But wait until you hear one of his more outlandish claims – I about snorted my double cappuccino through my nose when I heard this one:

Did you catch that? He claimed that it is because of the MEDIA that the Tea Party enjoys so much success. Oh, yes, because the MSM has discussed the Tea Party and its members in such GLOWING, positive terms, hasn’t it? Let’s look at a few of the headlines that really embody the support the media has given to the Tea Party.

First up, this headline from The Huffington Post: David Shuster: GOP “Going Nuts” For Teabagging, But “They Need A Dick Armey”

This is really a bonus one since it also includes a hommophobic term AND a sexual innuendo all at the same time! From the very people who try to tell us how GREAT the Democratic Party is for GLBT people. Yeah, right.

How about the Associated Press? Well, they did an “Analysis” of the Tea Party, to see if it was “brewing a revolution.” They decided that it really has “little muscle.” That’s one of the least snarky things the article includes. For example:

This we know: Tea parties know how to produce crowds. In the footsteps of the pamphleteers of the 1770s, organizers use e-mail, social networking and other electronic tools to draw enormous numbers of disaffected Americans together. Some wear revolutionary-era garb and carry signs bearing the language of 18th century patriots — “Don’t tread on me!” is a popular one.

But rally building is no big trick in the era of Twitter and Facebook, when people with cell phones can summon crowds from thin air for events as frivolous as snowball fights and bursts of song.

Wow, what a glowing recommendation for the Tea Party movement! No WONDER Gov. Rendell thinks the media has been helping them so much!! Right.

There are so, so many more – feel free to find your favorite headlines! I do have one last one to share, another point missed by Gov. Rendell: Foes Of Tea Party Movement To Infiltrate Rallies. Oh, yes. And this is what they hope to accomplish:

Opponents of the fiscally conservative tea party movement say they plan to infiltrate and dismantle the political group by trying to make its members appear to be racist, homophobic and moronic.

Isn’t that special? Ironic, isn’t it? The opponents want to portray Tea Partiers as homophobic and moronic when they display those very qualities every single time they use the term “Tea Baggers.” Ahem.

Is there any evidence to support Gov. Rendell’s supposition that it is the glowing references by the media that have helped this non-movement? Not according to this article:

Study: Networks Snub, Malign ‘Tea Party’; Report finds news coverage of movement sparse, cynical

The big three television networks virtually ignored the massive, grass-roots “tea party” surge in 2009, and so far this year have maligned the movement as teeming with racists and violent fringe figures, according to a report by the Media Research Center.

“Rather than objectively document the rise and impact of this important grassroots movement, the ‘news’ networks instead chose to first ignore, and then deplore, the citizen army mobilizing against the unpopular policies of a liberal president and Congress,” wrote MRC Research Director Rich Noyes.

Huh. That sounds like it completely contradicts Rendell’s assertion. So does this:

As a nation-spanning “Tea Party Express” caravan plans to pull into Washington for a “tax day” rally on Thursday, a Rasmussen poll finds that the number of people who say they’re part of the tea party movement nationally has grown to 24 percent, up from 16 percent a month ago.

“The rise in tea party support is perhaps not surprising at a time when more voters than ever (58 percent) favor repeal of the national health care plan just passed by Democrats in Congress and signed into law by President Obama,” the pollster wrote.

The Media Research Center, a watchdog organization founded by conservative L. Brent Bozell III, compiled reams of statistics to support its findings about TV network coverage, among them:

• ABC, CBS and NBC aired 61 stories or segments on the anti-spending movement over a 12-month period, and most of that coverage is recent. “The networks virtually refused to recognize the tea party in 2009 (19 stories), with the level of coverage increasing only after Scott Brown’s election in Massachusetts” in January, the report said, referring to the Republican’s win of the Senate seat long held by Edward M. Kennedy.

• Overall, 44 percent of the networks’ reports on the tea party suggested the movement reflected a fringe movement or a dangerous quality. “Signs and images at last weekend’s big tea party march in Washington and at other recent events have featured racial and other violent themes,” NBC anchorman Brian Williams said in a September report.

Oops – sorry, Governor. Your attempt at claiming up is down, and down is up, is not reflected in the actual facts. Nice try. Now, seriously – put down the Hopium, stop drinking the Kool Aide, and try to bring yourself back to the Reality based community. I promise, we’ll welcome you back.

Please stop with this ridiculous assertion of yours about the media’s warm embrace of the Tea Party movement. Really, it’s just embarrassing.

Well, it’s official: Scott Brown won the US Senate seat in Massachusetts, easily one of the most liberal states in the Union. Brown’s win is the first by a Republican in that state since 1972. Holy moley. Time and time again, people claimed the Healthcare Bill the Democrats are trying to ram through as the reason they voted for Scott Brown. If this isn’t a wake up call to the Democrats, I don’t know what is.

And yet, there are people like Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, who seems completely oblivious to the massive alarm bells ringing throughout the country. One would think this would filter into her, but apparently no:

“The reports of its death, as Mark Twain would say, have been exaggerated,” Larson added. “We’re going to move forward, and we’re going to pass health care reform.”

This afternoon, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said much the same. “Whatever happens in Massachusetts, we have to do that,” she said. “And whatever happens in Massachusetts we will have quality affordable health care for all Americans, and it will be soon.”

Oh, boy. Add to that the ramped up call for the “Reconciliation Option,” including by the organization, Credo, which sent out an email immediately following the declaration of Brown’s win asking people to sign this petition:

Your message to President Obama, Speaker Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid:

“The loss of Ted Kennedy’s seat — due to a lack of enthusiasm among Democrats and Independents — sends a clear message to Congress. The Senate health care bill is not the change we were promised in 2008, and it must be improved. The Senate must use ‘reconciliation’ to pass a better bill with a strong public option.”

In case you don’t know what “reconciliation” means, they are suggesting the Democrats use a 51 majority vote to shove through this bill with its payoffs, bribes, and strong-arming. I might add, this tactic was designed for use with BUDGET bills. Clearly, Credo didn’t like the message Massachusetts sent, and believes it is a better idea for the Democrats to inflame passions against this bill even MORE by using a filibuster-proof tactic. Nice.

Make no mistake, the Democrats are trying mighty hard to figure out how to get this bill through regardless of what the people say. I mean, really – it’s not like it’s their JOB or anything to care, right? Ahem.

On the other side, though, one of my favorite Democratic senators (and one I have supported), is Sen. Jim Webb of VA. This was his immediate response to Scott Brown’s win:

Less than 15 minutes after the race was called for Republican Scott Brown, the first of what could be many conservative Democrats asks for leadership to put the brakes on health care reform.

Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) congratulated Brown on his win and delivered a zinger:

“In many ways the campaign in Massachusetts became a referendum not only on health care reform but also on the openness and integrity of our government process. It is vital that we restore the respect of the American people in our system of government and in our leaders. To that end, I believe it would only be fair and prudent that we suspend further votes on health care legislation until Senator-elect Brown is seated.”

That is more like it. He is hearing the message the people are sending, and wants to take a step back here, and look again at this bill.

But Senator Webb is not the only one. You may be a bit surprised by this, but Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), of all people, warns against changing horses in mid-stream (of course, my cynical side says he is a bit worried about his seat in the future, too):

“I have two reactions to the election in Massachusetts. One, I am disappointed. Two, I feel strongly that the Democratic majority in Congress must respect the process and make no effort to bypass the electoral results. If Martha Coakley had won, I believe we could have worked out a reasonable compromise between the House and Senate health care bills. But since Scott Brown has won and the Republicans now have 41 votes in the Senate, that approach is no longer appropriate. I am hopeful that some Republican Senators will be willing to discuss a revised version of health care reform because I do not think that the country would be well-served by the health care status quo. But our respect for democratic procedures must rule out any effort to pass a health care bill as if the Massachusetts election had not happened. Going forward, I hope there will be a serious effort to change the Senate rule which means that 59 votes are not enough to pass major legislation, but those are the rules by which the health care bill was considered, and it would be wrong to change them in the middle of the process.”

Gee, ya think?? You know, it is amazing what it takes to actually get through to these people. Maybe if this doesn’t hammer it home, this great piece by Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild will:

The problem for the Democrats in Massachusetts was not Martha Coakley; it was the Obama agenda. In 2008, voters believed that they were electing a person who would focus on the economy with laser intensity and lead in a bipartisan and principled matter. What they have gotten is a deeply divisive President committed to transforming America into a European-style social democracy. In this first year, he forced a health care bill at the expense of vitally needed focus on job creation. He has scared hard-working American voters with his hard-left rhetoric and his signature policies.

The Obama approach to health care reform is the most egregious example of breaking trust with the American people. He brokered no Republican compromise; he demonized the other side for being captive to vested interests as he made private deals with Democratic special interest groups like the unions, the insurance companies and “hold-out” Senators like Ben Nelson (who was just looking for his pound of flesh at the expense of the rest of the American people); he outsourced the bill to Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid behind closed doors as he focused only on taking the victory lap for pathetic, piecemeal legislation that does not deal with our exorbitant health care costs. Have no doubt, the speech trumpeting “his” historic achievement, where other less talented Presidents than himself have failed, is already loaded on the teleprompter.

These are major negative factors for the independent voters who believed that Barack Obama was a principled and moderate Democrat. This is particularly true in Massachusetts where the nation’s only universal health care plan is bankrupting the state because of politicians’ congenital inability to deal with spiraling costs. In Massachusetts, a full 47% of voters are Independents, with 33% Democrat and only 11% Republican. For many of these voters, Barack Obama is now a busted flush; he was full of promise but has neither delivered on that promise nor exhibited the capability to deliver. He has broken the trust of the people, and voters are taking the only action available to them: Electing a candidate who can stop the Obama agenda and help restore balance to a broken political system. The voters in the Bay State are resorting to the principle that our Founding Fathers made famous: checks and balances. It is unlikely that all voters overwhelmingly support Republican State Senator Scott Brown, but it is certain that they see him as a vital player in forcing Barack Obama to come back to the center.

