From 1976 until 2008, every major-party presidential candidate took public money for the general election, adhering to spending limits that significantly reduced the influence of money on American elections. Candidates began dropping out of public financing for primaries in 2000, and then in 2008, Barack Obama abandoned the system entirely, preferring to raise more money from small donations, and promising to fix the public program. He has made almost no attempt to fulfill that promise.

Even in its criticism of the President, the NY Times still seeks to defend a favored son. In 2008, then-Senator Obama may have raised substantial amounts of cash from small donations, yet the Times fails to mention Mr. Obama also received more money from Wall Street than any other candidate. Senator Obama abandoned the public financing system despite signing a pledge to do the opposite. His opponent, Senator John McCain (himself a co-author of election finance reform with Senator Feingold), upheld his promise to use only public financing. For his trouble, he was drowned in an avalanche of dough and outspent eight to one.

No attempt to revive the public financing system has been made that I can see, and as the editorial points out, this is the first time in forty years neither candidate plans to use it. Both Romney and Obama have eschewed public financing in favor of rich donors and the punch of SuperPACs:

Public financing could still be resuscitated, but first, someone in power has to care about it. The Republican-led House has voted to kill the system outright. A few House Democrats have proposed a good bill to fix it, but no one in the Senate has picked up the bill. And the two major candidates are too busy grubbing for the unlimited donations that now dominate politics.

The era of “super PACs” and secret donors has made public financing more urgent.

The editorial offers ideas for raising grants of public financing to make the system more appetizing to candidates, but their suggestions weigh in at a maximum of $300 million. That doesn’t seem to be an amount that will do the trick — particularly when President Obama’s team already spent $750 million the first time out and months ago boasted about the possibility of raising $1 billion in 2012.

That such vast sums would be spent by each side to drown the other in negative ads when so many citizens are in need is grotesque. What hope do we as average taxpayers have when our voices are dwarfed by big money interests? We, as usual, will be left out in the cold. The Times also complains that we need the candidates to have time to “campaign more instead of begging among the rich.” But the greater evil is that both Presidential candidates offer vague platitudes rather than concrete platform. How about less campaigning and more doing? How about less campaigning and more outreach, more listening to voters on the ground…

Too many Americans have lost jobs to listen either to just “stay the course” or “we can do better.” In President Obama’s case, his latest among many promises to “pivot to jobs” rings hollow. The recent drop in unemployment to 8.1% is cold comfort when another several hundred thousand have simply dropped out of the work force.

Numbers don’t hold much sway. Looking at the people around me who are losing their jobs, and lost their homes, I see the number of short sales and foreclosures in my immediate vicinity in the last two years that have helped destroy my property values. I have too many close friends, accomplished professionals all, whose jobs have just been outsourced or cut, to believe the rosy numbers.

And if Mr. Romney plans on gaining traction, he had better be willing to step on the third rail in an effective way, and stop pandering to wedge issues or complaining about President Obama’s lack of leadership or fiscal know-how. All of this is meaningless. Just cutting taxes isn’t going to cut it.

To both gentlemen…give me the laundry list…What are you going to do? How are you going to get there? How are you going to pay for it.

Until the American people stand up and demand that we get big money out of politics on both sides, the rest of this is just tilting at windmills. Both political parties are “the one percent.” We had better figure that out.
*************
Anita Finlay is the author of DIRTY WORDS ON CLEAN SKIN: Sexism and Sabotage, a Hillary Supporter’s Rude Awakening, now available at Amazon in Print and on Kindle. Please visit her website www.anitafinlay.com.

In the name of defeating a president who is clearly bad for our economy, who champions crony capitalism and continues, even escalates, some of the worst of George W. Bush’s policies, disaffected Democrats are willing to vote for a Republican – but not anyone.

Ex-Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum, who seems to think that God ordained him keeper of the flame on social issues, took on a group of hostile (Republican) college students at a Concord, New Hampshire campaign stop. Santorum, stepping up his campaign after a surprising second place photo finish at the Iowa caucus this week, was “jeered after comparing gay marriage to polygamy.” James Oliphant of the L.A. Times reports:

Those skeptical of whether Rick Santorum has what it takes to win a general-election contest this fall have focused on, among other things, his drumbeating on social issues in a year when Republican strategists believe hitting President Obama on the economy is the way to win the White House.

Santorum’s potential vulnerability on that score was on display Thursday night in New Hampshire, where he was challenged on his views on gay marriage.

Santorum is an ardent, outspoken opponent of gay marriage, favoring an amendment to the Constitution that would define marriage as solely between a man and a woman. He received a rough welcome from a group of college Republicans in Concord — and it likely didn’t help matters when he compared a same-sex union to polygamy.

Here is the money quote:

“Are we saying everyone should have the right to marry? So anyone can marry anyone else?” Santorum asked, according to a video by NBC News. “So anybody can marry several people?”…

Confronted by one critic, he fired back, “What about three men?”

“If it makes three people happy to get married, based on what you just said, what makes that wrong and what you said right?”

So if you are gay, you automatically want to have an orgy? And make a mockery of Santorum’s life choices? Or was the “polygamy” dig some wacky and obtuse backdoor reference to Romney’s Mormonism?

Okay, Mr. Santorum, let me explain this to you – just in case you have never met any gay people. My husband and I have gay friends who are in a committed monogamous relationship. They have been together for thirty years. Did you get that? THIRTY. That is more than the majority of straight couples. They own a home, they work, they pay their taxes. You know, just like regular people. They are human beings just like you. Not wildebeests, you offensive boob. We have lesbian friends who likewise are in a committed, monogamous relationship and have been together for fifteen years. Why are they not entitled to the same security and rights as any other married couple?

Even former VP Dick Cheney has come out and said that gay couples deserve to have the same opportunity as everybody else when it comes to marital rights.

While I imagine any Republican candidate is going to attempt to establish their conservative credentials on this issue, Santorum takes this way too far with this ridiculing jab. Does Mr. Santorum really think that every gay man wants to go to church and march down the aisle in a dress? Or be “married” to several men at once? Whether it is called marriage or civil union, we are all equal and everyone should be afforded equal rights. A church is a private institution and if they don’t want to let you get married there, they will say no. My husband and I were not allowed to get married in a particular church because we were not parishioners there. The man and woman thing did not help us.

We attended a beautiful civil commitment ceremony earlier this year and rejoiced in the happiness of the two grooms. Marriage, as Mr. Santorum is quick to point out, promotes stability. Guess what. Gay marriage promotes stability, too. Is someone else’s joy or security that threatening to him? Did anyone stand in the way of Mr. Santorum and his wife’s happiness? Or their rights to raise a family as they have chosen to do?

It is interesting that a mini-firestorm was ignited the other day when liberal commentators Alan Colmes and Eugene Robinson both called Santorum out for his “weirdness” when, years ago, he and his wife lost a baby and brought the child home to their family as part of the grieving process – to make the child real to their family and get closure for his unfortunate death. These two “journalists” (lamely) apologized to Mr. Santorum and his family for their odious comments. One could argue (and several bloggers have), that Colmes and Robinson were on a mission to repel the electorate and classify Santorum as outside the mainstream by reintroducing this story.

Far from being “weird,” it has since been reported that grief counselors tell parents in this situation that this is a viable way to handle this tragedy for the health of the family. Yet, as Mr. Santorum acknowledged, he received a great deal of criticism for that decision when this most unfortunate event happened. While I think it is abhorrent for anyone to go after the family (or private choices of the family) of a candidate, it is interesting that Santorum expected compassion for his family’s choice, but seems incapable of offering any to the gay community, if they do not want to live their lives as he deems fit, or as his particular religious practice dictates.

In this election year, we are faced with many dire decisions and problems to solve. Many young people, growing up in an environment where homosexuality is accepted, are far more concerned with jobs than they are with discriminating against their classmates.

The National Review’s Robert Costa also reported on Santorum’s exchange re gay marriage:

“Every child in America deserves to know and be loved by their mother and father,” [Santorum] told them. “When we deny children that birthright, we are harming children, we are harming society.” It didn’t go over well with the questioners, who booed him.

