Lady de Rothschild has continued to stay in the political landscape, and has the following post in The Daily Beast. What a post it is:

Obama’s shortcomings were eminently foreseeable, says one of McCain’s most prominent Democratic backers. Lynn Forester de Rothschild on how the president’s fake bipartisanship could never hide his true leftist agenda.

The failures of the Obama presidency were clearly telegraphed by the Obama candidacy. I hate to say it, but I told you so.

Back in September 2008, as a lifelong Democratic Party loyalist and activist, I backed John McCain; I told The New York Times, “I love my country more than my party.” Supporting a Republican was the last thing I expected to be doing in the fall of 2008. But I knew it was my only choice, given the decision by the Democratic Party establishment to reject 18 million voters in favor of the inexperienced and ideological Barack Obama.

His cynical use of centrist language as a tool to get elected does not change the fact of his true objectives for America.

After watching President Obama in office for more than a year, it is clear to me that, during the campaign, we already knew what kind of president he would become.

Yes, most of us DID know what kind of president Obama would become, hence why so many of us supported Clinton:

The health-care summit vividly demonstrated Mr. Obama’s fake bipartisanship. When he was a candidate, we celebrated when he said, “We are not red or blue states. We are the United States of America.” But candidate Obama had no record of bipartisan behavior. Ironically, the one time that Obama entered into a bipartisan effort was with, of all people, John McCain. He reached across the aisle to draft ethics reform legislation with Senator McCain. But when Obama returned to the Democratic establishment with a bill that did not meet their favor, he backed away fast. It was candidate McCain who had worked productively and regularly with Democrats, like with Russ Feingold on campaign-finance reform and Ted Kennedy on immigration. The record told me more than the rhetoric about which candidate would honestly respect the other side and reach across the aisle to find the best solutions for America.

Perhaps the biggest fabrication of the Obama candidacy was his claim of being a centrist. Sure, he made promises during the campaign that pleased moderates. He promised “the elimination of capital gains taxes for small business,” a $3,000 refundable tax credit to existing businesses for every additional employee hired through 2010, removal of penalties for early withdrawal of 401(k) savings during the recession, and no administration jobs for lobbyists. Perhaps the best of all was the promise he made in the Mississippi presidential debate when he said, “We need earmark reform. And when I’m president, I will go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely.” They were specific, sensible promises—ones that enabled him to mislead the electorate about his real plans for America.

Oh, sure he would. Many of us knew Obama would give the same kind of attention to the issues that came before him as he did while an IL Senator (“Present!”) or as a US Senator (“I changed my mind!” like he apparently did in regard to a promise made to John McCain), and so many more (remember FISA, for instance?). Ahem. Some of us were paying attention, though:

Again, I chose to look beyond the rhetoric to the record. At the time, it was obvious that a candidate who won the primary because of the left would be beholden to the left, no matter what promises he made to get elected. It was also obvious to ask what kind of president would have voted “present” on 129 difficult votes while in the Illinois State Senate. He was always thinking about how to keep every constituency happy; how to maintain his viability for the White House. In The Audacity of Hope, he criticized Bill Clinton for giving too much respect to Ronald Reagan. He asked the Democratic Leadership Council, the centrist Democratic group, to remove his name from their lists.

So if he wasn’t going to be a centrist Democrat in the tradition of Bill Clinton, what did Barack Obama want from his presidency, should he be elected? He told us from the beginning. It was a stunning agenda, but it seemed innocuous, even inspiring, during the campaign. Standing on the steps of the old Illinois State Capitol, announcing his candidacy for president, Obama declared he was running “not just to hold an office, but to gather with you to transform a nation.” Suddenly now everyone is worried he is trying to transform America. He had said so all along. His is an effort to make a bigger, more intrusive and more costly government. His hope is, and has always been, to turn the country into a nation that looks more like a European social democracy. He ignores that the roots of our strength have always been small government and a dynamic private sector, fostered by both Democrats and Republicans. His cynical use of centrist language as a tool to get elected does not change the fact of his true objectives for America. It is telling that under Obama’s presidency, according to Sunday’s CNN Poll, 37 percent of Democrats, 63 percent of independents and 70 percent of Republicans see the federal government as a threat to the rights of Americans.

Holy crapoli. There are some pretty bad numbers, especially for the “Transformational King” that was supposed to be Obama, especially this soon. Again, “We Told You So:

Our central problem is that the combination of his grandiloquence and the September 2008 financial crisis led to his election. Now, the only way to stop him in the next three years is through voter pressure on Congress. One course is to follow Massachusetts and just elect any Republican. But both parties lack courageous leaders who will fight for the values and policies of the middle. We need a movement of the militant middle; millions of voters who support the sensible policies from both parties. This would give Democrats political cover to stand up to Obama, Pelosi, and Reid and Republicans the backbone to acknowledge that the country must progress in order to be strong. Most Americans see a false choice between a smaller government and a progressive country. We must have both. It is our only hope. (Lady de Rothschild is chief executive of E.L. Rothschild LLC, a private investment company. She is a director of the Estee Lauder Cos. and The Economist Newspaper Ltd.)

Interesting points by Lady de Rothschild, don’t you think? Here she is explaining why she said, “Told You So”:

I love this woman – an excellent role mode during Women’s History Month. I think she is fantastic – so eloquent, so knowledgeable, so diplomatic, so RIGHT, especially about Bill Clinton, and SO right about Barack Obama. Told you so…

The embattled liberal group ACORN is in the process of dissolving its national structure, with state and local-chapters splitting off from the underfunded, controversial national group, an official close to the group confirmed.

“ACORN has dissolved as a national structure of state organizations,” said a senior official close to the group, who declined to be identified by name because of the fierce conservative attacks on the group that began when a conservative filmmaker caught some staffers of its tax advisory arms on tape appearing to offer advice on incorporating a prostitution business.

Ah, yes – this is all the fault of that pesky James O’Keefe and those mean Republicans. It has absolutely ZIP to do with ACORN being under investigation in at least 14 states for voter registration fraud, and is under federal indictment in Nevada, or their participation in the mortgage lending crisis, or anything like that.

The article referenced above also has this Update:

A person familiar with the New York reorganization said the new group has a new board, including some relative outsiders, like an official at the union Workers United, Wilfredo Larancuent, as well as most of the old leadership.

But the impact appears to be minimal.

“It’s not like this is some kind of hostile thing,” said the New York source. “This is what Fox has produced. National Acorn and Bertha Lewis are continuing doing their thing, but the New York flagship has been forced into this new organization.”

“As far as the work in the communities and policy campaigns, no one will notice the difference,” the source said. “It’s people who still believe in their basic mission of fighting for poor people.”

ALSO: National ACORN says it continues to exist, despite the departure of state chapters, including also California’s, which departed under similar terms last month.

Yes, yes, it is clear – this has nothing to do with voter registration fraud, voter fraud, bad mortgages, or the fact that this is SUPPOSED to be a non-partisan organization that is working primarily to hep Democrats, including Obama, elected to office. Nope – it’s all because Fox News and James O’Keefe are mean to them. I got it.

Do they really think we are so stupid that we are not going to KNOW they are the same group as before? Hey, we’re not in Congress or anything – we aren’t THAT easily duped. I’m pretty sure we can keep up.

But guess who apparently cannot? Oh, yes indeedy – President Obama. Remember this little clip from his interview with George Stephanopoulos?

Wait until you get a load of THIS one:

Again, do these politicians really NOT know we have VIDEOTAPE??? Holy moley, Obama, you are way too young to be that forgetful. Oh, wait – that’s not forgetfulness, that’s flat out lying. No doubt, once ACORN has finished changing its name and banners, he’s going to claim he has NO idea who or what that organization is.

Hey, here’s a fun little contest we can have. “Liar, liar, pants on fire!” is a bit dated as an expression, and we so need a new one for Obama and the numerous whoppers he lets fly (not to mention most politicians). What pithy saying can you craft that about Obama and his numerous lies? This should be fun. Oh, and prize ideas, too, would be welcome. Have at it!

Let’s not forget who was in charge of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, shall we?? Barney? Chris? Ahem. Funny how that often goes unmentioned, isn’t it?