Preach it, Sister Lynn! Bring it on home:

This is important to keep in mind in reviewing Tuesday’s results. Equally important is to reject the demonization of Coakley that is being perpetrated by the Obama White House and the Pelosi/Reid Congress. Coakley’s troubles were never about her as a candidate; she has won state-wide elections before and few would argue she is more removed than John Kerry. Her problem was simply about the President and the radical course being charted by Democrats in Congress. A year after his inauguration — and three years since Democrats regained Congress — voters were holding Obama accountable. This simple fact makes scapegoating Coakley unconscionable, and yet this week all knives are out from the Obama White House. Coakley was insufficiently charismatic, leading Democrats are saying; she did not have an emotional connection to the voters. She did not work hard enough. She was more a “nun” than a political candidate!

This is all nonsense of course, but not surprising. After all, it’s not the first time the current crop of Democratic party leaders have torn down a talented woman in their midst.

That Hillary Clinton won Massachusetts by a resounding sixteen points in 2008 is not unrelated. While Massachusetts may be bluest of the blue, it’s a state where working class liberalism still runs deep, where an honest day’s work is still held in higher esteem than entitlement handouts. When Hillary ran on these principles, Massachusetts voters embraced her. And for this same reason, on Tuesday they embraced Scott Brown.

Obama’s team may want to make the election about Martha Coakley, but it’s not about her. As rank-and-file Democrats try to make Martha Coakley the issue and engage in her assassination, they miss the fact that they are in a circular firing squad. Their problem is that they are out of touch, and their boosters in the media cannot save them.

Voters this week stood up and said ‘enough is enough.’ It’s high time Obama and the Democrats in Congress got the message.

Amen to that. And if they don’t get it after this, there is always November…

*Updated: Ohmygosh – now Barney Frank has done a COMPLETE 180, saying he could vote for the Senate bill now. WTH is wrong with this guy? And who got to him? Wow, he is a piece of work. Way to stick to your guns there, Barney! Yeah. Right.

Second Update: well, Nancy must have heard an earful from the other representatives. Now she says the House has to make changes to the Senate’s bill:

Pelosi (D-Calif.) has been struggling for days to sell the Senate legislation to reluctant Democrats in order to get a health-care bill to the president’s desk quickly. But House liberals strongly dislike the Senate version, while moderate Democrats in both the House and Senate have raised doubts about forging ahead with the ambitious legislation without bipartisan support.

The only way to keep the Senate bill alive, Pelosi said, would be for senators to initiate a package of fixes that would address House concerns about the bill. In particular, Pelosi described her members as vehemently opposed to a provision that benefits only Nebraska’s Medicaid system. Also problematic are the level of federal subsidies the Senate would offer to uninsured individuals and its new excise tax on high-value policies, which could hit union households.

“There are certain things the members simply cannot support,” Pelosi said.

Like I said, I guess the representatives let her have it. It will sure be interesting to see what happens next.

Many of you may know that I spent a few years in the Boston area. And no, this isn’t about baseball, though I can say – it is hard being a Fan of the Pinstripes in Red Sox Nation. Clearly, though, I survived.

No, this is about some of the legal cases that have Martha Coakley’s name on them. Recently, Bronwyn’s Harbor made mention of one case, the Fells Acres Case, with which I am very familiar. Why? Because I knew Cheryl LaFave and her mother, Violet Amirault. They, along with their brother, were falsely accused of child abuse at the daycare center they ran. They are now all out of prison. John Stossel did an investigative report for ABC News on the Fells Acres case, and the imprisonment of the Amirault family (h/t to Brownyn’s Harbor):

Three lives were destroyed by false allegations – three. People, GOOD people, who never deserved the horrible stigma that became attached to them. And Martha Coakley was hellbent on keeping Gerald Amirault in prison, even after the glaring lack of evidence, and the glaring coercion of testimony from the children.

There was another big case with which Coakley was connected (h/t to Nazareth Priest for this article). That was the “Pedophile Priest” case,t he second in a three-part series of “Martha’s Greatest Hits: The Things The Democrats Would Like You To Forget About Martha Coakley.” Click HERE for Part Three.

Back to the case at hand. This one is a doozy:

The “Pedophile Priest” Case, 1995-2002: Coakley cut secret deal in 1995 that allowed Father Geoghan to molest again.

Martha Coakley is running for the U.S. Senate in part on her track record of keeping children safe from predators. The actual facts, however, are somewhat at odds with her campaign biography.

One of the most notorious cases of homosexual child abuse in the “pedophile priests” scandal that rocked the American Catholic Church in general and the Archdiocese of Boston in particular over the past twenty years involved Father John Geoghan, who came to symbolize the cancer in the church.

Here’s a brief introduction to the late, defrocked Father Geoghan by Denise Noe in Crime Magazine. Be sure to read the whole story, then come back.

The unofficial poster boy for priest pedophilia was a Boston priest named Father John Geoghan. He became a symbol for everything the church had done wrong in handling this problem when, on Jan. 6, 2002, The Boston Globe broke the story about how Boston’s archbishop, Cardinal Bernard Law, had moved the abusive Geoghan from parish to parish over the years. The article also discussed the $10 million dollar settlement the church had already made with families of his victims. After the article ran, an embarrassed Law apologized – and turned over to law enforcement the names of dozens of Boston priests who had been similarly accused.

The Geoghan scandal rocked Boston, and eventually resulted in Cardinal Law’s removal as Archbishop. In part to shield him from possible prosecution, the late Pope John Paul II summoned Law to Rome, where he was ensconced as the Archpriest of the historic Basilica of St. Mary Major, and replaced him in Boston with Archbishop Sean O’Malley.

And what was Ms. Coakley’s role in all this? At first, she was applauded for her role in the successful prosecution of Father Geoghan in 2002. But then it was discovered that she had plea-bargained away molestation charges against him in 1995, letting him off with probation in a deal that was kept secret from the public.

What?

One possible explanation for her actions is that she had lost a high-profile case against a priest in suburban Woburn, Father Paul Manning; Manning’s parishioners reportedly cheered when he was acquitted of molesting an 11-year-old altar boy at his 1994 trial.

Still, as David Clohessy, national director of the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, noted at the time: “Charging Geoghan with something and exposing him publicly might well have brought forward victims, witnesses, whistle-blowers, and evidence that could have resulted in a conviction and a tougher sentence.’’

Sigh. I don’t even know what to say about this. But here is what Martha Coakley has to say in defending this decision:

Wow. I am no attorney, but I have worked with and for attorneys. I cannot imagine them not pursuing every lead they could in a case. I cannot imagine them pushing to get the records from the Roman Catholic Diocese, even if they were freakin’ deacons in the church. Holy smokes.

The article continues:

And here’s the Boston Globe story, recounting the whole sordid mess:

When Martha Coakley was the Middlesex district attorney, her office prosecuted the Rev. John J. Geoghan based on an allegation that he squeezed the buttocks of a 10-year-old boy a single time at a public swimming pool. The highly publicized 2002 conviction won Coakley widespread praise for bringing the first successful criminal case against the widely accused pedophile, a priest many had called “Father Jack.’’

But seven years earlier, Coakley, then the head of the Middlesex child abuse unit, had Geoghan in her sights and took a dramatically different approach. Back then, three grade-school brothers told investigators that Geoghan had inappropriately touched them during numerous visits to their Waltham home, and had made lewd telephone calls to them. Rather than prosecute, Coakley agreed to grant Geoghan a year of probation in a closed-door proceeding that received no media attention at all.

Because of the deal, Geoghan faced no formal charges and no criminal record.

In sanctioning the 1995 probation agreement, Coakley, now the front-runner in a special election for the United States Senate, never pressed the Boston Archdiocese for any prior complaints against Geoghan.

That’s one way to make a name for yourself: let a pedophile off the hook privately so that he can molest more children, and then make a big, public conviction to take credit for your amazing work keeping children safe from……the pedophile priest you secretly let go seven years earlier.

And as for Father Geoghan, he was strangled and killed by a fellow inmate in February, 2004.

That is quite a sordid tale indeed. I encourage you to read the other two parts of this series (I’ll give you a hint about Part Three – it has to do with unreported assets). It is eye opening.

Now, I know some people are surprised I am not supporting the woman in this case (though since I live in SC, I don’t exactly have a vote – oh wait, maybe if I worked for ACORN I could…Ahem.). And I did like Coakley when I first heard about her. I was excited at the prospect of a woman taking over Teddy’s seat, an irony considering his way with women. But, as Scott Brown has reminded us, it isn’t Teddy’s Seat:

As I have stated all along, it is the RECORD of the candidates that needs to be considered. The decisions Coakley made as Attorney General are indicative of the decisions she will make as a US Senator, and those DO affect all of us. This is exactly for what I was calling during the 2008 Primary Season – look at the records of the candidates, and vote for the one who stands above.

That means, when the Massachusetts Democrats send out a four page mailer with the claim that Scott Brown wants to turn away ALL rape victims from hospitals, they sure as hell better be able to back that up with his RECORD. This is to what they are referring:

Brown is a state senator, and in 2005 he filed an amendment that would have allowed workers at religious hospitals or with firmly held religious beliefs to avoid giving emergency contraception to rape victims. The amendment failed, and Brown voted in favor of a bill allowing the contraception. He also voted to override a veto issued by his fellow Republican, then-Gov. Mitt Romney.

