SF CHRON - JAN. 29, 2010
Republican Rep. Jeb Hensarling has a reputation as a hard-edged partisan with an abrasive streak that sometimes rubs people, particularly Democrats, the wrong way.
Rep. Jeb Hensarling: Mister Congeniality he ain't.
Well, today, he rubbed President Obama the wrong way.
At the end of a mostly polite question-and-answer session between the president and House Republicans today in Baltimore, the Texas Republican ticked off Obama when, rather than asking a question, he launched a partisan soliloquy against government spending and debt.
"Jim, I know there's a question in there," the president said, interrupting the man he three times called "Jim" rather than "Jeb."
Obama said that Hensarling's harsh attacks — and faulty command of facts — were a large part of the reason why Washington politics is so polarized.
"The whole question was structured as a talking point to run a campaign," Obama told the House Republicans.
The president took exception to two "facts" cited by Hensarling: that the federal deficit each month is as large as it was in the year before Obama took office and that the federal debt would triple over the next decade.
"That's factually just not true and you know it's not true," Obama said.
The president was the guest of House Republican leaders at the congressional GOP issues conference about 40 miles north of the nation's capital. Hensarling, a prominent critic of federal spending who refuses to take government earmarks for his district, was the final questioner at a lively but generally affable session.
Their exchange began tensely when Obama pointed to Hensarling and said, "Jim is going to wrap things up."
"Jeb, Mister President," Hensarling corrected, tartly.
He then launched a critique of the "unconscionable debt" the Obama administration was piling on their "small children."
Hensarling accused Democrats of ignoring Republicans' input on budget issues in 2009 and dismissed Obama's economic stimulus package as bad for the economy.
"Many of us believe it's part of the problem and not part of the solution," he said.
Obama shook his head at some of the budget claims made by Hensarling and eventually interrupted his conservative critic.
"Jim, I know there's a question in there," he needled.
When Hensarling finished his speech, Obama spent nearly as much time talking about his tone than the substance of his comments.
"The point is, at what point can we have a serious (discussion)...in which we're not simply trying to position ourselves politically?" he asked.
The president said that the White House and Congress are "not going to be able to do anything" if the political discourse is dominated by claims that "the other party is being irresponsible."
"We can't start off by figuring out (a) who's to blame and (b) how we can make the American people fear the other side," he said.
After the retreat, Hensarling was diplomatic in his comments about the president but steadfast in defense of his facts.
"I stand by what I said," he declared.
But he praised Obama for his willingness to reach out to the GOP rank-and-file, something he says House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco, has not done.
"I have great respect for President Obama," said Hensarling. "I am grateful he chose to address the House Republicans - and I give him credit for accepting our invitation. But, again, he didn't answer my specific question on whether he would continue us on a path to tripling the national debt and increasing government spending to 24.5 percent of the economy."
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/nov05election/detail?entry_id=56294&tsp=1#ixzz0e3ClswA1
Friday, January 29, 2010
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Rush Limbaugh Does Not Want to Live
By Rush Limbaugh (The Onion) January 25, 2010
Rush says "I know there are a lot of people out there who are upset about some of the things I've been saying on my radio program lately. My comments about the situation in Haiti have hurt and angered many Americans who genuinely care about the plight of the Haitian people, and that hurt and anger will likely never go away. Many of you are probably wondering, "What would compel a human being to say things like that?" Well, here's your answer: I am a very bad person. And, to tell you the truth, I don't really want to be alive anymore.
Try to look at it from my point of view. I have no reason to live. In my 59 years, I've made millions of dollars, built a veritable media empire, and accomplished virtually everything that a man of my limited imagination and worldview could possibly accomplish. And yet, at this point, in no way could you refer to what I'm doing as "living," exactly. I just sort of exist. I derive no real pleasure from life. Oh, sure, I talk a big game about what a golf nut I am and how much I enjoy the taste of a fine cigar, but it's all horseshit. Complete and utter horseshit.
I don't enjoy that stuff. I don't enjoy anything. I don't even want to be here. The sadness and regret I feel every waking hour of my life is absolutely unbearable. I am a miserable pig and I do not want to exist.
The irony is that, even if I did die, the hell I would surely be sent to could not possibly be any worse than the bottomless pool of excrement I already paddle around in like some demented, shit-covered walrus. In fact, every time I hear my voice coming through the headphones I nearly gag, and I think, "What the fuck am I doing?" Why would I say that Michael J. Fox is faking his Parkinson's symptoms? Why would I find it funny to play a song called "Barack the Magic Negro"? Why would I tell people not to give aid to Haiti?
What the fuck is wrong with me?
I live in constant terror and that terror informs my every word, thought, and action.
See, the thing is, I honestly cannot control the bilious hatred and filth that oozes out of my mouth. I want to—believe me, I want to—but I can't. And every time I speak, a tiny voice inside my head is screaming, "Stop talking, you stupid, insensitive prick. JUST STOP FUCKING TALKING. All you do is spread hate and fear, and the world would be a better place without you, you worthless, amoral, cocksucking fuckface."
What I should really do is just commit suicide. I have this little Sunday ritual I started around the time I publicly compared the torture at Abu Ghraib to a fraternity prank, where I climb into my Jacuzzi and put a gun in my mouth. But I can never work up the guts to pull the trigger. A few times I came close to overdosing on prescription pain pills, but my goddamn doctors were always there to save me. If I had any sense, I would just hole myself up in a Red Roof Inn with a case of Jack Daniel's and slowly drink myself into the gaping maw of death itself.
But what can I say? I guess I'm just too much of a fat fucking pussy to follow through.
You know what? I wish someone would just kill me. I'm serious. Yeah, yeah, I know what you're thinking: "Oh my God, how can you say such a thing? You can't print that in a newspaper!" But see, I don't care anymore. I've cried my tears. I've battled my demons, and I've lost. It's over. It's all over. The only thing left for me to do now is just go away. Have I even once contributed a single ounce of good to humanity? Put me out of my misery. I wouldn't make a fuss. I wouldn't even humiliate myself by saying goodbye. For the first time in my odious, pitiful life, I'd accept my fate with quiet dignity.
Then I wouldn't have to live with my wretched, wretched self. Oh, the release.
I've imagined my death a thousand times over, and it's always the same. In my mind's eye, a serene setting comes into view. I see a funeral procession driving down some small-town Main Street in Nowheresville, U.S.A. On one side of the street, a collection of sycophants and morons are paying their respects in subliterate, sanctimonious tones. Meanwhile, on the other side of the street, I can just make out the faint image of a young boy, his brow furrowed in confusion, clutching the hand of his father. "Who is that man, Daddy?" he asks as the hearse containing my bloated, lifeless body rolls by. "Who is that person they speak of?" The father will then lower his head and say, "There, my son, go the remains of Rush Hudson Limbaugh, the most abominable lump of festering dog shit in the history of American broadcasting. May the likes of him never again soil or tarnish the greatness of our fair country."
Rush says "I know there are a lot of people out there who are upset about some of the things I've been saying on my radio program lately. My comments about the situation in Haiti have hurt and angered many Americans who genuinely care about the plight of the Haitian people, and that hurt and anger will likely never go away. Many of you are probably wondering, "What would compel a human being to say things like that?" Well, here's your answer: I am a very bad person. And, to tell you the truth, I don't really want to be alive anymore.
Try to look at it from my point of view. I have no reason to live. In my 59 years, I've made millions of dollars, built a veritable media empire, and accomplished virtually everything that a man of my limited imagination and worldview could possibly accomplish. And yet, at this point, in no way could you refer to what I'm doing as "living," exactly. I just sort of exist. I derive no real pleasure from life. Oh, sure, I talk a big game about what a golf nut I am and how much I enjoy the taste of a fine cigar, but it's all horseshit. Complete and utter horseshit.
I don't enjoy that stuff. I don't enjoy anything. I don't even want to be here. The sadness and regret I feel every waking hour of my life is absolutely unbearable. I am a miserable pig and I do not want to exist.
The irony is that, even if I did die, the hell I would surely be sent to could not possibly be any worse than the bottomless pool of excrement I already paddle around in like some demented, shit-covered walrus. In fact, every time I hear my voice coming through the headphones I nearly gag, and I think, "What the fuck am I doing?" Why would I say that Michael J. Fox is faking his Parkinson's symptoms? Why would I find it funny to play a song called "Barack the Magic Negro"? Why would I tell people not to give aid to Haiti?
What the fuck is wrong with me?
I live in constant terror and that terror informs my every word, thought, and action.
See, the thing is, I honestly cannot control the bilious hatred and filth that oozes out of my mouth. I want to—believe me, I want to—but I can't. And every time I speak, a tiny voice inside my head is screaming, "Stop talking, you stupid, insensitive prick. JUST STOP FUCKING TALKING. All you do is spread hate and fear, and the world would be a better place without you, you worthless, amoral, cocksucking fuckface."
What I should really do is just commit suicide. I have this little Sunday ritual I started around the time I publicly compared the torture at Abu Ghraib to a fraternity prank, where I climb into my Jacuzzi and put a gun in my mouth. But I can never work up the guts to pull the trigger. A few times I came close to overdosing on prescription pain pills, but my goddamn doctors were always there to save me. If I had any sense, I would just hole myself up in a Red Roof Inn with a case of Jack Daniel's and slowly drink myself into the gaping maw of death itself.
But what can I say? I guess I'm just too much of a fat fucking pussy to follow through.
You know what? I wish someone would just kill me. I'm serious. Yeah, yeah, I know what you're thinking: "Oh my God, how can you say such a thing? You can't print that in a newspaper!" But see, I don't care anymore. I've cried my tears. I've battled my demons, and I've lost. It's over. It's all over. The only thing left for me to do now is just go away. Have I even once contributed a single ounce of good to humanity? Put me out of my misery. I wouldn't make a fuss. I wouldn't even humiliate myself by saying goodbye. For the first time in my odious, pitiful life, I'd accept my fate with quiet dignity.
Then I wouldn't have to live with my wretched, wretched self. Oh, the release.
I've imagined my death a thousand times over, and it's always the same. In my mind's eye, a serene setting comes into view. I see a funeral procession driving down some small-town Main Street in Nowheresville, U.S.A. On one side of the street, a collection of sycophants and morons are paying their respects in subliterate, sanctimonious tones. Meanwhile, on the other side of the street, I can just make out the faint image of a young boy, his brow furrowed in confusion, clutching the hand of his father. "Who is that man, Daddy?" he asks as the hearse containing my bloated, lifeless body rolls by. "Who is that person they speak of?" The father will then lower his head and say, "There, my son, go the remains of Rush Hudson Limbaugh, the most abominable lump of festering dog shit in the history of American broadcasting. May the likes of him never again soil or tarnish the greatness of our fair country."
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
100 Billion Additional Funds for Unemployed
New $100 billion safety net for jobless in works
By ANDREW TAYLOR, Associated Press Writer
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
(12-01) 15:39 PST WASHINGTON (AP) --
As unemployment spikes, the cost of compassion is going up too.
That's the potential price of a push by Democrats in Congress to continue providing extra help to the jobless beyond the core 26-week unemployment insurance package provided under permanent law.
The jaw-dropping numbers combine the approximately $85 billion cost of continuing emergency benefits through 2010 for the long-term unemployed — jobless more than six months — plus an estimated $15 billion to continue subsidies to help pay health insurance premiums.
Even before the last new round of extended benefits in November, the cost of unemployment compensation was estimated by the White House to exceed $140 billion for fiscal 2010, which began in October. Just two years ago — when the unemployment rate was 4.8 percent in contrast to the current 10.2 percent — the cost of unemployment benefits was only $43 billion.
Extending unemployment benefits again is an obvious solution to Democrats preaching compassion for the long-term jobless, as well as to economists who say cutting off the flow of money could harm the economy.
"This is the most effective way to get money into the economy. It's given to people who are simply out of money," said Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash., a key supporter. "They're spending it. They're not socking it away in a mattress somewhere."
Several temporary benefit extensions dating from mid-2008 are set to expire Dec. 31. In January alone, an estimated 1 million people will lose benefits as their extended coverage runs out. By March, 3 million people will have lost benefits averaging about $315 a week.
Also expiring is a program subsidizing 65 percent of insurance premiums for unemployed people who sign up for a continuation of health benefits formerly provided by their employer under the so-called COBRA program. The nine months of COBRA subsidies and the additional weeks of unemployment benefits were both core pieces of February's economic stimulus plan.
