little more about Zenyatta. Not only was she undefeated – 13 wins under her belt, but she is a beast – a huge horse at 17 1/2 hh. For comparison, the great horse, Secretariat, was 16.2hh (the same as my Jordan). She loves the crowd, and plays up to them, with a straight-legged front step and pawing of the ground. To say she rises to the occasion is an understatement.

And now, the 2009 Breeders’ Cup Classic – the culmination of the horse-racing season:

Amazing, right? Did you hear Mike Smith say he didn’t even take her through all of her gears? (If she still has more gears to go, I’d sure love to see them. Wow – it’s unimaginable.) How she slowed a bit to pose for the crowd as they roared? And how about her affect as she came back to the stands? Head held high, prancing for the crowd? What a champion. Undefeated, bad start out of the gate, wrong lead, and she STILL wins it against a formidable field. No wonder she is in the discussion for Horse Of The Year, against another amazing filly, Rachel Alexandra. But today was most definitely Zenyatta’s day.

And watching the Breeders’ Cup beats the hell out of having my head explode over the House of Un-Representatives…

*As a reminder, here was the Preakness with Rachel Alexandra going for the first win of the Preakness by a filly since 1924:

Amazing horse – definitely a Horse of the Year contender.

I am sure you will be SHOCKED to learn that Obama is acting in much the same way. I know, I know – what a surprise. Ahem. Well, it seems some one has been doing a little investigative journalism, something in VERY short supply of late. But get this – I tell you, you better be sitting down – in this case, it was – WAIT FOR IT –
MSNBC. YES, the very network to which we routinely refer as “MSNBO”! Once I recovered from the shock of it all, I couldn’t wait to see just how transparent President Obama was compared to Bush. (I wonder if there is a way for us to do a pool on these kinds of things, like for NCAA basketball or something?)

This is what MSNBC uncovered in this report:

Obama Names 110 White House Visitors

The White House on Friday released a small list of visitors to the White House since President Barack Obama took office in January, including lobbyists, business executives, activists and celebrities.

No previous administration has released such a list, though the information out so far is incomplete. Only about 110 names —and 481 visits —out of the hundreds of thousands who have visited the Obama White House were made public. Like the Bush administration before it, Obama is arguing that any release is voluntary, not required by law, despite two federal court rulings to the contrary.

The emphasis there is mine. This is a bit of a schizophrenic opening. On the one hand, they want to champion that Obama released 110 names – Woohoo!! On the other hand, they have to acknowledge that, once again, President Obama is using the SAME arguments as Bush. Moreover, this “Constitutional Scholar” is doing so in clear violation of not one, but TWO federal court rulings! Maybe the KoolAide was made improperly that day, I don’t know, but the report continues:

Under the Obama White House’s policy, most names of visitors from Inauguration Day in January through the end of September will never be released. The White House says it plans to release most of the names of visitors from October on, and that release is due near the end of the year. There are limitations there as well, including potential Supreme Court nominees, personal guests of the First Family, and certain security officials.

The names released Friday include business leaders and lobbyists with a lot to gain or lose from Obama policies. They include Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates (whose foundation is pushing for changes in teacher pay), former AIG chairman Maurice Greenberg, Exxon Mobil CEO Rex Tillerson, Chevron CEO David O’Reilly, Citigroup’s Vikram Pandit, Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein, JP Morgan’s James Dimon, Bank of America CEO Kenneth Lewis, John Stumpf of Wells Fargo, Morgan Stanley’s John Mack, State Street bank’s Ron Logue, BNY Mellon’s Robert Kelly, labor leader Andrew Stern of the Service Employees International Union (22 visits)*, American Bankers Association CEO Ed Yingling, community bankers president Camden Fine, and lobbyists Heather and Anthony Podesta, whose brother John Podesta led Obama’s transition team.

Besides Gates, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer and General Electric CEO Jeffrey Immelt are also on the list. (Msnbc.com is a joint venture of Microsoft and NBC. One of NBC’s parents is GE.)

Advocates and nonprofit leaders include National Organization for Women President Kim Gandy, and Risa Lavizzo-Mourey, president of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, which is interested in health policy.

So, this is how Obama is paying these people and organizations back, by having them in the White House? I bet Kim Gandy was just all aflutter after she threw ALL women under the bus to endorse Obama over a life-long women’s advocate. There is more on her below.

I know many readers will be interested in this White House guest:

Democratic donor and businessman George Soros visited with White House aides twice.

Yes, indeedy, a major funder of Moveon.org has been to check up on his biggest investment – ahem – twice.

We’re just getting started:

Political figures include former Sen. Thomas Daschle, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich. Chicago Mayor Richard Daley, former Gov. Howard Dean, Sen. Al Franken, former Vice President Al Gore, former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, the late Sen. Edward Kennedy, and Democratic strategist Steve Elmendorf.

Celebrities at the White House include Oprah Winfrey, actors Brad Pitt, George Clooney and Denzel Washington, and tennis star Serena Williams. Journalists include Paul Krugman, the New York Times columnist and Nobel Prize winner in economics.

Conservative religious leader Gary Bauer visited, as did liberal civil rights leaders Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson.

Okay, the last two, along with Oprah, are NOT a surprise. Gary Bauer? Just a tad surprising.

For anyone who wants to see more:

Msnbc.com has put the full list in a handy PDF file, and also in an Excel file for those who like to sort.

One guest is mighty interesting:

Not that Bill Ayers

The White House warns that many names that may appear familiar — and controversial — do not in fact refer to the most famous people to carry those names. Jeremiah Wright is on the list, but it’s not the president’s former pastor. This Michael Jordan is not the basketball player. This Michael Moore is not a filmmaker. The William Ayers who took a group tour of the White House isn’t the former radical from Chicago who figured so prominently in the 2008 campaign. And the Angela Davis on the list has a different middle initial than the activist and former fugitive.

The White House could have avoided some of that sort of confusion by providing more information on the visitors, such as an employer name and the city they hail from. For example, is the Shawn Carter who attended a poetry reading the same one who goes by Jay-Z and had campaigned for Obama?

“This unprecedented level of transparency can sometimes be confusing rather than providing clear information,” a White House special counsel, Norm Eisen, wrote on the White House blog.

If you spot a name on the list that bears investigating, please drop us a note.

Of COURSE we will just trust Obama and his spokes-minions when they assure us that this Bill Ayers could not POSSIBLY be domestic terrorist – Capitol Building and Pentagon bomber – long time friend and mentor Bill Ayers! He is just some guy who wanted to visit the White House Gift Shop and pick up a couple of Marine One helicopter models for his boys. I am sure of it. Sheesh. Really? They expect us to believe this crap? Evidently – they got plenty of other people to believe that kind of crap and more, so why stop now?

Okay – if you are consuming any liquids right this minute, I suggest you put it down when you read this:

Limited release

Despite the accompanying White House claim of “transparency like you’ve never seen before,” the Obama White House continues to take the same legal position as the Bush White House, arguing that the records are not public records subject to the Freedom of Information Act. Only limited “voluntary releases” are being made to settle a lawsuit filed by an advocacy group, though a federal judge has twice ruled that all the visitor logs are public. (Again, emphasis is mine.)