It is not always possible to have the family unit that Mr. Santorum demands and it is far preferable to know true parental love, whether those parents are a gay or straight couple, or to have the love and dedication of a single parent, than not to know it at all. Love and guidance will always have a positive effect on a child. Our high divorce rate in this country makes clear that the traditional family unit does not guarantee happiness. It is false for Mr. Santorum to intimate, as he has on many occasions, that only children raised by a “traditional” family have any possiblity of a well adjusted life. Society is harmed when a child is ignored, abused or treated cruelly — and that abuse happens and has happened in plenty of “traditional” families. Cookie cutter rules do not apply.

If Republicans think they are going to make headway with moderates in the electorate preaching fire and brimstone, showing contempt for a woman’s right to choose or gays having the same rights as everyone else – they are in for a rude awakening.

If Republicans want to be the party of small government, then they should get the hell out of our bedrooms. And if Democrats want to be truly “progressive,” they should acknowledge that adults are capable of making their own educated decisions without mommy and daddy telling them what to eat, how cold to keep their house, what kind of car to drive or what kind of light bulbs to use. I am all for energy efficiency but when you tell me to use a light bulb that has mercury in it — you’ve lost the thread.

Just make sure when you are elected, the only regulations you put in place ensure that the stuff we buy is cost efficient and works – and don’t subsidize financial institutions that function as a giant Ponzi scheme bilking the rest of us without repercussion. And while you’re at it — and this goes for both parties — get your damned noses out of the trough.

We’ll do the rest, thanks.

Santorum, and others, would do well to forget the preaching and pandering and remember what, and who, this election is a referendum on…

Democratic voters should draft Hillary Clinton for 2012, authors say. AP Photo

New Hampshire voters should draft Hillary

By PATRICK H. CADDELL and DOUGLAS E. SCHOEN | 12/18/11 10:15 PM EST

We argued in a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed piece that President Barack Obama should stand down and let Secretary of State Hillary Clinton run as the Democratic presidential nominee in 2012.

We are now calling on Democratic voters nationally — particularly in New Hampshire — to organize a write-in campaign for Clinton. This is something that New Hampshire voters have a long history of doing.

We advocate this Draft Hillary movement not because of the desire to make political mischief — but to put the country on the right course.

It’s clear that Obama has been unable to build consensus and, with the polarizing campaign he is now running, will be unable to govern effectively even if reelected. Only Clinton can commit the Democratic Party — and, indeed, the nation — to a unification and healing process. This could allow Washington, in a bipartisan manner, to finally address the economic and governmental crises that now grip America.

We are facing a crisis of national leadership, so citizens should step up and take charge of their country the way demonstrators in the Middle East did earlier this year. And, stunningly, as the people of Russia are now doing.

It’s time to take the decision about America’s leadership out of the hands of the established powers and return it to the citizens of our country. That opportunity to change U.S. politics will appear in the second week of 2012 in New Hampshire.

To seize this moment two things are required:

First, and most important, ordinary Democrats and independents in New Hampshire should mobilize behind a grass-roots effort to write in Clinton’s name during the Jan. 10 Democratic primary.

Second, a committed group of Democrats with resources and stature needs to help facilitate an authentic citizens’ movement — independent of party structure, Clinton and organized interests — to support a massive New Hampshire write-in campaign and put this before a deeply disaffected electorate.

Read more.)

Can I get my heart into it? Do I want to?

I still think she is the strongest, smartest leader we could have. But she has turned me off in many ways the last few years. If I can wrap my arms around the fact that she is a party animal and some of what she has said and done was under orders, then I can perhaps throw my support behind a fun try at a Write-In vote.

It might mean divorce for me, but then again maybe not. My little O’bot wife is perhaps a sign that this could work. She, the staunchest supporter of his O’liness I knew in 2008, she never ever listens to his speeches anymore. She avoids political news and has shut her ears to the disaster that is his Presidency. Our Vermont O’bot friends who you may recall I had to suffer through the Christmas before the 2008 NH Primary, well I was speaking to one on the phone recently and she flat out told me that Obama is a failure for the Democratice party.

They won’t admit their horrendous mistake of 2007/2008, but they know in their hearts they were so very wrong.

This could be interesting. But like the movements around the world, we’d need a name and it should not include Hillary. This is about bringing America back to the people. This is about Occupy Wall Street and the one former candidate who spoke up about a looming financial crisis when nobody would listen.

Take Back The Party, Renew America Now

RUN – Renew USA Now

Oh, wait. No, not really. None of those things have really happened. I was shocked to see The Hill, a site I read regularly for its impartiality, and whose Associate Editor, A.B. Stoddard, I have admired for her intellect. The premise of the article by Peter Schroeder is this:

President Obama, with his electoral fate tied to the economy, must be pleased with the momentum he’s getting.

Just months ago, the U.S. credit rating was downgraded and Democrats worried Obama was following in the footsteps of one-term President Jimmy Carter. Maybe he will, but reports in the last week suggest manufacturing and construction are humming, and Thanksgiving saw record-setting shopping by consumers.

The icing on the cake? A jobs report Friday shaved nearly half a point off the unemployment rate. The 8.6 percent rate was down from 9 percent in October and is the lowest unemployment has stood in two and a half years. (Emphasis mine.)

“Democrats have a very good chance in 2012 and if the economy gets better that’ll help us,” said Rep. Norm Dicks (D-Wash.). “Things are looking a lot better. A lot better.”

“The icing on the cake?” Really? He is promoting this false meme that the artificially reduced Unemployment numbers put forth by the Obama Administration (and which Larry Johnson thoroughly debunks in this post, “Delusional America“)? Is it really good news for Obama that over 300,000 people have given up hope of ever finding a job again? That’s a GOOD thing? In what universe? ObamaMedia World? Evidently. I was just appalled to see a site like The Hill pushing this crock of BS for Obama and the Democrats. This wasn’t an opinion piece, after all, it was allegedly “reporting.” Reporting Democratic talking points, maybe, but not the facts, or reality. At the very BEST, the number is now at 8.9%, and even that is pushing it (according to Eric Bolling on “The Five”).

These kinds of machinations by the Democrats are really mind boggling. It wasn’t so long ago that I would have bought this crap they are selling, being a dyed in the wool Dem and all. But no longer. I simply cannot understand how the Party that claims to be SO compassionate is CELEBRATING people giving up out of despair. How is that good in ANYONE’S world?

This does seem to be the Democrats’ MO, though. This kind of hoodwinking, that is. This instance has to do with the economy, riding a wave of glee on the backs of those who have given up. My good friend, CindyIndie, sent me an article about an issue in Texas that highlights more of this double-speaking machination that seems to be SOP. This one deals with their “concern” for minority presence and leadership in politics. The title gives a hint, “Opportunity Lost To End The White-Guy Streak.” Yes, and that opportunity was lost due to an appeal by the Democrats:

For a while there, before a three-judge federal panel did some three-judge federal paneling, the good and progressive people of Travis County (long self-congratulatory about their goodness and progressivity) seemed en route to ballot-box ethnic history.

[...]

This, of course, was all about Republican self-interest and had nothing to do with wanting to break the white-man streak in Travis County. But facts are facts, and regardless of why it happened (largely to stick it to longtime U.S. Rep. Lloyd Doggett, D-Austin, a longtime white man), the map offered a solid possibility of electing an African American and two Hispanics to a five-person (up from the current three) Travis County U.S. House delegation.

To jack with Doggett, the GOP drew a Hispanic-heavy San Antonio-Austin district in which state Rep. Joaquin Castro, D-San Antonio, had a solid shot at beating Doggett in the Democratic primary. The map also brought into Travis County a multicounty, northward meandering district now represented by Republican Bill Flores of Waco.

The Travis County map also included a greatly rejiggered multicounty district in which former Railroad Commissioner Michael Williams, a black Republican, had a solid chance of winning. The other districts in the county (also multicounty districts) most likely would have continued to have been represented by Republicans Michael McCaul of Austin and Lamar Smith of San Antonio, who self-identify as white men.

So Travis County could have wound up with two white guys, two Hispanic guys and a black guy. Sure, only one of them (McCaul) now lives in the county, but hey, ethnic history is ethnic history — even if the black guy (Williams) and one of the Hispanics (Flores) are Republicans (a concept that irks some of the local good and progressive.) (Click here to read the rest.)