The COBRA health insurance subsidies expire Dec. 1 for those who signed onto the program when it first started last winter, though people who get fired before Jan. 1 are eligible for the full nine-month subsidy. People on unemployment would be able to finish out their present "tier" of benefits but would be ineligible for any of the recently passed additional coverage.
The benefits extension is under discussion among top Democratic leaders. While there's no agreement on a specific plan, there's a lot of sentiment behind a full-year extension, congressional aides say. The staggering cost, however, could preclude passing it.
With the budget deficit spiraling out of control, deficit hawks are certain to balk at the measure's price tag. And the White House, which is signaling that it is going to focus next year on trying to rein in the deficit, is not endorsing a full-year extension of benefits. Budget office spokesman Tom Gavin would only say the administration supports some extension beyond Dec. 31.
"We're past the point where anything can be deficit financed without some plan to pay for it," said Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. "It has to come with offsets."
Many economists say increasing or extending unemployment payments is among the most efficient ways to jump-start the economy. It's easy to do and the people getting the benefits typically spend the money quickly. With the economy in a fragile recovery, cutting off benefits could be harmful.
"It would significantly raise the risk of falling back into recession next year," said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Economy.com.
Not all economists agree, however, especially if the benefits are financed by adding to the nation's $12 trillion debt. There's also evidence that unemployment insurance actually raises the jobless rate slightly because some people don't look for work as diligently as they do when they're on it.
"The longer you extend unemployment benefits, the longer you extend average job searches," said Ken Mayland, president of ClearView Economics. "It makes it more comfortable for people to be unemployed."
While most Republicans supported a recent bill adding 14 to 20 weeks of extra benefits for those who had exhausted payments lasting as long as a year and a half, many are likely to resist the upcoming measure.
"Calling more government spending and more debt a 'jobs package' is laughable, and the Democrats' frantic push for more of the same is yet another acknowledgment that their trillion-dollar stimulus isn't working," said Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio.
The startling price tag of extending the benefits is due to two factors: the sharp spike in the jobless numbers and several layers of additional weeks of benefits that have been approved by Congress since June 2008.
The core benefit is 26 weeks, with up to 20 additional weeks in states with high unemployment. States collectively are already projected to run a $57 billion deficit in the core program in 2010. The federal government is already obligated to lend them the money to cover that gap.
Additional tiers of benefits were added in 2008. February's stimulus measure not only renewed those benefits but added $25 a week to every unemployment check.
By ANDREW TAYLOR, Associated Press Writer
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
(12-01) 15:39 PST WASHINGTON (AP) --
As unemployment spikes, the cost of compassion is going up too.
That's the potential price of a push by Democrats in Congress to continue providing extra help to the jobless beyond the core 26-week unemployment insurance package provided under permanent law.
The jaw-dropping numbers combine the approximately $85 billion cost of continuing emergency benefits through 2010 for the long-term unemployed — jobless more than six months — plus an estimated $15 billion to continue subsidies to help pay health insurance premiums.
Even before the last new round of extended benefits in November, the cost of unemployment compensation was estimated by the White House to exceed $140 billion for fiscal 2010, which began in October. Just two years ago — when the unemployment rate was 4.8 percent in contrast to the current 10.2 percent — the cost of unemployment benefits was only $43 billion.
Extending unemployment benefits again is an obvious solution to Democrats preaching compassion for the long-term jobless, as well as to economists who say cutting off the flow of money could harm the economy.
"This is the most effective way to get money into the economy. It's given to people who are simply out of money," said Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash., a key supporter. "They're spending it. They're not socking it away in a mattress somewhere."
Several temporary benefit extensions dating from mid-2008 are set to expire Dec. 31. In January alone, an estimated 1 million people will lose benefits as their extended coverage runs out. By March, 3 million people will have lost benefits averaging about $315 a week.
Also expiring is a program subsidizing 65 percent of insurance premiums for unemployed people who sign up for a continuation of health benefits formerly provided by their employer under the so-called COBRA program. The nine months of COBRA subsidies and the additional weeks of unemployment benefits were both core pieces of February's economic stimulus plan.
The COBRA health insurance subsidies expire Dec. 1 for those who signed onto the program when it first started last winter, though people who get fired before Jan. 1 are eligible for the full nine-month subsidy. People on unemployment would be able to finish out their present "tier" of benefits but would be ineligible for any of the recently passed additional coverage.
The benefits extension is under discussion among top Democratic leaders. While there's no agreement on a specific plan, there's a lot of sentiment behind a full-year extension, congressional aides say. The staggering cost, however, could preclude passing it.
With the budget deficit spiraling out of control, deficit hawks are certain to balk at the measure's price tag. And the White House, which is signaling that it is going to focus next year on trying to rein in the deficit, is not endorsing a full-year extension of benefits. Budget office spokesman Tom Gavin would only say the administration supports some extension beyond Dec. 31.
"We're past the point where anything can be deficit financed without some plan to pay for it," said Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. "It has to come with offsets."
Many economists say increasing or extending unemployment payments is among the most efficient ways to jump-start the economy. It's easy to do and the people getting the benefits typically spend the money quickly. With the economy in a fragile recovery, cutting off benefits could be harmful.
"It would significantly raise the risk of falling back into recession next year," said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Economy.com.
Not all economists agree, however, especially if the benefits are financed by adding to the nation's $12 trillion debt. There's also evidence that unemployment insurance actually raises the jobless rate slightly because some people don't look for work as diligently as they do when they're on it.
"The longer you extend unemployment benefits, the longer you extend average job searches," said Ken Mayland, president of ClearView Economics. "It makes it more comfortable for people to be unemployed."
While most Republicans supported a recent bill adding 14 to 20 weeks of extra benefits for those who had exhausted payments lasting as long as a year and a half, many are likely to resist the upcoming measure.
"Calling more government spending and more debt a 'jobs package' is laughable, and the Democrats' frantic push for more of the same is yet another acknowledgment that their trillion-dollar stimulus isn't working," said Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio.
The startling price tag of extending the benefits is due to two factors: the sharp spike in the jobless numbers and several layers of additional weeks of benefits that have been approved by Congress since June 2008.
The core benefit is 26 weeks, with up to 20 additional weeks in states with high unemployment. States collectively are already projected to run a $57 billion deficit in the core program in 2010. The federal government is already obligated to lend them the money to cover that gap.
Additional tiers of benefits were added in 2008. February's stimulus measure not only renewed those benefits but added $25 a week to every unemployment check.
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Mike Huckabee Allows a Killer to Kill Again
AP By GENE JOHNSON, Associated Press Writer Gene Johnson, Associated Press Writer
SEATTLE - Dec. 1st, 2009
Authorities in two states were criticized amid revelations that Clemmons was allowed to walk the streets despite a teenage crime spree in Arkansas that landed him an 108-year prison sentence. HE WAS RELEASED EARLY AFTER THEN-GOV. MIKE HUCKABEE commuted his sentence.
Huckabee cited Clemmons' youth in granting the request. But Clemmons quickly reverted to his criminal past, violated his parole and was returned to prison. He was released again in 2004.
The man suspected of gunning down four police officers in a suburban coffee shop was shot and killed by a lone patrolman investigating a stolen car early Tuesday. Four people were arrested for allegedly helping the suspect elude authorities during a massive two-day manhunt.
Maurice Clemmons was carrying a handgun he took from one of the dead officers when a Seattle policeman recognized him near a stolen car in a working-class south Seattle neighborhood about 2:45 a.m., Assistant Police Chief Jim Pugel said.
The vehicle was running but unoccupied when the officer pulled up, radioed in the license plate number and realized the car was stolen, Pugel said.
The officer saw something moving, got out of his car, saw Clemmons and ordered him to show his hands and stop.
"He wouldn't stop," Pugel said. "The officer fired several rounds."
Clemmons also had sustained a serious gunshot wound from one of the four officers killed in the coffee-shop shooting.
Police planned to arrest more people who helped Clemmons.
"We expect to have maybe six or seven people in custody by the day's end," said Ed Troyer, a spokesman for the Pierce County sheriff. "Some are friends, some are acquaintances, some are partners in crime, some are relatives. Now they're all partners in crime."
Three people were booked into the Pierce County Jail on Monday and early Tuesday for investigation of rendering criminal assistance on four counts of first-degree murder. They are Ricky Hinton, Eddie Lee Davis and Douglas Edward Davis. Troyer said a getaway driver also was arrested. That person's identity wasn't immediately known.
On Monday, officers detained a sister of Clemmons who they think treated the suspect's gunshot wound.
"We believe she drove him up to Seattle and bandaged him up," Troyer said.
Authorities say Clemmons, 37, singled out the Lakewood officers and spared employees and other customers at the coffee shop Sunday morning in Parkland, a Tacoma suburb about 35 miles south of Seattle. He then fled, but not before one of the dying officers apparently shot him in the torso.
"I'm surprised that he managed to get away," Troyer said. "The officer did a good job in Lakewood."
Killed were Sgt. Mark Renninger, 39, and Officers Ronald Owens, 37, Tina Griswold, 40, and Greg Richards, 42.
A couple dozen police officers milled around at the scene where Clemmons apparently was shot, shaking hands and patting each other on the back later Tuesday morning. The officer who shot Clemmons was not injured, Pugel said.
Police said they aren't sure what prompted Clemmons to shoot the four officers, who were in uniform and working on paperwork at the coffee shop just two blocks outside their jurisdiction.
"The only motive that we have is he decided he was going to go kill police officers," Troyer said. He said Clemmons talked the night before the shooting about killing a group of cops and watching the news.
Police believe Clemmons chose the coffee shop because it was frequented by police officers from various agencies.
"We do not believe that the Lakewood officers were actually targeted other than that they were police officers in that location at the time where he knew he could find police officers."
Clemmons was described as increasingly erratic in the past few months and had been arrested earlier this year on charges that he punched a sheriff's deputy in the face.
Police surrounded a house in a Seattle neighborhood late Sunday following a tip Clemmons had been dropped off there. After an all-night siege, a SWAT team entered the home and found it empty. But police said Clemmons had been there.
Police frantically chased leads on Monday, searching multiple spots in the Seattle and Tacoma area and at one point cordoning off a park where people thought they saw Clemmons.
Authorities found a handgun carried by the killer, along with a pickup truck belonging to the suspect with blood stains inside. They posted a $125,000 reward for information leading to Clemmons' arrest and alerted hospitals to be on the lookout for a man seeking treatment for gunshot wounds.
Authorities in two states were criticized amid revelations that Clemmons was allowed to walk the streets despite a teenage crime spree in Arkansas that landed him an 108-year prison sentence. He was released early after then-Gov. Mike Huckabee commuted his sentence.
Huckabee cited Clemmons' youth in granting the request. But Clemmons quickly reverted to his criminal past, violated his parole and was returned to prison. He was released again in 2004.
"This guy should have never been on the street," said Brian D. Wurts, president of the police union in Lakewood. "Our elected officials need to find out why these people are out."
Huckabee said on Fox News Channel's "The O'Reilly Factor" Monday night that Clemmons was allowed back on the street because prosecutors failed to file paperwork in time.
Pulaski County Prosecutor Larry Jegley, whose office opposed Clemmons' parole in 2000 and 2004, said Huckabee's comments were "red herrings."
"My word to Mr. Huckabee is man up and own what you did," Jegley said.
Clemmons was charged in Washington state earlier this year with assaulting a police officer and raping a child, and investigators in the sex case said he was motivated by visions that he was Jesus Christ and that the world was on the verge of the apocalypse.
But he was released from jail after posting bail with the assistance of Jail Sucks Bail Bonds.
Documents related to those charges indicate a volatile personality. In one instance, he is accused of gathering his wife and young relatives and forcing them to undress.
"The whole time Clemmons kept saying things like trust him, the world is going to end soon, and that he was Jesus," a Pierce County sheriff's report said.
SEATTLE - Dec. 1st, 2009
Authorities in two states were criticized amid revelations that Clemmons was allowed to walk the streets despite a teenage crime spree in Arkansas that landed him an 108-year prison sentence. HE WAS RELEASED EARLY AFTER THEN-GOV. MIKE HUCKABEE commuted his sentence.
Huckabee cited Clemmons' youth in granting the request. But Clemmons quickly reverted to his criminal past, violated his parole and was returned to prison. He was released again in 2004.
The man suspected of gunning down four police officers in a suburban coffee shop was shot and killed by a lone patrolman investigating a stolen car early Tuesday. Four people were arrested for allegedly helping the suspect elude authorities during a massive two-day manhunt.
Maurice Clemmons was carrying a handgun he took from one of the dead officers when a Seattle policeman recognized him near a stolen car in a working-class south Seattle neighborhood about 2:45 a.m., Assistant Police Chief Jim Pugel said.