This is casting aspersions plain and simple. Stick to the facts, stick to the records, let the people decide based on that. Don’t take (yet another)page out of the Obama playbook a la the “Harry and Louise” ads. If the party believes she is the best candidate, they shouldn’t have to resort to flat-out lies about her opponent’s record.

So we need more women in Congress? Hells yeah. But that doesn’t mean we should want any woman, regardless of her record or the (stupid) things she says. In this particular case, Scott Brown appears to be the better candidate. He is pro-choice, a lieutenant colonel (30 years) in the National Guard JAG Corps, and supports civil unions for LGB people, like (too) many Democrats. As far as I can tell, Brown knows Curt Schilling is NOT a Yankees fan, so there’s that…

The people will decide who will fill the people’s seat. Until then, it is sure to be an interesting ride.

On the ol’ Inspiro-meter, I’d say the president has hit that rarely reached sweet spot right between Droopy the Dog and Eyeore. Note, in particular, the deadness in his eyes as he closes out his appeal.

How could I NOT watch the ad?

And now, so can you:

Ms. Ham is right on target.

It is to the ad above that State Senator Scott Brown said to Obama, Scott Brown: Obama Not Invited To This Party. Whoa. There’s more:

Surging GOP Senate candidate Scott Brown yesterday warned President Obama to “stay away” from the Bay State during his roiling race against Democratic rival Martha Coakley and not to interfere with their intensifying battle in the campaign’s final days.

“He should stay away and let Martha and I discuss the issues one on one,” Brown said. “The machine is coming out of the woodwork to get her elected. They’re bringing in outsiders, and we don’t need them.”

Coakley’s campaign showed signs of panic as they scrambled to get a last-minute appearance by Obama to bolster their effort before Tuesday’s election.

Some polls are showing the Senate contest far closer than any pundits expected, and Coakley in danger of losing her clear shot at the historic seat.

Coakley said yesterday she hasn’t heard from the White House. “I welcome his support, but we’ve got a lot of support here in Massachusetts (and) I think he’s got a lot on his plate in Washington,” she said.

Obama press secretary Robert Gibbs said yesterday that the president had no plans to visit Massachusetts, even though he realizes “there’s a lot at stake in the election.”

But sources said Coakley is pushing for a Sunday event with Obama as the race remains glued to the national spotlight.

“We would love to see Obama any time,” said Boston City Council President Michael Ross, a Coakley supporter who attended her event at Dorchester’s Kit Clark Senior Center yesterday. “Any time the president of the United States comes it will remind Democrats to get involved.”

Considering Obama’s continually tanking poll numbers, not to mention the swing to Brown, I imagine Senator Brown would love to see Obama come there to stump for Coakley, too, right? Oh, yeah:

But Republican consultant Charlie Manning said a visit from a president with tanking ratings would make Coakley look desperate as upstart Brown enjoys a last-minute boost from climbing poll numbers and media momentum.

“It’s sort of like trying to bail out a boat that’s already sinking. I don’t think they can fool the voters of Massachusetts this time,” Manning said.

National interest in the race centers on an impending vote on health-care reform – championed by the late U.S. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy.

A Brown win would be crushing for Obama, who would lose a 60-seat Democratic majority in the Senate, said Larry J. Sabato, director of the University of Virginia Center for Politics.

In addition to a rally headed by former President Bill Clinton planned for tomorrow, Coakley’s team circulated a heartfelt plea from Kennedy’s widow, Vicki, last night asking supporters for help. They’re also rumored to be pushing for a potential event with Caroline Kennedy, daughter of the late President John F. Kennedy.

“It’s a real fight at this point in time,” said U.S. Rep. William Delahunt (D-Quincy). “We’re doing everything we can to help.”

Brown urged Coakley’s campaign to keep the race about local issues instead of national figures.

“It’s me against the machine,” he said. “And it always has been.”

No doubt Brown has that right.

But the other thing he has right is highlighting Coakley’s support for a Healthcare Bill opposed by TWO-THIRDS of the country, not to mention the possibility of Cap And Trade (which might as well be called, “Cost and Tax”), also opposed by two-thirds of Americans.

I don’t know what the outcome will be on Tuesday. Previously, I had thought Coakley would be good, but then she keeps opening her mouth and demonstrating how clueless she is (no terrorists in Afghanistan? Really?? Oh, that’s good news. I wonder why she knows this and no one else in the entire country does?). To support her just because she is a woman isn’t good enough. She has to be a good choice, the best choice, too. If Brown can put the brakes on this Senate Run Wild, well, I can support that. Someone needs to do it, that’s for damn sure.

What I do know is I will be watching with great anticipation come Tuesday night!

You tell ‘em, Senator Graham!! I admit, even when I was a far lefty Democrat (now Independent), I couldn’t help but be impressed by Senator Graham.

I may not agree with him on everything, but I sure as hell agree with his interpretation above. I also agree with his call for a Constitutional review by the SC Attorney General regarding the Nebraska Buy-off:

This article found in my local newspaper provides a more comprehensive explanation of Graham’s request:

Graham Wants Investigation

U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham said Sunday that he wants South Carolina’s top prosecutor to investigate a deal that helped secure the 60th vote needed to pass a Democratic health care bill through the Senate.

Blasting Senate Democrats for what he called “backroom deals that amount to bribes,” Graham found much to complain about in their health care bill. He was particularly irked that the senator who provided that final vote to head off a Republican filibuster, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, cut a deal in which the federal government pays his state’s share of the cost for new Medicaid recipients.

Graham, a South Carolina Republican, called on state Attorney General Henry McMaster to review the constitutionality of the deal, and a McMaster spokesman said he looks forward to meeting with Graham to discuss it.

“There is one state in the union where new enrollees for Medicaid will be signed up and it won’t cost anybody in that state money,” Graham said on CNN’s “State of the Union.”

“A lot of people, Republicans and Democrats, are upset by this,” Graham said. “Is it constitutional? I want the attorney general of South Carolina to look at this.”

Nelson, who skirted the issue in a news conference Saturday, confirmed the deal in a CNN interview Sunday. But he said he didn’t ask for special favors…

Click HERE if you wish to read the rest of the article.

Senator Graham is by no means alone in his disgust for the way this Health “Care” bill has come about, and its resemblance to “Chicago-style politics.” This article by the Chicago Tribune (!) certainly supports that supposition: How Health Lobbyists Influenced Reform Bill; Former staffers of lawmakers from Harry Reid to Mitch McConnell push clients’ agenda. Uh huh. What a big ol’ surprise – that this bill being shoved down our throats was crafted by LOBBYISTS:

David Nexon had a big problem. An early version of national health care legislation contained a $40 billion tax aimed squarely at members of the medical device trade association he represents.

Nexon, a former adviser to the late Massachusetts Sen. Ted Kennedy, went to work. He marshaled 14 people like himself — lobbyists who were once congressional aides, many of them from staffs of congressional leaders or committees that had a hand in crafting the health care overhaul.

When Senate Democrats unveiled their bill in mid-November, Nexon’s handiwork was evident. The tax on device-makers was still large — $20 billion — but only half what it might have been without the efforts of Nexon and his fellow lobbyists.

Nexon’s team is an illustration of how deeply the health care industry has embedded itself on Capitol Hill, using former aides of lawmakers and ex-lawmakers themselves.

An analysis of public documents by Northwestern University’s Medill News Service in partnership with the Tribune Newspapers Washington Bureau and the Center for Responsive Politics found a revolving door between Capitol Hill staffers and lobbying jobs for companies with a stake in health care legislation.

At least 166 former aides from the nine congressional leadership offices and five committees involved in shaping health overhaul legislation — along with at least 13 former lawmakers — registered to represent at least 338 health care clients since the beginning of last year, according to the analysis.

Their health care clients spent $635 million on lobbying over the past two years, the study shows.

The total of insider lobbyists jumps to 278 when non-health-care firms that reported lobbying on health issues are added in, the analysis found.

My blood is boiling now; how about yours? Better take your high blood pressure medication, then:

Part of the lobbying pressure on current members of Congress and staffers comes from the powerful lure of post-congressional job possibilities.

“There’s always a worry they may be thinking about their future employment opportunities when dealing with these issues, particularly with health care, because the stakes are so high and the breadth of the issues — pharmacies, hospitals, doctors,” said Emory University political scientist Alan Abramowitz.

Lobbyists’ earnings can dwarf congressional salaries, which currently top out at $174,000 annually for lawmakers and $156,000 for aides, though committee staff members can earn slightly more.

In the health care showdown, insider lobbying influence has magnified the clout of corporate interests and helped steer the debate away from a public insurance option, despite many polls indicating majority support from Americans, according to Rutgers University political scientist Ross Baker.

“It imposes a kind of conservative bias on the discussion,” said Baker, himself a former Senate staffer.

The lineup of insiders working for clients with health care interests includes at least 14 former aides to House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and at least 13 former aides to Montana Democratic Sen. Max Baucus, the chairman of the Finance Committee and a key overseer of the health care overhaul.

This is just shocking on its face, isn’t it? I gues I shouldn’t be at all surprised that a bunch of these people worked for the same ones trying to ram this through before anyone has had a chance to read the damn thing in its entirety:

Nexon, who is now senior executive vice president of the Advanced Medical Technology Association, is among at least a half-dozen former Kennedy aides lobbying on health care.

Nexon acknowledged the value of congressional connections, “but in the end, it’s not who I know, it’s what I know.”