Well, of course it is obvious why the Democrats claimed this would affect minority representation – because we all know that Black Republicans aren’t really black, and I assume that extends to Hispanic Republicans, too. Much better to have a paternalist White Guy represent your interests – they do so well with that. Just look at Women’s Issues and how well our Congress has handled that (e.g., equal pay is still a dream).

Honestly, I don’t know how in the world the Democrats could have even made this argument to the Panel with straight faces. Maybe they didn’t. Maybe there were lots of winks, guffaws, and “dontcha knows” thrown in there. Beats me. But apparently, it is a mindset that allows them to say these things, much like this pronouncement from The Hill’s “Signs” article:

[snip] Democrats have felt the swing in momentum.

Rep. Sander Levin (D-Mich.) said the president’s chances for reelection have “improved” with the economy, while Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) says voters will see the president has things moving in the right direction.

“The economy is not where we want it to be, but it’s at least stable and slowly but surely going in the right direction,” Cummings told The Hill. (Click here to read the rest.)

Uh, yeah, just keep telling yourselves that. I suppose these folks also still believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, which they are presumably counting on to help ease our massive debt, which is now 100% of our GDP. Yeah, sure, the economy is doing GREAT! Just peachy! Just tell all of those folks who are first time filers for Unemployment, those who dropped out, and those who have lost their homes. I am so certain they will all agree with Levin and Cummings, aren’t you? Cough, cough. Uh huh. Maybe it is time for them to take off their rose colored glasses, and try looking at reality for a change. Just a thought. What do you think?

And that would be Obamacare. Specifically, the Independent Payment Advisory Board, a major part of the unread-before-passed-bill. You might know it better as the “Death Panels.” From The Daily Caller:

[snip]Frank, who announced Monday that he would retire at the end of his current term in office, became the 12th Democrat, and the 212th member of the House, to co-sponsor Tennessee Republican Rep. Phil Roe’s bill aimed at repealing the IPAB.

[...]

IPAB is a 15-member board, appointed by the president, scheduled to convene in 2014. In order to reduce per capita Medicare spending, the board will recommend levels at which Medicare recipients, including seniors, can be reimbursed for health care expenses.

In March, Roe told The Daily Caller the IPAB is the “real death panel” in the health care law, as compared to “end-of-life counseling” Obamacare provisions which former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin once deemed “death panels.”

“This one is the real baby right here — and most people missed this,” Roe told TheDC then. “What everybody was talking about, when you saw Sarah Palin and so forth, what they were talking about these advanced directives where you sit down and there’s sort of mandatory counseling — and Medicare paid for it. This IPAB got missed — and it’s the real death panel.”

Isn’t that pretty much what we had been saying? But wait, there is more:

“Basically, there’s a certain amount of money that’s allocated for Medicare spending each year,” Roe said in March. “Once you hit that amount that’s been appropriated, this board, this bureaucratically appointed board, can then decide, not based on quality or need, but based on strictly cost.”

According to Diane Cohen, the conservative Goldwater Institute’s lead attorney covering Obamacare, IPAB is the “most notorious” of all the bureaucracies the health care law created because it hands Medicare payment decisions over to an unelected board. (Click here to read the rest.)

Isn’t this incredible? I guess it should be no surprise given the numerous czars Obama has put in place making major decisions for us. They aren’t elected, either. Hell, they aren’t even vetted by anyone! But that the Democrats, and it was SOLELY the Democrats, voted to make this the law of the land is telling indeed.

Too bad Rep. Frank didn’t make this decision two years, and maybe states wouldn’t be saddled with fighting the Constitutionality of Obamacare. They wouldn’t have to be spending so much time and treasure trying to protect their citizens from the unilateral move of one party against all of the objections of its citizenry. Party Before Country rules the day far too often, as I have said, and this was no exemption. But maybe, just MAYBE, these people will finally start caring more about the country than whatever perks they might get for selling their souls for the benefit of the Party leaders.

And speaking of money, given all of the brouhaha paid to mere whispers of allegations over Herman Cain 24/7, you may be surprised to learn that former New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, Hillary Clinton backstabbing opportunist, is under investigation for a regarding allegations of paying off his mistress. Oh, yes, and it was not a small sum of money, either, as the Wall Street Journal reports:

A federal grand jury is investigating former New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson over possible campaign-finance violations stemming from his 2008 presidential run, including allegations that he arranged for supporters to pay off a woman who planned to say they had engaged in an extramarital affair, according to people familiar with the inquiry.

Several of Mr. Richardson’s close associates have been granted immunity from prosecution in exchange for their testimony before the panel in Albuquerque, the people said. The panel is one of several grand juries in recent years to examine aspects of Mr. Richardson’s administration and campaigns.

[...]

The investigation comes at a difficult time for New Mexico Democrats, who are struggling to regroup after losing the governor’s mansion—Mr. Richardson couldn’t run again because of term limits—and a number of state legislative seats in 2010. The state is considered a key battleground in the 2012 presidential election and also may be crucial to control of the U.S. Senate, as both parties fight for a vacant seat now held by retiring Democratic Sen. Jeff Bingaman.

New Mexico Republicans benefited in the last election from grand-jury investigations related to the departing Richardson administration, said Brian Sanderoff, president of an independent polling firm in Albuquerque. If an indictment rekindles memories of alleged Democratic corruption, “it sure won’t help” Democrats in 2012, he said.

Uh, yeah – I imagine that won’t be too helpful to the Democrats in New Mexico. And now for that number:

[snip]The most explosive matter under investigation involves allegations by a former member of Mr. Richardson’s inner circle. That individual said Mr. Richardson’s political allies gave $250,000 to placate a woman who was considering suing the governor in 2007, exposing their alleged extramarital affair, according to people familiar with the federal probe. They said the woman was a state employee at the time that she allegedly became romantically involved with Mr. Richardson around 2004. The woman’s identity has not been disclosed, and the type of suit considered has not been confirmed. (Click here to read the rest.)

The article goes on, and I recommend you read the rest. You may recall, as I mentioned above, that Richardson threw Hillary Clinton under the bus so fast when he thought he was going to get some plumb assignment in Obama’s Circle that the bus didn’t even have a chance to leave skid marks (Commerce Secretary was the post for which he was being considered). So, if you wondered why he never showed up with all of Obama’s Chicago Thugs Cronies, it was a question related to contributions for his presidential run, and the possibility of links to some contracts he made. You know, just like Obama has done with our money to places like Solyndra, and a whole HOST of jobs in his Administration.

Doesn’t that kind of beg the question of if it kept Richardson OUT of Obama’s Administration to have even the question of a possible link between donors and contracts, why is it okay for Obama to have filled his White House with donors, or give our money to companies owned by his donors? Doesn’t make any sense to me. Maybe someone out there can fill me in.

Well, I will sure be interested to see how things shake out now that Barney has joined in to fight against the IPAB. Perhaps this is just the push we need to get this horrible law off the books, and do it RIGHT the next time, with thoughtful consideration, no handouts to Big Pharma, and the support of the majority of the people.

As for Richardson, couldn’t happen to a more deserving person, if you ask me. Sure would be nice if the media bothered to report on this the way they couldn’t WAIT to throw out mere rumors around Herman Cain, but I guess that is just too much to ask these days. Kinda like how they are gleeful over the new Unemployment numbers, until you read further down and find out WHY the numbers are lower. Even The Hill is guilty of that (and Eric Bolling said this morning that the new number is TOO low considering jobs created and files for unemployment, which I thought, too. It should be closer to 8.9%, not 8.6%.). Oh,and in case you missed why, it is because a big bunch of people just dropped out. They gave up. They just gave up trying to find work. THAT should be the headline, IMHO.

Wouldn’t it be nice if our politicians stopped playing politics with people’s lives? Yeah, though I am not going to hold my breath for that day. Anyway, consider this an Open Thread. What’s on your minds?

That said, there are still some news stories out today for our consideration. Russia is unhappy with us, and that can be a big problem, as this story indicates, Russia Threatens To Withdraw From Arms Control Deal With U.S.:

Russia threatened Wednesday to withdraw from the New START nuclear arms control deal with the United States and deploy missiles aimed toward U.S. defense installations in Europe in a harsh sign of the tension between the two countries.