The vehicle was running but unoccupied when the officer pulled up, radioed in the license plate number and realized the car was stolen, Pugel said.
The officer saw something moving, got out of his car, saw Clemmons and ordered him to show his hands and stop.
"He wouldn't stop," Pugel said. "The officer fired several rounds."
Clemmons also had sustained a serious gunshot wound from one of the four officers killed in the coffee-shop shooting.
Police planned to arrest more people who helped Clemmons.
"We expect to have maybe six or seven people in custody by the day's end," said Ed Troyer, a spokesman for the Pierce County sheriff. "Some are friends, some are acquaintances, some are partners in crime, some are relatives. Now they're all partners in crime."
Three people were booked into the Pierce County Jail on Monday and early Tuesday for investigation of rendering criminal assistance on four counts of first-degree murder. They are Ricky Hinton, Eddie Lee Davis and Douglas Edward Davis. Troyer said a getaway driver also was arrested. That person's identity wasn't immediately known.
On Monday, officers detained a sister of Clemmons who they think treated the suspect's gunshot wound.
"We believe she drove him up to Seattle and bandaged him up," Troyer said.
Authorities say Clemmons, 37, singled out the Lakewood officers and spared employees and other customers at the coffee shop Sunday morning in Parkland, a Tacoma suburb about 35 miles south of Seattle. He then fled, but not before one of the dying officers apparently shot him in the torso.
"I'm surprised that he managed to get away," Troyer said. "The officer did a good job in Lakewood."
Killed were Sgt. Mark Renninger, 39, and Officers Ronald Owens, 37, Tina Griswold, 40, and Greg Richards, 42.
A couple dozen police officers milled around at the scene where Clemmons apparently was shot, shaking hands and patting each other on the back later Tuesday morning. The officer who shot Clemmons was not injured, Pugel said.
Police said they aren't sure what prompted Clemmons to shoot the four officers, who were in uniform and working on paperwork at the coffee shop just two blocks outside their jurisdiction.
"The only motive that we have is he decided he was going to go kill police officers," Troyer said. He said Clemmons talked the night before the shooting about killing a group of cops and watching the news.
Police believe Clemmons chose the coffee shop because it was frequented by police officers from various agencies.
"We do not believe that the Lakewood officers were actually targeted other than that they were police officers in that location at the time where he knew he could find police officers."
Clemmons was described as increasingly erratic in the past few months and had been arrested earlier this year on charges that he punched a sheriff's deputy in the face.
Police surrounded a house in a Seattle neighborhood late Sunday following a tip Clemmons had been dropped off there. After an all-night siege, a SWAT team entered the home and found it empty. But police said Clemmons had been there.
Police frantically chased leads on Monday, searching multiple spots in the Seattle and Tacoma area and at one point cordoning off a park where people thought they saw Clemmons.
Authorities found a handgun carried by the killer, along with a pickup truck belonging to the suspect with blood stains inside. They posted a $125,000 reward for information leading to Clemmons' arrest and alerted hospitals to be on the lookout for a man seeking treatment for gunshot wounds.
Authorities in two states were criticized amid revelations that Clemmons was allowed to walk the streets despite a teenage crime spree in Arkansas that landed him an 108-year prison sentence. He was released early after then-Gov. Mike Huckabee commuted his sentence.
Huckabee cited Clemmons' youth in granting the request. But Clemmons quickly reverted to his criminal past, violated his parole and was returned to prison. He was released again in 2004.
"This guy should have never been on the street," said Brian D. Wurts, president of the police union in Lakewood. "Our elected officials need to find out why these people are out."
Huckabee said on Fox News Channel's "The O'Reilly Factor" Monday night that Clemmons was allowed back on the street because prosecutors failed to file paperwork in time.
Pulaski County Prosecutor Larry Jegley, whose office opposed Clemmons' parole in 2000 and 2004, said Huckabee's comments were "red herrings."
"My word to Mr. Huckabee is man up and own what you did," Jegley said.
Clemmons was charged in Washington state earlier this year with assaulting a police officer and raping a child, and investigators in the sex case said he was motivated by visions that he was Jesus Christ and that the world was on the verge of the apocalypse.
But he was released from jail after posting bail with the assistance of Jail Sucks Bail Bonds.
Documents related to those charges indicate a volatile personality. In one instance, he is accused of gathering his wife and young relatives and forcing them to undress.
"The whole time Clemmons kept saying things like trust him, the world is going to end soon, and that he was Jesus," a Pierce County sheriff's report said.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Obama - Four Options for Afghanistan
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama is considering four options for realigning U.S. strategy in Afghanistan, his spokesman said Tuesday, while military officials said the choices involve several ways the president could employ additional U.S. forces next year.
White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Obama will discuss the four scenarios with his national security team on Wednesday. Speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One en route to Fort Hood, Texas, Gibbs would not offer details about those options. He insisted that Obama has not made a decision about troop deployments.
Gibbs said that anybody who says Obama has made a decision "doesn't have in all honesty the slightest idea what they're talking about. The president's yet to make a decision" about troop levels or other aspects of the revised U.S. strategy in Afghanistan.
Obama and first lady Michelle Obama traveled to Killeen, Texas, Tuesday, where the president spoke at a memorial service for those killed in a shooting rampage at Fort Hood.
Military officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because the decision is pending, said the military services are developing presentations to explain how various force levels could be used in Afghanistan and how various deployment schedules could work, given recent promises to give soldiers more rest time at home.
Military officials have said Obama is nearing a decision to add tens of thousands more forces to Afghanistan, though probably not quite the 40,000 sought by his top general there.
Gibbs said Tuesday that a decision still is weeks away. He had earlier said no announcement is expected until late this month, when the president returns from an extended diplomatic trip to Asia.
An Army brigade that had been training for deployment to Iraq that month may be at or near the vanguard. The brigade, based at Fort Drum in upstate New York, has been told it will not go to Iraq as planned but has been given no new mission yet.
Military officials said Obama will have choices that include a phased addition of up to 40,000 forces over some six months or more next year, based on security conditions and the decisions of NATO allies.
The Army would contribute the vast bulk of any new commitment, along with a large Marine Corps infusion. Both services are counting on plans for a large withdrawal of U.S. combat troops from Iraq to take place as scheduled next spring.
Even so, it is not clear that large numbers of new forces could go to Afghanistan before March. Administration officials have told The Associated Press that some of the expected deployment would probably begin in January with a mission to stiffen the defense of 10 key cities and towns.
Several officials who spoke on condition of anonymity because the decision has not been made also said Obama's announcement will be much broader than the mathematics of troop numbers, which have dominated the U.S. debate.
It soon will be three months since Afghan commander Gen. Stanley McChrystal reported to Obama that the U.S. mission was headed for failure without the addition of about 40,000 troops.
The officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because final plans have not been disclosed, dubbed the likely troop increase as "McChrystal Light" because it would fall short of his request. They also said additional small infusions of troops could be dispatched next spring and summer.
The more gradual buildup, the officials said, would allow time to construct needed housing and add equipment needed for transporting the expanded force.
Besides being sent to cities and towns, the new forces would be stationed to protect important roads and other key infrastructure.
As he makes his decision, Obama told ABC News that he wanted to make sure "that if we are sending additional troops that the prospects of a functioning Afghan government are enhanced, that the prospects of al-Qaida being able to attack the U.S. homeland are reduced."
___
Associated Press writers Jennifer Loven and Ben Feller contributed to this report.
White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Obama will discuss the four scenarios with his national security team on Wednesday. Speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One en route to Fort Hood, Texas, Gibbs would not offer details about those options. He insisted that Obama has not made a decision about troop deployments.
Gibbs said that anybody who says Obama has made a decision "doesn't have in all honesty the slightest idea what they're talking about. The president's yet to make a decision" about troop levels or other aspects of the revised U.S. strategy in Afghanistan.
Obama and first lady Michelle Obama traveled to Killeen, Texas, Tuesday, where the president spoke at a memorial service for those killed in a shooting rampage at Fort Hood.
Military officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because the decision is pending, said the military services are developing presentations to explain how various force levels could be used in Afghanistan and how various deployment schedules could work, given recent promises to give soldiers more rest time at home.
Military officials have said Obama is nearing a decision to add tens of thousands more forces to Afghanistan, though probably not quite the 40,000 sought by his top general there.
Gibbs said Tuesday that a decision still is weeks away. He had earlier said no announcement is expected until late this month, when the president returns from an extended diplomatic trip to Asia.
An Army brigade that had been training for deployment to Iraq that month may be at or near the vanguard. The brigade, based at Fort Drum in upstate New York, has been told it will not go to Iraq as planned but has been given no new mission yet.
Military officials said Obama will have choices that include a phased addition of up to 40,000 forces over some six months or more next year, based on security conditions and the decisions of NATO allies.
The Army would contribute the vast bulk of any new commitment, along with a large Marine Corps infusion. Both services are counting on plans for a large withdrawal of U.S. combat troops from Iraq to take place as scheduled next spring.
Even so, it is not clear that large numbers of new forces could go to Afghanistan before March. Administration officials have told The Associated Press that some of the expected deployment would probably begin in January with a mission to stiffen the defense of 10 key cities and towns.
Several officials who spoke on condition of anonymity because the decision has not been made also said Obama's announcement will be much broader than the mathematics of troop numbers, which have dominated the U.S. debate.
It soon will be three months since Afghan commander Gen. Stanley McChrystal reported to Obama that the U.S. mission was headed for failure without the addition of about 40,000 troops.
The officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because final plans have not been disclosed, dubbed the likely troop increase as "McChrystal Light" because it would fall short of his request. They also said additional small infusions of troops could be dispatched next spring and summer.
The more gradual buildup, the officials said, would allow time to construct needed housing and add equipment needed for transporting the expanded force.
Besides being sent to cities and towns, the new forces would be stationed to protect important roads and other key infrastructure.
As he makes his decision, Obama told ABC News that he wanted to make sure "that if we are sending additional troops that the prospects of a functioning Afghan government are enhanced, that the prospects of al-Qaida being able to attack the U.S. homeland are reduced."
___
Associated Press writers Jennifer Loven and Ben Feller contributed to this report.
Friday, November 6, 2009
2010 Elections - What Dems Need to Look Out For
Thirty-seven governors will be up for re-election in 2010, and several of those seats could have a big impact on laying groundwork in swing states for the 2012 election.
In Ohio -Democrat Ted Strickland is polling even with his likely Republican challenger, former Representative John Kasich
Pennsylvania - show that Republican state attorney general Tom Corbett is the front runner to replace Democratic Governor Ed Rendell, who is term-limited.
Kansas - Kathleen Sebelius was governor until joining Obama's Cabinet, Democrats face a steep challenge from popular Republican Senator Sam Brownback.
Arizona - Republican, Jan Brewer, was appointed to replace Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, and she is expected to seek a full term.
What's At Stake for Democrats
Connecticut - Chris Dodd
Illinois - The Obama Seat
Nevada - Harry Reid
Pennsylvania - Arlen Specter
Delaware - The Biden Seat
Arkansas - Blanche Lincoln
Colorado - The Salazar Seat
North Dakota - Byron Dorgan
In Ohio -Democrat Ted Strickland is polling even with his likely Republican challenger, former Representative John Kasich
Pennsylvania - show that Republican state attorney general Tom Corbett is the front runner to replace Democratic Governor Ed Rendell, who is term-limited.
Kansas - Kathleen Sebelius was governor until joining Obama's Cabinet, Democrats face a steep challenge from popular Republican Senator Sam Brownback.
Arizona - Republican, Jan Brewer, was appointed to replace Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, and she is expected to seek a full term.
What's At Stake for Democrats
Connecticut - Chris Dodd
Illinois - The Obama Seat
Nevada - Harry Reid
Pennsylvania - Arlen Specter
Delaware - The Biden Seat
Arkansas - Blanche Lincoln
Colorado - The Salazar Seat
North Dakota - Byron Dorgan
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Michael Steele - What happend to your 23rd District in NY?
HUGE LOSS FOR YOU MICHAEL STEELE.
This district (the 23rd District in NY) has had a looooooong Republican history. LIKE 150 YEARS REPUBLICAN HISTORY. What happened? And please stop with your bad impersonation of the Heisman pose. Your butchering it. Thank you!
This district (the 23rd District in NY) has had a looooooong Republican history. LIKE 150 YEARS REPUBLICAN HISTORY. What happened? And please stop with your bad impersonation of the Heisman pose. Your butchering it. Thank you!
OBAMA STILL ROCKS!!!
