See what I mean? How old is this guy, THREE? Here is more:

The president will refuse to make fund-raising visits during November elections to any district whose representative has not backed the bill.

A one-night presidential appearance can bring in hundreds of thousands of dollars in funds which would otherwise take months to accumulate through cold-calling by campaign volunteers.

Mr Obama’s threat came as the year-long debate over his signature domestic policy entered its final week.

Mr Obama is personally telephoning congressmen who are still on the fence this week, in between several personal appearances devoted toward swinging public opinion.

Yesterday he visited Strongsville, Ohio, home of cancer patient Natoma Canfield, who wrote to the president she gave up her health insurance after it rose to $8,500 (£5,600) a year. Mr Obama repeatedly has cited the letter he received from the self-employed cleaning worker to illustrate the urgency of reform.

Though Congress has already ignored several deadlines set by the president, March 21 is being treated by all sides the final target date, at which time all options would have been exhausted. The president has postponed an overseas trip by three days to see reform through.

Apart from arm-twisting by the White House, an advertising blitz that could cost £20 million by the end of the week, about the same level of a presidential campaign, has been aimed at about 40 undecided Democrats in the House of Representatives.

Good grief. Can this man possibly be more petulant, more childish? Or waste more money giving a speech we have already heard a gazillion times?? There is more to this article, which you can read HERE, but I really want to share some of the comments with you. They are hilarious:

This is a good thing because if he campaigns for them they will surely lose…..linda
*
What’s the second prize? Tony Gee
*
In his hubris, Mr. Obama actually thinks that congressional candidates will WANT him to campaign for them. After his performances in Copenhagen, Virginia, New Jersey and Massachusetts, I have to think that Dems are figuring out that he is POISON, and they’ll ask him to stay away. What a complete laughingstock this buffoon is.

Another reason to vote NO for socialized medicine. We don’t have the money for this idiocy. Jim

I hope he comes to Louisiana to support Senator Landrieu. Oh Happy Day! John
*
I have to assume that those who vote NO will be popping champaign and celebrating over Obama’s promise not to support their reelection efforts.

It’s pretty clear that Obama has the reverse Midas touch. Everything he touches turns to c**p–even when he gets his way it turns to c**p. BMF
*
No surprise here, just more Chicago Strong Arm Politics. This will backfire though as Pres. Obama’s “endoresment” has been the kiss of death for anyone involved so far.

This BIG BROTHER bill will get passed by deception, in the dead of night. It doesn’t have, and will never have the votes to pass in the light of day. Reform is needed, but not at the expense of our children’s children’s future. DaDeO
*
Reminds me of the kid on the losing side of a game who threatens to take his ball and go home and then is surprised when the others tell him to go ahead.

In November and 2012, there is a real opportunity to put adults in charge again!
Patriotic Chicago
*
obama won’r campaign for any democRAT not voting yes? Consider that a VERY BIG PLUS! He’ll throw anyone under the bus to pass his socialized POS! CONCERNED VETERAN
*
Obama is a Big Joke,Stupid Americans Voted for some idiot.Around the world he is alienating his friends like Israel & getting screwed by the chinese.When we were growing up as kids, i remember American Presidents were greeted with so much love & affection in our country,After Obama has become president we feel like throwing stones at him.Use your pea head brains properly & throw this joker out from your country. Maple
*
Somebody has to stop this insane legislation. It will be a catastrophe and the boondoggle of the century for fraud & corruption like we’ve never seen before.
Dugan

There are many, many more good ones there, and the rest of the article is worth reading.

But Obama is not the only one in this party to act like a child regarding this legislation. Another one is Steve Hildebrand. Who, you may ask? This article tells it all:

Obama Campaign Guru Eyes House Seat, Senior Obama campaign official Steve Hildebrand is eyeing a Democratic primary challenge to South Dakota Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, a decision he said hinges largely on whether she votes against health care reform later this week.

Hildebrand, deputy national campaign manager for Obama’s presidential campaign, told CNN in an exclusive interview that he has been frustrated with Herseth Sandlin’s voting record for some time, especially her decision to oppose the House health care reform bill in November. The House is expected to vote again on the issue later this week and a Herseth Sandlin spokesperson has said she plans to vote no again.

“I want to see how she votes on health care,” Hildebrand said. “If the vote is very, very close and we lose it or come close to losing it, I will take a serious look at challenging her.”

“She is on the wrong side of history,” he added.

A Herseth Sandlin spokesman declined to comment on the potential primary challenge.

Wow, this is a page right out of Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr.’s playbook from the Primaries – “do what we want, or we will put a challenger up against you!”

What a bunch of thuggish toddlers this group is. Unbelievable:

Hildebrand said he has not spoken to the White House about a potential run, nor has he reached out to Sen. Tim Johnson, D-South Dakota, or former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-South Dakota. Hildebrand, a close political advisor to Johnson and Daschle, said if he decides to run he will have a “conversation with them.”

“But I would not expect them to go against an incumbent within their party,” he said.

On Monday, Hildebrand sent an e-mail to South Dakota Democrats urging them to pressure Herseth Sandlin to support Obama’s health care reform efforts. He accused the Democratic congresswoman of “siding” with the GOP and “the big insurance companies” on the debate over health care reform.

“The bill may not pass the House without Stephanie’s support,” Hildebrand said in the email. “What a tragedy if we came this far in our fight to get health insurance reform, only to see the bill die because a few of our own Democrats stood in the way. We need Stephanie’s vote. It’s critical.”

He made no mention of a possible challenge to Herseth Sandlin in the note.

Hildebrand is the highest profile Democrat to openly talk about challenging a specific member of his own party over the health care issue, although the idea is picking up traction in some corners of the party.

Prominent Democratic strategist Donna Brazile wrote on her Twitter feed Monday that “If a handful of Democrats decide to defeat this bill, they deserve to get a primary challenge to defend the status quo & insurance industry.”

And MoveOn.org sent an email to its members on the same day asking them to “pledge to support progressive primary challengers to House Democrats who side with Republicans.”

Hildebrand said that if he decides to run, he will only accept contributions from South Dakotans and will cap the amount at $100. Widely credited with devising Obama’s primary political strategy – including the Iowa caucus win – Hildebrand said he thinks he “could run a very credible race for about $150,000 to 200,000.” Herseth Sandlin has more than $362,000 in the bank, according to her latest fundraising report filed with the Federal Election Commission.

The South Dakota primary is June 8.

At one time, Hildebrand said he “advised” Herseth Sandlin “on an informal basis” and even donated $500 to her campaign. But when she came on out in favor of a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, Hildebrand asked for his money back. Hildebrand, who is gay, is the principal in Hildebrand Strategies, political consulting firm based in Sioux Falls, South Dakota.

“Do what I want or else.” I feel like I am living inside an episode of “The Sopranos,” for crying out loud.

Along those lines, a special shout out to Rep. Kucinich. So, a ride on Air Force One was sufficient to sway you from your deeply held convictions about this Healthcare Bill? I regret I ever gave you one thin dime back when I thought you really were a man with integrity and honor. I won’t make that mistake about you again. But if I were you, I would have held out for that pony…

Blech – I feel like I need a shower. But I won’t leave you on this downer note about our petulant Toddler in Chief, and Turncoat Kucinich. It is St. Patrick’s Day, after all, so here are a couple o’ tunes to lift your hearts and souls:

Case in point: Washington Post “media critic” Howard Kurtz’s article today about FOX News Channel’s “reporters’” growing discomfort with the shenanigans of FNC darling Glenn Beck, he of the mighty chalkboard of insanity, his ludicrous fits of crying, his manic desire to be a political player, the fearmongering, paranoia and Stalin-Mao-Hitler-Marxist-Communist-Racist-Obama-hating cavalcade of madness. The meme that Beck is merely an entertainer and that FOX personalities are worried that the new star on the block could damage its relationship with the White House and the channel’s reputation are laughable at best. After all, Beck organized the infamous “9/12″ rallies, a non-news event enthusiastically covered by FOX, complete with inflated crowd estimates. Beck, in displays of false modesty, claims to be a mere rodeo clown. Nonsense. He’s a liar, an ignoramus and a dangerous Father Coughlinesque demagogue who has done enormous damage to political discourse and the profession of journalism. (Beck would probably decry Coughlin’s loyalties but the technique remains the same).