You wanna know what else is funny about this whole negative attitude toward lobbyists? Especially after Obama ripped on them again? That he INVITED THEM TO THE WHITE HOUSE FOR A PRIVATE BRIEFING THE DAY AFTER THE STATE OF THE UNION. I am not kidding, people – how many different ways can I say, “What a freakin’ hypocrite?????” Or, “How do people buy the crap that comes out of his mouth???” Holy smokes!!! Those of us who are sentient beings knew this was happening, that he was saying one thing, while doing another. But, c’mon, how blatant can he be that he thinks we are the biggest bunch of morons on the face of the planet??? And how can so many Americans BE such morons to buy this crap from him? Good grief, people, THINK!!!

So, here it is, in black and white:

[Snip] The Treasury Department on Thursday morning invited selected individuals to “a series of conference calls with senior Obama administration officials to discuss key aspects of the State of the Union address.”

The invitation, which went to a variety of stakeholders, was sent by Fred Baldassaro, a senior adviser at the Treasury Department’s Office of Business Affairs and Public Liaison.

The invitation stated, “The White House is encouraging you to participate in these calls and will have a question and answer session at the end of each call. As a reminder, these calls are not intended for press purposes.” (Emphasis mine.)

Yeah, I’ll just bet they aren’t:

The calls are scheduled to begin at 11:30 a.m. on Thursday, with the first topic being job creation and economic growth.

Another call, at 1 p.m., is on government reform and transparency. Republicans have criticized the Obama White House for not being more transparent in its discussions with Congress on healthcare reform. Obama recently acknowledged that the legislative process has not been as open as he promised on the campaign trail.

Other issues that will be addressed on Thursday include education, climate change and healthcare reform.

Oh, yay!! Doesn’t that make you feel better? Of course, they have been there all along, steering this Healthcare bill, from Obama’s original meeting with Big Pharma to the insurance industry lobbyists. Gee, can’ imagine why so many of us oppose this current bill: because we know what actually wrote it.

But Obama better be careful before he hurts their feelings:

A handful of lobbyists told The Hill on Thursday morning that they received the invitations and were planning to call in.

Some lobbyists say they are extremely frustrated with the White House for criticizing them and then seeking their feedback. Others note that Democrats on Capitol Hill constantly urge them to make political donations.

One lobbyist said, “Bash lobbyists, then reach out to us. Bash lobbyists [while] I have received four Democratic invitations for fundraisers.”

In his State of the Union on Wednesday, Obama once again targeted K Street: “We face a deficit of trust — deep and corrosive doubts about how Washington works that have been growing for years. To close that credibility gap, we have to take action on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue — to end the outsized influence of lobbyists; to do our work openly; to give our people the government they deserve.”

So, um, this is how Obama expects to fix it? Invite the lobbyists to participate in these major issues facing the country? Well, sure, that makes sense. In the Upside-Down World of Washington, DC, that is.

And all in the light of day, right? Oh, sure, PollyAnna:

The Treasury Department referred The Hill’s request for comment to the White House, which at press time had not responded to questions on this issue.

On Thursday afternoon, White House spokesman Josh Earnest stated in an e-mail, “As part of our effort to reach out and engage with the public and policymakers, it is standard for our outreach team to organize a conference call, so that we can include people who are not in Washington, after a major speech or announcement through the president’s priorities. These calls are targeted at a diverse group of community and government leaders including mayors, governors, faith groups, women’s organizations, representatives from the African American and Latino communities to share as much information about the administration’s agenda as possible. The calls, which include question-and-answer sessions, typically include hundreds of people from across the country…”

Lobbyists say the Obama White House has held many off-the-record teleconferences over the past year.

For example, lobbyists and others were invited to a teleconference with “senior Obama administration officials” on Monday to discuss the administration’s plan to improve the lives of middle-class families.

The invitation, which is addressed to “Friends,” emphasizes in bold and italics that “this call is for background information only and not intended for press purposes.” It advises callers to tell the operator “you’re joining the ‘White House Briefing Call.’ ”

Another lobbyist said these types of teleconferences occur “all the time.” (Emphasis mine)

And that is why many on K Street are exasperated with Obama’s use of lobbyists as a punching bag. Some have said they understood why he used strong rhetoric on the campaign trail but are irritated the White House solicits their opinions while Obama’s friends in Congress badger them for political donations.

Don’t you feel sorry for those poor lobbyists who are shaping our policies?

Or do you feel anger that we have a government that is so duplicitous, so underhanded, so hypocritical, and so conniving?? Obama gets up there spewing this bullshit at the SOTU, and the VERY NEXT DAY, meets with K Street Lobbyists. And he does so with no shame, not even a hint that the impropriety gets through to him.

Wow. Show of hands – WHO bought this crap from him and the Democrats?? Anyone? Bueller?? And we wonder why this country is in such a mess…

Maybe the DNC should have actually cared about who was voting for Hillary Clinton, who was crossing over party lines to support her. But no, they were hellbent on destroying her (and Bill), so now we have Obama. Great.

It is for that reason, the partisan, closed door meetings, the attempts to shove legislation down our throats we don’t want, and so many, many more, that Will Bower wrote the following, An Open Letter to Secretary Clinton: Save Us from Obama, for Huffington Post recently. I think many of us share Mr. Bower’s sentiment. He writes:

Madame Secretary Clinton,

It’s time for you to save your party — and your country — from Barack Obama.

You have been doing a remarkable job as Secretary of State, but now we need you as the new head of the Democratic Party … and as our next President of the United States.

I know that it would be virtually unprecedented for a party nomination to be handed to a challenger over an incumbent, but it was unprecedented in 2008 when the party apparatus selected their then preferred candidate over the will and popular vote of the Democratic majority.

You were the rightful candidate then, you are the rightful head of the Democratic Party today, and you would be taking your rightful place as the nominee and president you were meant to become.

Every warning and critique you gave us in regard to Barack Obama has come to fruition. You were correct in every debate, in every political advertisement, and in every interview.

We are where we are today because too many refused to listen to you.

Only Smart Power can save us now, and you are the perfect person to bring us that much needed commodity. Just log into Facebook and you’ll see the numerous “Hillary Clinton for 2012″ groups springing to new life. A multitude of your supporters are ready to bring about the change that was falsely promised by your opponent in 2008. You got more votes than he did in 2008, and you can get more votes than him again in 2012.

One might warn you that this would only serve to divide the party, leaving the presidency open to takeover by the opposition. Because of your steadfastness during this past primary season, you were given that same warning then, but your party went on to victory all the same.

We tried it their way then. Now, it’s time to try it your way.

In the upcoming midterm elections of 2010, your party will pay the price for its lack of vision. There is little to stop that now. Once that happens, more of a balance will be restored, and both your party and your country will be ready to move forward once again — with you at the helm — to a truly better future.

Thank you, Madame Secretary. We’ll be standing by.

Indeed we will. And if, for some reason, anyone needs a reminder as to why we supported Hillary Clinton in the first place, this video sums it up beautifully:

Let’s help Obama fulfill his dream of being a “really good one-term president” (when are you thinking about getting started on that “really good” part?) rather than a mediocre two-term president (though he may just qualify as a “mediocre one term president”). I think if we all work together, we CAN help him leave office in 2012, whether it is on a good note or not. Well, I’m thinking it will be the latter if Year One is any indicator. That is all the more reason to get someone in there who can LEAD, who cares about the country and the people in it, one who is truly a populist leader, not just one who is now trying to act like one. That would be Madame Secretary, no doubt about it. Yes, let’s make this just one term for Barack Obama.

Don’t you agree?

Well, one promise among many Obama has yet to fulfill, is the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” And if Rep. Ike Skelton has anything to say about it, a repeal will not happen (H/t to Logistics Monster), as this headline indicates,Skelton Opposes Repeal Of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’. That’s jake, really:

The leading House Democrat on military policy said Friday that he opposes repealing the law that bans openly gay people from serving in the military.

Seventeen years ago, Rep. Ike Skelton (D-Mo.) played a major role in crafting the controversial law known as “Don’t ask, don’t tell.” When President Bill Clinton wanted to lift the ban preventing gay people from joining the military, Skelton opposed the move. The end result was a compromise under which gay service members would conceal their sexual orientation.