Yet there are severe limitations to the transparency:

Most of the visitors from Inauguration Day to September will never be released by the White House under this voluntary disclosure — unless the public can guess their names. The White House policy doesn’t allow members of the public or press to ask for “everyone who visited health czar Nancy-Ann DeParle,” or everyone who visited on May 4, or everyone from the American Medical Association. Only individual names can be checked.

I know, right? Didn’t this sound just a little pissy?? From someone at MSNBC?? The bigger picture is that the Obama Administration is BREAKING THE LAW. Hell to the YES, that information falls under FOIA – this is OUR White House, not the Obamas. We most definitely DO get to know every single John Smith and Jane Doe who cross the threshold of the White House. You better believe we do.

This is just the tip of the iceberg, but it is a start:

The list released at 4:30 p.m. Friday includes just about 110 names with 481 visits. Those names were among those requested by members of the public so far, for visits during the period from Inauguration Day through July. (That’s why we know of visits by the wrong Bill Ayers, the wrong Angela Davis, etc., but we don’t know of visits by countless unnamed lobbyists.) Members of the public who used the White House online form to check names did not receive a personal reply indicating whether or not the request was received, or whether the name appeared on the list, so the system provides no feedback. Does the absence of Bill Clinton’s name on the list mean that he has not been to the White House, or that the request wasn’t received by the White House online system?

A request for the complete records of all visitors from the first months of the administration, filed by msnbc.com, was rejected by the White House, and an appeal is pending. The news organization requested the names of all visitors to the Obama White House beginning with Inauguration Day. Msnbc.com has filed an administrative appeal with the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees the Secret Service.

Say whaa?? The White House rejected a request from their lapdog “news” source?? Huh. There’s a shocker. Welcome to the “Under The Bus” club, MSNBC!

The Wall Street Journal focused on the most frequent visitor to the White House. He was mentioned in the list above, but without the acknowledgment of the frequency:

SEIU’s Stern Tops White House Visitor List

Promising “transparency like you’ve never seen before,” The White House released its visitor log this evening under a new voluntary disclosure policy.

The log chronicles 481 visits to the White House from individuals ranging from Jay-Z to Bill Gates from January through July.

The list includes William Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, Michael Moore, Robert Kelly (R. Kelly), Malik Shabazz, and Michael Jordan.

But the White House said those aren’t the guys you’re thinking of. Nor is the log complete.

Ahahahahahahaha!!! I just cannot get enough of this one – sure, they aren’t the same people. Yeah, okay, we believe you. NOT. And because it is just so much fun to see them squirm, I am keeping in the part that is repetitive of the article above, especially the quotes from Eisen. Oh, what a funny guy:

“A lot of people visit the White House, up to 100,000 each month, with many of those folks coming to tour the buildings. Given this large amount of data, the records we are publishing today include a few ‘false positives’ – names that make you think of a well-known person, but are actually someone else,” Norm Eisen, a special counsel to the president, writes on the White House blog. “The well-known individuals with those names never actually came to the White House. Nevertheless, we were asked for those names and so we have included records for those individuals who were here and share the same names.”

Adds Eisen: “This unprecedented level of transparency can sometimes be confusing rather than providing clear information.”

Uh, ya know, I think we are all smart enough to not get all confused by this incredible level of “transparency.” Beginning with, we actually know the definition of “transparency,” something Eisen and Obama apparently do not.

And then there is this:

One thing is clear: *Service Employees International Union President Andrew Stern holds sway at the White House, where he’s listed for 22 visits—the top number on the logs. Visitors in the top 10 also include former Clinton White House Chief of Staff John Podesta, former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, National Organization for Women President Kim Gandy, and NARAL Pro-Choice America President Nancy Keenan.

So THAT’S what Gandy and Keenan got for stabbing Hillary Clinton and, well, WOMEN, int he back – visits to the White House. I guess there is something gained by selling your soul, though, personally, I don’t think it is worth it. But that’s just me.

Anywho – yes, the President of the SEIU, again, the union co-founded by the founder of ACORN, Wade Rathke, is the TOP visitor at the White House. The SEIU has been in the news quite a bit, especially for holding California hostage – threatening that their good buddy, Obama, would not give the state any federal stimulus funds if it had the audacity to expect the union to cut wages like everyone else so the state wouldn’t go bankrupt. NOW we know how the union was able to do that. All those visits to the White House apparently paid off – for the union, not California, the state with one of the largest budgets around (as in 5th in the world). What makes this more egregious is that California pays a lot into the federal tax system and receives little comparatively speaking. And this union is allowed – by the White House – to hold it over a barrel. Yep, all those meetings seemed to do the trick!

Aren’t you just so heartened by all of this “transparency”? And by seeing who Obama is welcoming into our White House? Yeah, me, too. As long as the Obama Administration continues to thumb its nose at Federal Law, I reckon we should be “thankful” for this (no, not really – it’s BS that they are still sitting on so much information).

Oh, but if you can just GUESS who might else have been there and submit that form asking them, maybe you can confirm some other folks who have been there, too. Lemme know what you find out, okay? I am sure we would all just love to know…

So – for your enjoyment, I have the following photographs, sent to me by my cousin, who got them heaven-only-knows-where (somewhere on the internet). The headline of the emails was, “When Farm Kids Get Bored,” and who happen to be a bit creative (who knows if these were even done by kids?). Anyway, for your Halloween Viewing Pleasure, here they are:

I hope you have a good, safe, day. Happy Halloween, everyone!

This should be a great game, too – two former Cleveland Indians pitchers will face off on the mound: CC Sabathia for the Yankees (19-8 regular season record; 3-0 postseason with a 1.19 ERA). At 6′7″, Sabathia is an imposing presence on the mound. Cliff Lee will be pitching for the Phillies (14-13 regular season; 2-0 postseason with a .074 ERA).

The Yankees will seek their revenge against Cliff Lee, who won against the Yankees in their season opener at the brand new stadium. Each team will have its work cut out for it to win against either one of these stellar pitchers. And each team has very good players coming up to the plate against them.

All in all, it should be an exciting series. Let’s hope so, anyway, with good officiating (THAT would be a change), great plays, and no injuries,

Below is a good review of the upcoming game, the pitchers, and the players:

<a href=”http://msn.foxsports.com/video?vid=ac3b28fb-a563-4171-a786-73a9970759f6&from=IV2_en-us_foxsports_articles” target=”_new” title=”Rosenthal: World Series preview”>Video: Rosenthal: World Series preview</a>

More on Pedro Martinez on Thursday. That will be fun. (The guys above already touched on it – “Who’s Your Daddy” chant by the Yankee fans will be explained.)

First Lady Michelle Obama and Dr. Jill Biden will also be on hand for this game as it will serve to honor returning veterans and their families. Oh, yay – I cannot even get away from the Obamas when watching my diversion from politics! Sheesh. Oh, well – hopefully we won’t miss home runs, or strikeouts, or stolen bases because they are focusing on those two. Just saying.

Believe it or not, this IS an Open Thread, and not just for baseball! What’s on your mind? Rep. Grayson calling Linda Robertson, Bernanke’s adviser, a “whore”? Obama playing as much golf in the first 9 months as Bush did in 34 months? The bombing in Pakistan? Let’s have it!

And if you ARE a baseball fan, hope to see you here later on!