In a prime-time televised speech, President Dmitry Medvedev, visibly upset over missile defense consultations with Washington, said that an early warning radar system immediately would be put on red alert close to the Russian border with Poland and that missiles and other weapons would be positioned in the country’s west and south to target U.S. sites in Europe.

“These measures will be adequate, effective and low cost,” Medvedev said in his speech. “If the above measures prove insufficient, the Russian Federation will deploy modern offensive weapons in the west and south of the country ensuring our ability to take out any part of the U.S. missile defense system in Europe.”[snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Brrrr – is there a chill in the air? We might not be returning to another Cold War with Russia, but they sure aren’t happy with us.

Um, how does that bode for the US astronauts who hitched a ride into space with the Russians? I wonder if they could bum a ride home from the Chinese…

The Senate is about to get ready to add a bundle to the deficit, as The Hill reports in this article, Post-supercommittee, Senate Dems Ready To Move $400 Billion In New Bills:

[snip] All of the proposals, such as the extension of the payroll tax cut and unemployment insurance, are popular but come with no agreement on how to pay for them.

Senate Democrats will go on offense next week by forcing Republicans to vote on extending and expanding the payroll tax cut, which accounts for $240 billion of the tab, according to Democratic and Republican aides. Lawmakers will take up the legislation after completing work on the Defense authorization bill.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has yet to announce an offset for the measure, but he has discussed matching it with a tax increase for millionaires. Such a vote would be intended to hammer home the message that Republicans are out to protect the rich, though it leaves Democrats vulnerable to arguments about class warfare. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

I’m not saying it isn’t a good idea to extend these policies, but we HAVE to figure out a way to pay for them. Close some tax loopholes, for instance. As I have noted, the Senate won’t pass a budget, and won’t allow the 20+ Jobs bills to see the light of day, but they will continue to play politics with our economy. Nice.

And speaking of Democrats, Rep. Gabriel Giffords suggested to the Super Committee a few days ago that they should cut the Congressional salaries. Giffords introduced legislation to this effect way back in January. It may not be that much on the face of it, but it would be a start.

And since Thanksgiving is all about gratitude, here’s a song by the same name by the incomparable, Earth, Wind, and Fire:

So what else is happening today?

The topic of his recent speech? How the Republicans will be GRINCHES if they do not pass pass the extension for Payroll Tax and Unemployment Benefits. This was one of the issues the Super Committee was supposed to undertake before their Super Fail.

Really? Yep, really – he said it:

Click here to view the embedded video.

Okay, maybe not just like that, but pretty close:

[snip] “Tell them, ‘Don’t be a Grinch.’ Don’t vote to raise taxes on working Americans during the holidays. Put the country before party. Put money back in the pockets of working families. Do your job. Pass our jobs bill,” Obama told the crowd of roughly 1,300.

“If Congress refuses to act, then middle-class families are going to get hit with a tax increase at the worst time. … We can’t let that happen. Not right now. It would be bad for the economy. It would be bad for employment,” Obama said. “Are they really willing to break their oath to never raise taxes, and raise taxes on the middle class just to play politics? [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

This from the most partisan president I can recall in years. And never mind that the Senate refuses to even consider the 22 bills the House has sent on jobs, or that it hasn’t bothered to pass a budget in years. It is ALL the Republicans fault. Even though the Democrats control two houses. And never mind that Obama was AWOL from the whole proceedings.

As I understand it, one of the biggest sticking points for the Republicans was the increase in taxes the Democrats kept pushing, as opposed to closing loopholes, which is what the Republicans were pushing (as in, you don’t raise taxes during a recession). So, first it is the Republicans’ fault for not going along with tax hikes, and now it is their fault that tax extensions weren’t passed.

Oh, and never mind that Obama blew off everything his OWN committee suggested. Talk about a monumental waste of time. Hmmm – I wonder, did we pay those people to do that? Because if we did, that, too, was a waste of money. Even when Sen. Toomey presented some of the committe’s recommendations, the Democrats would hear nothing of it.

But the Republicans are the obstructionists. Got it? That is the message. And it was intended all along. This whole Super Committee was destined to fail from the get-go, to achieve exactly what Obama wanted: Talking Points.

I think Obama has elevated talking out of both sides of one’s mouth to an art form.

Meanwhile, Obama is all to ready to cut the budget in one area: Defense. Despite the plea from pleas from Defense Secretary Panetta that Obama not do this, Obama has threatened to veto any attempt to remove that trigger. Yes, Defense Secretary Panetta said to cut the budget by as much as is planned would have devastating consequences to our National Security:

[snip] During the months the super committee deliberated, Panetta consistently urged lawmakers not to reduce national security spending beyond the more than $450 billion already approved by Congress in August.

Panetta said he had made clear the Pentagon had a responsibility to help the United States get its fiscal house in order, but added his primary responsibility as secretary of defense “is to protect the security of the nation.”

The Pentagon’s ability to provide benefits and support for U.S. troops and their families also would be jeopardized if the automatic cuts are allowed to go into effect, he said.

“Our troops deserve better, and our nation demands better,” Panetta said.[snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

And to that, Obama essentially says, tough – blame it on the Republicans. It’s all their fault. Everything is all their fault. The Democrats are completely blameless in this discussion.

Got it. That’s the campaign in a nutshell. Evidently, we are supposed to have collective amnesia that the Democrats controlled all three houses for the first two years of Obama’s tenure. But hey – playing dirty is what Obama has done throughout his entire political career, from the very first run getting everyone thrown off the ballot to having divorce records of his opponents – Republican AND Democratic – revealed, to race baiting from early on in his career to this day. Check out this interesting video, which includes Obama from 1995. It is very telling indeed:

Click here to view the embedded video.

WOW. Just wow. Oh, and while it would take too long to go through everything he said, but unemployment in the African American community has increased to its highest level in 27 years since Obama too office. Just sayin’.

But that’s how he rolls. And I’m ready for him to roll on outta the White House. How about you?

As an aside, ACORN has also been involved in the OWS movement. I am sure that is a HUGE surprise – not. And I am sure you would not be surprised to learn they were also shredding documents as fast as they could to cover that involvement up. But I digress.

Yes, former Rep. Davis admitted that the Democrats are essentially using the talking point that Voter ID disenfranchises voters because it would impede their ability to cheat (WordPress won’t allow the embed code, but here is the link to watch the video):

Top Democrats are aggressively pushing the claim that Republicans’ worries about voter fraud are an insincere excuse to suppress voting by African-Americans and Hispanics.

But former Democratic Rep. Artur Davis told The Daily Caller that anti-fraud measures are needed to protect African-Americans from corrupt political bosses — many of them African-Americans themselves — who run Democratic Party machines in the South.

[snip]

“What I have seen in my state, in my region, is the the most aggressive practitioners of voter-fraud are local machines who are tied lock, stock and barrel to the special interests in their communities — the landfills, the casino operators — and they’re cooking the [ballot] boxes on election day, they’re manufacturing absentee ballots, they’re voting [in the names of] people named Donald Duck, because they want to control politics and thwart progress,” he told TheDC.

“People who are progressives have no business defending those individuals.” (Click here to read the rest.)

While I was fairly certain this was going on, especially after the 2008 election, for a former Democratic Representative to confirm it is startling.

And this is especially poignant here in South Carolina, where the Democrats have been screaming bloody murder about the new Voter ID law set to go into effect in January. An anchor at MSNBC claimed it would be “electoral genocide” that would disenfranchise blacks in the state. Even considering the source, that is dangerous rhetoric indeed.

ABC News reported that Voter ID lawwill be taking place in a number of other states in 2012, as well, tripling the number of states requiring a photo ID. But even in this article, the way information is presented seems a bit skewed:

[snip]A report from New York University’s Brennan Center for Justice showed that in Kansas, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Wisconsin, all of which will enact stricter photo ID laws before the 2012 election, 3.2 million potential voters do not have the state-issued ID that will be required for them to vote.

Lawrence Norden, an author of the Brennan Center report, said he “absolutely” thinks the new ID laws could impact the outcome of the election.