Now, after President Barack Obama pledged during his campaign and first year in office to repeal the law, Skelton finds himself on the opposite side once again.

“I am personally not for changing the law,” he said during a C-SPAN “Newsmakers” interview that will air Sunday.

Because the military is engaged in two major conflicts, in Afghanistan and Iraq, changing the law would create “disruption” that can cause some “serious problems,” Skelton said during the interview.

See, to me, that seems like the PERFECT time to repeal this oppressive, unjust bill. Don’t we NEED more people who want to serve their country? I would think so, but apparently, Skelton doesn’t see it that way:

He said the full House Armed Services Committee won’t hold a hearing on the repeal of the law. Rather, the Personnel subcommittee will hold the hearing at some point this year.

Skelton also said he would oppose efforts to repeal the law in Congress — setting the stage for a potentially intense debate within his own committee with Democrats who want to see the law repealed.

Meanwhile, Skelton’s Senate counterpart, Carl Levin (D-Mich.), said that the Senate Armed Services Committee will hold a hearing on the issue at the end of January.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Friday that he and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen are prepared to testify before the Senate.

Gates said at a press briefing that there are continuing conversations within the Pentagon about “implementing the president’s intent.”

Obama has come under increasing pressure from gay-rights advocates to move on the repeal. Gay-rights advocates are eyeing the change in law for this year, but it is unclear how Obama will proceed. The Pentagon has moved slowly on the issue and there have been reports of internal dissent on how fast changes to the law should be instituted.

Great. This doesn’t bode well for the repeal of this intolerant law given Skelton’s position, and Obama’s continued unwillingness to address this issue. I, for one, am not at all surprised, and I sure am not holding my breath for it to change.

Once again, yet another promise for change that has gone by the wayside. Many of us knew it; too many believed it. Now, here we are – not even the same place we were before since Skelton is coming out against repeal. Anyone else sick of these machinations?

That would be Mort Zuckerman. If you are not familiar with the name, you surely are with the U.S. News and World Report, of which he is Editor-in-Chief, or the New York Daily News, which he owns (along with other properties). He is a gazillionaire (okay, just a billionaire), and he supported Obama in the 2008 Election. Now, he is just a tad put out as his Op-Ed, “He’s Done Everything Wrong,” indicates (h/t to Andy):

Obama punted on the economy and reversed the fortunes of the Democrats in 365 days.

He’s misjudged the character of the country in his whole approach. There’s the saying, “It’s the economy, stupid.” He didn’t get it. He was determined somehow or other to adopt a whole new agenda. He didn’t address the main issue.

This health-care plan is going to be a fiscal disaster for the country. Most of the country wanted to deal with costs, not expansion of coverage. This is going to raise costs dramatically.

In the campaign, he said he would change politics as usual. He did change them. It’s now worse than it was. I’ve now seen the kind of buying off of politicians that I’ve never seen before. It’s politically corrupt and it’s starting at the top. It’s revolting.

Holy moley! Bear in mind, this man, Mr. Zuckerman, was a SUPPORTER. I sure can’t disagree with his assessment, though. He continues:

Five states got deals on health care—one of them was Harry Reid’s. It is disgusting, just disgusting. I’ve never seen anything like it. The unions just got them to drop the tax on Cadillac plans in the health-care bill. It was pure union politics. They just went along with it. It’s a bizarre form of political corruption. It’s bribery. I suppose they could say, that’s the system. He was supposed to change it or try to change it.

Even that is not the worst part. He could have said, “I know. I promised these things, but let me try to do them one at a time.” You want to deal with health care? Fine. Issue No. 1 with health care was the cost. You know I think it was 37 percent or 33 who were worried about coverage. Fine, I wrote an editorial to this effect. Focus on cost-containment first. But he’s trying to boil the ocean, trying to do too much. This is not leadership.

Obama’s ability to connect with voters is what launched him. But what has surprised me is how he has failed to connect with the voters since he’s been in office. He’s had so much overexposure. You have to be selective. He was doing five Sunday shows. How many press conferences? And now people stop listening to him. The fact is he had 49.5 million listeners to first speech on the economy. On Medicare, he had 24 million. He’s lost his audience. He has not rallied public opinion. He has plunged in the polls more than any other political figure since we’ve been using polls. He’s done everything wrong. Well, not everything, but the major things.

I don’t consider it a triumph. I consider it a disaster.

You and me both, Mr. Zuckerman. But if I may be so bold, perhaps lofty words are not a prerequisite for the highest office in the land. Just saying. Perhaps you should have looked a little deeper into how much Obama enjoyed the adoring masses, buying the PR spin that he was The One. The problem is, he started to believe it. He believed/believes it really is all about him. But, as a truly great president said, “I feel your pain.”

And speaking of Clinton:

One business leader said to me, “In the Clinton administration, the policy people were at the center, and the political people were on the sideline. In the Obama administration, the political people are at the center, and the policy people are on the sidelines.”

Again, YES. I hate to keep harping on this, but why were you not capable of seeing this BEFORE?? When Obama regurgitated Deval Patrick’s speeches, that should have been a clue that it was absolutely NOT about policy, but all about politics. When he continually took Hillary Clinton’s policy positions for his own, instead of crafting them himself, that should have been a bit of a clue. But no. Zuckerman, and to many like him, failed to see what was right before their eyes. They believed the hype, too:

I’m very disappointed. We endorsed him. I voted for him. I supported him publicly and privately.

I hope there are changes. I think he’s already laid in huge problems for the country. The fiscal program was a disaster. You have to get the money as quickly as possible into the economy. They didn’t do that. By end of the first year, only one-third of the money was spent. Why is that?

He should have jammed a stimulus plan into Congress and said, “This is it. No changes. Don’t give me that bullshit. We have a national emergency.” Instead they turned it over to Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi who can run circles around him.

It’s very sad. It’s really sad.

He’s improved America’s image in the world. He absolutely did. But you have to translate that into something. Let me tell you what a major leader said to me recently. “We are convinced,” he said, “that he is not strong enough to confront his enemy. We are concerned,” he said “that he is not strong to support his friends.”

The political leadership of the world is very, very dismayed. He better turn it around. The Democrats are going to get killed in this election. Jesus, looks what’s happening in Massachusetts.

Well, for a moment, perhaps, but even in other countries, people are waking up (check out The Telegraph, or Der Spiegel sometime). But here’s the thing: by caring more about appearances than policy, being liked more than fixing problems, Obama, and all who voted for him, have done this country a tremendous disservice. We told you it wasn’t American Idol for which he was running, but the presidency.

There is still some delusion, though:

It’s really interesting because he had brilliant, brilliant political instincts during the campaign. I don’t know what has happened to them. His appointments present somebody who has a lot to learn about how government works. He better get some very talented businesspeople who know how to implement things. It’s unbelievable. Everybody says so. You can’t believe how dismayed people are. That’s why he’s plunging in the polls.

I can’t predict things two years from now, but if he continues on the downward spiral he is on, he won’t be reelected. In the meantime, the Democrats have recreated the Republican Party. And when I say Democrats, I mean the Obama administration. In the generic vote, the Democrats were ahead something like 52 to 30. They are now behind the Republicans 48 to 44 in the last poll. Nobody has ever seen anything that dramatic.

Did you mention by how much Obama has run up the National Debt? You know, the one he has increased by $1.7 TRILLION since he took office? And he’s looking to increase it by even more. Oh, yippee.

If I may return to another part of Mr. Zuckerman’s editorial, no offense, sir, but OBAMA didn’t have “brilliant, brilliant political instincts during the campaign,” his HANDLERS, Axelrod and Plouffe. did. Had you taken just a few minutes and used the considerable resources at your disposal, you could have looked into his REAL record in IL. You would have seen the shenanigans he employed to even get elected. Now, maybe YOU think that is “brilliant,” but I see it as being an indicator of the man’s moral fiber, and his “win at all costs,” mentality, no matter who he steps on, or what kind of damage he does. Perhaps what Zuckerman is seeing now, is the failure of Axelrod and Plouffe to pull the man off the Campaign Trail and him getting to work. Obama still hasn’t stopped, as he heads off to Ohio on Friday.