Taken from the Huffington Post
David Plouffe - Chief campaign manager for Barack Obama's 2008 presidential campaign
While I appreciate Arianna Huffington's kind words about my book on the 2008 Presidential campaign of Barack Obama, I could not disagree more with the suggestion that somehow the President Obama of 2009 has lost touch with candidate Obama in 2008.
Frustration about the pace of change, even disagreement on select issues, of course is understandable. But stepping back a bit, as those of us in the Obama orbit have learned to do, reveals an administration that already has made a significant down payment on the change so many fought for last year. I remain confident in the president's unique ability not just to lead us through the many challenges and crises of the moment, but also to accomplish the tough, smart, long-term projects of energy and health care reform -- problems that Washington has long ignored but that will secure a more equitable and prosperous future for all Americans.
During the campaign, the president offered three core promises to the American people. First, he promised to wake up every day thinking about how to improve the lives of the middle class, a task made more urgent by the historic economic calamity that greeted him as he took office. Some suggested that all that could or should be done was to perform triage on the financial system and allow economic events to take their normal course. But the president undertook strong action to stabilize the banking system, as well as the auto industry. These were things he had to do -- not things he wanted to do -- and of course they had little political upside. But President Obama is a leader; he did not run to occupy the Oval Office but to lead from it, and many times that means playing a bad hand as effectively as possible.
The president's actions to stabilize the banking and auto sectors may well have prevented another Great Depression from visiting this country; certainly these measures avoided additional drastic job losses and foreclosures, of which we have already had far too many.
But while dealing with these crises during his first ten months, the president has kept his sights squarely focused on the middle class. He passed a Recovery Act that saved and created a million jobs -- many of these backbone middle-class jobs like teachers, firefighters, and police officers -- and made historic investments in green energy and technology jobs. His actions spurred a 73 percent increase in lending to small businesses, allowing them to expand and create new jobs; helped hundreds of thousands of responsible Americans keep their homes; and cut taxes for 95percent of working families. He's expanded health care for children, passed equal pay for equal work legislation, and expanded stem cell research. And he is now closer than any president in decades to passing health reform that bans insurance companies from denying coverage due to pre-existing conditions, outlaws insurance discrimination based on gender, and caps what patients can be charged out-of-pocket. This effort will be key, because job growth -- and the kind of robust economic growth our country needs to create a strong job-producing climate -- won't come without finally getting health care costs under control. Health insurance reform is a key piece of job-growth strategy, as employers of every size can attest.
President Obama's second core campaign promise was to make government more transparent and accountable, to rebuild a sacred trust that had been seriously eroded. And he has delivered. He closed the revolving door, forbidding anyone who works in his administration from lobbying when they leave their jobs. For the first time in history, names of visitors to the White House will be released, so every American can see which interests and individuals are visiting their government. And the groundbreaking website recovery.gov is allowing Americans to trace every dollar spent and every job created or saved from the recovery act, adding a level of transparency never before seen.
The third core pillar the president offered America was the chance to rebuild and strengthen our relationship with the rest of the world. Doing so would to allow us to solve shared problems and maximize shared opportunities, and to more effectively confront the terrorism and foreign policy challenges faced by the entire world.
He is, of course, delivering on that promise, to a degree even his most hardened detractors would strain to effectively or credibly criticize. The president is winding down the war in Iraq, just as he promised he would during the campaign. And he is working thoughtfully and with great care to determine our next phase in Afghanistan, always keeping the long view in mind. Surely we can all agree this is a refreshing change from the approach to Iraq of six and seven years ago.
Is there much work left to be done? Of course. Is the president satisfied with where we are on jobs? No; the problem weighs on him every day as he works to accelerate job growth and negotiates a cooperative relationship with the private sector, where the bulk of these new jobs must be generated.
The economy is growing again, much sooner than most experts predicted. If growth continues, it should lead to job growth. And the president's bold leadership has played a significant role in our economy starting to right itself.
But he understands that unless we make much-needed progress on health care and energy, we will not be as strong a country in the decades to come as any of us would like. Our future truly depends on finally getting Washington to start confronting long-term challenges instead of ducking them. This is asking a lot. Washington is often reserved when it needs to be bold, and political when it should be addressing substance and principle. It is too often focused on the next election, not the next generation.
This is one of the president's great strengths. All he cares about, no matter the barbs and arrows shot his way, is to finally deliver on health insurance and energy reform so that we can ensure our country's greatness, and provide a solid economic foundation for American workers today and tomorrow.
Arianna Huffington has written much that I agree with. But when it comes to her opinion on the president and his record so far, or her suggestion that there is some great difference between the president and the candidate, I have to register the strongest possible dissent. A year after our historic victory, I have never been more certain that Barack Obama is uniquely suited to lead the country at this unparalleled moment. His values; his ability and desire to think long term; his determination to avoid the easy road of political expedience and to rebuild trust between the American people and their government -- these are exactly what American needs right now. As on any journey, there will be twists and turns, ups and downs. But the change so many of us fought for so passionately last year is becoming a reality in front of our eyes, if we focus squarely enough to see it. And when the decisions he is making today finally resolve into a complete picture years down the road, we will find ourselves living in a stronger, fairer, and more prosperous America. And we will cherish the small part all of us played in electing this unique leader, a man befitting this critical moment in our history.
David Plouffe - Chief campaign manager for Barack Obama's 2008 presidential campaign
While I appreciate Arianna Huffington's kind words about my book on the 2008 Presidential campaign of Barack Obama, I could not disagree more with the suggestion that somehow the President Obama of 2009 has lost touch with candidate Obama in 2008.
Frustration about the pace of change, even disagreement on select issues, of course is understandable. But stepping back a bit, as those of us in the Obama orbit have learned to do, reveals an administration that already has made a significant down payment on the change so many fought for last year. I remain confident in the president's unique ability not just to lead us through the many challenges and crises of the moment, but also to accomplish the tough, smart, long-term projects of energy and health care reform -- problems that Washington has long ignored but that will secure a more equitable and prosperous future for all Americans.
During the campaign, the president offered three core promises to the American people. First, he promised to wake up every day thinking about how to improve the lives of the middle class, a task made more urgent by the historic economic calamity that greeted him as he took office. Some suggested that all that could or should be done was to perform triage on the financial system and allow economic events to take their normal course. But the president undertook strong action to stabilize the banking system, as well as the auto industry. These were things he had to do -- not things he wanted to do -- and of course they had little political upside. But President Obama is a leader; he did not run to occupy the Oval Office but to lead from it, and many times that means playing a bad hand as effectively as possible.
The president's actions to stabilize the banking and auto sectors may well have prevented another Great Depression from visiting this country; certainly these measures avoided additional drastic job losses and foreclosures, of which we have already had far too many.
But while dealing with these crises during his first ten months, the president has kept his sights squarely focused on the middle class. He passed a Recovery Act that saved and created a million jobs -- many of these backbone middle-class jobs like teachers, firefighters, and police officers -- and made historic investments in green energy and technology jobs. His actions spurred a 73 percent increase in lending to small businesses, allowing them to expand and create new jobs; helped hundreds of thousands of responsible Americans keep their homes; and cut taxes for 95percent of working families. He's expanded health care for children, passed equal pay for equal work legislation, and expanded stem cell research. And he is now closer than any president in decades to passing health reform that bans insurance companies from denying coverage due to pre-existing conditions, outlaws insurance discrimination based on gender, and caps what patients can be charged out-of-pocket. This effort will be key, because job growth -- and the kind of robust economic growth our country needs to create a strong job-producing climate -- won't come without finally getting health care costs under control. Health insurance reform is a key piece of job-growth strategy, as employers of every size can attest.
President Obama's second core campaign promise was to make government more transparent and accountable, to rebuild a sacred trust that had been seriously eroded. And he has delivered. He closed the revolving door, forbidding anyone who works in his administration from lobbying when they leave their jobs. For the first time in history, names of visitors to the White House will be released, so every American can see which interests and individuals are visiting their government. And the groundbreaking website recovery.gov is allowing Americans to trace every dollar spent and every job created or saved from the recovery act, adding a level of transparency never before seen.
The third core pillar the president offered America was the chance to rebuild and strengthen our relationship with the rest of the world. Doing so would to allow us to solve shared problems and maximize shared opportunities, and to more effectively confront the terrorism and foreign policy challenges faced by the entire world.
He is, of course, delivering on that promise, to a degree even his most hardened detractors would strain to effectively or credibly criticize. The president is winding down the war in Iraq, just as he promised he would during the campaign. And he is working thoughtfully and with great care to determine our next phase in Afghanistan, always keeping the long view in mind. Surely we can all agree this is a refreshing change from the approach to Iraq of six and seven years ago.
Is there much work left to be done? Of course. Is the president satisfied with where we are on jobs? No; the problem weighs on him every day as he works to accelerate job growth and negotiates a cooperative relationship with the private sector, where the bulk of these new jobs must be generated.
The economy is growing again, much sooner than most experts predicted. If growth continues, it should lead to job growth. And the president's bold leadership has played a significant role in our economy starting to right itself.
But he understands that unless we make much-needed progress on health care and energy, we will not be as strong a country in the decades to come as any of us would like. Our future truly depends on finally getting Washington to start confronting long-term challenges instead of ducking them. This is asking a lot. Washington is often reserved when it needs to be bold, and political when it should be addressing substance and principle. It is too often focused on the next election, not the next generation.
This is one of the president's great strengths. All he cares about, no matter the barbs and arrows shot his way, is to finally deliver on health insurance and energy reform so that we can ensure our country's greatness, and provide a solid economic foundation for American workers today and tomorrow.
Arianna Huffington has written much that I agree with. But when it comes to her opinion on the president and his record so far, or her suggestion that there is some great difference between the president and the candidate, I have to register the strongest possible dissent. A year after our historic victory, I have never been more certain that Barack Obama is uniquely suited to lead the country at this unparalleled moment. His values; his ability and desire to think long term; his determination to avoid the easy road of political expedience and to rebuild trust between the American people and their government -- these are exactly what American needs right now. As on any journey, there will be twists and turns, ups and downs. But the change so many of us fought for so passionately last year is becoming a reality in front of our eyes, if we focus squarely enough to see it. And when the decisions he is making today finally resolve into a complete picture years down the road, we will find ourselves living in a stronger, fairer, and more prosperous America. And we will cherish the small part all of us played in electing this unique leader, a man befitting this critical moment in our history.
Carly Fiorina - 6 Things You Should Know!
(taken from DSCC)
Carly Fiorina IS A LOSER!!
1. CEO Fail: Carly Fiorina was named among the nation's 20 worst CEOs by Portfolio magazine. No wonder. Under her leadership, Hewlett-Packard's stock fell 60%, and 28,000 employees were fired. She got fired, too, but her $21 million golden parachute made for a soft landing.
2. Iran Dealings? When HP's stock fell, it wasn't for lack of selling products - in Iran. Which happens to be illegal. The San Jose Mercury News reported that in the past 12 years, the company has used a Middle East distributor to sell millions of dollars' worth of merchadise to Iran, "sidestepping a U.S. ban on trade with the country." Fiorina was CEO from 1999-2005.
3. What, Me Vote? Running a company (into the ground) is hard work! A CEO is far too busy to vote! Or so it seems. Fiorina's voting record looks like Swiss cheese. She cast a ballot in only 6 of 14 elections held since 2000. She even skipped the 2000 and 2004 presidential primaries and the 2003 gubernatorial recall election. If she's so disdainful of democracy, what makes her think she deserves to represent California in the Senate?
4. McCain's Pain: Pity Fiorina's poor campaign manager. Fiorina's tendency to go off the reservation ended her short-lived career as a John McCain for President spokeswoman after she said none of the presidential or vice presidential nominees was qualified to run a major American corporation - including her boss, John McCain. Perhaps he votes too often?
5. Primary First: All of this assumes that Fiorina even gets the Republican nomination. That might be assuming too much. Her main competition, State Sen. Chuck DeVore, is the darling of the tea-party set. We've been seeing the fringe element taking over establishment Republicans across the country. Which makes one wonder why Fiorina has been bragging up her support from the National Republican Senatorial Committee. We saw how far national party support took Dede Scozzafava in New York's 23rd District.
6. Carly is ruthlessly attacking Senator Barbara Boxer. Practically calling her "That One" by saying "whats her name". These are the usual mean spirited tactics that Republicans are becoming so famous for. Yes, they are still at it! Whats wrong with you Carly? Are you THAT threatened? Can you not just focus on your own political platform? Why cant you just tell the Californians what you can bring to the table and leave your ugly Republican self out of it? I mean come on, is that all you have? Shamefully attack your opponant? Who wants to see that negativity? I certainly do not. What happened to civility and dignity? We (Californians) are so much smarter than you. Step up to our plate and show us your platform. Obviously ugly tactics did not work in our last major election now did it?