“We’re not claiming that all 3.2 million, in the case of voter ID laws, are actually not going to be able to vote,” Norden said. “But what we are saying is, it’s going to make it harder for those people to vote and some portion of them are probably not going to be able to vote even though they want to.” [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Uh huh. No, they aren’t claiming that all those folks won’t get a chance to vote, but they sure do like to IMPLY it, seems to me.

Well, at least here in South Cackalacki, people who could not get to the DMV for lack of a vehicle or ride, people were given the option of getting a ride to the DMV FREE OF CHARGE. Want to know how many residents took the State up on its offer? You might want to sit down for this, if you aren’t already: 25. Yes, twenty-five people used this free service.

Here’s the thing: former Representative Davis has pulled back the curtain on the real reason there is such a brouhaha being waged by the Democrats over voter ID. It will impede Democratic Party bosses from committing rampant voter fraud, up to FIFTY PERCENT in some locales. He is absolutely right when he makes this claim:

“People who are progressives have no business defending those individuals.”

Amen to that. I would extend that to anyone who cares about our democracy, our right to our own vote, our right to have elections that are fair and free of election shenanigans, have no business defending these individuals, or practices. Uh, yeah – not to mention that voter fraud is also ILLEGAL.

And I would take that one step further – it is immoral, and unethical, to commit voter fraud. This “Win At All Cost” mentality that has infected this nation is a blight, and must be stopped. We should guard closely, jealously, the authentic vote, otherwise our entire system is a sham. Never again should we have to question the authenticity of a vote, an election, or even a caucus, as a result of rampant fraud.

But even more, this faux outrage over the alleged disenfranchisement of blacks (and Hispanics) when this sort of fraud is being perpetrated by those claiming disenfranchisement. is insulting in the extreme, and insulting to the hard work of those who fought so hard to get their community the right to vote.

It reminds me of this woman, a Civil Rights Worker, who marched with Martin Luther King, Jr., and her “grief” at witnessing disenfranchisement at the hands of young black men in Indiana (4:00 mark to 6:05 mark):

Click here to view the embedded video.

It causes me grief, too, for her community, and for all Americans. As the election season heats up, every single one of us, regardless of race or ethnicity, should be able to count on our vote counting for something. Thank heavens for the courage of people like Artur Davis, for speaking truth to power, and outing the Democrats for their disingenuous claim over Voter ID. It is our right to have free, and fair elections, and anyone found to be committing voter fraud should have the full force of the law brought down upon them.

The right to vote, and the right to an honest outcome, was the American Way. And it needs to be again as we embark upon another election season. Anything less is unacceptable.

What do you think?

And just who are these Democratic pollsters, one might ask? Well, Patrick Caddell, for one, and Douglas Schoen for another. Now, I admit right up front that I am a bit partial to Patrick Caddell. Not only is he from a city in SC, close to the NC border, but he tells it like it is whether it is beneficial to his party or not, a rare find in today’s political exceedingly partisan world. Schoen is no slouch in that department, either, and I respect him as well.

And now to their headline-grabbing claim:

[snip] “He should abandon his candidacy for re-election in favor of a clear alternative, one capable not only of saving the Democratic Party, but more important, of governing effectively and in a way that preserves the most important of the president’s accomplishments. He should step aside for the one candidate who would become, by acclamation, the nominee of the Democratic Party: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton,”Caddell and Schoen wrote.

[...]

“One year ago in these pages, we warned that if President Obama continued down his overly partisan road, the nation would be ‘guaranteed two years of political gridlock at a time when we can ill afford it.’ The result has been exactly as we predicted: stalemate in Washington, fights over the debt ceiling, an inability to tackle the debt and deficit, and paralysis exacerbating market turmoil and economic decline,” they write.

Caddell and Schoen say they write as “patriots and Democrats” who are concerned for their country, and they do not expect to play a direct role in any possible Clinton campaign. (Click here to read the rest.)

Holy moley – see what I mean? Telling it like it is. I happen to think they are 100% correct in their conclusion. Obama is the most partisan president I have ever seen, and his use of the Super Committee as a campaign talking point makes the case. As I have stated previously, this is NOT the time to play party politics. This is the time to work to save the nation, and we all have to work together toward that end. Yet, Obama refuses to accept any recommendations of the very committee he put together (Simpson Bowles), and the Democrats refuse to hear plans based on those recommendations because they come from – the horror – a Republican (Toomey). Sheer insanity.

One interesting twist to this drumbeat for Obama to step down from a re-election campaign is who the pollsters mentioned above think should take his place: Hillary Rodham Clinton. From their piece in the Wall Street Journal:

[snip] He should abandon his candidacy for re-election in favor of a clear alternative, one capable not only of saving the Democratic Party, but more important, of governing effectively and in a way that preserves the most important of the president’s accomplishments. He should step aside for the one candidate who would become, by acclamation, the nominee of the Democratic Party: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Never before has there been such an obvious potential successor—one who has been a loyal and effective member of the president’s administration, who has the stature to take on the office, and who is the only leader capable of uniting the country around a bipartisan economic and foreign policy.[snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Interesting, no? But in the same breath as why she should be the nominee, is why many of us would have problems with this successor: Clinton is a loyal member of the Obama Administration. Uh, yeah…

Now, most of us also know that Clinton should have been, and would have been, the 2008 Nominee had the DNC and Obama Campaign not engaged in a tremendous amount of well-documented shenanigans, some illegal, and others unethical and immoral. Not only did the DNC violate the law in 13 states (see jbjd’s excellent report on this), but their machinations 5/31/08 to steal lawfully cast votes from Clinton to give to Obama was the last straw for many dyed in the wool, yellow dog Democrats, like myself.

But that was then, and this is now. Though I have to say, I do like the idea of not having to hear Obama continue his Us/Them attacks for another freakin’ year. I would be MORE than happy for him to just throw in the towel now. And he can take Michelle “I Pay $15,000 A Day For Makeup” Obama with him. Oh, wait – SHE doesn’t pay it. WE pay it. And that is a helluva lotta coin for MAKEUP. IMHO, that is.

So, yeah – I agree with Caddell and Schoen that it’s time for them to take their leave from DC. How about you?

But the numbers don’t stop there. Here’s another number for you: 11/3/10. That would be the date the Obama Administration’s DOE apparently wanted Solyndra to wait for its announcement of layoffs. Yep, they wanted to hold that little piece of information until after the elections to help skew them. Nice. Another date to bear in mind is: 11/17/11. That is when Secretary Chu will be facing the music in front of the Senate about all of the Solyndra machinations.

Speaking of Solyndra, fully 80% of the Stimulus money for Green Energy went to Obama donors. That’s EIGHTY percent of our dollars. Here are just a few examples from “Throw Them All Out,” Schweizer’s new book: Bright Source Venture Partner raked in a $1.6 Billion loan, and its Senior Adviser is Robert Kennedy, Jr. Obama’s current Deputy Assistant, Michael Froman, bundled $200,000 – 500,000, and for his efforts, not only did he get a job in the White House, but the company for which he had been COO received a tidy loan in the amount of $737 million dollars. Then there is Nancy-Ann DeParle, White House Deputy Chief of Staff. Before her WH job, she was the Managing Director of CCMP Capital, and the company for which she was a majority owner, Granite Reliable Wind Generation, received $168.9 million in our tax dollars. Yep, Obama’s bundlers have made out like bandits with our money.

Of course, these little paybacks with our money fly in the face of yet another promise broken by Obama, also highlighted in the book, “Throw Them All Out”:

When President-elect Obama came to Washington in late 2008, he was outspoken about the need for an economic stimulus to revive a struggling economy… After he was sworn in as president, he proclaimed that taxpayer money would assuredly not be doled out to political friends…

…But an examination of grants and guaranteed loans offered by just one stimulus program run by the Department of Energy, for alternative-energy projects, is stunning. The so-called 1705 Loan Guarantee Program and the 1603 Grant Program channeled billions of dollars to all sorts of energy companies…

…In the 1705 government-backed-loan program [alone], for example, $16.4 billion of the $20.5 billion in loans granted as of Sept. 15 went to companies either run by or primarily owned by Obama financial backers—individuals who were bundlers, members of Obama’s National Finance Committee, or large donors to the Democratic Party. The grant and guaranteed-loan recipients were early backers of Obama before he ran for president, people who continued to give to his campaigns and exclusively to the Democratic Party in the years leading up to 2008. Their political largesse is probably the best investment they ever made in alternative energy. It brought them returns many times over.