Still, at least he is finally getting is. In this interview with Neil Cavuto (h/t to Logistics Monster), he can barely contain himself:

Mr. Zuckerman made some mighty interesting assertions in there, didn’t he, especially in terms of housing? Welcome to the reality based community, sir.

Indeed, slowly but surely, the Kool Aide is wearing off, but not until Obama has done untold damage to out country – IN ONE YEAR. Will he be able to turn it around? I don’t know, but that would presuppose he was capable of introspection, and a willingness to actually listen to the people, as opposed to talk, talk, talking to us (though apparently, he hasn’t talked at us enough – we just don’t get it, you know – because apparently, we are all a bunch of mo-rons not to buy his healthcare bill). Just a thought.

In the meantime, maybe we have all learned a lesson after this presidential election, and after the Massachusetts election. People can be hoodwinked, but not forever. When they wake up, they are none too happy at the lies they were told. That’s why we have elections, and this year is shaping up to be mighty interesting indeed…

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.

I love John Kass of the Chicago Tribune. He is one of the very, very few columnists who tried to warn us about Obama, Obama’s record (or lack thereof), how he came to be a Senator, and all about Chicago Politics. Simply put, he was a voice crying out in the wilderness.

And now, he has turned his pen (or keyboard, as the case may be) to the rumor that Rahm Emanuel, Obama’s Chief Thug And Chicago-Style politician, may be running for mayor of Chicago in this article,

Rahm In The Mayor’s Race Would Be Quite A Fish Tale. Indeed. Here is Kass on this possibility:

On my first day back at work after vacation, the political news from Washington hit me like a cold dead fish in the face:

Rahm Emanuel, mayor of Chicago?

That’s enough to freeze the bowels of every voter in the land.

“Emanuel, the most political animal in this town … is said to have told people that the ( White House) chief of staff role is an 18-month job and that he is considering a run for mayor of Chicago,” wrote columnist Sally Quinn in the Washington Post on Tuesday. (Tribune photo by Jose M. Osorio / December 18, 2008)

With Hollywood continuing to suck up to the Obama administration, imagine the benefits of a Rahmsian mayoral campaign. HBO’s “Entourage” could film here. The lead character, a charismatic Hollywood agent named Ari, is based on Rahm’s brother, Ari.

Just think of the scenes at Cafe Bionda and Tavern on Rush, and the parts for Rahm’s Chicago buddies, the entourage he’ll need to run things if he’s mayor. State Sen. Jimmy DeLeo (D-How You Doin?) could play Turtle and handle the parties. Corrupt former city water boss Donald Tomczak, who’ll be released from federal prison this year, would thrill “Entourage” fans in the role of Donny Drama.

The White House could have thrown cold water on the idea. Instead, a White House source told the Tribune that “Rahm is 100 percent focused on the job at hand — serving President Obama as his chief of staff.”

From such non-denial denials, a demonic campaign may yet be hatched. If so, I might get down on my hands and knees and beg Mayor Richard Daley to stay. This would frighten the mayor and quite possibly unhinge him — permanently.

Now THAT should give you an idea of what it would be like for Rahm to take the helm of Chicago from someone who lives in Chicago. Kass, undeterred, did something too few journalists seem capable of these days. He picked up the phone to seek answers as opposed to relying on whatever rumor mill put this out:

So I called a mayoral source. “It’s news to us,” said the source. “The mayor has no intention of not being mayor.”

Whew. If the prospect of a Rahm mayoral campaign is frightening, just think if Daley retired and played the geezer, an old man with trousers high, bragging about how he did everything he pleased and nobody could do anything about it.

Of course, he’d want to show up at his old haunts. That’s when every politician he terrified over the years would line up to insult him. Don’t even mention the cops and firefighters. Daley couldn’t handle that kind of retirement.

So if Daley’s not the mayor, it means either he’s passed on or he’s taking a long vacation on some exotic beach, drinking gin and tonics, watching “Entourage” DVDs.

The Washington Post is an esteemed newspaper. But the editors eat in Washington. They don’t eat in Chicago. Yes, papers from Washington and New York periodically dispatch their foreign correspondents to our gritty Midwestern precincts to chronicle our quaint, earthy ways. But they never quite get it.

Don’t you just love this guy? “Quaint, earthy ways” – too funny. Oh, if a presidency hadn’t hinged on that kind of thinking:

Just one year ago, Obama was in his first miracle phase, feeding the multitudes with two fish sandwiches and five hot dog buns. He was applauded as a reformer, even while putting Chicago City Hall guys in charge of the world.

Later, a few journalists were annoyed at Obama’s penchant for meekly bowing down before measly foreign kings and emperors. But bowing meekly is what every young Illinois state senator does when summoned to the mayor’s office in Chicago.

When the president installed Rahm as his chief of staff, the Washington media were turgid with respect, praising Rahm as a shrewd political alley fighter, a maestro of profanity, a former ballet dancer tough enough to send a dead fish to an enemy, just like a Hollywood gangster.

Naturally, the national media marveled that Obama selected a Clinton guy, Emanuel, to run things.

That is because the National Media didn’t bother to do their jobs, as we know all too well:

But Rahm is no Clinton guy. He’s a Daley guy.

And if folks in Washington weren’t so besotted with all that primo Hopium they’ve been smoking, they’d have understood this.

Preach it, brother, preach it!

There’s more:

And, legend has it that Rahm sprouted fully formed from the navel of mayoral brother Billy Daley. Rich even assisted at the birth, and according to the dusty hieroglyphs, is said to have shrieked:

“Push, Billy! Push! Billy, I can see the head! Don’t give up! Push!”

The Washington establishment also ignores how Rahm got elected to Congress in 2002 from Illinois’ 5th District. The district’s Democratic state central committeeman, DeLeo, had something to do with it. So did all those illegal City Hall patronage workers swarming the precincts, led by Donny Drama, currently in federal stir for the nasty habit of taking bribes.

Exactly the same way they ignored how OBAMA got elected to office, or that the one time he couldn’t get everyone OFF the ballot, he LOST. Oh, yeah. Betcha didn’t know that. And he only won his US Senate seat because they managed to unseal sealed divorce records, thus forcing the Republican, Jack Ryan, to drop out right before the election. (You may NOT have heard that there was another Democrat, Blair Hull, who also had his sealed divorce records unsealed. Voila, he was out of the race, too. There is reason to believe that it was David Axelrove and Obama who forced that to happen, too, according to the link above. Who knew, right?) So, Obama ran against Alan Keyes. One of my cats could beat Alan Keyes in an election. That was no big feat. But, no. They didn’t bother:

Yet as if by tacit agreement, Rahm’s Chicago back story doesn’t make national news. But neither did the mayor’s reaction when Rahm was made chief of staff of the Chicago Way.

“It’s a gain,” Daley said last year. “It’s a real gain, gain, gain.”

Unless it’s a fish. A real fish, fish, fish.

And it’s really cold. (jskass@tribune.com)

A “gain” indeed. And we have seen just what kind of “gain” – Chicago Politics Writ Large.

I guess that is one thing about which Obama told the truth. He isn’t a Washington politician – he is something worse – a Chicago politician. And we are seeing exactly how that is playing out across the country now…

Doesn’t that make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside? Yeah, me, too. Here Obama is in his own words. I found the shortest one I could (you’re welcome):

That was then, this is now. You’re damn right, Obama, we DO care about “special interest dominated politics in Washington,” and we are seeing plenty of that in YOUR Administration.

In a a follow-up to a post on Senator Lindsey Graham’s ire over the Health “Care “Bill, this article from Politico tells the tale about what a great year this is for the K Street Crowd:

Lobbyists On Pace For Record Year

Main Street has had a tough year, losing jobs and seeing little evidence of the economic revival that experts say has already begun.

But K Street is raking it in (emphasis mine).

Washington’s influence industry is on track to shatter last year’s record $3.3 billion spent to lobby Congress and the rest of the federal government — and that’s with a down economy and about 1,500 fewer registered lobbyists in town, according to data collected by the Center for Responsive Politics.