Beck apologized recently for wasting his audience’s time following a hilariously absurd and demented interview with disgraced tickling enthusiast and former Congressman Eric Massa. But not to worry, he’s back to whatever passes for normal now.

FOX’s “news” operation didn’t show restraint or a desire for fact-checking while helping pump damaging, and false stories about the Clintons into the media churn, with the Vince Foster conspiracy theory still holding a strong showing behind the JFK assassination.

And it’s not as if Beck makes money for the network. He’s a loss leader (here’s a partial list of companies that have pulled their ads, despite Beck’s strong ratings). There are rumblings that Rupert Murdoch’s children are fed up with the drama surrounding FOX News’s foolishness, but you can bet that as long as daddy Rupert is in charge and Roger Ailes continues to draw breath nothing will change.

The Kurtz article follows an absurd piece in the Washington Post by former New York Times Executive Editor Howell Raines. With wide-eyed wonder, he ponders the vexing question of why reputable media organizations don’t call FOX out as a propaganda mill. This from a man who if he had a sense of shame would have the decency to keep quiet about media ethics, considering that reporter Bush/Cheney stenographer Judy Miller’s wildly incorrect WMD/Chalabi articles started being published in the NYT on his watch. The New York Times, which sets the agenda for all other publications in the United States, was thereby complicit in pushing falsehoods that led to an unjust and unnecessary war, costing thousands of American lives and ruining the U.S.’s reputation around the world. Good work, Howell.

But to answer your question, Howell: Cowardice. The American media are sheep. You’re welcome.

American reporters love to express their wonder at the Pakistani media’s love of conspiracy theories and wrinkle their brows over what a terrible impact the dissemination of false and sensationalistic information could have on the U.S.-Pak relationship. Look in the mirror, people.

– Cross Post from: The Pakistan Update

Those are some forceful words from Senator Byrd. What did President Clinton do? Clinton acknowledged that Senator Byrd was correct, and dropped the pursuit of Reconciliation to pass Healthcare back in the 1990’s.

My question to Senator Byrd is: why are you not arguing in the exact same manner against Obama’s desire to use this process for the EXACT SAME REASON???

How about Senator Kent Conrad, D-North Dakota on Reconciliation? This was Senator Conrad on the floor of the Senate recalling the debate over President Clinton’s consideration of Reconciliation for Healthcare:

And now? Oh, you know what’s coming. Now Conrad has signaled he is willing to use this budgetary procedure to pass Obama’s exceedingly flawed (and not even completely written) Healthcare bill.

I might add, he was that upset in 2001 over a $138 Billion dollar initiative? Ahahahahah, isn’t that just precious? Especially considering Obama and the Democrats racked up $223 Billion in DEBT just this past month alone!! In just ONE month they have spent more $90 billion MORE than Bill Clinton’s Healthcare Initiative. Wow, Senator Conrad, way to really stick to your budgetary guns there.

No wonder Democrats are referred to as the “Tax and Spend” Party. I used to take offense at that, but they are earning that label in a big way now.

And then, there is Obama as a US Senator on how we cannot use Reconciliation. Yo knew it was coming. Oh, make sure to check out the date when he is talking about getting a bill to his desk to his sign:

Did you catch that? September of 2007 he was already claiming the presidency. Talk about hubris. Now? You know that, too. Obama wants to use it. In the following video from the Blair Street Summit, Obama’s essentially saying we are a bunch of dumbasses who don’t care how Congress does its job:

Here’s a newsflash for you, Obama – we DO pay attention to how things get done in Washington, or not, and how much you all are listening to us or not. You most definitely are NOT.

Just to digress for a moment, I just wonder why in the world this man wanted this position so much that he was willing to lie, cheat and steal to get it when he CLEARLY has such little regard for the people whom he is SUPPOSED to be serving. Must be those perks he mentioned in the first video because it isn’t any respect he has for us.

And talk about HYPOCRISY. Byrd, Conrad, and Obama are poster boys for it in their flipflop about Reconciliation to shove this extremely expensive, pork laden, Big Pharma gifting, increased insurance premium making, Medicare curring healthcare bill down our throats.

Obama wants to “get ‘er done” before he leaves next week, another false deadline.

To that end, the House Democrats have locked themselves away in their “transparent” attempt to come to some agreement about this bill so they can try and meet Obama’s time frame.

So glad they are spending SO Much time on this when 462,000 people have filed for unemployment this WEEK. The numbers were expected to be lower.

In my own state, the front page news included that unemployment in South Carolina has hit another record high:

Employers cut 27,700 positions throughout the month, including seasonal jobs in tourism and retail, as the jobless rate reached 12.6 percent, the state Employment Security Commission said Wednesday.

South Carolina’s unemployed population — a total of 273,455 residents — is the biggest on record.

Compare that number with the data recorded several years ago and a grim picture emerges. That figure, for example, never topped 100,000 people in 2000. Throughout 2005, the number averaged 140,000.

“It gives us a sense of how many jobs the economy needs to create in order

to put a majority of people back to work,” said economist Don Schunk of Coastal Carolina University. “More so than the unemployment rate, (that number) tells us how far we have to go before we return to some sense of normalcy.”

The preliminary January rate eclipsed the previous record set in December. That number originally came in at 12.6 percent, but it was revised downward to 12.4 percent last week, based on more current information.

So, yes, Congress, by all means, cancel all of your other meetings like you did today (Thursday), continue to focus all of your time and energy on a healthcare bill we have been telling you for months we do not want, while we continue to lose our jobs, our homes, and our faith in you.

November cannot come soon enough.

Even in the face of mounting opposition within his own party, and even among some liberals like Dr. Marcia Angell (who, by the way, is being demonized by some progressives as being “anti-woman” for opposing this bill. That is some logical leap, as in, it has lept away from being logical). Dr. Angell highlights that this bill as written is a gift to the pharmaceutical companies (Obama made his deal with them before any bill was ever even written) and the INSURANCE companies, the same ones Obama demonizes in his speeches. Yet, on Obama goes, as this article by Charles Krauthammer brings home, Onward with Obamacare, Regardless:

So the yearlong production, set to close after Massachusetts’s devastatingly negative Jan. 19 review, saw the curtain raised one last time. Obamacare lives.

After 34 speeches (as of 3/4/10), three sharp electoral rebukes (Virginia, New Jersey and Massachusetts) and a seven-hour seminar, the president announced Wednesday his determination to make one last push to pass his health-care reform.

The final act was carefully choreographed. The rollout began a week earlier with a couple of shows of bipartisanship: a Feb. 25 Blair House “summit” with Republicans, followed five days later with a few concessions tossed the Republicans’ way.

Show is the operative noun. Among the few Republican suggestions President Obama pretended to incorporate was tort reform. What did he suggest to address the plague of defensive medicine that a Massachusetts Medical Society study showed leads to about 25 percent of doctor referrals, tests and procedures being done for no medical reason? A few ridiculously insignificant demonstration projects amounting to one-half of one-hundredth of 1 percent of the cost of his health-care bill.

As for the Blair House seminar, its theatrical quality was obvious even before it began. The Democrats had already decided to go for a purely partisan bill. Obama signaled precisely that intent at the end of the summit show — then dramatically spelled it out just six days later in his 35th health-care speech: He is going for the party-line vote.