Uh huh. That seems to be all Obama has done – reward his donors with our money, and with cushy White House jobs to boot. It’s a Numbers Game, alright, but with Obama at the helm, the numbers just ain’t adding up.

Check that – the numbers have added up, but way too much. In just three short years, $4 trillion in debt has been accrued under Obama’s “leadership.” Those are numbers, and leadership, we can do without…

Peter Schweizer has written a new book, Throw Them All Out: How Politicians and Their Friends Get Rich Off Insider Stock Tips, Land Deals, and Cronyism That Would Send the Rest of Us to Prison (available soon through Amazon). In it, he details some mighty interesting observations about how much Obama’s cronies have benefited since he took office. The Daily Beast had an excerpt, some of which I will share with you here, beginning with this:

When President-elect Obama came to Washington in late 2008, he was outspoken about the need for an economic stimulus to revive a struggling economy. He wanted billions of dollars spent on “shovel-ready projects” to build roads; billions more for developing alternative-energy projects; and additional billions for expanding broadband Internet access and creating a “smart grid” for energy consumption. After he was sworn in as president, he proclaimed that taxpayer money would assuredly not be doled out to political friends. “Decisions about how Recovery Act dollars are spent will be based on the merits,” he said, referring to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. “Let me repeat that: decisions about how recovery money will be spent will be based on the merits. They will not be made as a way of doing favors for lobbyists.”

Really?

[...]

Nevertheless, a large proportion of the winners were companies with Obama-campaign connections. Indeed, at least 10 members of Obama’s finance committee and more than a dozen of his campaign bundlers were big winners in getting your money. At the same time, several politicians who supported Obama managed to strike gold by launching alternative-energy companies and obtaining grants. How much did they get? According to the Department of Energy’s own numbers … a lot. In the 1705 government-backed-loan program, for example, $16.4 billion of the $20.5 billion in loans granted as of Sept. 15 went to companies either run by or primarily owned by Obama financial backers—individuals who were bundlers, members of Obama’s National Finance Committee, or large donors to the Democratic Party. The grant and guaranteed-loan recipients were early backers of Obama before he ran for president, people who continued to give to his campaigns and exclusively to the Democratic Party in the years leading up to 2008. Their political largesse is probably the best investment they ever made in alternative energy. It brought them returns many times over.

Shocking, isn’t it? I know none of us should really be surprised. There is so, so much more, even to this excerpt, which I encourage you to read in its entirety.

But I have just one more, pertinent to this whole issue of “green” technology companies: [snip]

One might think that the Department of Energy’s Loan Program Office, which has doled out billions in taxpayer-guaranteed loans, would be directed by a dedicated scientist or engineer. Or perhaps a civil servant with considerable financial knowledge. Instead, the department’s loan and grant programs are run by partisans who were responsible for raising money during the Obama campaign from the same people who later came to seek government loans and grants. Steve Spinner, who served on the Obama campaign’s National Finance Committee and was a bundler himself, was the campaign’s “liaison to Silicon Valley.” His responsibilities included fundraising, recruiting more bundlers, and managing Obama’s relationship with a cadre of very wealthy donors. After the 2008 campaign, Spinner joined the Department of Energy as the “chief strategic operations officer” for the loan programs. A lot of the money he helped hand out went to that same cadre of wealthy Silicon Valley campaign donors. He also sat on the White House Business Council, which is made up of Obama-supporting corporate executives.

Again, Mr. Schweizer’s book will be out Nov. 15, from Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. It would make a great stocking stuffer.

But it is not just green companies which are benefiting from Obama’s largesse at our expense. Over the weekend, news broke that the Obama Administration has spent $443 MILLION of our taxpaying dollars to purchase a smallpox vaccine. You read that right – SMALLPOX vaccine. If you are thinking, “I thought that had been essentially eradicated,” you would be right. What is worse, though, is that this particular vaccine has not even been tested yet, and might not even work. Why, then would our government be spending so much money? You know the answer. From the LA Times:

[snip] Senior officials have taken unusual steps to secure the contract for New York-based Siga Technologies Inc., whose controlling shareholder is billionaire Ronald O. Perelman, one of the world’s richest men and a longtime Democratic Party donor.

When Siga complained that contracting specialists at the Department of Health and Human Services were resisting the company’s financial demands, senior officials replaced the government’s lead negotiator for the deal, interviews and documents show.

But wait – it gets worse:

When Siga was in danger of losing its grip on the contract a year ago, the officials blocked other firms from competing.

That’s right – it was a NO-BID contract:

Siga was awarded the final contract in May through a “sole-source” procurement in which it was the only company asked to submit a proposal. The contract calls for Siga to deliver 1.7 million doses of the drug for the nation’s biodefense stockpile. The price of approximately $255 per dose is well above what the government’s specialists had earlier said was reasonable, according to internal documents and interviews. (Click here to read the rest of this excellent article.)

Are you freakin’ kidding me?? Never mind that the nation already has enough smallpox vaccine to vaccinate every man, women, and child should it ever rear its ugly head again ($1 billion worth, according to the LA Times article), but they don’t even know if this new one even WORKS!

Wow. So glad Obama feels free to let our money run through his fingers like water. I am glad, though, that there are intrepid reporters out there ferreting out this information, from Peter Schweizer to David Willman at the LA Times, at least some people will not let this go under the radar. Nor should it – this is OUR money, and our nation is in a terrible economic fix. For Obama to act as if there is an unending pot of our money to pay back his donors is simply wrong, and must be stopped.

And these companies can start paying us back any ol’ time. What do you think?

According to the authors at PJ Media, this list has been checked and verified, and it will be updated as time goes on:

[snip]All entries on this list are real and verified. Below each entry you will find a series of source links documenting the support for OWS. We have striven in almost all cases to reference either first-hand statements by the groups or individuals themselves, hosted on their own Web sites; or videos of the people in question voicing their support for OWS at various Occupations; or news reports from reliable mainstream networks; or articles by publications or organizations sympathetic to the Occupy movement; or indisputable evidence, whatever the source. As a result, it cannot be claimed that these statements of support were made up or distorted by detractors of the Occupy movement.[snip]

Okay, ready? Here we go:

The 99%: Official list of Occupy Wall Street’s supporters, sponsors and sympathizers

	Communist Party USA Sources: Communist Party USA, OWS speech, The Daily Caller
	American Nazi Party Sources: Media Matters, American Nazi Party, White Honor, Sunshine State News
	Ayatollah Khamenei, Supreme Leader of Iran Sources: The Guardian, Tehran Times, CBS News
	Barack Obama Sources: ABC News, CBS News, ForexTV, NBC New York
	The government of North Korea Sources: Korean Central News Agency (North Korean state-controlled news outlet), The Marxist-Leninist, Wall Street Journal, Times of India
	Louis Farrakhan, Nation of Islam Sources: video statement (starting at 8:28), Black in America, Weasel Zippers, Philadelphia Weekly
	Revolutionary Communist Party Sources: Revolutionary Communist Party, Revolution newspaper, in-person appearance
	Joe Biden Sources: Talking Points Memo, video statement, Mother Jones
	Hugo Chavez Sources: Mother Jones, Reuters, Examiner.com
	Revolutionary Guards of Iran Sources: Associated Press, FARS News Agency, UPI
	Black Panthers (original) Sources: in-person appearance, Occupy Oakland, Oakland Tribune
	Socialist Party USA Sources: Socialist Party USA, IndyMedia, The Daily Caller
	CAIR Sources: in-person appearance, Washington Post, CAIR, CAIR New York
	Nancy Pelosi Sources: Talking Points Memo, video statement, ABC News, The Weekly Standard
	Communist Party of China Sources: People’s Daily (Communist Party organ), Reuters, chinataiwan.org, The Telegraph
	Hezbollah Sources: almoqawama.org, almoqawama.org (2), almoqawama.org (3), wikipedia

Again, this is not the entire list – please do go check out the entire thing from top to bottom. It is really eye-opening.