It makes sense to hire former staffers for the health care showdown because they tend to be “more generalists, dealing with a broad range of issues,” something that is in demand for legislation that sprawls across at least a half-dozen federal agencies and encompasses issues ranging from tax policy to hospital reimbursement rates, according to Nexon. But specific issues also get specialized help. Earlier this year, the Christian Science Church hired a former Kennedy staffer, Carolyn Osolinik, and three of her colleagues at the Mayer Brown law firm, all veterans of Capitol Hill. The firm has been paid at least $110,000 so far to push a provision requiring insurers to consider covering Christian Science prayer treatments.

Phil Davis, a senior official of the church, said the church wanted access to decision makers. “The noise level goes sky high. It’s hard to get in to talk to people,” he said.

The largest insider lobbying cadre belongs to the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, or PhRMA, which employs at least 26 former congressional members and staffers, according to Medill/CRP research.

Two other drug interests, biotech firm Amgen Inc. and the Biotechnology Industry Organization trade group, with at least 24 and 16 insiders respectively, ranked second and fourth among reported hiring over the past two years of lawmakers’ former staffers and members of committees considered in the analysis.

“The numbers shouldn’t surprise anyone,” said Ken Johnson, a PhRMA senior vice president. “Former staffers have a unique understanding of how the legislative process works. And when you are trying to advocate on behalf of smart public policies, you want smart people on your team.”

But Bob Edgar, president of Common Cause, a nonpartisan, nonprofit watchdog group, had a harsher assessment, blaming “a toxic cocktail of insiders and money” for short-circuiting a government-run plan that would have competed with private insurers.

“We’ll get a bill. And the president will sign it. But it’ll be less than the country deserves,” said Edgar, a former six-term member of the House.

Health care lobbyists increase their effectiveness by strategically targeting their campaign contributions or the donations of the interests they represent, Edgar said.

But, but, but – I thought lobbyists were going to have no part in an Obama Administration!! Ahahahahaha – and if anyone actually bought THAT line of crapola from Obama, I have some waterfront property in Wyoming to sell you because there is more:

Health industry contributions to congressional candidates have more than doubled so far this decade, rising to $127 million in the 2008 election cycle from $56 million in the 2000 election, with disproportionate sums going to the party in power and to members of committees that oversee health care, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

But lobbyist and former Kennedy staffer Andrew Rosenberg said political conditions, not big money or the predispositions of lobbyists sidelined a public option.

“You could see this coming from a long way off. The Democratic Party is now the big tent party. They have to get to 60 votes. That is the reality,” Rosenberg said. “It was going to have to be something that appeals to moderates” opposed to expanding government-run health insurance. (Tribune Newspapers’ Tom Hamburger and Joe Markman contributed to this report.)

So now you know – Senator Lindsey Graham has it exactly right – this policy was not crafted with US in mind. It was crafted by and for the health care insurers and those who are connected to them. They wrote this thing that the Democrats are hell-bent on getting through this year. They, and the Democrats who are getting money from them, are the ones who will most definitely benefit most. Because from everything I have heard and read, WE will be the ones who lose the most while paying the most.

And if all of these shenanigans to buy votes aren’t unConstitutional, they are most definitely unethical. Seems like the only change that has come to Washington is bolder cheating. Yep, sounds like “Chicago-style politics” to me!

Colleen O’Connor, San Diego News Network, penned a fun article: King Obama v. Queen Clinton — Check or Checkmate? Her thesis is that the patient “Queen” is slowly but surely vanquishing the foes who betrayed her for Obama last year. I have another theory. Political operatives who backed Obama, turning their backs on the more qualified Clinton, are winding up under Obama’s big bus because they were not motivated by his qualifications, but a quest for power and influence they thought they would have in his new “kingdom.” One by one, they are finding out that their loyalty is not reciprocated by the master they chose to serve. As my father used to say “lies have short legs.”

O’Connor’s need to speculate proves two things, Hillary’s actions and career are endlessly fascinating and as in the primary, Obama was far more exciting when contrasted with her. When it was down to Obama and McCain, pundits complained of boredom. This harkens back to John King of CNN saying that reporters did not vet Obama because they were “obsessed with Hillary.” Guess they never heard of multitasking. That very obsession still fuels all manner of speculation about palace intrigue, true or not. O’Connor posits:

The Queen has the greatest maneuverability of all the chess pieces. She can be the most lethal. The King, by contrast, is often barricaded behind a wall of defenders, with little room to escape-save in a bold and risky fashion. The King is dying. Long live the Queen.

Quietly, and under almost everyone’s radar, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has been vanquishing her foes, while President Barack Obama has been multiplying his.

Furthermore, she has been paying off her debts, while Obama has been multiplying his (and the country’s) I.O.U.s.

Obama is down in the polls. Clinton is up. He is losing his liberal base and taking heat on health care, the wars, broken promises, gate crashers, the bailouts, and a grand design that leaves his base behind.

As New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd wrote Sunday, “The Obama White House is morphing into the Bush White House with frightening speed. Its transparency is already fogged up.”

No one can say we didn’t warn them. O’Connor recites the litany of failed foes, i.e. Obama backers who have seen their popularity slip, legal troubles ensue, lose lucrative posts and otherwise have an awful time capitalizing on their betrayal of the “Queen.” Let’s not forget the disappearance of Howard Dean and Tom Daschle. She also discusses AG Martha Coakley as another potential victory for Hillary:

If Clinton supporter and Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley wins that will make the ninth score that Clinton has settled. And it will have happened in the state that the Kennedy family once ruled.

And so this prediction came to pass as Martha Coakley won the Dem Primary for Teddy Kennedy’s senate seat. Bill Clinton’s last minute endorsement and his 500,000 robocalls were nice touches. And instead of Caroline Kennedy getting Hillary’s Senate seat … “the Governor of New York appointed Kirstin Gillibrand — a Clinton, not an Obama ally — and it is no secret that the Clintons made it happen.”

Many have tried to write Hillary Clinton’s political obituary. Even after she was appointed Secretary of State, the press pointed to special envoys Holbrooke and Mitchell as signs that Hillary was being “marginalized” not remembering she had campaigned on appointing them herself.

The King’s chess move, thought to be “brilliant,” underestimated the patience of the Queen.

The more likely truth is that these envoys were warming up her seat, functioning as a buffer zone while she was hunkering down, figuring out the terrain and her colleagues, just as she did when she first became the junior senator of New York. The work horse did not feel the need to show off before having accomplished something.

Obama’s lifelong habit of being cautious, voting “present” and splitting everything down the middle, may not get him re-elected.

If as the Clintons might already sense, that Obama is in trouble, his biggest threat remains Clinton.

O’Connor lists the disgraced philanderer John Edwards, Bill Richardson, now in “political purgatory,” John Kerry, coveting the SoS spot and being left in the cold, Chris Dodd, with approval ratings “on life support” “…saddled with financial scandals galore-involving all those marquee companies that all Americans have come to hate-Countrywide Financial, AIG-as well as sweetheart real estate deals, with convicted inside-traders; the very people and firms Dodd was supposed to regulate.”

Joe Biden is a particular under bus dweller, his wife lately mentioning he would have preferred the spot Hillary now occupies.

He is on the losing side of the debate over sending additional troops to Afghanistan. … Unflattering pieces about his gaffes and his “standing in the Administration” have begun to circulate in the liberal press — like in a recent column by Sam Stein of The Huffington Post.

Add to this his less than competent role on overseeing the stimulus package and detailing its success (with exaggerated numbers and made up Congressional Districts) and you see where his “standing” is headed. The latest poll showed Biden’s approval rating lower than Dick Cheney’s in the same period!

But offering political cover and spin is the price Biden paid for pushing a candidate who even he noted was not yet ready for the job. Here is the sweetest payback according to O’Connor:

However, the most stealth-like, damaging, and perhaps satisfactory capture, came from the inelegant dismissal of former Clinton White House counsel, turned Obama-supporter and Clinton basher, Greg Craig.

Craig, who turned on Clinton during the primaries, did so in a rather nasty, but effective email arguing that she failed the test as commander-in-chief, that her claims of involvement in foreign affairs were bogus, and that she “never answered the phone either to make a decision on any pressing national security issue-not at 3 a.m. or at any other time of day.”

Currently, Craig is out of the White House-dismissed in a manner that brought howls, from the liberal activists, and have accelerated the disbelief, doubt, and defections among the Obama “believers”.

As Elizabeth Drew wrote in Politico, the firing was “the shabbiest episode of his presidency.”

Craig did damage Clinton as he was a deeply respected operative in Washington. I cannot imagine Mr. Craig saw that payback coming. Even huge Obama allies were mortified at this episode. But it was his own President who threw him under the bus, not Hillary. O’Connor even mentions Sen. Max Baucus…

Baucus has admitted — after repeatedly denying — that he was intimately involved with his state director, when he nominated her for the position of U.S. Attorney from Montana on “her merits.”

Currently under possible ethics violation for the nomination — not the lying, or the tryst, as both parties were separated at the time — Baucus’ political capital has eroded. He, too, competes with Tiger Woods for late night comedy jibes. Baucus’ year is ending badly.

It is fine to magically attribute these “paybacks” to the “Queen” but these guys are just being themselves – they don’t need anyone to show their true nature. They are doing a fine job all by themselves. The press doesn’t have its Hillary-obsession to buffer these guys from the spotlight any longer. In fact, the press tries everything it can to cover her as little as humanly possible. She has won huge awards and accolades this year, barely any of which have received more than a cursory mention.