Many lobbying firms have escaped the worst of the corporate belt-tightening, thanks, in large part, to the ambitious agenda set out by President Barack Obama — who, ironically, came to Washington with a pledge to break what he considered the undue influence of special-interest lobbyists.

Plenty of sectors have scaled back their K Street spending, including traditional big spenders like real estate and telecommunications. But Obama’s push for legislation on health reform, financial reform and climate change has compensated for the grim economic times.

And that’s after Obama kicked off the year with a massive economic stimulus package — and every major business sector tried to get a piece of the action.

“Lobbyists love it … when you’ve got an activist agenda like this, and you’ve got serious problems like this, and people want to do something about it,” said James Thurber, director of American University’s Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies.

“It is the most active time that I have ever seen in the advocacy business — from 1973 on,” Thurber added.

“We’ve never had as good a year,” said one lobbyist whose shop deals mostly with financial services and health care issues. “It’s been a tremendously busy year, and it’s going to keep getting that way,” the lobbyist said, noting that both health care and financial reform will remain active as congressional action moves from drafting legislation to implementation to the inevitable fixes.

Oh, yippie ki yay – they are all SO happy to be rolling in the dough to get bills like the Health Care Bill passed, a piece of legislation with “Lobbyist” written all over it.

One more lie from Obama. What a surprise. I’m shocked, shocked I tell you. Ahem.

There’s more:

The year-end lobbying expenditure figures don’t come out until late January, but Thurber and others predict that the top line number will exceed the $3.3 billion spent in 2008. Groups spent $2.5 billion during the first three quarters of 2009, which is a slightly faster quarterly pace than 2008, according to CRP.

And the fourth quarter has been a particularly busy time on Capitol Hill, with the House passing health care and financial reform bills and the Senate digging in on health care, too.

Health care has provided a particular jolt to the lobbying business, insiders say, since the scope of the legislation outstrips any health efforts in recent history.

“This was the biggest, most broad attempt at passing legislation that we’ve seen. This is even bigger or more broad than ’93,” said Bill Pierce, senior vice president and health care guru at APCO Worldwide, referring to President Bill Clinton’s attempt at health care reform. “It touches all the various parts of the entire health care environment. … Everybody has some dog in the fight.”

And the lobbying expenditure figures don’t include the heaps of cash interest groups are throwing at advertising, coalition-building, grass-roots and Astroturf outreach — all of which don’t get reported in the figures. Advocacy groups have spent almost $200 million on ads on the health care issue so far this year, according to Campaign Media Analysis Group.

“Astroturfing”? Isn’t that what Pelosi accused regular people of doing when they stood up to the way she and others are ruining our country? Huh. I guess she was wrong about that – no, I know she was wrong at the time. Just more smoke-screening from those who care less about what the people say despite their job being to represent us. Who knew all those Tea Party people should have been getting PAID? Ahem.

Of course, lobbyists aren’t on just one side:

The legislation’s reach has drawn in an almost-encyclopedic expanse of interest and corporate groups — from activists on both sides of the abortion debate, to MoveOn.org and FreedomWorks to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to health insurance companies.

“That doesn’t happen every day. When it does happen, you get this great deal of money being pumped into the political system on the lobbying end because all of these folks feel like they need to be a participant, and that if they don’t participate, they do so at their own peril,” said Dave Levinthal, a spokesman for CRP, a nonpartisan, nonprofit watchdog group. Nearly $400 million has been spent on health care lobbying during the first nine months of 2009, according to CRP’s data.

A closer look at some of the health care lobbying expenditures shows just how high the stakes are. PhRMA, a top trade group for drug makers, spent as much as it did in all of 2008 — $20.2 million — during the first nine months of 2009. America’s Health Insurance Plans is also on pace to outspend its 2008 lobbying budget, spending $6.3 million during the first nine months of this year.

The Obama administration’s determination to revamp the nation’s financial rules and regulatory structure has fueled a somewhat less broad but no less intense advocacy business.

Lobbyists for the industry describe working nonstop since last August, when the financial system started to crumble, through the fight for the $700 billion bailout last fall. This year, they’ve battled several attempts by Democrats to pass so-called cramdown legislation allowing bankruptcy judges to modify troubled mortgages and fought — ultimately unsuccessfully — against strict new credit card rules, among other policy battles.

All this while the industry must keep up with the larger financial reform bill, which is moving through Congress. “If it weren’t for the crisis, that bill could have easily taken four years, minimum,” observed one exhausted financial lobbyist of the bill that the House passed Dec. 11.

Aren’t you just so worried on their behalf? At how “taxed” they must be as they’re rolling in the dough? Didn’t think so:

The Credit Union National Association has already spent about $650,000 more than it did during the same period last year and is on track to spend “considerably more” lobbying than it did in 2008, said John Magill, the trade association’s senior vice president of legislative affairs.

“It’s been such a frantic pace this year. The Congress has churned out so many things,” he said, ticking off a list that includes financial reform, credit card legislation, new bank overdraft rules and credit unions’ ongoing battle to raise the amount they can lend to small businesses.

Magill said that the lobbying expenditures CUNA reports to Congress don’t take into account its extensive grass-roots efforts, such as the 5,000 members that “hiked the Hill” last spring or the approximately 650 who flew into town the week the House debated the financial reform bill on the floor.

Magill credits that grass-roots lobbying for the defeat of a House bill on a cramdown amendment, which came after the House passed a similar measure earlier in the year.

While times may be good for lobbyists, there’s a more dismal lesson to be learned from the relentless upward trend of lobbying spending that appears undaunted by even a massive recession: Lobbying is seen as an issue of political and economic survival in this town.

“If lobbying the federal government did not work, people wouldn’t spend money doing it,” Levinthal said.

That about says it all, doesn’t it? And work it has. We are about to be saddled with a Lobbyists’ Dream that will constitute One-Sixth of our entire economy. That is all thanks to their “tireless” efforts on behalf of their clients, who, by the way, are not us. No matter how much we oppose it, no matter how much we decry their unethical conduct, no matter how much we rage over the buying of votes, Congress continues to sell off legislation to the highest bidder rather than working for us.

And that cannot stand. Vote these people out. Let’s reclaim our country for US, the people, not for the lobbyists.

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!

Yes, yes, that was mighty funny. Finally, someone was saying what so many of us lefties thought.

Then, at the end of this past September, Chavez turned his, um, aromatic rhetoric on Obama, who came out smelling like a rose:

Oh, blech. Anyone smell any hope up in here? Yeah, me neither.

Well, that was then. Now, Chavez’s olfactory senses are being assaulted again, this time by Obama:

See, I told you Obama was like Bush (and not just because of Chavez)! Oh, this is just too, too rich. I bet Obama didn’t see THAT one coming!

Now I have no particular love lost for Chavez, though I do appreciate that his country sent a whole bunch of heating oil up to New England during Bush’s presidency. Regardless how you feel about him, this is funny.

But it isn’t just Chavez who is turning on Obama. It seems many in the World Community are seing the “Citizen of the World” for who he is. The more Obama traipses around talking, taling, talking, the more they get it. Yes, this headline from the Guardian (UK) pretty much says it all, Barack Obama’s Speech Disappoints And Fuels Frustration At Copenhagen,US president offers no further commitment on reducing emissions or on finance to poor countries.

Oh dear. That doesn’t bode well for Obama from the get-go:

Barack Obama stepped into the chaotic final hours of the Copenhagen summit today saying he was convinced the world could act “boldly and decisively” on climate change.

But his speech offered no indication America was ready to embrace bold measures, after world leaders had been working desperately against the clock to try to paper over an agreement to prevent two years of wasted effort — and a 10-day meeting — from ending in total collapse.

Obama, who had been skittish about coming to Copenhagen at all unless it could be cast as a foreign policy success, looked visibly frustrated as he appeared before world leaders.

He offered no further commitments on reducing emissions or on finance to poor countries beyond Hillary Clinton’s announcement yesterday that America would support a $100bn global fund to help developing nations adapt to climate change.

He did not even press the Senate to move ahead on climate change legislation, which environmental organisations have been urging for months.