And now, how about the 1%ers? Well, just one of the 1%ers for the moment. That lucky winner is former NJ governor, Jon Corzine. You may recall Jon Corzine went on to work for a Wall St. firm after his stint as governor until Chris Christie booted him out of the Governor’s Mansion. Seems Governor Corzine’s firm has gone belly-up. Damn economy.

Oh, but don’t cry for Governor Corzine, oh, no. He received a $12.1 million “golden parachute” from his dying firm. Still, good thing Corzine hosted that $38,500 a head fundraiser for another 1%er, Barack Obama, back in April when he was still flush with cash. Ahem. But now you know why Obama refers to him as a “great friend” and “ally,” right?

One little thing about that whole “golden parachute” business. You may also recall that Obama slammed John McCain with an attack ad as a result of McCain’s friendship with Carly Fiorina. See, she, too, received a “golden parachute,” and Obama took umbrage with that. I seriously doubt he’s going to talk smack about his “great friend” – he wants more of his money, I am sure! Check out the article – it’s something, especially the piece with Obama in his own words about Corzine.

It’s an Open Thread – your turn!

Wow. Don’t you just love it when the president is all kumbaya and stuff? Doesn’t it make you all warm and fuzzy when he is so bipartisan? Uh huh, sure. Here he is, in his own words (or whoever writes this crap and slaps it on TOTUS):

President Obama launched a three-day bus tour through two states critical to his 2012 reelection campaign by kicking Senate Republicans for blocking his jobs bill, saying he is breaking up his plan because “maybe they just couldn’t understand the whole thing at once.”

Right. That’s the problem with it. Not that the plan sucks, or is yet another stimulus bill, like the other one worked Oh-so-well.

He wasn’t done yet:

“I need you to give Congress a piece of your mind,” Obama said. “These members of Congress work for you. If they’re not delivering, it’s time to let them know.”

Obama also discussed the Republican jobs plan, called the “Real American Jobs Act,” saying it “boils down to a few basic ideas: they want to gut regulations, they want to let Wall Street do whatever it wants, they want to drill more and they want to repeal healthcare reform.”

The president said that the Republican plan means “dirtier air, dirtier water, less people with health insurance.”

“So far, at least, I feel better about my plan,” Obama said. (Click here to read the rest.)

Here’s the thing, Mr. Obama. The Senate is actually controlled by the Democrats (as one astute commenter noted). You are aware of that, aren’t you? If not, maybe you shouldn’t be casting stones about who isn’t the brightest bulb in the pack. Just sayin’.

In another classic Obama flip flop, the president is now claiming he is all for the long term care provision in his terrible Obamacare law (pushed through solely by Democrats, just to remind everyone, against the wishes of the vast majority of Americans – and he is saying the Republicans don’t get it? Gotcha). Yes, just last week, his Administration acknowledged this about the “CLASS Act”:

The administration announced late Friday it did not see a way to make the long-term care CLASS Act, which was crafted by the late Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.), pay for itself. But perhaps even more damning is how the White House mishandled the controversy; consumer advocates accused the administration of being disingenuous and gutless.

But that was then, this is now:

“We do not support repeal,” said White House spokesman Nick Papas. “Repealing the CLASS Act isn’t necessary or productive. What we should be doing is working together to address the long-term care challenges we face in this country.”

Huh? Which one is it, exactly? Repeal it or leave it?

Senator John Thune had this to say about the initial admission that this was a terribly flawed plan:

After ignoring repeated warnings from my Republican colleagues and me about the fiscal solvency of the CLASS Act, the Obama Administration jammed Obamacare through Congress in order to score a political win. Now, over a year later, the administration is finally admitting the CLASS Act entitlement is unsustainable and cannot be implemented. Simply setting aside the program for the near-term is not enough. Repeal is the only solution to ensuring American taxpayers will not be on the hook in the future for this disastrous entitlement.

And before Obama opened his big mouth to say he DOESN’T want the CLASS Act removed, there was this acknowledgment from the White House (according to The New Republic) about the repeal:

It’s worth noting that, behind the scenes, the administration was never wild about CLASS. Internally several officials argued against including it, precisely because they were worried about the finances and sustainability. But some supported it, partly because the case for action was so unambiguous. Harold Pollack, the University of Chicago professor and regular TNR contributor, put it well when he said “CLASS seeks to address a huge need – helping disabled men and women live with dignity in their own homes.”

And skeptical administration officials took solace in the fact that, thanks to a provision inserted by Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, the Secretary of Health and Human Services had discretion to modify the program if, upon further consideration, it appeared unlikely to remain stable. It’s precisely that authority that HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius exercised last week. (For more details on the administration’s thinking, see Sarah Kliff‘s account in the Washington Post.)

I see. They didn’t really like it, but figured they would shove it through anyway, and muck around with it if they took too much heat for the expense of it. I see. Oh, wait – no, I don’t. Again, I guess this is what happens when they shove a law down our throats without truly considering the implications or the real costs.

As for where Obama stands now, which one is it? Obama wants it, he doesn’t want it, he wants it, he doesn’t want it. I guess it depends on the day and which way the wind is blowing, or how many petals the daisy has.

What I do know is that people in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones, and that is precisely what Obama is doing. He can’t even decide within a couple of days where he and his Administration stand, and he is attacking other people’s intelligence? Please.

I guess I should not be surprised at Obama’s massive flip flop on this. The initial reaction about how crappy an expensive a plan this was was probably one of the more honest things that came out of this White House, so naturally, Obama had to try and walk it back. Ahem. Thank heavens for TOTUS, huh?

And speaking of TOTUS, isn’t it great that Obama had some spares since the truck full of the podiums and stuff got stolen in Virginia? I am not kidding, and no, this isn’t from The Onion. They really did get stolen. It does beg the question, though – just how many of these things does this guy have? The truck the thieves made off with had about $200,000 worth of equipment in it. Just remember, folks, all these TOTI (I assume that is the proper Latin plural form) are YOUR tax dollars at work. He had MORE than the $200,000 worth of audio and TOTUS equipment in that truck. Good grief, how many does he really need?? And, how the hell was the truck stolen in the first place???

One thing all of this highlights is just how free and easy Obama is with OUR money. Frankly, I am pretty sick of it, and pretty sick of the disparaging remarks directed at anyone who doesn’t toe the Obama line. That’s no way to lead, and no way to govern. Enough of the badgering and bad mouthing, Mr. President. Try a little civility and honesty for a change. I suppose I can count on that happening about the same time I get my unicorn, right?

They are creating an opportunity for people who are not part of the establishment of either party to get on the presidential ballot. While I cannot profess to know much about the organization behind this movement, the idea itself is an intriguing one:

For the 68 percent of Americans who said in an ABC/Washington Post poll released Wednesday that they had a negative view of government, the possibility of having a presidential candidate free of the currently gridlocked political parties could be just a few clicks away.

The nonpartisan, nonprofit Americans Elect has collected petition signatures – millions of them [1.6 million in California alone] – in all 50 states to put a “candidate of the people” on the ballot in November 2012. This candidate would be selected through an online draft and nomination process instead of through the traditional Republican and Democratic parties primary and caucus schedule.

“We are creating competition for all these folks who are politically homeless,” said Elliot Ackerman, Americans Elect’s chief operating officer. “A lot of the folks that engage with us are socially liberal and fiscally conservative, and those people don’t really have a voice in our political system right now. What we’re doing is really creating an incentive structure so that those individuals will be competed for.”

I understand the sentiment. I too have felt politically homeless since I witnessed the shenanigans of Democrats in the 2008 primaries. Whether one is in favor of Hillary Clinton or not, for her to have achieved a virtual tie in delegates, lead in the popular vote and still be cast aside at the Convention as the clear loser was the final disgrace in a contest fraught with sexist hazing and character assassination. Her opponent, however, received rose petals and caresses from the media daily, coupled with a startling lack of examination for his pie-in-the-sky – and often contradictory — campaign promises.