Carly Fiorina IS A LOSER!!
1. CEO Fail: Carly Fiorina was named among the nation's 20 worst CEOs by Portfolio magazine. No wonder. Under her leadership, Hewlett-Packard's stock fell 60%, and 28,000 employees were fired. She got fired, too, but her $21 million golden parachute made for a soft landing.
2. Iran Dealings? When HP's stock fell, it wasn't for lack of selling products - in Iran. Which happens to be illegal. The San Jose Mercury News reported that in the past 12 years, the company has used a Middle East distributor to sell millions of dollars' worth of merchadise to Iran, "sidestepping a U.S. ban on trade with the country." Fiorina was CEO from 1999-2005.
3. What, Me Vote? Running a company (into the ground) is hard work! A CEO is far too busy to vote! Or so it seems. Fiorina's voting record looks like Swiss cheese. She cast a ballot in only 6 of 14 elections held since 2000. She even skipped the 2000 and 2004 presidential primaries and the 2003 gubernatorial recall election. If she's so disdainful of democracy, what makes her think she deserves to represent California in the Senate?
4. McCain's Pain: Pity Fiorina's poor campaign manager. Fiorina's tendency to go off the reservation ended her short-lived career as a John McCain for President spokeswoman after she said none of the presidential or vice presidential nominees was qualified to run a major American corporation - including her boss, John McCain. Perhaps he votes too often?
5. Primary First: All of this assumes that Fiorina even gets the Republican nomination. That might be assuming too much. Her main competition, State Sen. Chuck DeVore, is the darling of the tea-party set. We've been seeing the fringe element taking over establishment Republicans across the country. Which makes one wonder why Fiorina has been bragging up her support from the National Republican Senatorial Committee. We saw how far national party support took Dede Scozzafava in New York's 23rd District.
6. Carly is ruthlessly attacking Senator Barbara Boxer. Practically calling her "That One" by saying "whats her name". These are the usual mean spirited tactics that Republicans are becoming so famous for. Yes, they are still at it! Whats wrong with you Carly? Are you THAT threatened? Can you not just focus on your own political platform? Why cant you just tell the Californians what you can bring to the table and leave your ugly Republican self out of it? I mean come on, is that all you have? Shamefully attack your opponant? Who wants to see that negativity? I certainly do not. What happened to civility and dignity? We (Californians) are so much smarter than you. Step up to our plate and show us your platform. Obviously ugly tactics did not work in our last major election now did it?
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Michael Vick is a Serial Killer - NOT a hero.
Michael Vick's unpaid dues: Why dog advocates aren't moving on
By Christie Keith, Special to SF Gate
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
When football player Michael Vick made his first post-prison appearance in a Philadelphia Eagles uniform, he got a standing ovation from the hometown crowd. His recent reception in the Bay Area was far cooler -- at last month's game between the Eagles and the Oakland Raiders, he was greeted with protestors, picket signs and a plane flying over the stadium with a banner reading "Dogfighter Go Home!"
But even in the dog-loving Bay Area, Vick had plenty of defenders. "Sooner or later you're going to have to forgive the guy anyway," Charles Wright, a 44-year-old Oakland tow truck driver, told protestors after the game. "You may as well get it out of your system."
Another fan yelled, "Come on, the dude paid his debt to society."
In other words, "move on." But however many times dog lovers hear such advice, they're not getting any closer to taking it. That's because not only has Vick not served one minute in prison for animal cruelty, he was far more cruel to his dogs than most of his defenders seem to realize.
Most people are aware that Michael Vick was "convicted of dog fighting." They know he went to prison, and they've also probably seen the news stories, including a moving Sports Illustrated cover story, about the Vick dogs that were rescued and rehabilitated after being seized from his Bad Newz Kennels.
But that's only part of the story.
"What Michael Vick did was not just dog fighting," said Marthina McClay of Our Pack, a pit bull rescue group in Santa Clara, and the owner of one of the Vick dogs, Leo. "It went so far beyond that, and most people who defend him are uninformed. They don't really realize what Michael Vick did."
If you're one of the people McClay is talking about, let me invite you into Donna Reynolds' nightmare.
Reynolds is the co-founder of Bay Area Doglovers Responsible About Pitbulls (BAD RAP), an East Bay organization with a national reputation for rescuing and rehabilitating pit bulls. They rehabbed and cared for many of the dogs seized from Vick's Bad Newz Kennels after his arrest in April of 2007.
She's definitely not what you'd call a fragile flower, and she's been working with ex-fighting pits for longer than a lot of the people reading this have been out of kindergarten. It's fair to say she's seen the worst things that people can do to dogs, but there's still a story she can't get out of her mind.
It was a sweltering day in September of 2007, and Reynolds was in Virginia to evaluate the 49 pit bulls found alive on Vicks' property. A federal agent who had been at the scene when the property was searched was driving her to the various facilities holding the dogs, and they got to talking about what the investigation had turned up.
"The details that got to me then and stay with me today involve the swimming pool that was used to kill some of the dogs," Reynolds wrote on her blog. "Jumper cables were clipped onto the ears of underperforming dogs, then, just like with a car, the cables were connected to the terminals of car batteries before lifting and tossing the shamed dogs into the water."
She continued, "We don't know how many suffered this premeditated murder, but the damage to the pool walls tells a story. It seems that while they were scrambling to escape, they scratched and clawed at the pool liner and bit at the dented aluminum sides like a hungry dog on a tin can.
"I wear some pretty thick skin during our work with dogs, but I can't shake my minds-eye image of a little black dog splashing frantically in bloody water ... screaming in pain and terror ... brown eyes saucer wide and tiny black white-toed feet clawing at anything, desperate to get a hold. This death did not come quickly. The rescuer in me keeps trying to think of a way to go back in time and somehow stop this torture and pull the little dog to safety. I think I'll be looking for ways to pull that dog out for the rest of my life."
Vick did all that and more to his dogs, and even threw family pets into the pit with fighters and laughed while they were mauled, according to a witness who testified to federal investigators.
That's what sends dog lovers out to football games with protest signs: knowing that Michael Vick tortured and killed innocent dogs. That he has never paid for that abuse or even apologized for it.
Because the nation's most notorious dogfighter pled "not guilty" to animal cruelty charges -- charges that were eventually dropped in a plea bargain -- and he was convicted only of bankrolling a dogfighting conspiracy, for which he served 18 months in prison before being welcomed back to the public spotlight.
Even worse, he's shown no sign of understanding of, or regret over, the fate of his dogs.
"Vick has never expressed one word of remorse for what he did to those dogs," said McClay. "Not in any of his public statements, and not in his appearance on '60 Minutes.' Vick said he 'let it happen.' He slammed and beat and hung dogs to death. It's like Ted Bundy saying, 'I let someone murder this girl.' He doesn't take any responsibility for it."
Reynolds doesn't think it's an accident that most of Vick's supporters are so in the dark about his crimes against dogs.
"It worked out nicely for Vick that he never faced his animal abuse charges in court," she told me. "That meant football fans were spared the most disturbing details of his tortures and could go back to their Sunday night ritual with barely a hiccup."
Those who weren't spared those disturbing details, like Reynolds and McClay, aren't finding it easy, or even possible, to move on.
"I look at Leo's big, fat head and wonderful, loving heart," McClay said, "and wonder, how can you kill something like that? And now that's okay because Vick did his time, and we should just move on? How do you move on from that?"
Well, you might say, that's our criminal justice system, and that's professional sports. And you'd be right, as far as it goes.
But before it goes too far -- before you, too, become one of the people saying Vick's done his time and deserves to get on with his life -- consider something other than the heartwarming stories about ex-Vick dogs making visits to cancer wards and schools for troubled kids.
Think about the ones who were buried in the dirt of Bad Newz Kennels, who aren't getting much attention outside the dog world.
The horrific fate of those dogs is why Reynolds is actually glad about the continued debate between Vick's defenders and pit bull advocates -- it makes it harder for what he did to be buried along with the dogs he killed.
"Much of the public still sees pit bulls as willing gladiators rather than the victims that they are," she told me. "We have a long way to go before open debate on the topic of animal abuse is welcome in most living rooms, so the outrage about Vick's tortures is rightfully keeping the subject alive."
I suppose that's the silver lining. I just wish I could get the image of those frightened, drowning dogs out of my head. And I wish I believed they were haunting Michael Vick, too.
By Christie Keith, Special to SF Gate
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
When football player Michael Vick made his first post-prison appearance in a Philadelphia Eagles uniform, he got a standing ovation from the hometown crowd. His recent reception in the Bay Area was far cooler -- at last month's game between the Eagles and the Oakland Raiders, he was greeted with protestors, picket signs and a plane flying over the stadium with a banner reading "Dogfighter Go Home!"
But even in the dog-loving Bay Area, Vick had plenty of defenders. "Sooner or later you're going to have to forgive the guy anyway," Charles Wright, a 44-year-old Oakland tow truck driver, told protestors after the game. "You may as well get it out of your system."
Another fan yelled, "Come on, the dude paid his debt to society."
In other words, "move on." But however many times dog lovers hear such advice, they're not getting any closer to taking it. That's because not only has Vick not served one minute in prison for animal cruelty, he was far more cruel to his dogs than most of his defenders seem to realize.
Most people are aware that Michael Vick was "convicted of dog fighting." They know he went to prison, and they've also probably seen the news stories, including a moving Sports Illustrated cover story, about the Vick dogs that were rescued and rehabilitated after being seized from his Bad Newz Kennels.
But that's only part of the story.
"What Michael Vick did was not just dog fighting," said Marthina McClay of Our Pack, a pit bull rescue group in Santa Clara, and the owner of one of the Vick dogs, Leo. "It went so far beyond that, and most people who defend him are uninformed. They don't really realize what Michael Vick did."
If you're one of the people McClay is talking about, let me invite you into Donna Reynolds' nightmare.
Reynolds is the co-founder of Bay Area Doglovers Responsible About Pitbulls (BAD RAP), an East Bay organization with a national reputation for rescuing and rehabilitating pit bulls. They rehabbed and cared for many of the dogs seized from Vick's Bad Newz Kennels after his arrest in April of 2007.
She's definitely not what you'd call a fragile flower, and she's been working with ex-fighting pits for longer than a lot of the people reading this have been out of kindergarten. It's fair to say she's seen the worst things that people can do to dogs, but there's still a story she can't get out of her mind.
It was a sweltering day in September of 2007, and Reynolds was in Virginia to evaluate the 49 pit bulls found alive on Vicks' property. A federal agent who had been at the scene when the property was searched was driving her to the various facilities holding the dogs, and they got to talking about what the investigation had turned up.
"The details that got to me then and stay with me today involve the swimming pool that was used to kill some of the dogs," Reynolds wrote on her blog. "Jumper cables were clipped onto the ears of underperforming dogs, then, just like with a car, the cables were connected to the terminals of car batteries before lifting and tossing the shamed dogs into the water."
She continued, "We don't know how many suffered this premeditated murder, but the damage to the pool walls tells a story. It seems that while they were scrambling to escape, they scratched and clawed at the pool liner and bit at the dented aluminum sides like a hungry dog on a tin can.
"I wear some pretty thick skin during our work with dogs, but I can't shake my minds-eye image of a little black dog splashing frantically in bloody water ... screaming in pain and terror ... brown eyes saucer wide and tiny black white-toed feet clawing at anything, desperate to get a hold. This death did not come quickly. The rescuer in me keeps trying to think of a way to go back in time and somehow stop this torture and pull the little dog to safety. I think I'll be looking for ways to pull that dog out for the rest of my life."
Vick did all that and more to his dogs, and even threw family pets into the pit with fighters and laughed while they were mauled, according to a witness who testified to federal investigators.
That's what sends dog lovers out to football games with protest signs: knowing that Michael Vick tortured and killed innocent dogs. That he has never paid for that abuse or even apologized for it.
Because the nation's most notorious dogfighter pled "not guilty" to animal cruelty charges -- charges that were eventually dropped in a plea bargain -- and he was convicted only of bankrolling a dogfighting conspiracy, for which he served 18 months in prison before being welcomed back to the public spotlight.
Even worse, he's shown no sign of understanding of, or regret over, the fate of his dogs.