On other fronts, it was reported many Norwegians were incensed that President Obama collected his Nobel Prize and snubbed them by not attending certain traditional events including lunch with King Harald of Norway. This is but another example of what happens when you become a notch on the bedpost. King Harald is just one of many on the list. I wonder how happy the Nobel committee is that they offered the prize to Obama now, particularly since his acceptance of the peace prize came hard on the heels of authorizing an additional 30,000 troops to Afghanistan, however late his action was taken.

To top it all off, the members of the press corps are sad that the Obamas have done away with the traditional receiving line at many of the WH parties, so reporters will not be able to greet and pose with the President. Politico reports:

…for the White House to do away with the formal line is no small matter to those who work this beat every day: many guests feel it’s the main reason to attend, no matter who’s in office.

“It’s always been a big deal,” said [Dee Dee] Myers, who served as press secretary to former President Bill Clinton. “It’s exhausting [for the president] but it’s the one time when reporters feel like they’re treated like human beings and not just some guy behind the rope line. It’s the one time they can actually say hello.”

“Under the Bush administration, invites went out before Thanksgiving, reporters said. “I’m wondering if they just don’t have their act together on the social stuff,” one print reporter said…

“This year’s process seems so screwed up. It’s one big horrible mess,” said one veteran White House reporter. “The White House knows who covers the beat and they also know who should be attending. A lot of people have their feelings hurt.”

Hurt feelings? Hardly on top of anyone’s list of concerns, yet the press corps has also been hoist by their own petard, sensing the ingratitude of the White House after these guys functioned as the President’s own personal PR firm lo these many months.

In contrast, however, O’Connor points out that it was a “good year for the queen”, Hillary:

• The last minute save of the Turkish-Armenian accords opening the borders between these two longtime enemies.

• Bill Clinton’s dramatic feel-good rescue of the two female reporters held hostage in North Korea

• Clinton being named No. 4 of the 25 “smartest people” of the decade by the political blog The Daily Beast: “If anyone has a more intellectually rigorous resume for the decade, we have yet to see it.” High praise.

• A flattering article about Clinton in the December issue of Vogue magazine, complete with photos by the legendary Annie Liebowitz.

• Clinton’s approval rating in the high 60-percentile while Obama’s flirts under 50.

• The near “irrelevance” of those special envoys Mitchell and Holbrooke. They have been sidelined or mired in diplomatic quicksand.

• The success in adoption of her preferred Afghan strategy — and in securing NATO troop support over the expected 5,000 offered. (Something Clinton lectured Obama about in a primary debate: never get on the plane unless the deal has already been done.)

I think the crème is rising to the top. But while O’Connor’s article is entertaining, I don’t see vengeance here, unless stepping up and doing one’s job can be seen as vengeful. I suppose one could make an argument that by continuing to work diligently and faithfully, Hillary is “plotting” to show up her boss. I think one of the few adults in the room has better things to do. But I can’t say I’m not enjoying watching the dominoes fall – all those who badmouthed her are now finding themselves on the receiving end of a big dose of their own medicine.

The list is growing.

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…

In Memphis Elementary Schools these days after a recent policy change affecting Kindergarten through Third Grade. Check out this change in policy (click HERE if you prefer to read the transcript):

I wonder if this is what Senator Kennedy was thinking when he stood behind the “No Child Left Behind” policy? I kinda doubt it. I don’t think he thought THAT would be his legacy…

I am curious as to the research Superintendent Cash quoted. Especially given this research:

Educators have discovered that if a child can’t read fluently by the end of third grade, he may not become a strong reader. And the road ahead will be much more difficult.

“In fourth grade, students start using their reading skills as a tool for learning other things,” said Dr. Sandra Baxter, director of the National Institute for Literacy. “They have to read well because the subjects get harder. Teachers have less time to help kids catch up on reading skills they don’t have.”

That’s why parents need to stay in constant touch with their children’s day care providers and teachers from kindergarten through grade three. It’s important to make sure that children’s reading skills are developing “on schedule.”

In fact, research has shown that children who aren’t strong readers by the end of third grade are more likely to drop out of school later on. “We should all pay attention to that,” said Dr. Baxter. “Fortunately, the research has also shown us the best ways to teach reading, and how parents can make a big difference in helping their children learn to read.”

That seems to fly in the face of the new Memphis policy. If children have not learned reading fundamentals by Third Grade, they are more likely to drop out of school. That seems to completely contradict the logic behind the new Memphis policy.

I find this whole idea to be staggering – no grades, no holding back (though parents are allowed to hold their children back), and extra work for the teachers. And what are the potential effects on the children who are able to do the work? What does it means for them to have other kids in their classes who can’t keep up in terms of their OWN education?

Naturally, I am particularly curious what educators and parents around the country think of this new policy in Memphis. So, what do you think?

The first round winners were determined by your votes and revealed last night on the Nocturnal Warrior Show on No Quarter Radio. You can listen to that here. We did a review of last night’s so-called press conference followed by the tournament results. The show includes the scores, a review of the next round matchups and all sorts of commentary that we just can’t fit here.

Remember, your votes determine the winners. We are asking you to look at each matchup and determine for yourself who is the bigger ass in each matchup (We are not asking who has the biggest ass, although that may have helped Oprah and Donna Brazile in round one). Without further ado here we go:

ROUND TWO

White House Bracket

6th Seed Rahm Emanuel vs. 3rd Seed Dick Cheney

Capitol Hill Bracket

Media Bracket

At-Large Bracket

There you have it. Just use the polls as set up at No Quarter to determine your votes. The Polls will be open until midnight Friday. This weekend, we will reveal the “Sweet Sixteen,” and open up the voting. The “Sweet Sixteen” winners will be announced on next Tuesday night’s Nocturnal Warrior Show where we will break down the Elite Eight.

Feel free to add your comments about the matchups below. The key is to have as much fun with this as possible!

I’ll be honest upfront with my opinion. I see them as little parasites made from hijacked taxpayer dollars that members of Congress attach to totally unrelated bills for the purpose of impressing their own constituents. President Obama rallied against the considerable flab involved, but signed the 2009 omnibus spending bill anyway, with 9,309 (representing 7.7 billion dollars) little money suckers clinging to it.

I examined this long list of earmarks, searching for the most outrageous use of our “taxation without representation” at a time when millions are watching their jobs, homes, and retirement nest eggs disappear.

The first contestant was $200,000 for “tattoo removal” (Woodland Hills, CA). However, it’s not quite as nutty as it sounds. The idea is to remove gang and jailhouse marks for those who presumably want to try walking a more positive life path. However, Woodland Hills is hardly a bastion of gangs and crime compared to other parts of the San Fernando Valley. Yet I decided to let it pass.

Same for the 1.7 million for—ironically–controlling hog-created odors (Iowa). Jokes are being passed around about this one. But, if you have ever visited a hog farm you already know that an aroma exists that can cause you to hurl your cookies right where you stand. So, pig stench research didn’t rise to my level of “outrageous.”

The clear winner is a 5.8 million vanity project (one of the higher priced earmarks) to further bloat the ego of Senator Edward Kennedy. Whether you like him or not, you are supporting the Edward M. Kennedy Institute for the Senate (Boston, MA). Matt Viser writing for the Boston Globe, described the project status as of last August:

Senator Edward M. Kennedy and several of his closest friends have accelerated plans to build an institute near the John F. Kennedy Library that will be dedicated to research and education about the US Senate and that will use Kennedy’s lengthy political career as a case study.

The group has formed a nonprofit organization, the Edward M. Kennedy Institute for the United States Senate, and is planning an aggressive fund-raising campaign that aims to raise at least $50 million and will be spearheaded by prominent Boston businessman Jack Connors.

Actual designs have not been drawn, but officials envision a 40,000-square-foot building, with construction beginning as early as spring 2009.

It is also clear that the original plan called for private donors to finance this project.

Connors said that in the spring, about two weeks before the senator’s cancer diagnosis, Kennedy called and asked him to head up a fund-raising effort. Connors has held several meetings to identify about two dozen “precinct captains” who will raise money. So far, the fund-raising group includes John Sasso, a veteran Democratic consultant; Thomas P. Glynn, the chief operating officer of Partners HealthCare; John Fish, president of Suffolk Construction Co.; and Kenneth R. Feinberg, a Washington lawyer and former Kennedy aide who ran the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund.

Connors said the group is also considering tapping Kennedy’s colleagues in the US Senate, asking them to call key political donors in their home state to raise money for the institute.

In the meantime Kennedy’s friends and former staffers had already collected 20 million from drug companies, hospitals, and insurance companies, which raises some ethical questions for Timothy Noah , writing for Slate. Senator Kennedy will be a central figure in President Obama’s health care plan. Might these donors expect favors?

Many of us admire the positive accomplishments of Senator Kennedy and are sorry he is so ill. But we didn’t volunteer to donate to his pre-memorial project. We are being forced into it when most of us have other desperate priorities. That’s what makes this earmark such a cheap trick to pull on us during such grave times.

The President says he is opposed to earmarks that sneak in, sometimes literally during the night, to raid our treasure.

The future demands that we operate in a different way than we have in the past,” Mr. Obama told reporters before signing the bill in private. “So let there be no doubt: this piece of legislation must mark an end to the old way of doing business and the beginning of a new era of responsibility and accountability that the American people have every right to expect and demand.

Well, he caved this year. Let’s watch same time next year.

I end by noting that many, probably most, earmarks are not inherently evil. They say they will help repair roads and bridges, remodel museums, fund programs for children, and the like. (See them all for yourself here .)

But the whole process stinks in my book. There has to be a better way for states and districts to get federal aid for truly necessary projects that does not involve draining blood out of major congressional bills.