But first, another reason to be angry at insurers, especially if you are female, and living in one of thirty-nine states in the union, as this article highlights, Women Pay Up To 50% More For Health Insurance Premiums. Now, maybe I was just naive to not realize this was happening, but happening it is. This article focuses on the state of Colorado:

Checking the “female” box when buying health insurance is likely to cost extra — perhaps up to 50 percent more than a man would pay for the same coverage.

Gender-rating — or what some term as flat-out sexual discrimination — is linked to the simple fact that women, particularly those under age 50 or so, go to the doctor more often than men.

But outrage over how women are treated in the individual health insurance market is mounting as stories emerge of companies refusing to cover maternity benefits and denying coverage because of past domestic violence or cesarean sections, including a Colorado woman who was told she would have to get sterilized to qualify for insurance.

Federal proposals, as well as pending state legislation, would ban gender-rating and require maternity coverage, even as the insurance industry warns that lowering premiums for younger women could mean higher premiums for most everyone else.

Colorado women age 40 and under shopping for health insurance in the individual market, not through an employer, pay from 10 percent to 59 percent more than men, according to analysis by the National Women’s Law Center.

They pay more even when maternity coverage is not included. And in many cases, a female nonsmoker pays more for health coverage than a man who smokes.

“Women should not be penalized because their plumbing works differently and needs ongoing maintenance,” Colorado Insurance Commissioner Marcy Morrison told a state health care task force.

Holy smokes. Did you know this?? So, being a woman is a pre-existing condition? That’s a pretty difficult one to overcome. Especially since we’re the only ones who can get pregnant, which has its OWN set of issues:

As a state lawmaker, Morrison fought insurance companies to stop “drive-through deliveries” so women could stay in the hospital longer after childbirth. She said gender-rating is discrimination tied to decades-old salary disparity, particularly in female-dominated professions such as nursing and teaching. And she is skeptical of insurance company claims that “the sky is going to fall” and premiums would rise if gender-rating were outlawed.

America’s Health Insurance Plans, the industry’s national association, proposed ending gender-rating and the practice of rejecting customers based on pre-existing conditions. In exchange, insurance companies want powerful legislation that would compel everyone to buy insurance.

Discrimination against women in the insurance market goes far beyond premium rates, reform advocates said.

And you are not even going to believe how:

Sterilization Suggested

Take, for example, Centennial resident Peggy Robertson, who was denied insurance by Golden Rule Insurance Co. because she delivered her second child by cesarean section in 2006. Maternity benefits weren’t even part of the package.

Robertson, whose husband is a self-employed chiropractor, contacted the International Cesarean Awareness Network and filed a complaint with the state Division of Insurance, arguing the denial was unfair and that the company had asked her offensive questions during the application process.

Later, she received a letter from Golden Rule telling her the company would consider covering her if “some form of sterilization has occurred since the caesarean-section delivery.”

“It was just really horrific and terribly insulting,” said Robertson, a stay-at-home mom of two boys. “You felt like you were a herd of cattle or something.”

Robertson’s recent testimony before the U.S. Senate health committee in part prompted Sen. Michael Bennet, D-Colo., to write a letter to Senate leaders adding his voice to the call for reform to ban gender-rating and other “harmful insurance industry practices.”

Since denying Robertson, Golden Rule, an Indianapolis-based division of United Healthcare, now covers women who have had cesarean sections but only with increased premiums to cover the risk of a future cesarean birth or with exclusionary riders — clauses that deny coverage for cesareans for a certain number of years or forever.

“This helps us extend coverage to more people while keeping premiums lower for all of our customers,” said Ellen Laden, public relations director for Golden Rule. “The real issue is how to deal broadly with providing access to health care for everyone while still keeping health insurance from being cost-prohibitive.”

Sterilization??? What, are we back in the mid-1950’s or something?? I noticed that they didn’t suggest sterilization for MEN, which makes a lot more sense for the health insurers since it’s CHEAPER, and doesn’t require hospitalization. This is just staggering in this day and age. Thank heavens there are people fighting this suggestion:

Bennet and others, including the National Women’s Law Center, are calling for an end to coverage denials based on pre-existing conditions such as pregnancy and surviving domestic violence or sexual assault — a problem revealed in a recent report from the law center.

Along those lines, there is another big issue that applies to women only:

Lack Of Maternity Benefits

Another common frustration among women who buy insurance individually — and there are 125,000 such women in Colorado — is that maternity benefits are almost nonexistent.

Suzanne Pariser, a Denver lawyer and mother of 2-year-old Willa, is putting off expanding her family because she cannot find an affordable insurance plan that includes maternity coverage.

“That’s the main reason we’re not having a baby right now,” she said. “We definitely want to have another child.”

Pariser is annoyed that insurance company executives, in essence, are determining her family planning.

“My anger is mostly that insurance companies view having a baby as a medical complication that costs them money,” she said. “They view it as a disease.”

The only plan she could find that offered maternity coverage was more expensive in the long run than paying out of pocket to have a baby, Pariser figured.

Costs vary by hospital or birthing center, but the average bill for a vaginal birth with no complications is about $7,500 and for a cesarean section, $13,200.

Viewing having a baby as a “disease.” That is quite an indictment, especially taken in conjunction with suggesting sterilization.

Back to the overall concept of gender-biased insurance:

The insurance industry in Colorado has not taken an official position on statehouse bills that would ban gender-rating in the individual market and require maternity coverage. Their stance likely depends on national reform — and in particular, whether federal law will force everyone, even the healthiest people, to buy insurance.

But industry officials point out that higher premiums for women are based on analysis from actuaries, which show women are much more likely to visit the doctor. The rate at which women visit primary care physicians is more than 50 percent higher than for men, according to the New America Foundation.

By about age 50 or 55, men typically begin using health services more than women, and premiums for older men are typically more expensive than those for older women, said Ben Price, executive director of the Colorado Association of Health Plans.

“The insurance industry is engaged in its own internal discussion on this issue, and health plans here in Colorado are of course taking a fresh look at gender-rating and many other issues that have been raised as a part of the debate both in Washington and here in Colorado,” he said.

Officials with Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield of Colorado have “strong reservations” about eliminating gender-rating and requiring maternity coverage. The practice is rampant in the auto insurance industry, they argue.

“The most expensive purchase in auto (insurance) is the young, invincible male; they are the risk-takers,” said Rebecca Weiss, director of government affairs. “For some reason, auto insurance doesn’t seem as inflammatory to people as health insurance.

“Shouldn’t health insurance premiums be based on some degree on how many medical services you receive so that everyone is paying according to what they are using?”

I am no doctor, or health insurer, but if women go go the doctor more often, isn’t it possible that will keep them out of the hospital more often? Unless it’s for a “disease” like having a baby or something. Ahem. But you know what the bottom line is: “

It Would Raise Prices”

Insurance companies probably would have to raise prices on other groups to make up the difference if they were forced to lower prices for younger women, said Tom Gosselin, director of small-group underwriting at Anthem.

“It definitely would raise the prices, is the simple thing,” he said. “You are now charging the 22-year-old guy who has no concept in the world about having a baby for maternity. He’s more likely to choose not to have health insurance at all.”

Eleven states ban gender-rating in the individual insurance market.