"Vick has never expressed one word of remorse for what he did to those dogs," said McClay. "Not in any of his public statements, and not in his appearance on '60 Minutes.' Vick said he 'let it happen.' He slammed and beat and hung dogs to death. It's like Ted Bundy saying, 'I let someone murder this girl.' He doesn't take any responsibility for it."
Reynolds doesn't think it's an accident that most of Vick's supporters are so in the dark about his crimes against dogs.
"It worked out nicely for Vick that he never faced his animal abuse charges in court," she told me. "That meant football fans were spared the most disturbing details of his tortures and could go back to their Sunday night ritual with barely a hiccup."
Those who weren't spared those disturbing details, like Reynolds and McClay, aren't finding it easy, or even possible, to move on.
"I look at Leo's big, fat head and wonderful, loving heart," McClay said, "and wonder, how can you kill something like that? And now that's okay because Vick did his time, and we should just move on? How do you move on from that?"
Well, you might say, that's our criminal justice system, and that's professional sports. And you'd be right, as far as it goes.
But before it goes too far -- before you, too, become one of the people saying Vick's done his time and deserves to get on with his life -- consider something other than the heartwarming stories about ex-Vick dogs making visits to cancer wards and schools for troubled kids.
Think about the ones who were buried in the dirt of Bad Newz Kennels, who aren't getting much attention outside the dog world.
The horrific fate of those dogs is why Reynolds is actually glad about the continued debate between Vick's defenders and pit bull advocates -- it makes it harder for what he did to be buried along with the dogs he killed.
"Much of the public still sees pit bulls as willing gladiators rather than the victims that they are," she told me. "We have a long way to go before open debate on the topic of animal abuse is welcome in most living rooms, so the outrage about Vick's tortures is rightfully keeping the subject alive."
I suppose that's the silver lining. I just wish I could get the image of those frightened, drowning dogs out of my head. And I wish I believed they were haunting Michael Vick, too.
Monday, November 2, 2009
Saturday, October 24, 2009
Shut the hell up, DICK!!
Taken from Huffington post. Written by columnist DAVID CORN. (my hero)
Why is Dick Cheney helping Barack Obama? I know they're cousins -- eighth cousins, to be precise -- but for a guy who seems to detest the president and everything he stands for concerning national security, Cheney is inexplicably providing political aid and comfort to Obama.
On Wednesday night, Cheney received the not-so-coveted Keeper of the Flame award from the Center for Security Policy, a rather hawkish group run by Frank Gaffney, who was one of the loudest cheerleaders for the Iraq war. Accepting the honor, Cheney delivered a 25-minute speech and once again accused Obama of committing strategic blunders and undermining the credibility of the United States. Most notably, Cheney slammed the president for "dithering" on Afghanistan, saying that Obama "seems afraid to make a decision, and unable to provide his commander on the ground with the troops he needs to complete his mission."
Coming from Cheney, this was ridiculous. It is no news flash that the Bush-Cheney White House neglected the Afghanistan effort for years. In fact, as I wrote in 2006, the Bush administration didn't even have a senior-level official solely responsible for policies and actions in Afghanistan. The mid-level White House aide handling Afghanistan at the time had another portfolio: the Iraq war.
In his speech, Cheney insisted that his White House had not dropped the ball: "In the fall of 2008, fully aware of the need to meet new challenges being posed by the Taliban, we dug into every aspect of Afghanistan policy, assembling a team that repeatedly went into the country, reviewing options and recommendations." Talk about dithering. That review occurred seven years after the war began. (U.S. involvement in World War II lasted only four years.)
For Democrats, countering Cheney's charges was far easier than figuring out what to do in Afghanistan. Responding to Cheney's remarks, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said:
I think it's a curious comment, given -- I think it's pretty safe to say that the vice president was for seven years not focused on Afghanistan. . . . What Vice President Cheney calls "dithering," President Obama calls his solemn responsibility to the men and women in uniform and to the American public. I think we've all seen what happens when somebody doesn't take that responsibility seriously.
Even Republican Sen. Lamar Alexander rejected Cheney's criticism and commented, "I want [Obama] to take the time to get it right." By the way, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who served in the Bush-Cheney administration, recently said on CNN, "I will tell you, I think that the strategy that the president put forward in late March is the first real strategy we have had for Afghanistan since the early 1980s." In other words, Bush and Cheney had nada. And in 2007, Adm. Michael Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, acknowledged that the Bush-Cheney gang was not treating Afghanistan as a priority: "In Afghanistan, we do what we can. In Iraq, we do what we must."
Cheney lecturing Obama on Afghanistan is laughable, but the joke is on him. The ex-veep may not realize this, but he and his former boss exited office as profoundly unpopular men. Many in this country couldn't wait to see them leave. Obama won the presidency partly because he was the anti-Bush (or anti-Cheney). An impressive person on his own, Obama especially looked good compared to the fellows on the way out.
Now that Obama is a president rather than a candidate, he has lost the advantage of comparison. A commander in chief stands on his own before the public for judgment. His policies are evaluated by voters on absolute terms: Are they working? People no longer ask: Are they better than the other guy's? With the war in Afghanistan a serious problem and unemployment a kiss away from the 10 percent mark, every day Obama has to prove himself to Americans. And even his best efforts and decisions might not lead to good outcomes on these fronts. There actually may not be solutions to implement. Obama could well end up in deep political trouble because of such challenges.
But by interjecting himself into the discourse, Cheney sends up a flare: Hey, don't forget about me and Bush! And that reminder is great for the White House. If the issue is, can Obama succeed in Afghanistan, there's reason for Obama and his aides to worry. If the debate is Obama versus the Old Gang, the president is the big winner. In the 2008 campaign, he ran against Bush more than John McCain, and that worked out nicely for him. Since taking office, Obama has justifiably noted over and over that he's been cleaning up the mess left behind by Bush and Cheney. That argument will lose its oomph, the smaller Bush and Cheney become in the rear-view mirror. But here comes Cheney, jumping on the hood, pressing his face against the windshield, and proclaiming, "I'm here." What could be better for Obama?
Rep. Brad Sherman, a California Democrat, told me this week that he worries that by next year Obama will have a tough time blaming the nation's economic woes on Bush's policies. But if unemployment remains high, Obama and other Democrats will have no choice but to continue to make this case. Yet the more Cheney is in the spotlight, the easier it will be for Democrats and the White House to point an accusing finger at the previous administration. Cheney would help his fellow Republicans the most by sticking to fishing (please, no hunting) and letting Obama and Democrats contend with the vexing problems he and Bush bequeathed them -- and possibly fail.
Cheney and Obama are obviously not competing for the same audience. By slamming Obama, Cheney may be hoping to boost his own standing among conservatives, even if these moves also help Obama. But since Cheney is not running for any office in the future, such a tactic would be particularly selfish. After all, the Cheney brand is a damaged one. He's not a product the Republican Party wants on the shelf.
So as White House aides figure out how to manage their feud with Fox News, they should have no mixed feelings about mixing it up with Cheney. Politicians are often defined by their enemies. And there's no better enemy for Obama and his crew than Dick Cheney. They ought to send him a thank-you card.
Why is Dick Cheney helping Barack Obama? I know they're cousins -- eighth cousins, to be precise -- but for a guy who seems to detest the president and everything he stands for concerning national security, Cheney is inexplicably providing political aid and comfort to Obama.
On Wednesday night, Cheney received the not-so-coveted Keeper of the Flame award from the Center for Security Policy, a rather hawkish group run by Frank Gaffney, who was one of the loudest cheerleaders for the Iraq war. Accepting the honor, Cheney delivered a 25-minute speech and once again accused Obama of committing strategic blunders and undermining the credibility of the United States. Most notably, Cheney slammed the president for "dithering" on Afghanistan, saying that Obama "seems afraid to make a decision, and unable to provide his commander on the ground with the troops he needs to complete his mission."
Coming from Cheney, this was ridiculous. It is no news flash that the Bush-Cheney White House neglected the Afghanistan effort for years. In fact, as I wrote in 2006, the Bush administration didn't even have a senior-level official solely responsible for policies and actions in Afghanistan. The mid-level White House aide handling Afghanistan at the time had another portfolio: the Iraq war.
In his speech, Cheney insisted that his White House had not dropped the ball: "In the fall of 2008, fully aware of the need to meet new challenges being posed by the Taliban, we dug into every aspect of Afghanistan policy, assembling a team that repeatedly went into the country, reviewing options and recommendations." Talk about dithering. That review occurred seven years after the war began. (U.S. involvement in World War II lasted only four years.)
For Democrats, countering Cheney's charges was far easier than figuring out what to do in Afghanistan. Responding to Cheney's remarks, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said:
I think it's a curious comment, given -- I think it's pretty safe to say that the vice president was for seven years not focused on Afghanistan. . . . What Vice President Cheney calls "dithering," President Obama calls his solemn responsibility to the men and women in uniform and to the American public. I think we've all seen what happens when somebody doesn't take that responsibility seriously.
Even Republican Sen. Lamar Alexander rejected Cheney's criticism and commented, "I want [Obama] to take the time to get it right." By the way, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who served in the Bush-Cheney administration, recently said on CNN, "I will tell you, I think that the strategy that the president put forward in late March is the first real strategy we have had for Afghanistan since the early 1980s." In other words, Bush and Cheney had nada. And in 2007, Adm. Michael Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, acknowledged that the Bush-Cheney gang was not treating Afghanistan as a priority: "In Afghanistan, we do what we can. In Iraq, we do what we must."
Cheney lecturing Obama on Afghanistan is laughable, but the joke is on him. The ex-veep may not realize this, but he and his former boss exited office as profoundly unpopular men. Many in this country couldn't wait to see them leave. Obama won the presidency partly because he was the anti-Bush (or anti-Cheney). An impressive person on his own, Obama especially looked good compared to the fellows on the way out.
Now that Obama is a president rather than a candidate, he has lost the advantage of comparison. A commander in chief stands on his own before the public for judgment. His policies are evaluated by voters on absolute terms: Are they working? People no longer ask: Are they better than the other guy's? With the war in Afghanistan a serious problem and unemployment a kiss away from the 10 percent mark, every day Obama has to prove himself to Americans. And even his best efforts and decisions might not lead to good outcomes on these fronts. There actually may not be solutions to implement. Obama could well end up in deep political trouble because of such challenges.
But by interjecting himself into the discourse, Cheney sends up a flare: Hey, don't forget about me and Bush! And that reminder is great for the White House. If the issue is, can Obama succeed in Afghanistan, there's reason for Obama and his aides to worry. If the debate is Obama versus the Old Gang, the president is the big winner. In the 2008 campaign, he ran against Bush more than John McCain, and that worked out nicely for him. Since taking office, Obama has justifiably noted over and over that he's been cleaning up the mess left behind by Bush and Cheney. That argument will lose its oomph, the smaller Bush and Cheney become in the rear-view mirror. But here comes Cheney, jumping on the hood, pressing his face against the windshield, and proclaiming, "I'm here." What could be better for Obama?
Rep. Brad Sherman, a California Democrat, told me this week that he worries that by next year Obama will have a tough time blaming the nation's economic woes on Bush's policies. But if unemployment remains high, Obama and other Democrats will have no choice but to continue to make this case. Yet the more Cheney is in the spotlight, the easier it will be for Democrats and the White House to point an accusing finger at the previous administration. Cheney would help his fellow Republicans the most by sticking to fishing (please, no hunting) and letting Obama and Democrats contend with the vexing problems he and Bush bequeathed them -- and possibly fail.
Cheney and Obama are obviously not competing for the same audience. By slamming Obama, Cheney may be hoping to boost his own standing among conservatives, even if these moves also help Obama. But since Cheney is not running for any office in the future, such a tactic would be particularly selfish. After all, the Cheney brand is a damaged one. He's not a product the Republican Party wants on the shelf.
So as White House aides figure out how to manage their feud with Fox News, they should have no mixed feelings about mixing it up with Cheney. Politicians are often defined by their enemies. And there's no better enemy for Obama and his crew than Dick Cheney. They ought to send him a thank-you card.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Rush Limbaugh a racist: DROPPED FROM NFL OWNERSHIP!!!
RUSH LIMBAUGH NEEDS TO BE ELIMINATED FROM SOCIETY. HE IS AN UGLY NEGATIVE PERSON IN EVERY WHICH WAY!
Wednesday October 14, 2009 7:03PM
Sources: Limbaugh dropped from group seeking to purchase Rams Story Highlights
The group trying to buy the Rams says Rush Limbaugh is no longer invovled
Sources said any bid including Limbaugh had 'zero chance' of being approved
Source: 'The NFL isn't interested in having its own Mark Cuban situation'
By Don Banks, SI.com
If conservative radio commentator Rush Limbaugh ever had much of a chance to be a minority owner in a successful bid to buy the NFL's St. Louis Rams, it is now over, two league sources have confirmed to SI.com.