Unfortunately for Democrats, that seven-hour televised exercise had the unintended consequence of showing the Republicans to be not only highly informed on the subject, but also, as even Obama was forced to admit, possessed of principled objections — contradicting the ubiquitous Democratic/media meme that Republican opposition was nothing but nihilistic partisanship.

No kidding about the Blair House seminar. We suspected that was the case before it happened, and its hours long drama did nothing to dispel that initial suspicion. Not that that stopped Obama, then or now, despite the outcome. A big ol’ oopsie daisy” for the Democrats on that one:

Republicans did so well, in fact, that in his summation, Obama was reduced to suggesting that his health-care reform was indeed popular because when you ask people about individual items (for example, eliminating exclusions for preexisting conditions or capping individual out-of-pocket payments), they are in favor.

Yet mystifyingly they oppose the whole package. How can that be?

Allow me to demystify. Imagine a bill granting every American a free federally delivered ice cream every Sunday morning. Provision 2: steak on Monday, also home delivered. Provision 3: a dozen red roses every Tuesday. You get the idea. Would each individual provision be popular in the polls? Of course.

However (life is a vale of howevers) suppose these provisions were bundled into a bill that also spelled out how the goodies are to be paid for and managed — say, half a trillion dollars in new taxes, half a trillion in Medicare cuts (cuts not to keep Medicare solvent but to pay for the ice cream, steak and flowers), 118 new boards and commissions to administer the bounty-giving, and government regulation dictating, for example, how your steak is to be cooked. How do you think this would poll?

Perhaps something like 3 to 1 against, which is what the latest CNN poll shows is the citizenry’s feeling about the current Democratic health-care bills.

Uh, yeah – I don’t know how many more ways Americans can say we do not want this bill as written, yet Obama and the Democrats continue their push regardless of the sentiment, and the concerns, like cost:

Late last year, Democrats were marveling at how close they were to historic health-care reform, noting how much agreement had been achieved among so many factions. The only remaining detail was how to pay for it.

Well, yes. That has generally been the problem with democratic governance: cost. The disagreeable absence of a free lunch.

Which is what drove even strong Obama supporter Warren Buffett to go public with his judgment that the current Senate bill, while better than nothing, is a failure because the country desperately needs to bend the cost curve down, and the bill doesn’t do it. Buffett’s advice would be to start over and get it right with a bill that says “we’re just going to focus on costs and we’re not going to dream up 2,000 pages of other things.” (Disclosure: Buffett is a director of The Washington Post Co.)

Obama has chosen differently, however. The time for debate is over, declared the nation’s seminar leader in chief. The man who vowed to undo Washington’s devious and wicked ways has directed the Congress to ram Obamacare through, by one vote if necessary, under the parliamentary device of “budget reconciliation.” The man who ran as a post-partisan is determined to remake a sixth of the U.S. economy despite the absence of support from a single Republican in either house, the first time anything of this size and scope has been enacted by pure party-line vote.

Surprised? You can only be disillusioned if you were once illusioned.
letters@charleskrauthammer.com

Well, true that. Those of us who were watching with eyes wide open, and not high on Hopium or drunk on Kool Aide, were never “illusioned.” As Obama’s tenure continues, we marvel that so many are STILL “illusioned.” Kinda makes you wonder just what the hell it takes to finally get through the closed minds of his supporters. Buying GM didn’t do it; taking over banks didn’t do it; giving away the store to the unions didn’t do it; his lack of experience and leadership didn’t do it; and now this healthcare debacle isn’t doing it. What in the hell does it TAKE to get through to them?

To be honest, I don’t think I want to know. How about you?

I have seen any number of people justify this action, good people, who believe the lines being fed them by Obama and the Democratic leadership about using this option, claiming the Republicans used it before, even equating getting Obamacare passed this way as comparable to how Social Security and Medicare were passed. Those comparisons are simply false:

Leave aside the irony of invoking “the American people” on behalf of a bill that consistently has been 10 to 15 points underwater in every poll since the fall, and is getting more unpopular by the day, particularly among independents. As Maine Republican Olympia Snowe pointed out in a speech last December, Social Security passed when Democrats controlled both Congress and the White House, yet 64% of Senate Republicans and 79% of the House GOP voted for it. More than half of the Senate Republican caucus voted for Medicare in 1965. Historically, major social legislation has always been bipartisan, because it reflects a durable political consensus.

Yet, these false comparisons continue, on a daily basis it seems.

While that is important to make clear, it is not my main point here. My point is about this man: Senator Robert C. Byrd, Democrat, of West Virginia. Specifically, I want to share Senator Byrd’s response to using a budgetary process to force such a massive program on us. Who cares what Senator Byrd says, you query? Well, he is one of the creators of Reconciliation, and oh, does he have something to say about usage of Reconciliation being threatened now (the following is from April 29, 2009):

Statement on FY 2010 Budget Resolution

“I like this budget. I support many of the policies that the President’s budget embraces – including middle-class tax relief, and badly needed investments in our nation’s infrastructure – but I cannot, and I will not, vote to authorize the use of the reconciliation process to expedite passage of health care reform legislation or any other legislative proposal that ought to be debated at length by this body.”

“Using reconciliation to ram through complicated, far-reaching legislation is an abuse of the budget process. ((Emphasis mine) The writers of the Budget Act, and I am one, never intended for its reconciliation’s expedited procedures to be used this way. These procedures were narrowly tailored for deficit reduction. They were never intended to be used to pass tax cuts, or to create new Federal regimes. Additionally, reconciliation measures must comply with Section 313 of the Budget Act, known as the Byrd Rule, which means that whatever health legislation is reported from the Finance Committee or legislation from any other Committee that is shoe-horned into reconciliation will sunset after five years. Additionally, numerous other non-budgetary provisions of any such legislation will have to be omitted under reconciliation. This is a very messy way to achieve a goal like health care reform, and one that will make crafting the legislation more difficult.”

“Whatever abuses of the budget reconciliation process which have occurred in the past, or however many times the process has been twisted to achieve partisan ends does not justify the egregious violation done to the Senate’s Constitutional purpose. The Senate has a unique institutional role.” (Emphasis mine)

I know, I know – Senator Byrd completely went against the will of the people of his state (along with Senator Jay Rockefeller) when he threw his support to Obama rather than the one, Clinton, his people overwhelmingly chose. But STILL – this is important. What he is saying is important. It paints a picture in bold relief that for the Democrats to pull this kind of maneuver is an “Abuse of Power.” Coming from the longest serving senator, who has been through a lot of Administrations and Congresses, that is saying something. He continues:

“It is the one place in all of government where the rights of the numerical minority are protected. As long as the Senate preserves the right to debate and the right to amend we hold true to our role as the Framers envisioned. We were to be the cooling off place where proposals could be examined carefully and debated extensively, so that flaws might be discovered and changes might be made. Remember, Democrats will not always control this chamber, the House of Representatives or the White House. The worm will turn. Some day the other party will again be in the majority, and we will want minority rights to be shielded from the bear trap of the reconciliation process.”

That reminds me of this quote by Joe Biden on the Reconciliation process: “and I pray God that when the Democrats take back control we don’t make the kind of naked power grab you are doing.” Sorry, Joe – either the Democrats aren’t listening to you, or God isn’t. Guess where my money is.

Back to Byrd’s statement:

“Under reconciliation’s gag rule there are twenty hours of debate or less if time is yielded back, and little or no opportunity to amend. Those restrictions mean that whatever is nailed into reconciliation by the majority will likely emerge as the final product. With critical matters such as a massive revamping of our health care system which will impact the lives of every citizen of our great land, the Senate has a duty to debate and amend and explain in the full light of day, however long that may take, what it is we propose, and why we propose it. The citizens who sent us here deserve that explanation and they should demand it. We must not run roughshod over minority views. A minority can be right. An amendment can vastly improve legislation. Debate can expose serious flaws. Ramrodding and railroading have no place when it comes to such matters as our people’s healthcare. The President came to the White House promising a bipartisan government because he knew how sick and tired the American public is of scorched earth politics. I daresay President Obama should not be in favor of the destruction of the institutional purpose of this Senate in which he served any more than he would bless a rigged psuedo-debate on healthcare, completely absent minority input.” (Again, emphasis mine)

“While I support the admirable budget priorities outlined in this resolution, I cannot and will not condone legislation that puts political expediency ahead of the time-honored purpose of this institution.”