Dear ACLU Supporter,

Yesterday, ACLU lawyers encountered a recurring — and troubling — obstacle in our lawsuit seeking justice for torture victims caught up in the CIA’s extraordinary rendition program. But this time, the objections were not coming from the Bush administration.

To our surprise and disappointment, the new Justice Department urged a federal appeals court to dismiss our lawsuit charging a Boeing subsidiary with providing critical support for the CIA’s rendition program based on the same “state secrets” claim that the Bush administration had repeatedly invoked to avoid any judicial scrutiny of its actions. During the course of the argument, one judge asked twice if the change in administration had any bearing on the Justice Department’s position. The attorney for the government said that its position remained the same.

This isn’t the kind of change we need if we want an America we can be proud of again.

If the judges rule in the government’s favor, our clients — who were tortured as part of the government’s rendition program — will never get their day in court.

We’re still hoping the court will rule in our favor and allow our case to move forward. But, in the meantime, we must do everything we can to end the abuse of the “state secrets” doctrine both in the courts and on Capitol Hill.

Senators Kennedy, Leahy, Specter and Representative Nadler introduced legislation in 2008 to narrow the scope of the state secrets privilege — and open the courthouse doors to people who have suffered real and legitimate harm by the government. Clearly, this legislation is needed now more than ever.

Send a message to these members of Congress to let them know you support the State Secrets Protection Act.

This crucial civil liberties bill recognizes the need to take precautions when it comes to national security. But, it also acknowledges that courts have been competently managing the balance between the security of classified information and the right to a fair trial in criminal cases for years. And, most important of all, it makes it much more difficult for the government to abuse the state secrets doctrine to escape accountability for illegal behavior.

We can’t allow any administration to invoke state secrets to hide a reprehensible history of torture, rendition and the most grievous human rights violations.

Send a message to support the State Secrets Protection Act.

Yesterday, the Obama administration had an opportunity to act on its condemnation of torture and rendition. But, instead, the Justice Department opted to stay the course.

Now, we must hope that the court will assert its independence, reject the government’s false claims of state secrets, and allow victims of torture and rendition their day in court.

Thanks for standing with us as we work to pursue justice on this critical civil liberties issue.

Sincerely,

Anthony D. Romero
Executive Director
ACLU

P.S. The ACLU has been working on this case for years. To learn more about rendition and the people impacted, watch our short video:

Yes – “disappointment” – that is exactly the word I would have chosen to convey my outrage that, once again, Obama reneged on a MAJOR campaign promise. Just like the “disappointment” people in my family felt when Obama voted for FISA, after promising to filibuster it and ensure it did NOT pass. No reason for him to have voted for it – Clinton sure didn’t. Heck, even McCain didn’t. But Obama? Oh, yeah – he threw that campaign promise away like yesterday’s garbage. I can only assume it was because he wanted to make sure he got to have ALL the same abilities to spy on us and sneak people away in the dead of night that Bush had. How else to explain his readiness to do a 180 on something so important? Oh, besides his being a liar, that is. Ahem.

And the NY Times finally weighed in on this, too (you know this happened earlier in the week. You may not have known because the MSM is continuing its pathetic journalism when it comes to Obama – protect and divert.), in an Editorial entitled, “Continuity of the Wrong Kind.” Ya know, I have been saying for months and months and months that Obama was another Bush. Nice of him to prove me right, isn’t it? Though, for the sake of the COUNTRY, I would have been happier to be proved wrong…

Apparently, the Editors at the Times feel similarly:

The Obama administration failed — miserably — the first test of its commitment to ditching the extravagant legal claims used by the Bush administration to try to impose blanket secrecy on anti-terrorism policies and avoid accountability for serial abuses of the law.

On Monday, a Justice Department lawyer dispatched by the new attorney general, Eric Holder, appeared before a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco. The case before them involves serious allegations of torture by five victims of President Bush’s extraordinary rendition program. The five were seized and transported to American facilities abroad or to countries known for torturing prisoners.

Incredibly, the federal lawyer advanced the same expansive state-secrets argument that was pressed by Mr. Bush’s lawyers to get a trial court to dismiss the case without any evidence being presented. It was as if last month’s inauguration had never occurred.

Voters have good reason to feel betrayed if they took Mr. Obama seriously on the campaign trail when he criticized the Bush administration’s tactic of stretching the state-secrets privilege to get lawsuits tossed out of court. Even judges on the panel seemed surprised by the administration’s decision to go forward instead of requesting a delay to reconsider the government’s position and, perhaps, file new briefs.

And not to harp, but honestly – if the people who voted for Obama really, really believed he was a man of his word, it is their own fault. He made it abundantly clear, time and time again, that he would say or do whatever needed to be said or done, to get what he wanted. They just refused to believe their own eyes and ears.

Back to the editorial:

The argument is that the very subject matter of the suit is a state secret so sensitive that it cannot be discussed in court, and it is no more persuasive now than it was when the Bush team pioneered it. For one thing, there is ample public information available about the C.I.A.’s rendition, detention and coercive interrogation programs. The fact that some of the evidence might be legitimately excluded on national security grounds need not preclude the case from being tried, and allowing the judge to make that determination. More fundamentally, the Obama administration should not be invoking state secrets to cover up charges of rendition and torture.

President Obama has taken some important steps to repair Mr. Bush’s damaging legacy — issuing executive orders to prohibit torture, shut secret prisons overseas and direct closure of the detention camp at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. It would have been good if he and Mr. Holder had shown the same determination in that federal court, rather than defending the indefensible.

Um – do they realize Obama hasn’t actually CLOSED Gitmo?? I’m just asking, because they seem to think it is a done deal. And given their frustration over Obama’s actions in this very piece, WHY would they think that? It just defies logic! Sheesh!

And I do have a question – if the CIA can still carry out rendition, how is it that the secret prisons are shut down? I mean, isn’t that just mincing words? Seriously, that seems a bit counter-intuitive to me.

How many times, and in how many ways, does Obama have to repudiate his campaign promises before the MSM and his followers stop carrying water for him? After three weeks, it is just laughable. Or it WOULD be if this wasn’t such a serious issue. One widely decried when Bush did it. So where the hell are all the folks who screamed about it then? Sure would love to know. Maybe they have changed their minds now that Obama wants to do it, because obviously, if The One wants it, it has to be A-okay, right? Right?

Wrong. It just makes them hypocrites.

I’m not sure what part of Do. Not. Want. people in the NY Times and the Governor’s mansion do not understand. New Yorkers do not like this Kennedy trick one bit.

Here’s the message:

New York State voters have cooled on Caroline Kennedy and more voters now prefer State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo 31 – 24 percentfor Hillary Clinton’s U.S. Senate seat, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today. U.S. Rep. Carolyn Maloney gets 6 percent, with 5 percent for U.S. Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand, 2 percent for U.S. Rep. Steve Israel, 18 percent for someone else and 14 percent undecided.

Here’s the rest of the message:

New York State voters say 48 – 37 percent that Kennedy is not qualified to be a U.S. Senator and 40 – 37 percent that she would not be a good Senator. Democrats say 47 – 35 percent that she is qualified, while Republicans say 65 – 24 percent that she is not qualified. Independent voters say 51 – 34 percent that she is not qualified.

Still, voters say 38 – 33 percent that Gov. David Paterson will appoint Ms. Kennedy to the U.S. Senate.

In other words, New Yorkers are not in a good mood about this whole skanky deal and they aren’t letting up about it either. They know they are being railroaded and Teddy Kennedy’s tantrums mean nothing to them. New York is not Massachusetts. Dave, tell Teddy nobody in New York cares that he wants his name embedded in politics forever. They do not care to be bamboozled. This is starting to smell like Pay To Play and it’s not even being done in secret.

Upstate New Yorkers are particularly angered. Of course that’s probably the place Caroline will “volunteer” to dump all those terrorism suspects when Obama closes down that other place. She’ll call it “job creation” for prisons. Don’t think New Yorkers haven’t thought of that either. They know the disdain with which she treated them and they know that they will never see her again if she forces herself into the Senator’s chair.

Caroline didn’t even know there was a place above Manhattan until she decided she would scrap her useless resume and become New York’s junior Senator because she has a certain last name. But the only people who are buying into this insult are politicians who got phone calls and Democrats who would vote for anything with a (D) after its name.

Cuomo leads Kennedy 31 – 20 percent among upstate voters and 36 – 22 percent in the suburbs, while Kennedy gets 31 percent of New York City voters to Cuomo’s 29 percent, the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University poll finds. Men back Cuomo 32 – 23 percent while women back him 31 – 25 percent.

This is not good, Dave. She’s only up by two points in New York City, for goodness sakes. What do you need, a telephone poll on your head to get it?

6844 people were polled, Dave. So it’s pretty safe to say Quinnipiac has it right.

You know damned well that the Kennedys can pour millions into her election and yours, Barack Obama can go to Upstate New York, part the Mohawk River and pass out fishes — and they still won’t forget what’s going on here right now. You know that Upstate New York Democrats have nooooooo problem voting Republican. Monarchies make them itch.

Worse yet, you are setting the Republicans up for running that morally bankrupt exploitative thief Rudy Giuliani against her. Or you.

Is this what you really want?

Caroline. Caroline. Caroline. Please stop embarrassing yourself and pissing New York off. New York has a lot of work to do. And Teddy, not that you won’t burn in hell anyways (See “Mary Jo”), but you should have a special room there for ruining Caroline’s image after all these years.