In a statement released Wednesday evening by St. Louis Blues chairman Dave Checketts -- who is heading the group that hopes to buy the Rams -- he announced Limbaugh's official exit from the bid. It is believed that Limbaugh's controversial participation would have doomed the group's effort in the eyes of NFL owners. League sources told SI.com that Limbaugh's candidacy in any Rams bid had "zero chance'' of being approved by the league's owners. In his statement, Checketts said Limbaugh's participation had become "a complication and a distraction'' to the group's efforts.
According to league sources, Limbaugh comes with too much troubling baggage in terms of his outspoken views that often intersect the divisive issues of politics and race in America. In a time when the NFL is hoping to have complete uniformity among its team owners in anticipation of the tough collective bargaining negotiations to come with the players union, there was little interest within the league to associate with an owner who is paid to give his highly charged opinions on the radio for hours each week.
"The league would be on pins and needles for three hours a day, five days a week,'' one league source said. "The NFL isn't interested in having its own Mark Cuban situation, where [the Dallas Mavericks owner] is fined for something he said, but then pays the fine, moves on and doesn't care what he says the next time either. The league wants the focus to always be on the game, not the opinions of any particular owner.''
One league source told SI.com that Checketts group was never completely configured any way, and that Limbaugh's participation was never set in stone. In that sense, when word surfaced that he would potentially hold minority ownership in the Rams, it was viewed as a trial balloon of sorts that never advanced much past the potential stage. Checketts is said to be seeking to replace Limbaugh's financial participation with other interested parties.
There was swift reaction to the idea of Limbaugh being involved in NFL ownership, and much of it was not favorable. NFL Players Association executive director DeMaurice Smith last weekend sent a letter to the group's board urging players to voice their opinion of Limbaugh's participation. And on Tuesday, NFL commissioner Roger Goodell made it clear that Limbaugh would face a high bar regarding approval of his potential stake in the Rams.
"Divisive comments are not what the NFL is all about,'' Goodell said at a two-day NFL owners meeting in Boston. "I've said many times before, we're all held to a high standard here. I would not want to see those comments coming from people who are in a responsible position in the NFL -- absolutely not.''
Goodell's strong comments were not just a message of sensitivity to the players in regards to Limbaugh's controversial reputation. One league source said it was a message to the league's entire customer base that the NFL would not be welcoming to a multi-platformed media figure who has a history of troubling and at times racially inflaming comments.
Indianapolis Colts owner Jim Irsay on Tuesday predicted that Limbaugh's potential ownership would face stiff opposition within the league, and said he could never vote to approve such a group. A league source went even further Wednesday, telling SI.com that even with Limbaugh no longer involved, Checketts' ownership group from here on out would face questions regarding the wisdom of having associated itself with such a divisive presence in the first place. The source said Limbaugh within the league was seen as "a drain on anyone else in the group who might have legitimacy.''
Another league source voiced puzzlement over Checketts not discerning the potential backlash of Limbaugh's participation in his group in advance of the news becoming public. "I would have assumed he would have run it up the flagpole with the league before it became known,'' a league source said. "Then a tepid response would have told him where things stood.''
Others within the league believe that Limbaugh may have viewed his participation in Checketts group as nothing more than a dose of free publicity for the radio host, no matter the outcome or the response to his involvement. "There was no downside in any of this for him,'' a league source said. "He gets a week of free publicity, and in the end, he'll frame his rejection to his benefit.''
Wednesday October 14, 2009 7:03PM
Sources: Limbaugh dropped from group seeking to purchase Rams Story Highlights
The group trying to buy the Rams says Rush Limbaugh is no longer invovled
Sources said any bid including Limbaugh had 'zero chance' of being approved
Source: 'The NFL isn't interested in having its own Mark Cuban situation'
By Don Banks, SI.com
If conservative radio commentator Rush Limbaugh ever had much of a chance to be a minority owner in a successful bid to buy the NFL's St. Louis Rams, it is now over, two league sources have confirmed to SI.com.
In a statement released Wednesday evening by St. Louis Blues chairman Dave Checketts -- who is heading the group that hopes to buy the Rams -- he announced Limbaugh's official exit from the bid. It is believed that Limbaugh's controversial participation would have doomed the group's effort in the eyes of NFL owners. League sources told SI.com that Limbaugh's candidacy in any Rams bid had "zero chance'' of being approved by the league's owners. In his statement, Checketts said Limbaugh's participation had become "a complication and a distraction'' to the group's efforts.
According to league sources, Limbaugh comes with too much troubling baggage in terms of his outspoken views that often intersect the divisive issues of politics and race in America. In a time when the NFL is hoping to have complete uniformity among its team owners in anticipation of the tough collective bargaining negotiations to come with the players union, there was little interest within the league to associate with an owner who is paid to give his highly charged opinions on the radio for hours each week.
"The league would be on pins and needles for three hours a day, five days a week,'' one league source said. "The NFL isn't interested in having its own Mark Cuban situation, where [the Dallas Mavericks owner] is fined for something he said, but then pays the fine, moves on and doesn't care what he says the next time either. The league wants the focus to always be on the game, not the opinions of any particular owner.''
One league source told SI.com that Checketts group was never completely configured any way, and that Limbaugh's participation was never set in stone. In that sense, when word surfaced that he would potentially hold minority ownership in the Rams, it was viewed as a trial balloon of sorts that never advanced much past the potential stage. Checketts is said to be seeking to replace Limbaugh's financial participation with other interested parties.
There was swift reaction to the idea of Limbaugh being involved in NFL ownership, and much of it was not favorable. NFL Players Association executive director DeMaurice Smith last weekend sent a letter to the group's board urging players to voice their opinion of Limbaugh's participation. And on Tuesday, NFL commissioner Roger Goodell made it clear that Limbaugh would face a high bar regarding approval of his potential stake in the Rams.
"Divisive comments are not what the NFL is all about,'' Goodell said at a two-day NFL owners meeting in Boston. "I've said many times before, we're all held to a high standard here. I would not want to see those comments coming from people who are in a responsible position in the NFL -- absolutely not.''
Goodell's strong comments were not just a message of sensitivity to the players in regards to Limbaugh's controversial reputation. One league source said it was a message to the league's entire customer base that the NFL would not be welcoming to a multi-platformed media figure who has a history of troubling and at times racially inflaming comments.
Indianapolis Colts owner Jim Irsay on Tuesday predicted that Limbaugh's potential ownership would face stiff opposition within the league, and said he could never vote to approve such a group. A league source went even further Wednesday, telling SI.com that even with Limbaugh no longer involved, Checketts' ownership group from here on out would face questions regarding the wisdom of having associated itself with such a divisive presence in the first place. The source said Limbaugh within the league was seen as "a drain on anyone else in the group who might have legitimacy.''
Another league source voiced puzzlement over Checketts not discerning the potential backlash of Limbaugh's participation in his group in advance of the news becoming public. "I would have assumed he would have run it up the flagpole with the league before it became known,'' a league source said. "Then a tepid response would have told him where things stood.''
Others within the league believe that Limbaugh may have viewed his participation in Checketts group as nothing more than a dose of free publicity for the radio host, no matter the outcome or the response to his involvement. "There was no downside in any of this for him,'' a league source said. "He gets a week of free publicity, and in the end, he'll frame his rejection to his benefit.''
Monday, October 5, 2009
I am calling you! Great Song!!!
Change is coming.
Jevetta Steele deserves all the credit in the world. And why she does not have a single out, for this song, is beyond me. You can only hear her beautiful voice on youtube. I dont understand it.
Please enjoy this beautiful song.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nk7mCmgzpPE&NR=1
Taken from the movie "Bagdad Cafe". Great movie. A lil quirky but great movie.
Jevetta Steele deserves all the credit in the world. And why she does not have a single out, for this song, is beyond me. You can only hear her beautiful voice on youtube. I dont understand it.
Please enjoy this beautiful song.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nk7mCmgzpPE&NR=1
Taken from the movie "Bagdad Cafe". Great movie. A lil quirky but great movie.
Conservative movement behave like Bratty 13 year olds
The Politics of Spite
Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times
Paul Krugman
Published: October 4, 2009
There was what President Obama likes to call a teachable moment last week, when the International Olympic Committee rejected Chicago’s bid to be host of the 2016 Summer Games.
Cheers erupted” at the headquarters of the conservative Weekly Standard, according to a blog post by a member of the magazine’s staff, with the headline “Obama loses! Obama loses!” Rush Limbaugh declared himself “gleeful.” “World Rejects Obama,” gloated the Drudge Report. And so on.
So what did we learn from this moment? For one thing, we learned that the modern conservative movement, which dominates the modern Republican Party, has the emotional maturity of a bratty 13-year-old.
But more important, the episode illustrated an essential truth about the state of American politics: at this point, the guiding principle of one of our nation’s two great political parties is spite pure and simple. If Republicans think something might be good for the president, they’re against it — whether or not it’s good for America.
To be sure, while celebrating America’s rebuff by the Olympic Committee was puerile, it didn’t do any real harm. But the same principle of spite has determined Republican positions on more serious matters, with potentially serious consequences — in particular, in the debate over health care reform.
Now, it’s understandable that many Republicans oppose Democratic plans to extend insurance coverage — just as most Democrats opposed President Bush’s attempt to convert Social Security into a sort of giant 401(k). The two parties do, after all, have different philosophies about the appropriate role of government.
But the tactics of the two parties have been different. In 2005, when Democrats campaigned against Social Security privatization, their arguments were consistent with their underlying ideology: they argued that replacing guaranteed benefits with private accounts would expose retirees to too much risk.
The Republican campaign against health care reform, by contrast, has shown no such consistency. For the main G.O.P. line of attack is the claim — based mainly on lies about death panels and so on — that reform will undermine Medicare. And this line of attack is utterly at odds both with the party’s traditions and with what conservatives claim to believe.
Think about just how bizarre it is for Republicans to position themselves as the defenders of unrestricted Medicare spending. First of all, the modern G.O.P. considers itself the party of Ronald Reagan — and Reagan was a fierce opponent of Medicare’s creation, warning that it would destroy American freedom. (Honest.) In the 1990s, Newt Gingrich tried to force drastic cuts in Medicare financing. And in recent years, Republicans have repeatedly decried the growth in entitlement spending — growth that is largely driven by rising health care costs.
But the Obama administration’s plan to expand coverage relies in part on savings from Medicare. And since the G.O.P. opposes anything that might be good for Mr. Obama, it has become the passionate defender of ineffective medical procedures and overpayments to insurance companies.
How did one of our great political parties become so ruthless, so willing to embrace scorched-earth tactics even if so doing undermines the ability of any future administration to govern?
The key point is that ever since the Reagan years, the Republican Party has been dominated by radicals — ideologues and/or apparatchiks who, at a fundamental level, do not accept anyone else’s right to govern.
Anyone surprised by the venomous, over-the-top opposition to Mr. Obama must have forgotten the Clinton years. Remember when Rush Limbaugh suggested that Hillary Clinton was a party to murder? When Newt Gingrich shut down the federal government in an attempt to bully Bill Clinton into accepting those Medicare cuts? And let’s not even talk about the impeachment saga.
The only difference now is that the G.O.P. is in a weaker position, having lost control not just of Congress but, to a large extent, of the terms of debate. The public no longer buys conservative ideology the way it used to; the old attacks on Big Government and paeans to the magic of the marketplace have lost their resonance. Yet conservatives retain their belief that they, and only they, should govern.
The result has been a cynical, ends-justify-the-means approach. Hastening the day when the rightful governing party returns to power is all that matters, so the G.O.P. will seize any club at hand with which to beat the current administration.
It’s an ugly picture. But it’s the truth. And it’s a truth anyone trying to find solutions to America’s real problems has to understand.
It is unfortunate.
Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times
Paul Krugman
Published: October 4, 2009
There was what President Obama likes to call a teachable moment last week, when the International Olympic Committee rejected Chicago’s bid to be host of the 2016 Summer Games.
Cheers erupted” at the headquarters of the conservative Weekly Standard, according to a blog post by a member of the magazine’s staff, with the headline “Obama loses! Obama loses!” Rush Limbaugh declared himself “gleeful.” “World Rejects Obama,” gloated the Drudge Report. And so on.
So what did we learn from this moment? For one thing, we learned that the modern conservative movement, which dominates the modern Republican Party, has the emotional maturity of a bratty 13-year-old.