Nope. Of course he didn’t. He’s too busy pushing this “Health Care” policy that the majority of Americans do not want, apparently to feed his own ego. He sure isn’t going to push them on something for which he cannot claim sole credit. C’mon already!

As for what Obama said in Copenhagen:

The president’s speech followed the publication of draft text, obtained by the Guardian this morning, that reveals the enormous progress needed from world leaders in the final hours of the Copenhagen climate change summit to achieve a strong deal. The draft says countries “ought” to limit global warming to 2C, but crucially does not bind them to do so. The text, drafted by a select group of 28 leaders – including UK prime minister, Gordon Brown – in the early hours of this morning, also proposes extending negotiations for another year until the next scheduled UN meeting on climate change in Mexico City in December 2010.

In his address, Obama did say America would follow through on his administration’s clean energy agenda, and that it would live up to its pledges to the international community.

“We have charted our course, we have made our commitments, and we will do what we say,” Obama said.

But in the absence of any evidence of that commitment the words rang hollow and there was a palpable sense of disappointment in the audience.

Instead, he warned African states and low island nations who have been resisting what they see as a weak agreement that the later alternative — no agreement — was far worse.

“We know the fault lines because we’ve been imprisoned by them for years. But here is the bottom line: we can embrace this accord, take a substantial step forward, and continue to refine it and build upon its foundation,” he said.

“Or we can again choose delay, falling back into the same divisions that have stood in the way of action for years. And we will be back having the same stale arguments month after month, year after year – all while the danger of climate change grows until it is irreversible.”

Well, I guess he chose delay, because there is nothing concrete about the “deal” that came out of all of this. But Obama wasn’t done:

He also took a dig at China, drawing attention to its status as the world’s biggest emitter and reinforcing America’s hardline on the issue of accountability for greenhouse gas emissions.

The lacklustre speech proved a huge frustration to a summit that had been looking to Obama to use his stature on the world stage – and his special following among African leaders – to try to come to an ambitious deal.

The president was drawn into the chaos within minutes of his arrival at Copenhagen, ditching his schedule to take part in a meeting of major industrialised and rapidly emerging economies.

Responding to Obama’s speech, a British official said: “Gordon Brown is committed to doing all he can and will stay until the very last minute to secure a deal… but others also need to show the same level of commitment. The prospects of a deal are not great.”

I believe he was talking to Obama, don’t you? I love Obama lecturing China, too. That is rich. He might want to be a tad careful before they call in all of their chits. We’d be bumming if that happened.

People abroad are opening their eyes on this “Citizen of the World”:

Many reactions were strongly critical of Obama. Hugo Chávez, the president of Venezuela, described Obama’s speech as “ridiculous” and the US’s initial offer of a $10bn fund for poor countries in the draft text as “a joke”.

Tim Jones, a spokesman for the World Development Movement, said: “The president said he came to act, but showed little evidence of doing so. He showed no awareness of the inequality and injustice of climate change. If America has really made its choice, it is a choice that condemns hundreds of millions of people to climate change disaster.”

Friends of the Earth said in a statement, “Obama has deeply disappointed not only those listening to his speech at the UN talks, he has disappointed the whole world.”

The World Wildlife Fund said Obama had let down the international community by failing to commit to pushing for action in Congress: “The only way the world can be sure the US is standing behind its commitments is for the president to clearly state that climate change will be his next top legislative priority.”

The extent of crisis in the talks has taken leaders by surprise. The Brazilian leader, Lula da Silva, told the conference that the all-night negotiating sessions took him back to his days as a trade union leader negotiating with his bosses.

There’s that Chavez again exposing Obama’s lack of real action. Not to mention an organization we have supported for many, many years now, the World Wildlife Fund. I think the “Friends of the Earth” sum it up nicely: “…he has disappointed the whole world.” Surely now the “whole world” realizes he hoodwinked them, too, with his “lofty” (empty) rhetoric. All talk, no action, just like we have been saying.

Ah, well – I guess they have learned their lesson, too, like some in the States are now. Maybe next time, they, along with those in this country, won’t be taken in by a charlatan. That doesn’t help for the moment, but maybe we will all be wiser next time around (that’s a collective “we,” not us specifically, as I posted recently). Our country depends upon it. And the world just might, too.

Well, it seems like it is finally happening. The world community to which Obama pandered during the campaign is starting to realize what many Americans now know (and some of us always did): He’s not all he’s cracked up to be.

In this article from Spiegel, “Obama’s Nice Guy Act Gets Him Nowhere on the World Stage,” they seem to finally be clueing in:

When he entered office, US President Barack Obama promised to inject US foreign policy with a new tone of respect and diplomacy. His recent trip to Asia, however, showed that it’s not working. A shift to Bush-style bluntness may be coming.

There were only a few hours left before Air Force One was scheduled to depart for the flight home. US President Barack Obama trip through Asia had already seen him travel 24,000 kilometers, sit through a dozen state banquets, climb the Great Wall of China and shake hands with Korean children. It was high time to take stock of the trip.

Barack Obama looked tired on Thursday, as he stood in the Blue House in Seoul, the official residence of the South Korean president. He also seemed irritable and even slightly forlorn. The CNN cameras had already been set up. But then Obama decided not to play along, and not to answer the question he had already been asked several times on his trip: what did he plan to take home with him? Instead, he simply said “thank you, guys,” and disappeared. David Axelrod, senior advisor to the president, fielded the journalists’ questions in the hallway of the Blue House instead, telling them that the public’s expectations had been “too high.”

The mood in Obama’s foreign policy team is tense following an extended Asia trip that produced no palpable results. The “first Pacific president,” as Obama called himself, came as a friend and returned as a stranger. The Asians smiled but made no concessions.

The “first Pacific president” – please. Could this man possibly have a more inflated sense of himself?? Not to interrupt myself or anything, but check out what Charles Krauthammer had to say about that false claim:

“First Pacific President,” indeed. Please.

Back to the “Emperor Has No Clothes” article:

Lost Some Stature

Upon taking office, Obama said that he wanted to listen to the world, promising respect instead of arrogance. But Obama’s currency isn’t as strong as he had believed. Everyone wants respect, but hardly anyone is willing to pay for it. Interests, not emotions, dominate the world of realpolitik. The Asia trip revealed the limits of Washington’s new foreign policy: Although Obama did not lose face in China and Japan, he did appear to have lost some of his initial stature.

In Tokyo, the new center-left government even pulled out of its participation in a mission which saw the Japanese navy refueling US warships in the Indian Ocean as part of the Afghanistan campaign. In Beijing, Obama failed to achieve any important concessions whatsoever. There will be no binding commitments from China to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. A revaluation of the Chinese currency, which is kept artificially weak, has been postponed. Sanctions against Iran? Not a chance. Nuclear disarmament? Not an issue for the Chinese.

The White House did not even stand up for itself when it came to the question of human rights in China. The president, who had said only a few days earlier that freedom of expression is a universal right, was coerced into attending a joint press conference with Chinese President Hu Jintao, at which questions were forbidden. Former US President George W. Bush had always managed to avoid such press conferences.

Understand this: when the author writes that the “White House did not even stand up for itself…” it means that the White House is not standing up for US, the American people. And Obama doing a press conference when Bush had managed to get out of them – for eight years – shows again how woefully inept and ill-prepared Obama is, even in comparison to Bush.

So, just what did Obama accomplish? Not a whole lot:

Relatively Unsuccessful

A look back in time reveals the differences. When former President Bill Clinton went to China in June 1998, Beijing wanted to impress the Americans. A press conference in the Great Hall of the People, broadcast on television as a 70-minute live discussion, became a sensation the world over. Clinton mentioned the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre, when the government used tanks against protestors. But then President Jiang Zemin defended the tough approach taken by the Chinese Communists. At the end of the exchange, the Chinese president praised the debate and said: “I believe this is democracy!”

Obama visited a new China, an economic power that is now making its own demands. America should clean up its government finances, and the weak dollar is unacceptable, the head of the Chinese banking authority said, just as Obama’s plane was about to land.