A review by the National Conference of State Legislatures found that those states had not determined whether their bans caused health insurance rates to rise.

In Montana, which outlawed gender-rating in 1983, some lawmakers want to repeal the ban, arguing fewer insurers are willing to operate in the state because of it.

Colorado is among several states that have banned gender-rating in the small-group insurance market, which in this state applies to businesses with 50 or fewer employees. For businesses with more than 50 employees, insurance companies can consider age and sex when setting rates — but the risk is spread throughout the company so everyone’s premiums are equal.

Reform advocates argue the policy adversely affects businesses where the workforce is predominantly female, such as child-care centers or home health agencies.

I just wonder if this issue is being addressed by the Congress as it looks at this whole health care reform thing? Seems to me it is a pretty big issue, as is the cost in general:

Care Requires Doctor Visits

A Denver Post review of online health insurance quotes found that a woman living in the same Denver ZIP code with the same date of birth would pay $20 to $35 per month — or up to $420 more per year — than a man for the same coverage. The rates reviewed were for basic, high-deductible plans, ranging from $71 to $158 per month.

NARAL Pro-Choice Colorado is among those fighting for change in the law, arguing that women are typically the responsible sex when it comes to birth control and that those prescriptions often require an annual doctor visit.

“Under the current health care system, women are penalized for taking responsibility for their own health,” said Toni Panetta, NARAL’s political director.

State Rep. Beth McCann, a Denver Democrat sponsoring the bill banning gender-rating, said insurance companies failed to produce “sufficient factual basis to charge different premiums for women and men.”

“It seems as though it’s somewhat arbitrary,” she said. “It’s a matter of equality and fairness.”

If the state legislation passes during the next legislative session, it probably would take effect about two years ahead of national reform.

Mary Saracino, a self-employed writer in Lafayette who has had to purchase insurance on the individual market, said she is shocked “and, dare I say, angry” that monthly premiums for women are higher.

“It seems highly discriminatory,” said Saracino, 55. “Would consumers put up with that if, say, men had to pay more for tires than women because some statistic says that male drivers are harder on their cars than female drivers?”

Uh, hell to the yes, it seems discriminatory! There just isn’t a whole helluva lot we can do about being female (without getting into the whole issue of gender-realignment surgery, that is). Or want to do anything about it. A whole lot of us are actually happy to be women. To make us pay more money, especially when we typically make less money, for health insurance is reprehensible.

Here are the places you can live without fear of being charged for being a woman:

Some Protection

These 11 states ban gender- rating by insurers in the individual insurance market:

California, Maine, Massachusetts, Montana, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Oregon, and Washington. (Jennifer Brown: 303-954-1593 or jenbrown@denverpost.com)

That’s it.

And now for the big surprise. I am telling you, I was really shocked when I learned this. Would you like to take a guess as to how much Insurers actually make in profits? About 2.2% above the amount of money they take in. In fact, they are 35th out of 53 for industries. I have no love lost for insurance companies, especially in light of articles like the one above, but that is startling. It is in complete opposition to EVERYTHING we have heard about them. Are they a pain in the ass to deal with in general, like filing claims, or having claims paid? Often, yes. But are they raking in the cash hand over fist as we have been hearing from Congress on a daily basis? Apparently not. That shocked the crap out of me. That doesn’t immediately absolve them, of course, but it does greatly affect the very foundation for the arguments about health care in this country. Something to consider.

And since we are talking about women and health care, October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month. Many of us, myself included, need to take the appropriate actions for our health.

Along those lines, I would like to leave you with the following, a recent interview with Elizabeth Edwards:

A brave soul, Elizabeth is. And one who is in my thoughts and prayers as she continues to live with breast cancer (I am trying really hard not to say something snarky here about her husband…). All the best to her. And to all women who are living with this disease, and hopefully, being cured of it.

“Barack Obama Sees Worst Poll Rating Drop In 50 Years”

Gallup recorded an average daily approval rating of 53 per cent for Mr Obama for the third quarter of the year, a sharp drop from the 62 per cent he recorded from April.

His current approval rating – hovering just above the level that would make re-election an uphill struggle – is close to the bottom for newly-elected president. Mr Obama entered the White House with a soaring 78 per cent approval rating.

The bad polling news came as Mr Obama returned to the campaign trail to prevent his Democratic party losing two governorships next month in states in which he defeated Senator John McCain in last November’s election.

Jeffrey Jones of Gallup explained: “The dominant political focus for Obama in the third quarter was the push for health care reform, including his nationally televised address to Congress in early September.

“Obama hoped that Congress would vote on health care legislation before its August recess, but that goal was missed, and some members of Congress faced angry constituents at town hall meetings to discuss health care reform. Meanwhile, unemployment continued to climb near 10 per cent.”

Unfortunately for Obama, the People had something to say about the legislation that would so impact each and every one of us. I bet those legislators just HATE when their constituents throw a wrench into their grand plans, don’t you?

Things aren’t just bad for Obama, though:

Governor Jon Corzine of New Jersey is in severe danger of defeat while Democrats are fast losing hope that Creigh Deeds can beat his Republican opponent in Virginia. Twin Democratic losses would be a major blow to Mr Obama’s prestige.

Campaigning for Mr Corzine in Hackensack on Wednesday night, Mr Obama delivered a plea that almost seemed as much for himself as the local candidate: “I’m here today to urge you to cast aside the cynics and the sceptics, and prove to all Americans that leaders who do what’s right and who do what’s hard will be rewarded and not rejected.”

Mr Corzine, a former Goldman Sachs executive and multi-millionaire, is currently running even in New Jersey, which is normally comfortably Democratic, while Mr Deeds is trailing badly in Virginia, a swing state that was key to Mr Obama’s 2008 victory.

Let’s just pause for a second and soak that in – Gov. Corzine is a former Goldman Sachs exec who made a gazillion buckaroos, and Obama is stumping for him. Perhaps this is one of those moments when Obama’s minions might just get sobered up just a tad from the Kool Aide and realize that they bought a bill of goods.

It gets worse:

Mr Obama is also facing widespread criticism for his drawn-out decision-making process over what to do next in Afghanistan.

Republicans sense Mr Obama is in a vulnerable position and this week saw the return to the public stage of his perhaps most vehement opponent – Vice-President Dick Cheney.

Holy crapoli – Cheney? The man to whom we affectionately (cough) referred to as Darth Vader?? Whooey – this should be interesting:

In a blistering speech on Wednesday night, he accused Mr Obama of failing to give Americans troops on the ground a clear mission or defined goals and of being seemingly “afraid to make a decision” about Afghanistan “The White House must stop dithering while America’s armed forces are in danger,” Cheney said at the Center for Security Policy in Washington.

“Make no mistake, signals of indecision out of Washington hurt our allies and embolden our adversaries.”

He hit out at Obama aides who suggested that the Bush administration had failed to weigh up conditions in Afghanistan properly before committing troops.

“Now they seem to be pulling back and blaming others for their failure to implement the strategy they embraced. It’s time for President Obama to do what it takes to win a war he has repeatedly and rightly called a war of necessity.”

