Archive for the ‘Emanuel’ Category

Rahm Emanuel Can Bring Down Obama

March 26, 2009

The Chicago Tribune is an example of a newspaper America needs to speak truth to power.  And in this environment of failing newspapers, many people like Barack Obama, Rahm Emanuel and Rod Blagojevich would like the Trib to just go away……

Rahm Emanuel has been discussed as a possible troublemaker or ringleader in many questionable White House operations — already — but we’ve noticed that Bill O’Reilly won’t say anything about this until and unless more is disclosed.

What we do know is that Emanuel has a daily phone call with ABC news host George Stephanopoulos of “This Week,” frequent CNN talking head Paul Begula and James Carville.

We suspect Emanuel has a hand in the far left liberal media manipulation effort but we don’t see a “conspiracy;” just a tendency toward very inappropriate conduct: the kind that got the Nixon White House into trouble.

That’s not much….

Emanuel is also apparently one of the first to say, “never waste a good crisis.”

When asked why the White House Chief of Staff, President Obama’s Chief of Staff, got involved with trashing Rush Limbaugh, Charles Krauthammer said, “Because he loves to make mischief, because he wants to stay in power and because it is fun.”

Related:
 There’s More Room For Rahm In AIG Bonus Abomination

Arrogance Blinds “Public Servants”

Daily Conference Call: Emanual, Carville, Stephanopoulos, Begula

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

Before its portfolio of bad loans helped trigger the current housing crisis, mortgage giant Freddie Mac was the focus of a major accounting scandal that led to a management shake-up, huge fines and scalding condemnation of passive directors by a top federal regulator.

The Chicago Tribune

One of those allegedly asleep-at-the-switch board members was Chicago’s Rahm Emanuel—now chief of staff to President Barack Obama—who made at least $320,000 for a 14-month stint at Freddie Mac that required little effort.

As gatekeeper to Obama, Emanuel now plays a critical role in addressing the nation’s mortgage woes and fulfilling the administration’s pledge to impose responsibility on the financial world.

Emanuel’s Freddie Mac involvement has been a prominent point on his political résumé, and his healthy payday from the firm has been no secret either. What is less known, however, is how little he apparently did for his money and how he benefited from the kind of cozy ties between Washington and Wall Street that have fueled the nation’s current economic mess.

Read the rest:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/o
bama/chi-rahm-emanuel-profit-26-mar26,0,
5682373.story

The Chicago Tribune is an example of a newspaper America needs to speak truth to power.  And in this environment of failing newspapers, many people like Barack Obama, Rahm Emanuel and Rod Blagojevich would like the Trib to just go away……

No, he wasn't thumbing his nose at ex- White House staffers. At least no one thinks he was. As new presidential Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel made his way to his seat for the inauguration, his former congressional colleagues playfully heckled the ex- Illinois congressman from their seats on the inaugural platform. Ever combative, and equally playful, Emanuel heckled them back, spokeswoman Sarah Feinberg said.
Emanuel at Obama’s inauguration in January….

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

Dick Morris On Rahm Emanuel

Published in the New York Post February 17, 2009

News broke last week that Rahm Emanuel, now White House chief of staff, lived rent- free for years in the home of Rep. Rosa De Lauro (D-Conn.) – and failed to disclose the gift, as congressional ethics rules mandate. But this is only the tip of Emanuel’s previously undislosed ethics problems.

One issue is the work Emanuel tossed the way of De Lauro’s husband. But the bigger one goes back to Emanuel’s days on the board of now-bankrupt mortgage giant Freddie Mac.

Emanuel is a multimillionaire, but lived for the last five years for free in the tony Capitol Hill townhouse owned by De Lauro and her husband, Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg.

During that time, he also served as chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee – which gave Greenberg huge polling contracts. It paid Greenberg’s firm $239,996 in 2006 and $317,775 in 2008. (Emanuel’s own campaign committee has also paid Greenberg more than $50,000 since 2004.)

To be fair, Greenberg had polling contracts with the DCCC before – but each new election cycle brings its own set of consultants. And Emanuel was certainly generous with his roommate.

Emanuel never declared the substantial gift of free rent on any of his financial-disclosure forms. He and De Lauro claim that it was just allowable “hospitality” between colleagues. Hospitality – for five years?

Some experts suggest that it was also taxable income: Over five years, the free rent could easily add up to more than $100,000.

Nor is this all that seems to have been missed in the Obama team’s vetting process. Consider: Emanuel served on the Freddie Mac board of directors during the time that the government-backed lender lied about its earnings, a leading contributor to the current economic meltdown.

The Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight Agency later singled out the Freddie Mac board as contributing to the fraud in 2000 and 2001 for “failing in its duty to follow up on matters brought to its attention.” In other words, board members ignored the red flags waving in their faces.

The SEC later fined Freddie $50 million for its deliberate fraud in 2000, 2001 and 2002.

Meanwhile, Emanuel was paid more than $260,000 for his Freddie “service.” Plus, after he resigned from the board to run for Congress in 2002, the troubled agency’s PAC gave his campaign $25,000 – its largest single gift to a House candidate.

That’s what friends are for, isn’t it?