Obama’s new foreign policy has also been relatively unsuccessful elsewhere, with even friends like Israel leaving him high and dry. For the government of Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, peace is only conceivable under its terms. Netanyahu has rejected Obama’s call for a complete moratorium on the construction of settlements. As a result, Obama has nothing to offer the Palestinians and the Syrians. “We thought we had some leverage,” says Martin Indyk, a former ambassador to Israel under the Clinton administration and now an advisor to Obama. “But that proved to be an illusion.”

Even the president seems to have lost his faith in a genial foreign policy. The approach that was being used in Afghanistan this spring, with its strong emphasis on civilian reconstruction, is already being changed. “We’re searching for an exit strategy,” said a staff member with the National Security Council on the sidelines of the Asia trip.

Gee, you mean that whole experience thing about which Hillary Clinton, then John McCain, spoke actually MEANT something?? Good grief. Show of hands of how many of us tried to tell them: Yep, that’s what I thought.

There is probably one person on the face of the earth who is going to think this is a good comparison, and you’ll know who right now:

‘A Lot Like Jimmy Carter‘

An end to diplomacy is also taking shape in Washington’s policy toward Tehran. It is now up to Iran, Obama said, to convince the world that its nuclear power is peaceful. While in Asia, Obama mentioned “consequences” unless it followed his advice. This puts the president, in his tenth month in office, where Bush began — with threats. “Time is running out,” Obama said in Korea. It was the same phrase Bush used against former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, shortly before he sent in the bombers.

There are many indications that the man in charge at the White House will take a tougher stance in the future. Obama’s advisors fear a comparison with former Democratic President Jimmy Carter, even more than with Bush. Prominent Republicans have already tried to liken Obama to the humanitarian from Georgia, who lost in his bid to win a second term, because voters felt that he was too soft. “Carter tried weakness and the world got tougher and tougher because the predators, the aggressors, the anti-Americans, the dictators, when they sense weakness, they all start pushing ahead,” Newt Gingrich, the former Republican speaker in the House of Representatives, recently said. And then he added: “This does look a lot like Jimmy Carter.” (Translated from the German by Christopher Sultan)

Given how much water Jimmy Carter has carried for Oama, even disparaging the BEST Democratic candidate to do so, I just wonder how he will feel when he discovers Obama fears being compared to him more than George W. Bush??? You know I used to love Jimmy Carter until he started to trash Hillary Clinton, and called a bunch of us a bunch of racists. But I bet he didn’t see that coming for all the backstabbing he did. Welcome to the “Under The Bus” club, President Carter. It was only a matter of time.

It was also only a matter of time before the shine started to tarnish. But even more than that, this man is supposed to be working on behalf of our nation. The work he is doing is what many of us knew was going to happen from someone so wet behind the ears, so concerned what people thought of HIM rather than being concerned about what he could do for the people. Not only do we know it, but now the world knows it. Even more than that, they know they can do pretty much as they wish since Obama doesn’t have the chops to stand up to them. Well, that’s just jake, isn’t it?

Is it 2012 yet?

I reasonably can see “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” eliminated… I would never make this a litmus test for the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Obviously, there are so many issues that a member of the Joint Chiefs has to deal with, and my paramount obligation is to get the best possible people to keep America safe. But I think there’s increasing recognition within the Armed Forces that this is a counterproductive strategy — ya know, we’re spending large sums of money to kick highly qualified gays or lesbians out of our military, some of whom possess specialties like Arab-language capabilities that we desperately need. That doesn’t make us more safe, and what I want are members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who are making decisions based on what strengthens our military and what is going to make us safer, not ideology.

So, he can “see” doing it, it’s just the ACTUAL doing it with which he seems to have problems.

As a bonus, here is something else Candidate Obama said in this interview when asked this questions:

What event or person has most affected your perceptions of or relationship to the LGBT community?
Somebody else who influenced me, I actually had a professor at Occidental — now, this is embarrassing because I might screw up his last name — Lawrence Goldyn, I think it was. He was a wonderful guy. He was the first openly gay professor that I had ever come in contact with, or openly gay person of authority that I had come in contact with. And he was just a terrific guy. He wasn’t proselytizing all the time (emphasis mine), but just his comfort in his own skin and the friendship we developed helped to educate me on a number of these issues.

Oh, yes, we LGBT people are practically missionaries. So glad this one professor didn’t “proselytize” his students, or push his “gay-ness” on them. What a guy. I’m sure it was difficult for him since, you know, that’s just how we are. Ahem.

And people wonder why I have said all along that Obama is not our friend? Because he is not.

Here is the story of one highly decorated pilot:

Here is a follow-up to Lt. Col. Fehrenbach’s story:

Did you catch the very beginning, the ways in which someone can have a service member investigated in both videos? Shocking. Just shocking.

As is the lack of any action whatsoever by Obama on this issue. Sure he gave a talk to the (sell out) HRC a month or so ago, claiming, once again, that he would abolish DADT at some point. But that’s just talk. Here is what President Obama has done thus far on this issue:

* crickets *

How many more broken promises before DADT is abolished? One thing is for sure. On the Eve of Veteran’s Day, there are too many new Veterans as a result of this law. 500 too many.

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…

Turns out I am not the only one who wonders why Obama continues to get a free pass for actions that, had Bush done them, would be front page news (and again, I have NO love lost for Bush – absolutely zero, but fair is fair). Josh Gerstein of Politico had these same questions, about which he wrote in this article, What If Bush Had Done That?. Indeed:

A four-hour stop in New Orleans, on his way to a $3 million fundraiser.

Snubbing the Dalai Lama.

Signing off on a secret deal with drug makers.

Freezing out a TV network.

Doing more fundraisers than the last president. More golf, too.

President Barack Obama has done all of those things — and more.

What’s remarkable is what hasn’t happened. These episodes haven’t become metaphors for Obama’s personal and political character — or consuming controversies that sidetracked the rest of his agenda.

It’s a sign that the media’s echo chamber can be a funny thing, prone to the vagaries of news judgment, and an illustration that, in politics, context is everything.

Conservatives look on with a mix of indignation and amazement and ask: Imagine the fuss if George W. Bush had done these things?

The media’s “echo chamber”? That is a kind reference for what they are really doing, or rather aren’t doing: their jobs. Conservatives aren’t the only ones questioning why this is happening. Anyone who truly cares about the our democracy and the state of journalism in this country are asking, too. But they do ask a good question:

And quickly add, with a hint of jealousy: How does Obama get away with it?

“We have a joke about it. We’re going to start a website: IfBushHadDoneThat.com,” former Bush counselor Ed Gillespie said. “The watchdogs are curled up around his feet, sleeping soundly. … There are countless examples: some silly, some serious.”

Indeed, Bush got grief for secret meetings with the oil industry, politicizing the White House and spending too much time on his beloved bike. But it’s not just Republicans who notice. Media observers note that the president often gets kid-glove treatment from the press, fellow Democrats and, particularly, interest groups on the left — Bush’s loudest critics, Obama’s biggest backers.

But others say there’s a larger phenomenon at work — in the story line the media wrote about Obama’s presidency. For Bush, the theme was that of a Big Business Republican who rode the family name to the White House, so stories about secret energy meetings and a certain laziness, intellectual and otherwise, fit neatly into the theme, to be replayed over and over again.

Obama’s story line was more positive from the start: historic newcomer coming to shake up Washington. So the negatives that sprung up around Obama — like a sense that he was more flash than substance — track what negative coverage he’s received, captured in a recent “Saturday Night Live” skit that made fun of his lack of accomplishments in office.

“There may well be almost an unconscious effort on the part of the media to give Obama a bit more slack because he is more likable, because he is the first African-American president. That plays into it,” said Sherry Bebitch Jeffe, a political analyst at the University of Southern California.

Democrats find the complaints of Obama “getting a pass” hard to stomach in light of the way the press treated Bush — particularly on the single biggest mistake of his presidency, relying on the faulty intelligence leading up to the war in Iraq. Now, Obama’s aides say, the positive coverage simply reflects the fact that their efforts are succeeding.