Yikes. Nothing like being called on the carpet by the president, I mean, VICE president, from the past 8 years. Ahem. I reckon Obama and his Chicago pals thought all of their blaming of the Bush Administration would silence that Administration. Apparently, they were not paying attention to how Cheney rolls over the last 8 years, either. I’m sure Obama/Emmanuel/Axelrove will come up with SOME dismissive statement about Cheney’s remarks, and still not do anything about Afghanistan, because that’s how THEY roll.

Just in case you are keeping score (or want to), the Daily Presidential Tracking Poll at Rasmussen Reports has Obama’s approval ratings at 49% as of Friday, Oct. 23rd.

But hey, these are just numbers. What are the people who formerly approved of Obama but are now sobering up saying? My good friend, Nunly, of Bad Habit fame, braved the Obamablogs, and found some mighty interesting comments by the Obama faithful. She was kind enough to leave this at my blog, and the comments in italics are her’s (she’s funny):

I went to look at AmericaBlog last night (I love to see what the Obots are up to) and thought you would LOVE to see what they think of Obama now. I’ve never seen so much whining, crying, gnashing of teeth since I told my kids they had to pay for their own car insurance.

…Aravosis has been covering the health care bill negotiations and I swear, the comments about Obama had me rolling on the floor laughing.

Here are a few of my favorite from that post. You could read the rest if you want, but they are all about the same.

Here goes..get your tissues out because you’re gonna laugh until you cry:

Mike_in_the_Tundra said:
I really don’t remember voting for Olympia Snow during the presidential campaign.

Montiel said:
Obama campaigned on a strong public option.

When push came to shove he ran the other way.

What does it matter now what he says – we already know who he is.

(Mary Ellen’s note: Then the following guy is trying to put the kool-aid stains on somebody else’s upper lip and throws in a little Christian bashing to finish it off.)

JohnnyG [Moderator] 10 hours ago 2 people liked this.
Even if this is proven true, the kool-aid drinkers will still ignore it. All they care about is his “historical presidency.” They’ll be more than happy to let his dirty dealings be swept under the rug. Much like how Christians view God, anything good is credited to Jesus (Barack) and anything bad is credited to the devil (Rahm, anyone else handy.)

PresPlatitudes said:
why isn’t obama pushing for the PO, instead of parading around on letterman like a vain opportunist?

(Below is my favorite comment!)

Judas Peckerwood
If Obama’s ultra-secret overarching goal for his presidency is to make the PUMAs look sane in retrospect, then all I can say is “Well played sir, well played indeed.”

(ROTFLMAO! They hate it that the PUMA’s were right!)

Fireblazes(CheetohsandCatfood) said:
Obviously, he was lying about wanting the public option. No money in that, after all it takes a billion to become president.

godwillsortyouout said:
For what it’s worth, in the 2008 Presidential campaign, McCain raised $8 million from people who worked for healthcare companies, including lots of executives.

Obama raised ** $19 million **. You do the math.

(They just figured that out? And HOW many times did we try to tell them that before and how did they reply? “Racist!” )

vkobaya said:
if President Obama isn’t trying to scuttle his own campaign promise

No, no, of course, he isn’t trying to scuttle his own campaign promise. No, like any card carrying Republican, he is trying to scuttle America, drag it down the tubes, destroy our nation, which he hates and despises.

I’m sick of the man. Revolted, bitter, and angry that I and so many others were played for suckers into voting for him. Would we have been worse off under McCain and Sarah Palin? Beginning to wonder. Probably would have been no different.

(More laughing…I thought “we” were the “bitter and angry” ones? Look who’s bitter now!)…

Oh, how low they have gone, just like Obama’s poll numbers. I would be more sympathetic if they hadn’t treated all of us like Pure-T crap, or demeaned and belittled Hillary Clinton at every turn, demonizing her, downplaying her vast accomplishments, the warmth, the compassion, the intellect, the experience…So, yeah, I hate it for them, but they have no one to blame but themselves for how they’re feeling now. See? Vetting the candidate really DOES matter! Wowie zowie, just like we said!! Sigh.

Well, all I can say is stay tuned – it’s bound to be interesting at any rate, right? Can’t wait to see what the coming week brings…

General McChrystal’s proposal for Afghanistan has been on Obama’s desk for almost two months now. And what is Obama doing about it? Well, he appears to be deciding on how to decide what his decision will be, but he’s not there yet. Nope, instead, he is throwing up some smokescreen about the need for a do-over in Afghanistan’s election (wait – how come WE can’t get one of those??) before he will commit. And smokescreen it is. Even Secretary of Defense Gates has told him he can’t wait that long.

Obama needs to stop tip-toeing around Afghanistan, and own it, as a part of his presidency. For that matter, he needs to own his presidency, as Peggy Noonan points out in this commentary, It’s His Rubble Now: And the American people want him to fix it.. Uh, yeah. Pretty much. She writes:

At a certain point, a president must own a presidency. For George W. Bush that point came eight months in, when 9/11 happened. From that point on, the presidency—all his decisions, all the credit and blame for them—was his. The American people didn’t hold him responsible for what led up to 9/11, but they held him responsible for everything after it. This is part of the reason the image of him standing on the rubble of the twin towers, bullhorn in hand, on Sept.14, 2001, became an iconic one. It said: I’m owning it.

Mr. Bush surely knew from the moment he put the bullhorn down that he would be judged on everything that followed. And he has been. Early on, the American people rallied to his support, but Americans are practical people. They will support a leader when there is trouble, but there’s an unspoken demand, or rather bargain: We’re behind you, now fix this, it’s yours.

President Obama, in office a month longer than Bush was when 9/11 hit, now owns his presidency. Does he know it? He too stands on rubble, figuratively speaking—a collapsed economy, high and growing unemployment, two wars. Everyone knows what he’s standing on. You can almost see the smoke rising around him. He’s got a bullhorn in his hand every day.

It’s his now. He gets the credit and the blame. How do we know this? The American people are telling him. You can see it in the polls. That’s what his falling poll numbers are about. “It’s been almost a year, you own this. Fix it.”

Pretty much. Though he seems to be using his bullhorn for all the wrong things, IMHO. Noonan continues:

The president doesn’t seem to like this moment. Who would? He and his men and women have returned to referring to what they “inherited.” And what they inherited was, truly, terrible: again, a severe economic crisis and two wars. But their recent return to this theme is unbecoming. Worse, it is politically unpersuasive. It sounds defensive, like a dodge.

The president said last week, at a San Francisco fund-raiser, that he’s busy with a “mop,” “cleaning up somebody else’s mess,” and he doesn’t enjoy “somebody sitting back and saying, ‘You’re not holding the mop the right way.’” Later, in New Orleans, he groused that reporters are always asking “Why haven’t you solved world hunger yet?” His surrogates and aides, in appearances and talk shows, have taken to remembering, sometimes at great length, the dire straits we were in when the presidency began.

This is not a sign of confidence. Nor were the president’s comments to a New York fund-raiser this week. Democrats, he said to the Democratic audience, are “an opinionated bunch.” They always have a lot of thoughts and views. Republicans, on the other hand—”the other side”—aren’t really big on independent thinking. “They just kinda sometimes do what they’re told. Democrats, ya’ll thinkin’ for yourselves.” It is never a good sign when the president gets folksy, dropping his g’s, because he is by nature not a folksy g-dropper but a coolly calibrating intellectual who is always trying to guess, as most politicians do, what normal people think. When Mr. Obama gets folksy he isn’t narrowing his distance from his audience but underlining it. He shouldn’t do this.