************************************************************

UPDATE: Due to accusation of not supporting “women” for positions. Here is my response to that:

Politics is run exactly like Corporate America. They put a token female in a slot now and then so that they can show everybody that she can’t do the job. They downplay competent women so that they won’t be embarrassed by their skill. Falling for this is the very worst thing you can do.

Caroline is holding HERSELF to a different standard. She is behaving above everybody else because her name is Kennedy. She should have known better, although I think this is all Teddy’s doing, that shit. Caroline KNOWs she is not qualified and instead of providing a little humility to the mix, she showed up in upper New York with a stick in her butt. How exactly does this attitude help promote women? She is not qualified and putting an unqualified attitude-riddled woman in this slot does NOT help women.

The fact is, there are several VERY good women in NY who are qualified for this slot. They are getting railroaded by a Monarchy. Now THAT makes me angry. When we support this kind of behavior, we set women back even further.

Furthermore, NY is in a financial shambles, businesses drive right by, and this only serves to make people more angry. This isn’t about a woman, this is about a Monarch trying to shove his last name down the throats of a state that is in dire need of somebody who can replace a hardworking, roll- up- your- sleeves policy wonk named Hillary Clinton. Caroline Kennedy is nothing more than a token woman. And if I have learned one thing in Corporate America it’s that token women ruin it for everyone else.

And finally, the very competent Maloney would have one damned good shot at this if the Monarchy weren’t scewing HER. Ditto for Gillibrand. If you want to be angry, be angry about that. It’s the same old tune all over again.

Here is what women are losing thanks to Ted Kennedy:

http://www.gillibrand.house.gov/

http://maloney.house.gov/

That’s the number of questions Caroline Kennedy has answered in her pursuit to secure Hillary Clinton’s seat, according to THIS article in the NY Times. Want to guess how many interviews she has granted in this pursuit? Zero. How about answers to questions regarding her finances? Zero. Yes, Caroline Kennedy is using the Barack Obama School of campaigning – give up NO information whatsoever. None. According to the article:

If she were applying to be, say, an undersecretary of education in Barack Obama’s new administration, Caroline Kennedy would have to fill out a 63-item confidential questionnaire disclosing potentially embarrassing text messages and diary entries, the immigration status of her household staff, even copies of every résumé she used in the last 10 years.

If she were running for election to the Senate, Ms. Kennedy would have to file a 10-part, publicly available report disclosing her financial assets, credit card debts, mortgages, book deals and the sources of any payments greater than $5,000 in the last three years.

But Ms. Kennedy, who has asked Gov. David A. Paterson to appoint her to succeed Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton — and who helped oversee the vetting process for Mr. Obama’s possible running mates — is declining to provide a variety of basic data, including companies she has a stake in and whether she has ever been charged with a crime.

Isn’t that just fitting considering Obama’s own levels of secrecy? Once again, it begs the question WHY she wants to be a politician. It would seem she sees it not as a service to the people of New York, but as an honor OWED her. I’d say she’s a bit unclear on the responsibilities of the job. Never mind that this is an appointed position, and there are actually other people out there interested in the position who are FAR more qualified than she, say Andrew Cuomo, for starters (and I, too, would love to have a woman replace a woman in this seat, but women are not interchageable by gender alone. Experience, qualifications, and commitment to public service count, too.).

Jonah Goldberg had an interesting comparison of Gov. Sarah Palin and Caroline Kennedy in this article: Cinderella vs. the Barracuda
A perfect example of the bowel-stewing self-indulgence of elite liberalism:

For people who think there’s no cultural divide in this country, consider the treatment of two women much in the news in 2008.

The first is Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin. A woman from very humble roots and with a very blue-collar life story, she worked with her steelworker and professional-fisherman husband to provide a life for their large family. She got involved in the PTA. She became mayor of her small town, then rose, by dint of her dedication and almost naive fearlessness, to the job of governor. In a mainstream, almost romantic sense, it’s almost like she was designed by God for a Hallmark movie of the week.

But, when John McCain picked her to be his running mate, the full fury of the liberal establishment — and sizable swaths of the conservative establishment, some of whom dubbed her a “cancer” on the GOP — came down on her with a vengeance usually reserved for Klansmen and pedophiles. Don’t get me wrong: There were valid criticisms to make. But that is quite a different thing than saying all of the criticism was valid or that the intensity and volume of the criticism was warranted.

No kidding. Americans used to revel in the “pulling oneself up by one’s bootstraps” kind of story. Gov. Palin couldn’t BE a better example of that rise. Well, maybe not quite as good as President Bill Clinton, but still – she clearly has made something of herself through hard work and perseverance. Not that you could tell that by the media’s attacks on her.

And now to potential senator from the Great State of New York:

Then there’s Caroline Bouvier Kennedy, daughter of John F. Kennedy, sister of John Jr., niece of Senators Ted and Robert Kennedy, granddaughter of Ambassador Joseph Kennedy, and the cousin of myriad other Kennedys and Shrivers who’ve burrowed deep into the timber of the house of liberalism. A multimillionaire from birth, Ms. Kennedy has spent most of her life on the charity-benefit and cotillion circuit. A product of the Brearley School in New York and the Concord Academy in Massachusetts before she attended Harvard and Columbia, Kennedy has made the importance of public education her signature cause.

Sweet Caroline (she was the inspiration for the Neil Diamond song) recently made it known that she would like to be appointed to Hillary Clinton’s vacant Senate seat.

One could say without fear of overstating things that the liberal reaction to the inexperienced Caroline has been somewhat more gracious than the reaction to the “inexperienced” Palin. Ruth Marcus of the Washington Post has devoted two columns in as many weeks to this “fairy tale” scenario in which Kennedy, our “tragic national princess,” is finally rewarded — for her years of quiet dignity, selflessly avoiding scandal and the paparazzi — with the Senate seat that once belonged to her uncle Bobby. What’s astounding about the normally sensible Marcus’s case for “the Cinderella Kennedy” (New York magazine’s phrase) is that she doesn’t really make one, at least not on the merits. Marcus doesn’t even bother. It’s all schoolgirl gushing.

Pretty much. While there are very few actual requirements to be Senator, age being one of the few. But, don’t you think that wanting to BE a politician might be helpful?? You know, going among the people, talking to them, shaking their hands, going to meeting after meeting after meeting? Just sayin’. Not that that seems to matter to The NY Times:

The editors of the New York Times, in a more skeptical editorial, summarized her qualifications thusly: “Ms. Kennedy has much going for her. As a public figure, she carries the glamour and poignancy of her family …” The editors then went on to describe what great liberals her dad and uncles were. That’s it.

Wow. Talk about your hard-hitting journalism! Way to GO, NY Times!!! Goldberg continued:

This (is) a perfect example of the bowel-stewing self-indulgence of elite liberalism.

Here’s a news flash: Not everyone truckles with doe-eyed awe at “America’s royal family.” Some of us don’t even like the idea of American royal families. JFK and RFK had their good points, but they don’t deserve the beatification they receive on a daily basis. As a man, Teddy Kennedy is hardly a role model, and as a public servant he’s not much better. I, for one, don’t think denying poor black kids private-school scholarships (aka vouchers) is heroic. Nor do I think his support for alternative energy, except when it might obstruct his Hyannis Port estate’s views with windmills, is admirable.

Simply, the Kennedy clan is no priestly caste, serving as the conscience of the nation, and its progeny do not deserve eternal deference.

You gotta admit – he has a point. Many liberals, myself included, found Ted’s position on windmills to be just a TAD hypocritical, but it is to the more important issue that Mr. Goldberg is addressing: the Kennedys are hardly worthy of beatification with all of the personal, and political, issues in which they have engaged, or been caught, much less be “American royalty.”

Goldberg concludes:

Now, I know the comparison between Palin and Caroline Kennedy is not perfect. Each has strengths where the other has weaknesses, and the jobs of senator and vice president aren’t identical (the former actually has more responsibility, for starters).

But the comparison is nonetheless revealing. Palin’s selection triggered troughs of bile, vomited up from nearly every respectable liberal quarter. A Florida congressman, and Obama surrogate, insinuated that Palin was a “Nazi sympathizer” and anti-Semite (she’s not, but Caroline Kennedy’s grandfather was). Her by-the-bootstraps story was ridiculed by nearly every ex-debutante newsreader and avowed “feminist” in America.

Meanwhile, Caroline, with a resume perfectly suited to being a Kennedy and little else, is a Cinderella who deserves a Senate seat because, well, she just does.

Whatever Palin’s faults, Sarah Barracuda’s America has a lot more going for it than Sweet Caroline’s.

Oh, sure – Caroline Kennedy deserves the seat just because she wants it, at least in HER mind, and the mind of her family. That’s just exactly the kind of people we need in Washington, especially to provide oversight to The One Who Wants To Be King.

On a lighter note, I think Andy Borowitz, the humorist, has the perfect interpretation of Caroline Kennedy wanting something for not much in this piece:

Caroline Kennedy Asks to be Time’s Person of the Year: Places Phone Call to Magazine’s Editor

Caroline Kennedy would like to be considered Time magazine’s Person of the Year for 2009 and has let the magazine’s editor know of her interest in the honor, aides to Ms. Kennedy confirmed today.

While some observers considered Ms. Kennedy’s bid to be premature, especially since 2009 has not officially begun, aides to the New York senatorial aspirant said that it reflected her view that 2009 will be a very big year for her.

“I think Caroline’s calling Time magazine and asking to be put on the cover shows just what a tireless worker she is,” said cousin Kerry Kennedy. “When she really wants something, she’s not afraid to roll up her sleeves and make a phone call.”

Her cousin said that having witnessed Caroline’s work ethic, she has no doubt that she is deserving of Time’s highest honor: “I can’t tell you how many times she’s gotten the wrong number, been put on hold, or had calls dropped altogether.”