Reconciliation is not the answer, never was. But that Obama and the Democrats are even considering it speaks volumes about the plan, Obama, and the Democrats, especially Nancy Pelosi, who had the audacity to say this:

“They know that this will take courage,” Nancy Pelosi said in an interview over the weekend, speaking of the Members she’ll try to strong-arm. “It took courage to pass Social Security. It took courage to pass Medicare,” the Speaker continued. “But the American people need it, why are we here? We’re not here just to self-perpetuate our service in Congress.”.

One can only hope, and pray, that cooler heads will indeed prevail. One can only hope that the will of the people will ultimately triumph, and that this plan goes back to the drawing board where it belongs. One can only hope that the eyes of people, good, usually reasonable, people, will see this ploy for what it is. A purely political, ego-driven, lobby pandering, 1/6th of our economy government run plan opposed by the majority of Americans.

Perhaps Nancy and Barack should pay more attention to their elder statesman, who actually helped write the damn Reconciliation thing.

It is, in short, an Abuse of Power: ‘An undemocratic disservice to our people and to the Senate’s institutional role.’ Couldn’t have said it better myself.

Apparently, I am not the only one, though I’m not the one who counts. It’s the people who are actually in Reid’s state who matter at this juncture. And they are none too happy with him, either. Even a visit from The One didn’t help him, as this article makes clear, POLL: Obama’s Visit Just Bounced Off Reid; Poll shows senator gained little ground in re-election battle. Oh, dear. That doesn’t bode well, does it? Short answer, no. But here’s the particulars of just how much Obama did not help the senator in his re-election bid:

During his whirlwind visit to Las Vegas two weeks ago, President Barack Obama mentioned U.S. Sen. Harry Reid by name four dozen times, gave him a big hug and talked him up as if he was a long-lost brother.

In remarks that could not have been more laudatory, Obama repeatedly characterized the veteran Democratic leader as a man “made of very strong stuff” who was making the right decisions for the state back in the nation’s capital.

But as Reid faces an uphill path to win re-election to a fifth Senate term, Obama’s enthusiastic endorsement does not appear to have improved the Senate majority leader’s standing among constituents, according to a new poll conducted for the Las Vegas Review-Journal.

Reid got no bounce from Obama’s visit on Feb. 19, when the president spoke highly of him at Green Valley High School and to business leaders at CityCenter, polling indicates.

A larger percentage of voters surveyed (17 percent) said they would be less likely to vote for Reid following the president’s visit than said they would be more likely to vote for him (7 percent). Seventy-five percent said Obama’s visit would have no effect on how they vote.

“Reid was not helped, and Obama was not any more popular than he was before he came to the state,” said Brad Coker, managing director at Mason-Dixon Polling & Research.

Obama’s day in Vegas “did not have much of an effect” on Reid’s re-election chances, notably among independent voters, Coker said.

Um, I’m no mathematician, but I do know basic arithmetic: 17 – 7 = 10, so I’m not real sure about Coker’s conclusion that Obama’s visit “did not have much of an effect” on Reid’s behalf. Seems like Obama’s visit had QUITE the effect, just not the kind Reid probably wanted. Coker continued:

“The independents hold the key to Reid, and for Reid there is no sign he is cracking them right now,” he said.

Mason-Dixon researchers spoke over the phone with 625 likely Nevada voters Monday through Wednesday. The poll’s margin of error is plus or minus 4 percentage points.

A political boost for Reid “wasn’t the intent of the visit,” Reid spokesman Jon Summers said.

“Senator Reid asked the president to come to Nevada to talk about jobs and the economy and in doing so they announced $100 million to help Nevadans who are underwater in their homes,” Summers said.

Oh, you have GOT to be kidding me. That’s how they are going to try and spin this? They really do think we are a bunch of A-Number 1 Morons, don’t they? Naturally, this had absolutely zip to do with Reid’s continued struggles for re-election, not the best impression when the Senate Majority Leader is having such a hard time in his own state. Surely he can count on a little, tiny bounce by a visit from the president – not:

Regarding Obama’s trip to Las Vegas, the president’s lack of a coattail for Reid to ride says as much about Nevadans’ ambivalence toward the president as it does about the senator, Coker said.

Reid’s renewed focus on passing jobs bills in the Senate continues to be overshadowed in voters’ minds by Obama’s association with the unpopular health care debate, including Thursday’s daylong health summit , Coker said.

“It would be to Obama and Reid’s advantage to get off health care and get onto issues that people want them to work on,” Coker said.

But Obama’s visit served several purposes for Reid that wouldn’t turn up in the numbers, at least not yet, said Mark Peplowski, a political science professor at the College of Southern Nevada.

One purpose is to excite the Democratic base, particularly younger voters and occasional voters who went with Obama in 2008 and need to be re-energized.

“Pollsters now are talking with inveterate voters, but Obama and Reid are looking long term at nine months from now because Harry doesn’t have a primary race,” Peplowski said.

David Damore, a UNLV professor, said Reid’s ability to put Obama together with business leaders, as he did at a fund­raiser and again at CityCenter, shows power brokers, including Republican ones, that he can continue to deliver.

That might cement Reid’s support later among people who otherwise might think about contributing to his Republican challenger, Damore said. (Contact Stephens Media Bureau Chief Steve Tetreault at stetreault@reviewjournal.com or 202-783-1760.)

Yeah, let’s just see how well that goes over with the regular people of Nevada. They seem to see both Obama and Reid pretty clearly, don’t they? Make sure to check out the comments of the people who live in that state following the article. Hooey, there are some folks who are hot under the collar.

Or maybe they just don’t cotton to Obama telling people NOT to come to Las Vegas – TWICE, and waste their money there.

Ahem. Well, we keep trying to tell them that JOBS are what we need, something that will pay the mortgage, pay our utility bills, enable us to buy gas to get to work, and cash to put food on the table. We do not need some half-baked plan full of pork that will constitute 1/6th of the economy and will cost us money we don’t have – personally, and as a country, just to massage the ego of “That One.”

Yep, those coattails of Obama’s ain’t what they used to be – oh, wait, they never were (just ask Cornine, Deeds, or Coakley). Maybe it’s time for our “representatives” in Washington to figure out they are there to do OUR work, not whatever the man in the White House demands. If not, more of them, hopefully like Reid, will be looking for jobs themselves.

Hey, here’s a thought – Obama, why don’t you go “help” Pelosi, too? Since she seems to have forgotten her job description, to represent the people and not you, Obama, she could do with retirement. Rather, WE could do with her retirement.

Who else should Obama go “help”?