But more important, the episode illustrated an essential truth about the state of American politics: at this point, the guiding principle of one of our nation’s two great political parties is spite pure and simple. If Republicans think something might be good for the president, they’re against it — whether or not it’s good for America.
To be sure, while celebrating America’s rebuff by the Olympic Committee was puerile, it didn’t do any real harm. But the same principle of spite has determined Republican positions on more serious matters, with potentially serious consequences — in particular, in the debate over health care reform.
Now, it’s understandable that many Republicans oppose Democratic plans to extend insurance coverage — just as most Democrats opposed President Bush’s attempt to convert Social Security into a sort of giant 401(k). The two parties do, after all, have different philosophies about the appropriate role of government.
But the tactics of the two parties have been different. In 2005, when Democrats campaigned against Social Security privatization, their arguments were consistent with their underlying ideology: they argued that replacing guaranteed benefits with private accounts would expose retirees to too much risk.
The Republican campaign against health care reform, by contrast, has shown no such consistency. For the main G.O.P. line of attack is the claim — based mainly on lies about death panels and so on — that reform will undermine Medicare. And this line of attack is utterly at odds both with the party’s traditions and with what conservatives claim to believe.
Think about just how bizarre it is for Republicans to position themselves as the defenders of unrestricted Medicare spending. First of all, the modern G.O.P. considers itself the party of Ronald Reagan — and Reagan was a fierce opponent of Medicare’s creation, warning that it would destroy American freedom. (Honest.) In the 1990s, Newt Gingrich tried to force drastic cuts in Medicare financing. And in recent years, Republicans have repeatedly decried the growth in entitlement spending — growth that is largely driven by rising health care costs.
But the Obama administration’s plan to expand coverage relies in part on savings from Medicare. And since the G.O.P. opposes anything that might be good for Mr. Obama, it has become the passionate defender of ineffective medical procedures and overpayments to insurance companies.
How did one of our great political parties become so ruthless, so willing to embrace scorched-earth tactics even if so doing undermines the ability of any future administration to govern?
The key point is that ever since the Reagan years, the Republican Party has been dominated by radicals — ideologues and/or apparatchiks who, at a fundamental level, do not accept anyone else’s right to govern.
Anyone surprised by the venomous, over-the-top opposition to Mr. Obama must have forgotten the Clinton years. Remember when Rush Limbaugh suggested that Hillary Clinton was a party to murder? When Newt Gingrich shut down the federal government in an attempt to bully Bill Clinton into accepting those Medicare cuts? And let’s not even talk about the impeachment saga.
The only difference now is that the G.O.P. is in a weaker position, having lost control not just of Congress but, to a large extent, of the terms of debate. The public no longer buys conservative ideology the way it used to; the old attacks on Big Government and paeans to the magic of the marketplace have lost their resonance. Yet conservatives retain their belief that they, and only they, should govern.
The result has been a cynical, ends-justify-the-means approach. Hastening the day when the rightful governing party returns to power is all that matters, so the G.O.P. will seize any club at hand with which to beat the current administration.
It’s an ugly picture. But it’s the truth. And it’s a truth anyone trying to find solutions to America’s real problems has to understand.
It is unfortunate.
Friday, October 2, 2009
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT) Thomas Carper (D-DE), Kent Conrad (D-ND) and Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) opposed the amendment with R
BLUE DOG DEMOCRATS ARE KILLING THE HEALTH CARE BILL...Grrrrrrrrrrrrrr!!
(All Headline News article, Kris Alingod - AHN Contributor)
Washington, D.C. (AHN) - The Senate Finance Committee late Wednesday voted down amendments from Sens. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) and Chuck Schumer (D-NY) that would've included a public option in the health reform bill under debate for the second week. Some lawmakers and pundits have said the Finance panel's measure is the only one among five proposals in Congress with any hope of passage this year, since Republicans refuse to support a government health insurance plan.
By an 8-15 vote, committee members rejected a measure from Rockefeller that would have created a voluntary, public insurance program run by the Health Department and that has payment rates based on Medicare provider payments for the first two years of coverage.
Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT) and three other Democrats -- Thomas Carper (D-DE), Kent Conrad (D-ND) and Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) -- opposed the amendment along with all Republican members of the committee.
Rockefeller, chairman of the Health Subcommittee in the Finance panel, said in a statement, "I have traveled across West Virginia talking with people about their health care, and what I hear is that they need another option to buy affordable insurance - one that actually covers their medical care and helps drive down costs. Our job is to protect the American people, not protect insurance company profits. The American people have asked for real solutions that protect their families and their economic security - a public option does just that."
Carper said he did not vote for the amendment because "it would give the government an unfair advantage in the marketplace by allowing it to negotiate prices initially based on Medicare. That would stifle competition, not increase it, and the end result, I believe, would not be good for the consumer."
The measure from Schumer failed by a vote of 10-13.
Baucus was joined by only two Democrats -- Conrad and Lincoln -- in voting against it. The amendment would've included the public option plan passed the Senate Health Committee into the Finance panel's bill. Unlike the Rockefeller proposal, it does not tie its payments to Medicare and immediately negotiates its payment rates.
Two Democrats who expressed concern about tying Medicare payments to the public option, Sens. Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) and Ron Wyden (D-OR), voted to support both amendments.
"We should create a non-profit entity to compete with insurance companies to offer the best care at the lowest cost," Bingaman, a member of the "Gang of Six" centrist committee members who negotiated the bill for debate, said in a statement. "While neither public option amendment considered today was approved, we still have an opportunity to write a bill that encourages healthy competition."
"Without the ability to hold insurers accountable for their costs and quality of service, without the ability to get a better deal and stop the ongoing erosion of wages, most working families will be no better off after this bill passes than they are today," Wyden added.
A public option is a government-run, voluntary healthcare program that would compete with private insurance by offering cheaper coverage.
Democrats support it because according to them it would help make the costs overhauling the nation's healthcare system and expanding coverage to the 47 million uninsured more affordable. The GOP says a public plan would cause more job losses, impose new taxes and would not reduce costs nor provide fair competition.
Unlike other current Democratic bills, Baucus' bill features non-profit insurance cooperatives instead of a public option.
Committee debate on the $856 billion measure began last Tuesday amid criticisms from liberals who want a robust public option and more subsidies for the poor, and from Republicans who say the bill adds taxes to small business, and fails to ensure that funding excludes abortion and illegal immigrants.
The Congressional Budget Office, a nonpartisan agency, said in its assessment the bill is budget-neutral, actually costs $774 billion and would reduce the deficit by $49 billion in 10 years.
Rockefeller has warned that a coop model is "untested and unsubstantiated," citing statements from the USDA and the GAO. Conrad, the progenitor of the proposal to use cooperatives, has responded by citing successful cooperatives such as Ace Hardware and Group Health, a health care co-op in Washington state with 600,000 members.
"The co-op structure was offered because it fulfills at least some of the goals of both sides of the debate," Conrad also said. "It is a competitive delivery model that could compete with private, for-profit insurance companies, but at the same time it is membership-owned and controlled, not government-run."
Baucus' bill, which also requires all Americans except the very poor to have coverage or pay a fine, is also the only proposal in Congress that has yet to be reported out of committee.
The Senate Health Committee in July approved a $600 billion measure crafted by the late Ted Kennedy that has a "strong" public option.
In the House, the Energy panel has a government insurance plan that allows doctors to negotiate payment rates and costs $900 billion.
The measure has the support of the American Medical Association, which last month partnered with the Federation of American Hospitals, Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) and Service Employees International Union to launch a pro-administration TV ad on healthcare.
The House Ways and Means and Education Committees have approved a measure costing $1 trillion over 10 years.
The two bills have a tax on the 1.2 percent wealthiest Americans, or those earning more than $350,000.
They also require employers to either offer coverage to employees while contributing toward the premiums, or contribute to covering the costs of coverage by paying the government an equivalent of 8 percent of their workers' payroll. Small businesses with less than $250,000 in annual payroll are exempt from either requirements.
(All Headline News article, Kris Alingod - AHN Contributor)
Washington, D.C. (AHN) - The Senate Finance Committee late Wednesday voted down amendments from Sens. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) and Chuck Schumer (D-NY) that would've included a public option in the health reform bill under debate for the second week. Some lawmakers and pundits have said the Finance panel's measure is the only one among five proposals in Congress with any hope of passage this year, since Republicans refuse to support a government health insurance plan.
By an 8-15 vote, committee members rejected a measure from Rockefeller that would have created a voluntary, public insurance program run by the Health Department and that has payment rates based on Medicare provider payments for the first two years of coverage.
Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT) and three other Democrats -- Thomas Carper (D-DE), Kent Conrad (D-ND) and Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) -- opposed the amendment along with all Republican members of the committee.
Rockefeller, chairman of the Health Subcommittee in the Finance panel, said in a statement, "I have traveled across West Virginia talking with people about their health care, and what I hear is that they need another option to buy affordable insurance - one that actually covers their medical care and helps drive down costs. Our job is to protect the American people, not protect insurance company profits. The American people have asked for real solutions that protect their families and their economic security - a public option does just that."
Carper said he did not vote for the amendment because "it would give the government an unfair advantage in the marketplace by allowing it to negotiate prices initially based on Medicare. That would stifle competition, not increase it, and the end result, I believe, would not be good for the consumer."
The measure from Schumer failed by a vote of 10-13.
Baucus was joined by only two Democrats -- Conrad and Lincoln -- in voting against it. The amendment would've included the public option plan passed the Senate Health Committee into the Finance panel's bill. Unlike the Rockefeller proposal, it does not tie its payments to Medicare and immediately negotiates its payment rates.
Two Democrats who expressed concern about tying Medicare payments to the public option, Sens. Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) and Ron Wyden (D-OR), voted to support both amendments.
"We should create a non-profit entity to compete with insurance companies to offer the best care at the lowest cost," Bingaman, a member of the "Gang of Six" centrist committee members who negotiated the bill for debate, said in a statement. "While neither public option amendment considered today was approved, we still have an opportunity to write a bill that encourages healthy competition."
"Without the ability to hold insurers accountable for their costs and quality of service, without the ability to get a better deal and stop the ongoing erosion of wages, most working families will be no better off after this bill passes than they are today," Wyden added.
A public option is a government-run, voluntary healthcare program that would compete with private insurance by offering cheaper coverage.
Democrats support it because according to them it would help make the costs overhauling the nation's healthcare system and expanding coverage to the 47 million uninsured more affordable. The GOP says a public plan would cause more job losses, impose new taxes and would not reduce costs nor provide fair competition.
Unlike other current Democratic bills, Baucus' bill features non-profit insurance cooperatives instead of a public option.
Committee debate on the $856 billion measure began last Tuesday amid criticisms from liberals who want a robust public option and more subsidies for the poor, and from Republicans who say the bill adds taxes to small business, and fails to ensure that funding excludes abortion and illegal immigrants.
The Congressional Budget Office, a nonpartisan agency, said in its assessment the bill is budget-neutral, actually costs $774 billion and would reduce the deficit by $49 billion in 10 years.
Rockefeller has warned that a coop model is "untested and unsubstantiated," citing statements from the USDA and the GAO. Conrad, the progenitor of the proposal to use cooperatives, has responded by citing successful cooperatives such as Ace Hardware and Group Health, a health care co-op in Washington state with 600,000 members.
"The co-op structure was offered because it fulfills at least some of the goals of both sides of the debate," Conrad also said. "It is a competitive delivery model that could compete with private, for-profit insurance companies, but at the same time it is membership-owned and controlled, not government-run."
Baucus' bill, which also requires all Americans except the very poor to have coverage or pay a fine, is also the only proposal in Congress that has yet to be reported out of committee.
The Senate Health Committee in July approved a $600 billion measure crafted by the late Ted Kennedy that has a "strong" public option.
In the House, the Energy panel has a government insurance plan that allows doctors to negotiate payment rates and costs $900 billion.
The measure has the support of the American Medical Association, which last month partnered with the Federation of American Hospitals, Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) and Service Employees International Union to launch a pro-administration TV ad on healthcare.
The House Ways and Means and Education Committees have approved a measure costing $1 trillion over 10 years.
The two bills have a tax on the 1.2 percent wealthiest Americans, or those earning more than $350,000.
They also require employers to either offer coverage to employees while contributing toward the premiums, or contribute to covering the costs of coverage by paying the government an equivalent of 8 percent of their workers' payroll. Small businesses with less than $250,000 in annual payroll are exempt from either requirements.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Stop the Spitball fight! Form an Alliance.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