But Hillary’s treatment – and the disgraceful treatment her 18,000,000 supporters received at the hands of the mainstream media had another effect on the populace. We saw that the media, in the name of anointing their favored candidate was not above calling millions of Americans racist to threaten and keep them in line. Not to mention fellow Democrats calling us every dirty name in the book for supporting the “ho” and not the “bro.”

When we were called “low information, dried-up Archie Bunkers” by pundits and party powerful alike, many of us for the first time stepped back from the party we stood with for many years, ostracized and rejected. For the first time we felt what it must be like to be a conservative in this country, insulted regularly by the bulk of mainstream media and by many elitists in the DNC. As someone who made hundreds of GOTV calls around the country, I found that the “backwoods hillbilly” meme the media tried to sell was a lie. The mainstream media continues to hemorrhage credibility. There are many like me, waking up from a kool-aid stupor, no longer willing to accept demagogic ranting of the left or right at face value when its sole purpose is to fill Party coffers.

Continued gridlock in Washington, the refusal of either side to let productive legislation be crafted if it is contrary to the interests of politicians’ powerful backers, or partisan jockeying to prevent the other side from getting credit for a win has rendered us, for all intents and purposes, without advocates in Washington – regardless of where we fit in the progressive/conservative spectrum.

So far, the group has secured a spot on the ballot in six states, has collected the required number of signatures in four states and has about half the necessary signatures in four other states. Americans Elect spokeswoman Ileana Wachtel said the group would begin the petition process in seven more states within the week.

[snip]

The eventual nominee can be a member of either party or an independent but must chose a vice presidential running mate who is from a different party. Ackerman said he expected many of the losing GOP presidential candidates to move into the Americans Elect primary process after Republicans chose their nominee.

[snip]

“In the primaries you have to go far to the right or far to the left and tickets are having a hard time tacking back to the center,” he said. “Americans Elect allows a ticket to run authentically without having to go to extremes in the primary.”

A coalition ticket is an inviting notion although I cannot imagine who would be willing to abandon their own party in order to couple with the ‘enemy.’ A Sarah Palin perhaps…

While I am skeptical an idea like this can take hold to upend those currently in control of our two parties, its very existence, along with the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street should really give those in power something to worry about. Democrats have mistakenly tried to co-opt the current disorganized (and sometimes confused) OWS protests as their own version of the more conservative Tea Party movement, yet increasingly OWS is making clear they feel President Obama has sold out to Wall Street. Republicans also worked to co-opt the Tea Party movement, with mixed results.

Congressional approval is at an all time low. President Obama’s poll numbers continue to tank. Polling also reports that Mitt Romney, Herman Cain, even the currently downward trending Gov. Rick Perry could all beat Obama next year. Even still, Republicans are not all that enthusiastic about their choices. Neither party is anxious to undo the Gordian knot of special (read big money) interests that actually do the governing in this country. The phrase “politically homeless” rings as true as it is painful. To feel like it is not possible to trust the majority of our elected officials to do the right thing leaves many feeling bound and gagged. Americans are inching closer to that pitchfork moment.

Is the Americans Elect concept a good one? If so, who would you want on such a coalition ticket? And do you think there is any hope we can get ever move past the current plutocracy? We don’t want to split the vote and keep an ineffectual incumbent in office, but in the long run would enough dissatisfaction expressed through these myriad movements around the country actually lead to reform of our system?

Only when the failing crop currently in office know they are about to lose their jobs do we have a prayer that they will finally start to do their jobs. And yet, if they are fired, as long as they can count on a ritzy “K” street paycheck or some cushy commentating gig on CNN – what muscles can we flex to keep them honest? The teat is still flowing…

And it is pissing me off. Seriously. I don’t know if it is the off-the-chart pain levels I am enduring, or what, but it is pissing me off that – all of a sudden – the people who were in a position to make clear how inept Obama was, is, and would be, failed to convey that message adequately. No, not Cheney – I mean the media and Democratic political pundits who should have known, and most likely did know, better, but went-along-to-get-along so they could keep blathering on CNN, MSNBC, or whatever channel would have them. They rode this wave of a created back story of who Obama was, one that did not match the REALITY of who he was, by his handlers and string pullers rather than DOING THEIR JOBS, and now, NOW, they are coming out saying, “oh, yeah – Hillary would have been SO much better” after calling her, her husband, and her supporters a bunch of racist gun and Bible toters who could barely get dressed in the morning. All I can say is, BITE ME.

Ahem. Sorry. I have no patience or tolerance for this crap right now. Clinton would have been the best, they knew it then, but sexism trumps all any day of the week, and they sure as hell were not going to support any old (!) woman over a biracial freshman senator. Nosirree bob. Even as I write that one sentence – a freshman senator beating out a woman who had a vastly superior resume was treated like crap by these people in her own party AND in the media. And now they come crying saying it should have been her? Please. They CHOSE him over her. (Photo credit: blackagendareport.com)

It is not like the information wasn’t out there for all the world to see. They chose to ignore it, they chose to cover it up (thank you, JournoListers and the LA Times to name just two more), they failed to vet, they failed to fact check, they failed to keep their emotions in check, they failed, failed, failed at their jobs, and now we are all paying the price. For instance, the NY Times, and other outlets, repeatedly have pushed the meme that Obama is even keeled, even tempered, and unshakeable. It is a pile of horse manure. They have just ignored his snippyness, arrogance, and short fuse because it did not fit the image they – the media – were crafting for him (no doubt at the insistance of the Davids, Plouffe and Axelrod).

The truth was out there, though. Consider the opening paragraphs of this story from a reporter who liked Obama, but was professional enough to be honest about him in his extensive piece, “Barack Obama And Me“:

It’s not quite eight in the morning and Barack Obama is on the phone screaming at me. He liked the story I wrote about him a couple weeks ago, but not this garbage.

Months earlier, a reporter friend told me she overheard Obama call me an asshole at a political fund-raiser. Now here he is blasting me from hundreds of miles away for a story that just went online but hasn’t yet hit local newsstands.

It’s the first time I ever heard him yell, and I’m trembling as I set down the phone. I sit frozen at my desk for several minutes, stunned.

This is an extensive, in-depth piece, which goes into Emil Jones, Obama’s “kingmaker,” and so, so much more. But one other piece I cannot resist putting in since I have mentioned is his fake Southern accent (grrrrr):

My view of Obama then wasn’t all that different from the image he projects now. He was smart, confident, charismatic and liberal. One thing I can say is, I never heard him launch into the preacher-man voice he now employs during speeches. He sounded vanilla, and activists in his mostly black district often chided him for it.

My point, and as Ellen Degeneres would say, I do have one, is that the information was there, from this author, to John Kass, Lynn Sweet, and others in the Chicago area, but the MSM refused to upset the apple cart, supporting the myth of Obama, not the fact of Obama. All I can say is, thanks shitloads for that, you worthless hacks. Look where your complete and utter lack of professionalism got us. Told you I have no patience for this right now.

And for the love of all that is holy, stop pushing Hillary NOW. The time is long past,t he damage done. She is not going to run. She has made that abundantly clear. Party before country, she will not go up against her boss, and even if she did, it is too late. She has already been touting his policies all over the globe. If she now claimed she didn’t support any of them, but hawked them anyway, well, do I really need to finish that thought for you? I didn’t think so.

So, yeah – I have had it with the handwringing, coulda, woulda, shoulda crapola the MSM, and some political pundits, are now peddling. They should have done their homework before the last election instead of crying about it now that the damage is done. They have no one to blame but themselves, and believe you me, they deserve all the blame they get.

Here’s a thought – maybe it isn’t just those in DC who deserve to be liberated from their political positions, but the vast majority of “journalists,” too. I am sure there are a whole bunch of real journalists out there looking for jobs. Wouldn’t that be a refreshing change? Journalists who did the groundwork, did their HOMEwork, and didn’t insert their opinion into their stories? Oh, yes – now THAT is some “change” for which we can “hope.”

Until then, just spare me the current MSM/pundit outrage at what should have been. Clinton was the best choice, bar none, and you backed the wrong horse in that race for the most superficial of reasons. Admit that, acknowledge that, and for heaven’s sake, DO YOUR JOBS already. And stop pissing me off.

How about you?