It’s an excellent question, Eastan. Here is a look at the list of invitees to Obama’s “Bipartisan” Healthcare Summit:

Senator Harry Reid, D-NV, Majority Leader
Senator Mitch McConnell, R-KY, Republican Leader
Senator Dick Durbin, D-IL, Majority Whip
Senator Jon Kyl, R-AZ, Republican Whip
Senator Max Baucus, D-MT, Chairman of the Finance Committee
Senator Chuck Grassley, R-IA, Ranking Member of the Finance Committee
Senator Tom Harkin, D-IA, Chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee
Senator Mike Enzi, R-WY, Ranking Member of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee
Senator Chris Dodd, D-CT, Member of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee
Senator Chuck Schumer, D-NY
Senator Patty Murray, D-WA
Senator Kent Conrad, D-ND
Senator Jay Rockefeller, D-WV
Senator Ron Wyden, D-OR
Senator Lamar Alexander, R-TN
Senator John Barrasso, R-WY
Senator Tom Coburn, R-OK
Senator John McCain, R-AZ
Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-CA
Representative Steny Hoyer, D-MD, Majority Leader
Representative John Boehner, R-OH, Republican Leader
Representative James Clyburn, D-SC, Majority Whip
Representative Eric Cantor, R-VA, Republican Whip
Representative Charles Rangel, D-NY, Chairman of the Ways and Committee
Representative Dave Camp, R-MI, Ranking Member of the Ways and Means Committee
Representative Henry Waxman, D-CA, Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee
Representative Joe Barton, R-TX, Ranking Member of the Energy and Commerce Committee
Representative George Miller, D-CA, Chairman of the Education and Labor Committee
Representative John Kline, R-MN, Ranking Member of the Education and Labor Committee
Representative John Dingell, D-MI, Chair Emeritus of the Energy and Commerce Committee
Representative Xavier Becerra, D-CA
Representative Louise Slaughter, D-NY
Representative Robert Andrews, D-NJ
Representative Jim Cooper, D-TN
Representative Paul Ryan, R-WI
Representative Marsha Blackburn, R-TN
Representative Charles Boustany, R-LA
Representative Peter Roskam, R-IL
** Note: Senator McConnell and Leader Boehner will designate one additional Republican member to attend.**

How many elected women do you count in there? I counted four, a rather paltry number, a slim representation for over HALF the population of the United States (and the world, for that matter).

Why does this matter? Because women have “Unique Health Needs,” that’s why:

* 80% of the population with osteoporosis are women.
* 75% of people with lupus are women.
* Twice as many women as men have arthritis.
* Hypothyroidism is ten times more prevalent in women than in men.
* Fibromyalgia (FM) is nine times more prevalent in women than in men.
* Chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) is three times more common in women than in men.
* Migraine headaches affect women three times more than men.
* Women experience more severe and more pain overall than men.
* Interstitial cystitis is almost exclusively found in women.
* Multiple sclerosis occurs more in women than in men.
* Endocrine imbalance affects women more than men.

Women with auto-immune conditions often have food and/or environmental sensitivities, heavy metal toxicity, dysbiosis and/or leaky gut syndrome. Depending on the genetics, lifestyle, and environmental affects, each person’s unique biochemistry will determine which tests are of highest priority.

For example, osteoporosis is of major concern for aging women. Bone mineral density testing is necessary to determine bone health. Solomon and colleagues reported that bone mineral density testing (BMD) is under-utilized by a majority of health care professionals. BMD is an important test for assessment of bone density. Urinary bone resorption assessment is a useful test to monitor whether treatment is preventing further bone loss.

Thyroid dysfunction was reported to be three times as high in women with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) than in women with non-inflammatory rheumatic diseases such as osteoarthritis and fibromyalgia. Some RA patients have food and environmental sensitivities, and others have dysbiosis. RA has especially been linked with a genetic predisposition and Proteus bacteria as a trigger for the illness.

Bairey–Merz reports that about 50% of women but 17% of men who have diagnostic cardiac catheterization have normal coronary arteries. So, 50% of the time chest pain in women is due to some other cause(s). Assessment of mineral status, and of other cardio risk factors such as homocysteine, fibrinogen, and C–reactive protein can be used to detect other contributors to chest pain. These tests and others are included in a comprehensive cardiovascular assessment. Magnesium deficiency often mimics angina and arrhythmia. Serum minerals testing would be of benefit.

Higher levels of estradiol also are associated with increased risk of chest pain, so a hormone panel would be indicated as well.

Although CFS and FM are distinct, they have many common characteristics in symptoms, diagnosis, and treatment. Several studies have reported a high incidence of food sensitivities, leaky gut syndrome, and thyroid autoimmunity in fibromyalgia and CFS.

That’s why it matters that there were so few women present in these discussions. As if they really mattered anyway since Big Pharma already has its deal in place, along with some other sweetheart deals for a few states, etc. But still – Obama could have made more of an effort. You know, with him being such a big feminist and all, right, “Ms. Magazine”?? Yeah, right.

This bill is fraught with so many problems, major problems. We know that. We’ve discussed that for months. But having so few women at the table is a pretty big problem, too. With so many health issues particular to women, and affecting women more than men, it should have been an IMPERATIVE that more women were involved in this process, not fewer. That’s reason enough to go back to the drawing board, don’t you think? I do.

And something else I think – had there been a President Hillary Clinton, as there should have been, the voices of women would have been well represented, with a seat at the table. With Obama? Not so much…

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!

But now we are finding out that this threat may have been overstated, though I seriously doubt it is as a result of Obama’s claims. Actually, it is worse than that. As it turns out, Climate Scientists Withdraw Journal Claims of Rising Sea Levels.

Say what?

Again, I believe in being a good steward of this planet on which we make our home regardless of how much the claims of global warming may, or may not, be exaggerated. I have long been an environmentalist, and do not feel compelled to change that underlying belief because a bunch of scientists may, or may not, have fudged the data.

But here’s the thing. This is my front yard:

So, not only does this matter to me in a big picture way, it matters to me in a very personal, direct way. As it is, insurance companies like State Farm have stopped insuring people who live on the coast in these here parts like I do (our insurance is with Lloyds of London – I kid you not).

And we get articles like this in our daily newspaper, “Coalition Hoping For Sea Change As Ocean Levels Rise,” that contain information in them that scares the absolute bejesus out of Lowcountry residents, like me:

An international group of climate scientists predicted last fall that sea levels will rise by 23 inches this century as the oceans warm, which would be roughly double the rise documented during the last century.

That prediction from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change did not account for the record-setting pace of melting polar ice, however.

“The potential is so astounding, if it continues,” Duke University Professor Orrin Pilkey said at a panel discussion in Charleston addressing the issue. “I think that 3 to 5 feet is a conservative estimate for coastal management here.”

Holy crappydoo – that would make a HUGE change in terms of where I live right now, especially when we are already getting high tides that leave the water lapping the bottom of our docks. But add to that the fact that this is Hurricane Alley. If waters are truly rising, the impact of a hurricane hitting at the “right” time will surely increase the levels of devastation, will they not?

Well, yes, if THIS article is to be believed, “Study: Warming To Bring Stronger Hurricanes“:

Knutson said the new study, which looks at worldwide projections, doesn’t make clear whether global warming will lead to more or less hurricane damage on balance. But he pointed to a study he co-authored last month that looked at just the Atlantic hurricane basin and predicted that global warming would trigger a 28 percent increase in damage near the U.S. despite fewer storms.

That study suggests category 4 and 5 Atlantic hurricanes — those with winds more than 130 mph — would nearly double by the end of the century. On average, a category 4 or stronger hurricane hits the United States about once every seven years, mostly in Florida or Texas. Recent category 4 or 5 storms include 2004’s Charley and 1992’s Andrew, but not Katrina which made landfall as a strong category 3.

Outside experts praised the work.

The study does a good job of summarizing the current understanding of storms and warming, said Chunzai Wang, a researcher with NOAA who had no role in the study.

I am more confused than ever. These are not abstract issues to me. They are very, very real, impacting people I know, cities I love, and my very home. So, do we believe this research, or do we not?

Which raises the bigger question: When did “Scientific Method” become so incredibly subjective? Who, or what, is gaining from these questionable studies? If there truly is global warming, which I have long believed to be true because I trusted that these scientists were doing their work based not on politics, but DATA, and that is not being called into question, what are we to believe?

Again – these are not abstract questions to me, or to the community in which I live. We have to plan for these kinds of changes, if they are indeed true. We have to plan what to do in the event of such catastrophic changes, for our homes, and even our docks, not to mention our investments. Are they scaring the crap out of us because they know for a fact this is happening, or because there is some other incentive for doing so? The recent article claiming there has been no “global warming” in 15 years seems to contradict the NEW study claiming hurricanes are getting worse BECAUSE of global warming.