But the statement that Republicans just do what they’re told was like his famous explanation of unhappy voters are people who “cling to guns or religion.” (What comes over him at fund-raisers?) Both statements speaks of a political misjudgment of his opponents and his situation.They show a misdiagnosis of the opposition that is politically tin-eared. Politicians looking to win don’t patronize those they’re trying to win over.

No kidding – insulting people you want to win over is thoroughly unhelpful, though it’s a strategy we have seen way too much of of late (and for a great post on that little soundbite of Obama’s, I recommend fellow No Quarter writer, Ani’s, post, “President Obama Is Insulting Americans Again”). I, for one, do not respond well to it, but that’s just me.

Back to Noonan:

But the point on the We Inherited a Terrible Situation and It’s Not Our Fault argument is, again, that it is worse than unbecoming. It is unpersuasive.

How do we know this? Through the polls. In all of the major surveys, the president’s popularity has gone down the past few months. A Gallup Daily Tracking Poll out this week reported Mr. Obama’s job approval dropped nine points during the third quarter of this year, that is between July 1 and Sept. 30, when it fell from 62% to 53%. It was the biggest such drop Gallup has ever measured for an elected president during the same period of his term. A Fox News poll out Thursday showed support for the president’s policies falling below 50% for the first time. Ominously for him, independents are peeling off. In 2006 and 2008 independents looked like Democrats. They were angry and frustrated by the wars, they sought to rebuke the Bush White House. Now those independents look like Republicans. They worry about joblessness, debts and deficits.

The White House sees the falling support. Thus the reminder: We faced an insuperable challenge, we’re mopping up somebody else’s mess.

The Democratic Party too sees the falling support, and is misunderstanding it. The great question they debated last week was whether the president is tough enough: Does he come across as too weak? It is true, as the cliché has it, that it’s helpful for a president to be both revered and feared. But this president is not weak, that’s not his problem. He willed himself into the presidency with an adroit reading of the lay of the land, brought together and dominated all the constituent pieces of victory, showed and shows impressive self-discipline, seems in general to stick to a course once he’s chosen it, though arguably especially when he’s wrong. His decision to let Congress write a health-care bill may yield at least the appearance of victory. And if Mr. Obama isn’t twisting arms like LBJ, and then giving just an extra little jerk to snap the rotator cuff just for fun, the case can be made that day by day he’s moving the Democrats of Congress in the historic direction he desires. All his adult life he’s played the long game, which takes patience and skill.

She forgot the lying, cheating, stealing, and downright theft, that helped propel Obama into the presidency, but whatever. What I don’t get is why people continue to forget that the Democrats were in charge of both houses of Congress for TWO YEARS before Obama became president. All of the stuff that happened in the two preceding years, like the stimulus bill, the economy, all of that, is on their hands. This, “Oh, poor me – look at how much I have to clean up! Being president is HARD WORK, just like Bush said!” has long passed its usefulness, if it ever had any.

It’s more than that:

The problem isn’t his personality, it’s his policies. His problem isn’t what George W. Bush left but what he himself has done. It is a problem of political judgment, of putting forward bills that were deeply flawed or off-point. Bailouts, the stimulus package, cap-and-trade; turning to health care at the exact moment in history when his countrymen were turning their concerns to the economy, joblessness, debt and deficits—all of these reflect a misreading of the political terrain. They are matters of political judgment, not personality. (Republicans would best heed this as they gear up for 2010: Don’t hit him, hit his policies. That’s where the break with the people is occurring.)

The result of all this is flagging public support, a drop in the polls, and independents peeling off.

In this atmosphere, with these dynamics, Mr. Obama’s excuse-begging and defensiveness won’t work.

Everyone knows he was handed horror. They want him to fix it.

At some point, you own your presidency. At some point it’s your rubble. At some point the American people tell you it’s yours. The polls now, with the presidential approval numbers going down and the disapproval numbers going up: That’s the American people telling him.

Not for nothing, but he kept telling US he could handle this job. Many of us knew he couldn’t, wouldn’t, but at some point, it’s sink or swim, and we are already beyond that point. No more whining and crying about the crap sandwich you got handed when you fought so dirty to get there in the first place. I guarantee you, Hillary Clinton wouldn’t be complaining left and right. She’d push up her shirt sleeves and get to work. That is what we expect of Obama, too.

Oh, one last thing. About those fundraisers Obama is flitting around doing while we have all of these major issues detailed above? In the first nine months of his presidency, Obama has gone to TWENTY-THREE fundraisers. In the first twenty, he has raised $20 million for the DNC coffers. That’s just jake.

Want to guess how many Bush did in the same amount of time? Six. I said, SIX. And Bush raised $48 million from his six, and he did none after the attacks on September 11th.

I can’t leave Bill Clinton out. He did five fundraisers in nine months. That’s it.

Sure shows you what is important to Obama, and it is not running this country. Time for him to own the presidency he fought so dirty to get, and roll up HIS shirt sleeves like Secretary Clinton has done. Way, way past time, in fact. Get to it already.

Here is the expanded version of the video O’Keefe mentioned:

Why is it people don’t understand the concept of videotape?? Unlike the introductions to “Mission Impossible,” it does NOT self-destruct after being played just once! So when someone goes on camera to make a claim, they might want to make sure there isn’t a recording somewhere refuting their claims. I’m just sayin’.

You may recall that these videos raised the issues of funding for ACORN and investigations into their practices. Rep. John Conyers decided to, once again, investigate this organization. As a result of this expose, both the House and the Senate voted to cut their funding. Rightly so, I might add.

But not so fast – it is possible that funding will be restored once the FY 2010 Budget is passed, thus cutting ACORN’s funding for TWO months. Clearly, this is something we will have to watch, but that this is even possible is absurd. Apparently, our elected representatives think we’re a bunch of idiots. Let’s make sure they know we aren’t.

Until then, ACORN’s continued fall couldn’t happen to a more deserving group, don’t you think?

Now you know I am a huge Yankees fan. I was telling my dear friend Bronwyn’s Harbor about the series, and got her started watching the games. I mentioned that I had a shrine to the Yankees in my living room. She suggested I share it with you, so here it is:

Let me just say, besides the t-shirt, and the baseball, I didn’t buy ANY of those things. My Mets loving cousin was kind enough to send most of them to me. She has an eye for all things Yankees for me. She knows of my deep and abiding love for both the Yankees and their captain, Derek Jeter. The small framed piece is actually a painted feather from Belize that my niece gave me.

I might add, the baseball you can see there was not purchased, either, at least not with money from me. My partner took me to Cleveland for 3 games with the Indians for my 50th birthday (it just happened that they were in Cleveland for the day of my birthday). We were in the section to get autographs during batting practice. That baseball was hit by A-Rod, a screaming foul ball that hit my partner. While it was bad that it hit her, had she not been where she was, it would have hit the very pregnant woman next to her in the abdomen, which would NOT Have been good. Anyway, after batting practice, Johnny Damon came over and signed it for me while my partner was getting medical treatment (no permanent damage, but the bruise lasted for WEEKS. Seriously. It was A-Rod, after all!).