“As our administration makes progress on the agenda that Washington has ignored for too long, we expect we’ll get some news coverage of that progress that we like and some tough coverage that we don’t,” White House spokesman Josh Earnest said. “It’s not unlike the New Orleans Saints, who are getting lots of good coverage of their perfect record so far — certainly better coverage than the [2-5] Redskins — but it doesn’t mean the Saints have liked every story that’s been written about them since training camp. It goes with the territory.”

There are signs the friendly tone toward Obama is ebbing. Case in point: a front-page story in The New York Times noting that Obama’s all-male basketball games drew fire from the head of the National Organization for Women, who called the games “troubling.”

I agree that Bush seemed to be treated with kit gloves, way, way too much for my liking. The media does seem to enjoy determining who our next president will be. But even Bush’s treatment pales in comparison to the lovefest the MSM has had for Obama.

So yes, they are now asking why Obama excludes women (though he has now tried to rectify that by asking ONE woman, Melody Barnes, to play golf with him) in his games? We have known for ages that often, it is on the golf course or basketball court that favors are curried or power is amassed, hence the desire for women to achieve membership in numerous country clubs across the country. Oh, and Obama’s response to the NY Time’s articles highlighting that women were excluded? “Bunk, ” he said. Uh, yeah, no. It isn’t, President Obama.

There are too many examples of just how Obama has been allowed to skate free:

But here are other stories in which Obama seems to have gotten a pass:

New Orleans

As a candidate, Obama railed against the Bush administration for abandoning and then neglecting the people of New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina. He made five campaign trips to the city.

But as president, Obama waited almost nine months before visiting the Big Easy, spent less than four hours on the ground there and then jetted to San Francisco for a $3 million Democratic fundraiser.

“Don’t judge anybody on the amount of time that they’ve spent there. Judge only what this administration promised that they would do, what they’ve done every day and what they’re continuing to work on,” press secretary Robert Gibbs said, pointing to positive reviews of the federal government’s efforts under Obama.

For their part, Democrats can’t see how Bush officials can muster much umbrage over anything related to New Orleans, given how the Republican administration handled the initial response to Katrina.

Forget “Bush Officials.” How about us plain ol’ Americans? We’re pretty pissed off about it, too. Just saying. A biggie is this:

Managing The Press

When the Obama administration moved in recent weeks to isolate and disparage Fox News as a wing of the Republican Party, there were few immediate howls of outrage — even from Fox’s fellow journalists in the media.

Press defenders and First Amendment advocates who jumped on the Bush administration for using military analysts to shape war coverage reacted with a yawn to the White House’s announcement that it had deemed Fox to be not a “legitimate news organization.”

“Had I said about MSNBC what the Obama White House said about Fox, the media uproar would still be going on,” said Ari Fleischer, who served as Bush’s press secretary until 2003. “I instinctively would have known … the media would have leapt to their feet to defend them. I’m shocked it’s not happening now.”

One press veteran agreed. “If George Bush had taken on MSNBC, what would have happened?” said Phil Bronstein, editor-at-large of the San Francisco Chronicle. “That’s one place you can point to a real difference in how I’d imagine Bush would be treated.”

No freakin’ kidding. People would be screaming their fool heads off about free speech. But the Obamam crowd? They just jump on the Fox bashing bandwagon. Nice.

And this is a big one, too:

Politicizing the White House

Throughout the Bush administration, liberal critics warned that the hand of Bush political adviser Karl Rove was spreading politics into all corners of government. Reporters were on alert for any sign that politics was infecting the work of federal agencies. One top appointee got in hot water for allegedly asking agency officials to work to “help our candidates” across the country.

So some Bush aides went nearly apoplectic earlier this month when they spotted Gibbs and Obama’s political guru, David Axelrod, in photos of a Situation Room meeting on Afghanistan policy.

“Oh, the howling and screaming that would have happened if Karl Rove was sitting in on even a deputies-level meeting where strategy was being hammered out. People would have just gone ballistic,” said Peter Feaver, a former White House aide for both Bush and Bill Clinton.

Also, in about nine months, Obama has already attended more than two dozen fundraising events, while Bush did only six in his first year in office, according to a tally by CBS’s Mark Knoller.

Gibbs said Obama had to do more to raise a similar amount of money, since the kinds of soft-money fundraisers Bush did early on were banned. “This president … doesn’t accept money from PACs or lobbyists and doesn’t allow lobbyists to give at fundraisers that he’s at, as well,” Gibbs added.

Uh, yeah, sure, okay, Mr. Mealy Mouth Man. We all buy that one, right? Uh, yeah, no.

Then there is this one:

Dealing With Business, In Secret

Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney endured years of criticism and lawsuits that stretched all the way to the Supreme Court over secret meetings Cheney’s Energy Task Force held with oil and gas companies. When the policy emerged, critics said Cheney was carrying water for the industry.

Obama pledged to hash out health care reform live on C-SPAN and excoriated Bush for kowtowing to the drug industry. But aides signed off on the drug industry’s agreement to find $80 billion in savings to support reform. However, Obama aides didn’t disclose that the agreement involved the White House promising that current health legislation wouldn’t include further cuts or give the government the right to negotiate over drug prices.

I admit, this did actually get a rise from a few folks, like Greg Palast. But that moment seems to have passed now. Now, people rarely mention it. Big surprise…

And another issue near and dear to many of us:

Toning Down Human Rights

During the campaign, Obama talked tough on China. While candidate Obama pushed Bush to take a hard line, President Obama hasn’t. Hoping to win China’s help on Iran and North Korea, Obama skipped a meeting with the Dalai Lama and said little when China undertook a violent crackdown in its largely Muslim Xinjiang region. The White House has pledged to meet with the Dalai Lama later.

And while candidate Obama warned Bush against a “reckless and cynical initiative [that] would reward a regime in Khartoum that has a record of failing to live up to its commitments,” President Obama’s envoy to Sudan, Scott Gration, seemed to lay out a similar incentive-driven approach.

“We’ve got to think about giving out cookies,” said Gration. “Kids, countries — they react to gold stars, smiley faces, handshakes, agreements, talk, engagement.” The White House backed away from Gration’s characterization of the strategy but did recently lay out a strategy of engaging with the Sudanese regime.

Obama snubbed the DALAI LAMA. C’mon already – THAT’S not going to get an outcry? He’s the DALAI LAMA, for pete’s sake! No? *Crickets*

Just for, um, fun:

Traveling And Recreating

In his campaign and as president, Bush was mocked for a lack of interest in all things foreign — seven minutes touring the Kremlin, 25 minutes at the Great Wall of China, before declaring, “Let’s go home.”

During a trip to Europe in June, Obama chastised German and French reporters for suggesting that he was snubbing those countries by making only brief stops in each. “There are only 24 hours in the day. And so there’s nothing to any of that speculation beyond us just trying to fit in what we could do on such a short trip,” he told reporters in Germany.

But after taking his wife out for an attention-grabbing date night, Obama promptly jetted back to Washington. Within about 90 minutes of arriving at the White House, the tightly scheduled president was on the move again — headed to Andrews Air Force Base to play nine holes of golf.

How quickly people change. If Bush had done ANY of these things, the HuffPo and Daily Kos crowds would have been going ballistic about it. But now that it’s THEIR guy, it’s peachy keen. Where is the sense of fair play? Where is the concept of right is right? No, all of that gets completely thrown out of the window if it is someone they actually LIKE.

That is just sad. While ethics can be situational, the similarities between Bush and Obama are glaring, as many of us said they were all along. To completely disregard any sense of decency because it’s their guy weakens their arguments about choosing him in the first place. It makes it crystal clear that this is about winning at all costs, and choosing someone with little more than a teleprompter to do so.

It weakens their arguments against Bush, too, though they will most likely never admit that. But it’s true. In this case, what’s god for the gander, is, well, good for the gander.

Maybe if the media actually starts to do its job (for instance, where are all of the photos of Obama playing golf all of the time? Or basketball? They never failed to show Bush playing or riding his bike.), maybe they will start to open their eyes. One can hope, anyway. In the meantime, it continues to be our job to hold Obama’s feet to the fire for decisions he makes, and doesn’t make. It is our job to hold up the glaring similarities between Bush and Obama. And do so we will…