Good grief – can someone help me out here?

In the latter days of the Carter presidency, it became fashionable to say that the office had become unmanageable and was simply too big for one man. Some suggested a single, six-year presidential term. The president’s own White House counsel suggested abolishing the separation of powers and going to a more parliamentary system of unitary executive control. America had become ungovernable.

Then came Ronald Reagan, and all that chatter disappeared.

The tyranny of entitlements? Reagan collaborated with Tip O’Neill, the legendary Democratic House speaker, to establish the Alan Greenspan commission that kept Social Security solvent for a quarter-century.

A corrupted system of taxation? Reagan worked with liberal Democrat Bill Bradley to craft a legislative miracle: tax reform that eliminated dozens of loopholes and slashed rates across the board — and fueled two decades of economic growth.

Later, a highly skilled Democratic president, Bill Clinton, successfully tackled another supposedly intractable problem: the culture of intergenerational dependency. He collaborated with another House speaker, Newt Gingrich, to produce the single most successful social reform of our time, the abolition of welfare as an entitlement.

Krauthammer hits the nail on the head:

It turned out that the country’s problems were not problems of structure but of leadership. Reagan and Clinton had it. Carter didn’t. Under a president with extensive executive experience, good political skills and an ideological compass in tune with the public, the country was indeed governable.

One needs experience, depth of knowledge on policy and the workings of government as well as specific understanding of the needs of Americans in order to move this country forward. Tone deaf policies that do little to solve those needs will not lead to a good result.

Krauthammer continues:

It’s 2010, and the first-year agenda of a popular and promising young president has gone down in flames. Barack Obama’s two signature initiatives — cap-and-trade and health-care reform — lie in ruins.

Desperate to explain away this scandalous state of affairs, liberal apologists haul out the old reliable from the Carter years: “America the Ungovernable.” So declared Newsweek. “Is America Ungovernable?” coyly asked the New Republic. Guess the answer. [snip]

Yet, what’s new about any of these supposedly ruinous structural impediments? Special interests blocking policy changes? They have been around since the beginning of the republic — and since the beginning of the republic, strong presidents, like the two Roosevelts, have rallied the citizenry and overcome them.

Krauthammer goes on to dissect the latest liberal complaints about Republican’s use of the filibuster pointing out Democrats did the same in blocking GW Bush’s judicial appointments. Their complaints that Congress’ structure impedes progress is likewise blather to provide cover for an administration that has lost control of its message.

…Indeed, the Senate with its ponderous procedures and decentralized structure is serving precisely the function the Founders intended: as a brake on the passions of the House and a caution about precipitous transformative change.

Krauthammer took time to praise another Democrat along the way:

Leave it to Mickey Kaus, a principled liberal who supports health-care reform, to debunk these structural excuses: “Lots of intellectual effort now seems to be going into explaining Obama’s (possible/likely/impending) health care failure as the inevitable product of larger historic and constitutional forces. . . . But in this case there’s a simpler explanation: Barack Obama’s job was to sell a health care reform plan to American voters. He failed.”

He failed because the utter implausibility of its central promise — expanded coverage at lower cost — led voters to conclude that it would lead ultimately to more government, more taxes and more debt. More broadly, the Democrats failed because, thinking the economic emergency would give them the political mandate and legislative window, they tried to impose a left-wing agenda on a center-right country. The people said no, expressing themselves first in spontaneous demonstrations, then in public opinion polls, then in elections — Virginia, New Jersey and, most emphatically, Massachusetts.

That’s not a structural defect. That’s a textbook demonstration of popular will expressing itself — despite the special interests — through the existing structures. In other words, the system worked.

I also read an interesting piece by Joe Scarborough yesterday, discussing his own conservative principles. He stated that while he may not agree with President Obama’s agenda, he prays for him daily to find a successful way to lead for the sake of our country. He said “if his grandmother could pray for Carter, he could pray for Obama.”

My prayer is that the President starts paying more attention to the message Americans are sending him and less attention to those like Nancy Pelosi who are arrogant in continuing to tell the rest of us to get lost. Perhaps he would then find the country is governable.

The packaging of a fantasy is an art in and of itself cleverly crafted by publicists, ambitious stage parents and cynical editors. The formula is fairly simple. The performer must always be portrayed as single and wholesome. Marriage, homosexuality, bizarre personality quirks, poor grooming, violent tendencies, psychological issues, consumption of alcohol and/or drugs and smoking must be concealed at all costs lest the fantasy, and possibly a career, go up in smoke. Chastity rings a la Jonas Brothers are a big plus. The star has to be accessible but always slightly out of reach, cute but never sexual, perfectly behaved….and rather bland. Attracting and keeping the attention of young female fans, who tend to be fickle when it comes to the cuties they admire, is easier said than done.

But it’s impossible to put off the inevitable. The girls realize they’re at a puppet show when they see the strings. The star turns out to be a regular guy. After shedding a few tears and pouting a bit, the heartbroken and disappointed girls move on to the next object of their undying love.

During Campaign 2008, the American press corps hit a double by acting as both the editors of fluffy teenage magazines AND their audience: Weepy, starstruck young girls. The campaign coverage was breathless in its uncritical hero worship of candidate Obama while treating Hillary Clinton like the evil woman who comes between the adoring fan and the object of his/her adoration. The Yoko Ono of politics, if you will. The McCain camp spoofed this silly dynamic by putting out an ad drawing attention to the American Idol-like press coverage of the Obama campaign (the ad was removed from YouTube for copyright violations). And imagine how the press corps would have reacted if Bill Clinton had given his acceptance speech at the Democratic convention standing in front of a set bearing a distinct likeness to a Grecian temple.

Over a year has passed since Obama was sworn into office. Only now are the media beginning to ask whether the man they lost their heads over is the same guy from 2008. The jury’s still out with many in the press corps who continue to keep hope alive. For those who refuse to face the reality that Barack Obama is not the political Donny Osmond, the latest craze is blaming advisors for the Obama administration’s lack of legislative accomplishments. Never mind that Rahm Emanuel was not elected President and that it really doesn’t matter whether Valerie Jarrett chooses to hold court at a restaurant in Georgetown instead of pressing the flesh at an event (and you know things are getting dire when anyone in Obama’s circle is compared unfavorably to Bill Clinton, a man still reviled by the Washington press establishment). These people were appointed by the President to carry out his wishes. If Obama thought they were doing him a disservice they would be fired. The new narrative casting aspersions on the aides is a cop out. It advances the idea that these advisors fell out of the sky, formed a cabal and are now freelancing instead of following the orders of the First Boss. Nonsense.

Obama spent his first year holding a series of town halls, public meetings, press conferences and television interviews. But the bottom line is that legislatively the party has ground to a halt. The foolish narratives advanced by the media aren’t helping much. So the Republicans won an addition seat in Massachusetts? Yes, it’s a significant and important political story, but in a world populated by grown-ups going from a 60-40 supermajority in the Senate to 59-41 does not give the Democrats an out to fold their tents and go home. The Republicans haven’t achieved a supermajority in living memory but were still able to advance a controversial agenda during the tenure of George W. Bush. The fear and defeatism emanating from the Democratic caucus demonstrates an inability, or unwillingness, to lead. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s performance has been particularly timid. What ever happened to the Harry Reid who served as chairman of the Nevada Gaming Commission:

A man named Jack Gordon, who later married LaToya Jackson, tried to give Reid a $12,000 bribe. Reid let the FBI videotape Gordon offering him the bribe, and then, according to aLas Vegas Review-Journal account, he “put his hands around Gordon’s neck and said, ‘You son of a bitch, you tried to bribe me.’” That’s right, Senate Democrats are being led by a man who once tried to strangle LaToya Jackson’s future husband-manager.