Speaking of Derek Jeter, he has been playing sick the past few days. Not that that has stopped him from hitting a home run, and getting on base in every game, not to mention great defensive plays. He embodies the very best of a Yankees Captain, IMHO.

And in a totally “Entertainment Weekly” kind of way, don’t you think Derek Jeter and the singer, Leona Lewis, would make a beautiful couple? Check them out:

(PRNewsFoto/J Records)

Right?? I know! But, Derek is with the actress, Minka Kelly, and Leona lives with her high school boyfriend. Oh, well, as long as they’re happy…(Don’t worry – this is but a slight foray into Hollywood-style gossip. I’ll be back to political pontificating ASAP.)

Anyhoo – I’m not going to take any chances about the Yankees winning tonight. I’ll don my Yankees away gray t-shirt, put on my Derek Jeter official jersey, grab my Yankees cap, and watch the game with a Diet IBC Root Brewski or Diet Dr. Pepper in hand. Maybe if I play the video below a bunch, my prayers will be answered (major H/T to Nunly at Bad Habit). I warn you, the song may get stuck in your head, but it is SO worth it:

I just hope I won’t be laughing so hard I don’t miss a great play by the Captain, or another home run by A-Rod. And say what you will, but despite some apparent clashing between his new girlfriend, Kate Hudson, and the other Yankees’ wives/girlfriends, he is having the very best post season he has ever had since he started seeing her (h/t to Bronwyn for the link). Maybe he’s just a big Kurt Russell and/or Goldie Hawn fan, and likes having them around, too, since they often accompany Kate. Who knows? As long as he keeps hitting like this, I am happy, happy, happy.

So, you know what I’ll be doing tonight – wishing, hoping, and yes, praying. Hopefully, I’ll be CELEBRATING, too. Then, you know I’ll be at the MLB shop getting my new American League Champions t-shirt to add to the shrine for the upcoming World Series!

Consider this an Open Thread. What’s on YOUR mind today? Maybe that it’s been fifty-four days since Gen. McChrystal;’s recommendations landed on Obama’s desk about Afghanistan? Maybe the economy? Health Care Reform? Whatever it is, have at it!

UPDATE: And No. Swisher, for the second time with runners in scoring position (top of the 9th, bases LOADED), popped up. The series is going back to New York.

MSNBC is devoting the week to news and opinion stories on the dramatically shifting power and influence of women in America. The week’s reports, led by Maria Shriver and John Podesta, is called “A Woman’s Nation.” Below you’ll find videos of two segments that contain impressive statistics on the growing status of women.

Over and over again, in segments I caught today, MSNBC played Hillary Clinton’s powerful but saddening speech about those “18 million cracks.” (I still cannot watch that speech without my throat tightening. Every time I hear it, I’m reminded about what might have been had she received the nomination she won, and then the presidency, which she surely would have won.)

Then there’s the gorilla in the room that we all know: Only two women, ever, have been on a national ticket (Geraldine Ferraro and Sarah Palin) and, then, as VP candidates.

The only two women to run for president, said the men of MSNBC (with the females* nodding along), were the wives of top-level politicians — Elizabeth Dole and Hillary. The three women running currently for governor, including Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas, were mentioned as future viable candidates, as was Sarah Palin in passing.

Podesta and Joe Scarborough said there’s no “bench” from which to consider a woman for national office, and the two men referred to the three female candidates as the only potential (emphasis on potent) candidates. Oddly (or typically), in describing the lack of that “bench,” the MSNBC hosts failed to mention the women who currently are governor. Oh, wait – that’s right. Women who are in the same positions as their male counterparts don’t count as much as the men do. How could I forget that reality?

If present and past governors such as Tim Pawlenty, Mitt Romney, and Howard Dean have been easily regarded as part of the male bench — and we all know that male governors are regularly, habitually promoted for national office — why don’t the MSNBC males consider the current female governors serving their states? Are Jodi Rell (CT), Christine Gregoire (WA), Beverly Perdue (NC), and Jan Brewer (AZ) so shunted aside in any national media discussion that no one outside their states even knows who they are? Why don’t any of them merit a mention for national office? Why is a former governor, Sarah Palin, the only female mentioned, and even then, with derision, as if she had no business even being acknowledged as governor of a state? It is a fairly prestigious accomplishment given the fairly low numbers of governors in general. She WON the position. It was not handed to her. Yet, neither she, nor the other female governors are treated the same as their male counterparts.

Ever since I watched that segment on Morning Joe, the MSNBC males’ dismissal of any of the current female governors — not even a word about them, let alone their names — has been eating at me. How dare these males say that women have “no bench” of candidates until they, themselves, realize that the media regularly fail to mention any of these powerful female governors?

Then there are the 13 female U.S. senators. Why do no media outlets ever bring up, say, Senator Maria Cantwell as a potential presidential candidate? Why not Maria Cantwell? If John (yech) Kerry can be the Democratic nominee, why not Cantwell?

Just in case you are keeping score, there are 61 women in the U.S. House of Representatives. As a reminder, there are 435 Representatives in the House.

You know, for a group that is the majority, women are woefully under-represented.

Now, the videos. The first is a segment from Morning Joe followed by Meet The Press.

It’s important to note the discussion in the videos about what MEN need too.

Yes, women have made some strides, particularly in the workplace. But women still have to outperform men for comparable jobs, and even then, they are often passed over (look no further than the Clinton v. Obama race). Politics in general is still firmly entrenched in the Boys Club. Seems the same for the media, if these two videos are par for the course, and after this past election, I have no doubt that they are.

And so it goes. I guess this old adage is still true: the more things change, the more they remain the same. I’m ready for a change. How about you?

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

* His co-host, Mika Brzezinski, and guest, Maria Shriver — the two women in the segment — were astonishingly silent on Scarborough’s boisterous “no bench” imbroglio.

It isn’t just the Gay Folks who are getting a bit testy, as the video below indicates, but those of us Gay people who DID buy that Obama was going to do something for us (I don’t know what came over them) sure had something to say in the March on Oct. 10th (H/T to Logistics Monster for the video):

I came across this article by B. Daniel Blatt recently that addresses the frustrations of the GLBT community with Barack Obama, Gay Community Increasingly at Odds with Democrats. Considering the constant pandering, all talk, and no action, it is easy to see why we would be inreasingly discontented with Obama (those who were content with him in the first place, that is).

Mr. Blatt comes from a different political position than I do, and I appreciate his take here:

Perhaps the easiest thing about being a gay conservative is that we expect less from our elected leaders than do our left-of-center counterparts. Republican politicians don’t promise us the moon and stars in their campaigns, so we’re not disappointed when they don’t bestow such lofty gifts on our community once elected.

Huh. I hadn’t thought of it that way before. Interesting. He continues:

For gay Democrats, however, it’s a different story. They are repeatedly disappointed when their politicians do not follow through on the campaign pledges they make to our community.

In 1992, then-Democratic presidential candidate Bill Clinton promised to repeal the ban on gays in the military, but just a year later, he backpedaled on that promise. After he clumsily tried to act on that promise in the first few days of his administration, that Democrat realized he might suffer politically should he sign an executive order repealing the ban. At the time, the president’s signature was all that was required to allow gay men and lesbians to serve openly in the military.