In addition to the Person of the Year honors, Kerry Kennedy said that Caroline had also expressed an interest in next year’s Nobel Peace Prize.

“That’s a call she hasn’t made yet,” Ms. Kennedy said. “She has to figure out the time difference in Oslo.”

Ahem. Well, she’s just as qualified for THAT as she is the US Senate.

I could be wrong, but isn’t SHE engaging in a “Pay to Play” scheme? Isn’t that what her uncle, Harry Reid, and all the others are doing by trying to force Gov. Paterson to choose her?? It sure seems to be pretty close to what is happening in IL, except from the other side. They are trying to coerce Gov. Paterson to give her this position for what, payback for all of her service during the election? Probably. Hey, I’m just sayin’. But it seems eerily similar to me. What do YOU say?

In Sunday’s post, I picked up on a story about the friendly noises being made by Ted Kennedy toward proposals made by the health insurance industry, which is reminiscent of the way things went with the Bush Adminstration’s Medicare Part D and Big Pharma plan, with much “protest” at the time by Kennedy. (See The Past Week: November 30-December 6, Recaps and Random Thoughts (Freepers “Heart” GG; Obama & Chester Arthur; Healthcare “Reform”; Montana-Yes, MONTANA-Legalizes Assisted-Suicide; Greens Pic); (once again, a h/t to Not Your Sweetie for the source article). And, of course, the Democrats failed to change the plan as part of their “100 hours” agenda when they retook the House and Senate after the 2006 election:

There’s a spirit of optimism about our work to ensure quality, affordable health care for all Americans — and today’s announcement adds to that optimism,” said Kennedy spokesman Anthony Coley. “The insurance industry has advanced serious proposals that deserve serious analysis and consideration.

Meanwhile, there’s a new twist to the story (this particular version of the story features a big picture of Tom Daschle–inspiring, no?), along with the obligatory dig at the Clinton Administration/Hillary Clinton’s efforts:

Obama Hopes To Avoid Clinton Health Care Missteps:

Former U.S. Senate Majority leader Tom Daschle, right, who is the nominee for health and human services secretary in the Obama administration, greets U.S. Sen. Ken Salazar, D-Colo., after Daschle’s speech about plans for reforming the country’s health care system during the 2008 Colorado Health Care Summit in Denver on Friday, Dec. 5, 2008. The summit capped off a 31-county tour of Colorado by Salazar to discuss the condition of the nation’s health care system with elected officials and business owners. (AP Photo/David Zalubowski)

WASHINGTON — President-elect Barack Obama and his aides are determined not to repeat the mistakes the Clinton administration made 15 years ago in trying to revamp the nation’s health care system. That means applying some of the lessons learned — moving fast, seizing momentum and not letting it go.

Tom Daschle, Obama’s point man on the issue, discussed the early strategy, although details of Obama’s proposals won’t be finalized for a while. Already, however, the political and public relations parts are coming into place.

The strategy begins with giving people the chance to highlight their concerns and experiences. Daschle invited people around the nation to hold what amounts to house parties from Dec. 15-31. Obama’s transition team will gather the information from those meetings and post the material on its Web site, http://change.gov.

By asking anybody and everybody to share their health care experiences, Daschle is confronting one of the major criticisms of 15 years ago: that the effort to craft former President Bill Clinton’s plan for universal coverage was too secretive.

“We have to make this as inclusive a process as possible,” Daschle, the former Senate majority leader from South Dakota, said in a speech in Denver. It was his first since Democratic officials confirmed last month he was offered the job as health and human services secretary and that he had accepted.

“They are clearly trying to do it differently and help the American public see the case for reform in human terms,” said John Rother, public policy director for the advocacy group AARP.

So, here are the healthcare “house parties,” public relations blitz and all that fake “transparency” being rolled out. And are we supposed to be impressed with AARP which lost a load of members over its support of the Medicare Part D sellout?? The same AARP which is selling more Part D policies than any other outfit? Are you buying any of this? “Reform in human terms?” (For an exhaustive history of AARP and it’s machinations, see, “The Seduction: The Shocking Story of how AARP Backed the Medicare Bill,” by Barbara T. Dreyfuss, the American Prospect, 2004.)

For a really great personal account of the Medicare Part D realities for seniors and what Obama’s “plan” means for Medicare and healthcare reform as a whole, check out this piece by James Ridgeway entitled, “Medicare’s Poison Pill,” which was published in the September/October 2008 edition of Mother Jones. Take note of this warning about what this could all mean for Medicare itself, not just the Part D drug plan:

None of these measures addresses the core weakness of the program—its obligations to the insurance and drug industries. Medicare Part D is a small-scale model of just the kind of system some Democrats, including Barack Obama, now propose—a government-subsidized health insurance plan, one that preserves the profits of private middlemen at a high cost to citizens’ and government coffers.

For conservatives, meanwhile, the goal is to take Part D as a model for the rest of Medicare—and they’ve already made some inroads. The 2003 law that established Part D contains a “demonstration project” beginning in 2010 that will require Medicare to compete with private plans (which, via a complicated pricing formula, will be rigged to have lower rates) in six metro areas. This is meant to be the model, the seed that will grow into the Brave New World of privatized Medicare.

Back before the drug bill passed, the senior advocacy group Gray Panthers saw the writing on the wall and denounced the legislation as “bait in an insidious strategy to undermine traditional Medicare and convert it into a private industry using taxpayers’ subsidies to pay for it.” They were right, and the way things are going, I may yet live to see it happen—as long as I keep taking my drugs.

Over at the The Obama-Biden Plan, there’s a vague reference amidst the scraps of Hillary Clinton’s plan (sans universality) to some sort of “competition”:

Reform the insurance market to increase competition by taking on anticompetitive activity that drives up prices without improving quality of care.

Oh, really? When have we heard THAT sort of line before??

The last line of the entire “agenda” is billed as A Commitment to Fiscal Responsibility:

Barack Obama will pay for his $50 – $65 billion health care reform effort by rolling back the Bush tax cuts for Americans earning more than $250,000 per year and retaining the estate tax at its 2009 level.

Oops, hasn’t that “changed” already?? Yes, it has!

***

Postscript:

Before the election my doctor reminded me to vote for Obama because we needed “healthcare.” Post-election, another health provider, already souring a bit, told me the only thing they trusted Obama with was “healthcare.” I told that person they shouldn’t trust him with anything. Next time I see either of them, I’m giving them a copy of this post…

AGAIN, special thanks to InsightAnalyticalGrl for this post. Please check out InsightAnalytical for more thought-provoking articles.

He was apparently measuring drapes for the office over in Foggy Bottom (trimmed with French lace, I’m sure) and now will have to try and have them installed in his cramped Senate Office back on Capitol Hill. In the Globe, Joan Vennochi reminds us, just what a good little Obot, Kerry was:

The Massachusetts senator helped to launch Obama on the national stage. As his party’s presidential nominee, Kerry chose Obama as the keynote speaker for the 2004 Democratic National Convention. Ever since then, Kerry did everything right by Obama.

He walked away from his own presidential dreams and embraced Obama’s. He helped with fund-raising and organized a Web-based fight against the kind of negative campaigning that helped derail his own presidential bid. He also delivered a powerful speech when Democrats gathered in Denver to nominate Obama. …

Both Kerry and Senator Edward M. Kennedy endorsed the Illinois senator at a critical point in his primary battle. Back in Massachusetts, Kerry took most of the heat for the Obama endorsement. An enraged contingent of Bay State women for Clinton badgered Kerry for his failure to back their candidate. They were so angry, the women helped a Democratic rival win enough votes at the state convention to earn a spot on the ballot. As a result, Kerry faced his first primary challenger in 24 years.

You can read her entire article here

Perhaps the junior Senator from Massachussets should have studied the President-elect’s history a little more. “Change you can believe in” is a new slogan, the one he has always lived by is “what have you done for me lately?”

The more conservative Herald is a bit more blunt.

Word from Capitol Hill is that, despite his kind words for Hillary Clinton yesterday, Sen. John Kerry is angry and disappointed about not being considered a serious candidate for Barack Obama’s secretary of state.

“He’s pretty PO’d,” said Someone Who Knows. “After going from the early front-runner to not even being considered, he’s pretty disappointed.”

You can read the rest of that article here.

Bottom line, Kerry lost out. Why, because he is a loser. Losers lose, that’s what they do. Getting elected as a Democrat in Massachusetts, does not count. Britney Spears could win that Senate seat if she had the Democratic line. Several reports in recent weeks indicated that for all of his loyal Obot status, Kerry would have been more than willing to endorse Hillary Clinton had she promised him the Secretary of State position (something she apparently was unwilling to do.) Perhaps that’s another reason why Obama and Clinton seem to be getting along these days, they probably have had a couple of laughs together over the thought of Kerry as S.O.S..

The Herald article did add this unrelated nugget.

As for Hillary, we hear that one of the reasons she decided to abandon the Senate to serve under her former rival was Sen. Ted Kennedy’s snub on health care.

Kennedy declined to put the former first lady on his health care task force – the group that will shape the Senate’s health care bill.

Word is, the senior senator, who is battling brain cancer, hopes to get the bill through the Senate as soon as work is completed on Obama’s economic plan, and he didn’t believe Clinton had the juice to get it done.

I would have thought the “Liberal Lion” wouldn’t need any additional juice to get anything through a 58 seat Democratic Senate.

That reminds me, after all the work Kerry and Kennedy did for Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton easily won the Massachussets primary. Enjoy the Cabernet.