The media have reached a crossroads. They can either do a group hug and cry over a dream deferred, an illusion they helped create, or they can stop searching for scapegoats and covering Obama as they would any other politician.

Will this happen? It’s hard to tell. It appears that the press have moved on to swoon over their next fascination: American Idol, er, Campaign 2012.

–
Cross Post from: ThePakistanUpdate.com

“My advice to the President is, with a great deal of respect, take New York off your radar screen,” the state’s senior senator told reporters. “Find another location.”

The most logical place,” added Schumer, “is in some isolated military base that is completely far away from population centers and is self-contained.”

Schumer’s middle-of-nowhere, military-base criteria came a day after President Obama said he has “not ruled out” bringing the trial to Manhattan Federal Court – despite a taxpayer tab estimated at $1 billion over five years.

We had thought after the shocking election of Scott Brown to Teddy Kennedy’s old senate seat, the message would have been clear. For a strong Obama ally like Schumer to come out publically and say ‘do not have the trials here’ – since the President seems to be hemming and hawing on this – it is a pretty good sign that Schumer is feeling the heat in his own state.

Part of the backlash that swept Scott Brown into office involved his campaigning on stopping the terror trials from being held in NY. The exhorbitant costs and added security the trials would involve, and who would pick up the tab, were issues upsetting to many. Politico is reporting that other Democrats in Congress likewise are running away from civilian terror trials, which are polling as very unpopular with the American people.

I advocated for Martha Coakley in the MA election and believe she was irrevocably hurt by saying these trials should be held in New York, and by allying herself with the Obama Administration, allowing him to campaign for her. This seemed to indicate she would be the crucial 60th vote on Mr. Obama’s unfortunate health care bill, however reluctantly. This sealed her fate. But as we have seen, the herd mentality in both parties makes it near impossible to stand alone. Trapped between being ostracized by her own party or going along to get along, she became the casualty, and scapegoat, of the message voters wanted to send the President and Congress. Once again, a qualified woman was cast aside.

Sen. Schumer is reading the tea leaves, both from MA’s special election and his own poll numbers, which are on the decline. Understandably, he is looking to protect his own behind with voters. This is yet another situation where President Obama’s policies are becoming toxic to his fellow Democrats.

Insiders said Monday that while the White House has all but taken the city off the table, it doesn’t want to make it official until a new site is lined up. The search is believed to extend well into the hinterlands, such as Colorado and Kansas.

AG Holder proposed 4 different location in upstate NY to Schumer, all of which he nixed.

“I told him that I was familiar with all four and none of them would work,” Schumer told the Daily News.

Further,

Some believe the whole debate may be moot, given GOP legislation that would block the feds from spending any money to try Guantanamo detainees in civilian courts. It is picking up support from Democrats too, such as Staten Island Rep. Mike McMahon.

“The political landscape has changed dramatically on this,” said Rep. Pete King (R-L.I.).

Mayor Bloomberg tried to stay out of the fray yesterday but reiterated that if the trial comes to New York, “We expect the federal government to pay for it.”

It appeared the Administration was going to backtrack on the NY trial location, yet by Senator Schumer choosing to draw a line in the sand publically, he indicates the American people’s voices are being heard. It will be curious to see who else is listening and what, if any, effect this will have on future policy.

What say you?

The first lady made the issue of healthy eating personal last week at an event in Alexandria, Va., where she kicked off a campaign addressing the issue of childhood obesity.

“We went to our pediatrician all the time,” Obama said. “I thought my kids were perfect — they are and always will be — but he [the doctor] warned that he was concerned that something was getting off balance.”

“I didn’t see the changes. And that’s also part of the problem, or part of the challenge. It’s often hard to see changes in your own kids when you’re living with them day in and day out,” she added. “But we often simply don’t realize that those kids are our kids, and our kids could be in danger of becoming obese. We always think that only happens to someone else’s kid — and I was in that position.”

It is my sense that the first lady should not have mentioned her own children in this debate. I don’t think she was trying to shame her kids publically. But by using them as an example to show other families she is in the same position they are, she is being insensitive to the fact that Sasha and Malia live in the worst kind of goldfish bowl — growing up with attention paid to their every move. Young girls are sensitive enough about their appearance without their schoolmates reading on the net that their Mom is worried about the size of their behinds.

I have personal experience with this, being on a diet since age 11. I always felt criticized at home for my baby fat and sensed I was being closely monitored. The result was a bad relationship with food that lasted for years. I have at one time been borderline anorexic and at other times, subject to binge eating. While I have been relatively slim my entire life, it took me until I was nearly 40 to forget about dieting (p.s., diets don’t work).

Oddly, when I no longer obsessed over what I ate, I started exercising regularly and ate what I felt like. I threw my scale in the trash. Checking the fit of my pants is good enough to see if I need to lay off the bread for a few days. It took 30 years to figure this out. At 51, I’m probably in the best shape of my life. And for the record, a mother clothes shopping for her daughter, making comments to the saleslady while her child is within earshot such as “Give her the next size, she needs it is the hips” is a killer.

Worry and fear creates the obsession. Making a child hyper aware of his or her weight and appearance can make food a drug of choice and grow any potential eating disorder into a worse problem than it might have been. A better answer is modeling good behavior. By setting an example for her girls without preaching about it, I wonder if a better result is possible. Girls are always worried about being compared unfavorably to their mothers. To feel like Mommy does not approve of them in some way is a recipe for disaster. I’m no shrink, but common sense tells me that when children feel loved and approved of for who they are, it is possible they will not require “a drug of choice” to hide in.

Laura Collins Lyster-Mensh, an eating disorder activist and executive director of Families Empowered and Supporting Treatment of Disorder (F.E.A.S.T.) pointed out the First Lady should discuss “behavioral change, not weight loss”:

“We’ve confused health and weight in a way that’s very confusing for children and very confusing for parents,” Lyster-Mensh said. “When we speak publicly about putting our children on a diet, we start to get into weight stigma and confusing the message to families.”

The focus on obesity, Lyster-Mensh said, turns this into an issue of appearances, which does not bode well for children, especially girls.

“There is simply no reason to be pushing children into weight reduction diets and that’s the message parents out there get,” Lyster-Mensh said. “Dieting is a gateway drug to eating disorders for those with a biological predisposition to eating disorders.”

I do not pretend there is an easy solution. Obesity is a huge problem in our country brought on partially by obsession with too many electronic toys that keep one sitting on one’s backside, too much junk food, and no P.E. Not to mention kids internalizing the family stress around them.

What do you think the First Lady should have done? What is a better solution here.

Remembering my own time as a “tweener” I never appreciated being discussed in front of other people by my parents as though I were an inanimate object or their possession. I think it would have been prudent for the First Lady to remember that in her quest to help a national problem, her children do not need to be a casualty of that discussion.

President Barack Obama told Floridians that they were due to get $1.25 billion to construct a high-speed train line between Tampa and Orlando – money to create jobs. In the commercial world people start projects not just to keep people busy but also to realize a long-term gain – a profit. But this is not the real world. Not by any AMTRAK-On-Speed stretch of the imagination.

Florida has been thinking about high-speed rail for quite a while, connecting Tampa to Miami. When talk of free-flowing federal money started in 2008 they asked for $2.5 billion for the 84-mile Tampa-Orlando project and another $30 million for an environmental impact study for the Orlando-to-Miami run. So last Thursday they were promised half the cost of the track for half of the run – none of the Miami leg funding was approved by Washington.

A senior Florida Department of Transportation official in charge of the high-speed project, is unable to say how much of the Tampa-Orlando route could be constructed with the new federal money, or when work would begin.

When Florida asked for the $2.5 billion for the Tampa-Orlando leg, it told federal officials that the cost to connect Miami to Orlando is estimated at an additional $8 billion. Then, if they find that much more money in your pocket, they will still need to buy some trains.