Facing a firestorm of opposition from the military and Congress, Clinton relented and signed a supposed compromise policy, the legislation which became known as Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell (DADT). Gays could now serve, provided they didn’t self-identify as gay. Now the ban on open service is codified, requiring an act of Congress to be repealed.

This would not be the last time Clinton would sign legislation upsetting gay people who so enthusiastically backed him in 1992.

In the dead of night on September 20, 1996, after receiving the endorsement of the left-leaning gay rights organization Human Rights Campaign (HRC), the Democrat signed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), allowing one state to bar recognition of same-sex marriages performed in a different state while defining marriage, for the purposes of federal law, as the union of one man and one woman. Although its then-leaders denounced the action, HRC did not rescind its endorsement of the then-Democratic incumbent.

Now, you know, I love me my Bill Clinton. Not as much as his wife, mind you, but still…It’s a different day now than it was even then:

Perhaps with that bit of history in mind, the current Democratic President Barack Obama thought that by currying favor with this bastion of the gay Washington, D.C., establishment, he could silence the growing chorus of criticism from erstwhile gay supporters upset by his failure to act on his campaign promises to repeal those two bills. This past Saturday, the president addressed HRC’s annual dinner in Washington where he reiterated his campaign pledges:

We are moving ahead on Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. … We should not be punishing patriotic Americans who have stepped forward to serve this country. We should be celebrating their willingness to show such courage and selflessness on behalf of their fellow citizens, especially when we’re fighting two wars. … And I’ve called on Congress to repeal the so-called Defense of Marriage Act.

As a reminder, I severed my long-standing membership with the HRC after it endorsed Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton, one a proven advocate for the GLBT community, and one who is not. Wanna guess which one is which? Yep – Hillary is, Obamais not. That doesn’t seem to have sunk in with the folks at the HRC dinner, but other people are getting it:

That may have earned him a standing ovation inside the auditorium, but it did not quiet the criticism outside. Indeed, if anything, the speech only served to increase its volume. Left-of-center lesbian blogger Pam Spaulding took umbrage at the president’s failure to offer a timeline for repeal:

The low expectations I had regarding LGBT policy were unfortunately met on that account. If you’re an activist or citizen looking for timelines, actions, use of the bully pulpit, ANYTHING that would indicate to the community that our president was serious about moving on the laundry list of LGBT issues any time soon, you would call it a fail.

Others found different reasons to call the speech “a fail.” Left-wing gay bloggers Andrew Sullivan and Dan Savage said it sounded more like a campaign speech than a presidential address, with the latter offering, “Sorry, folks, nothing new to see here. Pledges, promises, excuses. Lip service.” They were not alone. The New York Times reported that one reader of the Bilerico Project quipped in a comment to that gay blog, “I could have watched one of his old campaign speeches and heard the same thing.”

And you know how much I just LOVE Andrew Sullivan (that was major snark – he has attacked yours truly a number of times, tongue in cheek nominating me for the Michael Moore Award. I suppose I could do worse.). He was a major Obama sycophant, singing his praises left and right, downright bubbly in his support of The One. THat is al to say, I have little sympathy that he is now so disenchanted with Obama. Maybe he could have done a little more research – check that – maybe he could have done SOME research into Obama before throwing his weight behind him. Just a thought.

And he is not the only Obama supporter and GLBT community member who is now frustrated with Obama:

John Aravosis of Americablog was less restrained in his reaction to the speech:

What did President Obama say new tonight? Absolutely nothing. … It is criminal that any gay rights organization would invite an embattled president to their dinner, giving him political cover for repeated broken promises and slaps in the face to our community (like the DOMA incest brief), and then get absolutely nothing in return. HRC’s actions only feed the suspicions of critics who say that the organization is more interested in fundraisers than in advancing our rights.

All in all, the evening was a disappointment, but not unexpected. President Obama doesn’t do controversy, and we, my friends, are controversy. So, the bad blood between this administration and the gay community will remain, and continue to worsen.

By this measure, the incumbent Democrat is a lot like the last Democrat to sit in the White House: both seek to avoid controversy, particularly on gay issues. And yet, in seeking to avoid controversy in the general population, Obama has further stirred the pot in the gay community. Even some of his most zealous defenders on the gay left have refused to cut him any slack for his failure to move forward on repealing DADT and DOMA.

Well, and they shouldn’t cut him any slack. Then again, IMHO, they should have pushed harder for a real advocate – Hillary – than the guy they thought was “cool,” or whatever the hell they were thinking – if indeed they were. Blatt continues:

And these outraged voices on the gay left have a greater opportunity today to make public their views than did their counterparts in the Clinton era. Many of them blog, some for heavily trafficked sites. These bloggers have prevented the voices of the establishment gay organizations from dominating the discourse (as they had in years past). When HRC’s president Joe Solmonese made excuses for the president’ s inaction, these bloggers were quick to take him to task.

Due in large part to the integrity of these gay left bloggers, a “schism,” as Spaulding puts it, has opened up between “Gay Inc. [and] the grassroots”. The blogosphere, in short, has changed everything. Gay Inc. (to use Spaulding’s epithet for the establishment gay organizations) no longer reigns supreme as the public voice of the gay community.

It has been supplemented by voices less submissive to the dictates of the Democratic Party. Blogs have given disgruntled Democrats a larger megaphone with which to express their disappointment with a party whose leaders have long assumed that gay voters would remain in their camp even if they didn’t act on their campaign promises.

And Americans have become increasingly aware that the gay community does not speak with one voice. Nor does it march it lockstep to the tune of the Democratic Party.

Sure, Obama made a small move recently and nominated Clifford Stanley, a 33 year Marine two star general (retired), to this position:

President Barack Obama intends to nominate Dr. Clifford L. Stanley as the undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness — the position within the Defense Department that oversees the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.

“He is likely to be the president’s key Pentagon player in the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ debate and will be critical for the president in getting military uniform buy-in,” said Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the repeal lobby group Servicemembers Legal Defense Network.

Well, that’s just peachy keen. I don’t know how long it will take to get him confirmed, but it’s just another step. Honestly – HOW much longer are we going to have to debate this horrible legislation?? Did Obama not promise to abolish DADT shortly after he took office? He has a Super Majority, for pete’s sake, and at the very least, he could employ a stay on DADT, but no (as of Oct.17, 459 service members fired under DADT).

But this is a bigger picture issue than DADT, or even DOMA, for that matter. It’s how an entire segment of the population is treated disparately that is the issue.

Along those lines, I think a number of people have started to realize that Democrats do a lot of talking, very little listening, and even less fulfilling of campaign promises made, GLBT people included. Perhaps we can learn that one has to look at more than the letter beside the name, and really look at the candidate. For instance, John McCain stood up for a friend who came out, extending his support to him. Obama, on the other hand, campaigned with, and consistently surrounded himself with, homophobes (McClurkin, Meeks, and Kmiec, to name just three). That is to say, maybe, and I include myself in this, we need to look beyond the letters beside the names, and really look at the people, their character, their words, and how they match up with their actions. Maybe then, these people who gave of their money, and their VOTE, wouldn’t be so disappointed, and frustrated, now. Just a thought.