The U.S. entered the rail era earlier than most of the world. Many of our tracks were laid before we had the ability to easily blast away entire mountains, so the tracks have more than a few curves and inclines. We have relied lately on heavy loads, such as coal and freight, to keep the rail operators profitable and therefore our existing tracks are not exactly in pristine shape. Furthermore, we have an interstate road system that already connects most major metropolitan areas in the country.

The argument that twenty years from now – the projected completion time for the system – we will need a new high-speed passenger rail system to ferry all the waiting travelers has not yet been convincingly laid down to the taxpayers.

Then there is the issue of acquiring the land for the rails and surrounding infrastructure – a process that inevitably will involve eminent domain. That is not going to be a smooth ride all the way up and down the line, and voter suspicions about government taking of property could only add to the growing distrust citizens already have for government bureaucrats pushing pet public projects.

Surely everyone is just holding their breath anticipating the ribbon cutting ceremony at the earmark-funded Mel Torme Depot.   Seriously.

The initial question, that should have been asked before this high-minded proposal was sped to the public, remains. Why dangle billions of taxpayer dollars out in front of mostly foreign rail development firms without putting on paper the total cost of COMPLETING the project and telling the taxpayers how and when they will have to pay the bill?

Jobs? The argument that it would cost too much to ship steel from Japan did not hold water when their ships sailed in with the great steel dump. Will governors push for immigration reform because Americans won’t take the labor jobs involved in the construction of the lines? There are too many questions that have not yet been asked to believe that this proposal has been thoroughly thought out with clarity and purpose.

The core of the Interstate Road System was planned from A to Z before the first dollars were put in the ground. This high-speed rail plan seems to be missing the requisite safely designed exit ramp for hard-working taxpayers.

“..rail requires heavy subsidies. At the end of the day, the great danger is that true high-speed rail could cost taxpayers even more than the tens of billions in subsidies that have been paid to Amtrak since the 1970s.” – Wendell Cox, Amtrak Reform Council 1999-2002. Opinion in the WSJ

Providing part of the money for part of a travel trail does not make sense.   Isn’t that like saying you are going to make a glove consisting only of a wristband?   Someday somebody is going to have to pay for the rest of the glove.

As a matter of fact, planning for future spending on HSR (High-Speed_rail) is already in the works.

“To maintain this forward motion, Congress should consider a dedicated funding program for HSR … that thoroughly examines and considers all opportunities, including an entitlement or perhaps a trust fund. In terms of magnitude, it must have a significant impact. Rep. Oberstar’s $50 billion draft bill is a good start.”
Peter Gertler works for ..

So, this is what a spending freeze looks like in Washington.

It is hard to believe the above isn’t a skit from SNL, too. Holy smokes.Huh, I guess not being able to see those transcripts and stuff is kind of important AFTER all.

And just for the hell of it, I have to share this little story with you about the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, Taxpayers Pay $101,000 for Pelosi’s In-Flight ‘Food, Booze’ . I’m sure that’s in the Constitution, or the Declaration, or somewhere, that we should be shelling $1,000 a WEEK for food and booze for the Speaker:

It reads like a dream order for a wild frat party: Maker’s Mark whiskey, Courvoisier cognac, Johnny Walker Red scotch, Grey Goose vodka, E&J brandy, Bailey’s Irish Crème, Bacardi Light rum, Jim Beam whiskey, Beefeater gin, Dewars scotch, Bombay Sapphire gin, Jack Daniels whiskey … and Corona beer.

But that single receipt makes up just part of the more than $101,000 taxpayers paid for “in-flight services” – including food and liquor, for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s trips on Air Force jets over the last two years. That’s almost $1,000 per week.

Documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by Judicial Watch, which investigates and prosecutes government corruption, show Pelosi incurred expenses of some $2.1 million for her use of Air Force jets for travel over that time.

“Speaker Pelosi has a history of wasting taxpayer funds with her boorish demands for military travel,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said today. “And these documents suggest the Speaker’s congressional delegations are more about partying than anything else.”

Holy freakin’ frijoles, really?? And Obama gets up there mouthing crapola about cutting back? Please. The article continues:

Pelosi, D-Calif., recently joined President Obama on a Judicial Watch list of Top 10 corrupt politicians because of her “sense of entitlement,” the group said.

“Politicians believe laws and rules (even the U.S. Constitution) apply to the rest of us but not to them. Case in point: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her excessive and boorish demands for military travel. Judicial Watch obtained documents from the Pentagon in 2008 that suggest Pelosi has been treating the Air Force like her own personal airline,” the evaluation said.

And WND reported almost a year ago that Pelosi was shown to have been erratically canceling and rescheduling flights, as one would with an on-call taxi service.

Do the tone-deaf lawmakers in D.C. make your blood boil? Read all about Washington and its politics of corruption in “Breach of Trust.”

“We have … folks prepping the jets and crews driving in (not a short drive for some), cooking meals and preflighting the jets etc,” said one Department of Defense e-mail then.

Another official sent an e-mail questioning a series of Pelosi’s requests for aircraft.

“Any chance of politely querying [Pelosi's team] if they really intend to do all of these or are they just picking every weekend?” it stated. “[T]here’s no need to block every weekend ‘just in case’…”

The e-mail noted that the speaker’s office had “a history of canceling many of their past requests.”

Just in case you were wondering, it is not FREE to prep these jets for possible use. Um, did Obama proclaim her Queen of the United States or something when we weren’t looking?? How full of herself can she possibly be?? Oh, wait, there’s more:

Yet another e-mail exchange at that time revealed Pelosi’s demand that jets pick her up at Travis Air Force Base rather than San Francisco’s airport.

“She lives about 1.5 hours from SFO and much closer to Travis. … Whether it is the best use of assets is not the question. But instead is it worth upsetting the speaker. …”

Said another, “This is a battle that we are bound to lose if we tell the speaker(’s) office. In the end, this is what will happen. I wish that I could say this is a one-time request, but we know it will probably happen again in the future.”

Yet another indicated a deep level of frustration:

“Here is the laydown: there are five G5s. Two are broke. Two off on CODELS. One slated for priority White House… we should keep on G-III for now for Tuesday afternoon and start sacrificing goats and chickens.”

Judicial Watch said the newly obtained 2,000 pages of documentation show Pelosi’s military travel cost the U.S. Air Force $2,100,744.59 over two years – including $101,429.14 for in-flight expenses, including food and alcohol.

HOLY SHIT. That is just obscene. Can you see the smoke coming out of my ears? Oh, but wait, there is still more:

Among the newest highlights revealed:

* Pelosi used Air Force aircraft to travel back to her district at an average cost of $28,210.51 per flight. Of 103 Pelosi-led congressional delegations (CODEL), 31 trips included members of the House speaker’s family.

* One CODEL traveling from Washington, D.C., through Tel Aviv, Israel, to Baghdad, Iraq, May 15-20, 2008, “to discuss matters of mutual concern with government leaders” included members of Congress and their spouses and cost $17,931 per hour in aircraft alone. This flight included the purchase of the long list of alcoholic drinks.

* According to a “Memo for Record” from a March 29-April 7, 2007, CODEL that involved a stop in Israel, “CODEL could only bring kosher items into the hotel. Kosher alcohol for mixing beverages in the delegation room was purchased on the local economy i.e. bourbon, whiskey, scotch, vodka, gin, triple sec, tequila, etc.

Pelosi’s office could not be reached for comment. The answering machine said the office would be closed until Monday, and the mailbox was full, so no messages could be left.

Judicial Watch Inc. describes itself as a constitutionally conservative, nonpartisan educational foundation that promotes transparency, accountability and integrity in government, politics and the law.

Maybe Judicial Watch could give Obama some tips on what exactly is in that Constitution, at least so this “scholar” knows the difference between the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. Sounds like Pelosi better sit in, too…