Now Rahm Emanuel is in the White House helping President Obama dig out of the mess that Freddie Mac helped start.

The president’s chief of staff isn’t subject to Senate confirmation, but his ethics still matter. Is this the change that we can depend on?

Read Michelle Malkin:
http://michellemalkin.com/200
9/03/26/rahms-ill-gotten-gains/

http://84rules.wordpress.com/
2009/03/27/obama-wants-tran
sparency-not-if-it-exposes-the-w
hite-house-chief-of-staff-rahm-e
manuel/

There’s More Room For Rahm In AIG Bonus Abomination

March 23, 2009

With the nation in what the president has called a financial “crisis” and even a “catastrophe,” Obama is moving away from his top financial advisors at least on some issues, and sticking close to the advice of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and policy advisor David Axelrod.

“Those guys know politics.  They are listening to the Hill and watching the media and the polls.  That’s driving Obama’s policy right now,” a top political analyst told us.

****************************
From The American Spectator:

Over the past ten days, as the furor over AIG retention plan bonuses has focused on Sen. Chris Dodd and Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner, the White House has undertaken a PR offensive to protect the highest ranking Obama Administration official who was involved in the House and Senate negotiations over the stimulus bill, in which the AIG waiver language was inserted.

“Right now, you get the feeling this is all about protecting [White House Chief of Staff] Rahm Emanuel,” says a former Treasury Department lawyer, who worked in that department’s counsel’s office on the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) before joining a D.C.-based law firm in February. “At the time, we were led to believe there were basically three or four people from the Administration at the table when the final deals were cut and one of them was Emanuel.”

Informal advisers to Geithner are growing increasingly frustrated, they say, that Geithner is being held up as the straw man for the public anger over the bonuses. “Just over the weekend you saw a new guy added to the target list, [White House economics adviser Larry] Summers,” says a longtime Geithner colleague at the New York Fed. “You have Dodd, Geithner, Summers, but there were other, more senior political people involved in this mess, and their names aren’t being mentioned. Why isn’t anyone asking Rahm Emanuel, ‘What meetings were you in?’ ‘What did you and the President know and when did you know it?’ Tim has some culpability, but he’s not the guy who signed off on the Dodd language. He wasn’t that empowered to do something like that.”

Yesterday, Obama supporter and New York Times columnist Frank Rich fingered Summers as a key player in the AIG bonus mess. “Summers is so tone-deaf that he makes Geithner seem like Bobby Kennedy,” Rich wrote.

Summers currently serves as head of the National Economic Council in the White House, and has been mentioned as someone who might be forced to return to the Secretary of the Treasury post he once held in the Clinton Administration should Geithner not survive the political storm he finds himself in.

It isn’t just Rich, though, who has placed Summers in the center of the controversy. Last week, Sen. Ron Wyden, who was led to believe that language he was inserting into the stimulus bill, which would have heavily taxed such payouts as the retention bonuses, told reporters that it was the “Obama economic team” that stripped his and Sen. Olympia Snowe‘s provision from the bill. When he was asked about who he dealt with during the February negotiations over his language, he said, “Secretary Geithner, Larry Summers, and I’ll leave it at that.” He declined to name other names, though he indicated to reporters present that he was aware of others in the negotiations.

Senior Democrat leadership aides in both the House and Senate, however, insist that both Emanuel and Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag were present at the meetings where the decision was made to strip out the bonus taxation language and insert the Dodd waiver.

Read the rest:
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/0
3/23/plenty-of-rahm-at-the-aig-tabl

Visit Michelle Malkin:
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/03
/23/tarp-taxpayers-accounts-recycle
d-to-politicians/

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

Politicians Who Took AIG Money Should Give It Back

Two-out-of-three Americans (67%) believe that politicians who received campaign contributions from American International Group (AIG) should return the money. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that just 21% disagree and 13% are not sure.

The belief that the politicians should give back the money is shared by a solid majority of every measured demographic group except one – America’s Political Class. In that elite group, just 29% think the contributions should be returned while 63% reject that idea.

Among America’s Populists, 77% believe the campaign cash should be returned, and only 14% disagree. Most Americans have Populist attitudes. and their perspective can reasonably be considered the perspective of Mainstream America.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_conte
nt/politics/general_politics/67_say_politician
s_should_give_back_aig_contributions_polit
ical_class_disagrees

Senate Banking Committee Chairman Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn. ...
Dodd took more AIG money than anyone.  Obama was second. 

Obama threw Dodd under the bus:
http://nobamablog.wordpress.com/200
9/03/23/obama-sells-out-a-friend-fro
m-connecticut/

Related:
Did Obama White House Fuel AIG Bonus Mess To Enact Tougher Rules With Public Support, “Outrage”?

Financial Advice, Recovery, Trumped by Obama, Congress, Media, Polls

Financial Advice, Recovery, Trumped by Obama, Congress, Media, Polls

March 21, 2009

Last week when news came that AIG was paying huge bonuses to employees even after the federal bailout, the president’s two top financial advisors knew what to tell the president.

“Pay the bonuses.  We can’t void a contract.”

That advice came from Larry Summers and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner: Obama’s top economic advisors.

“Summers is the head dog.  He’s Geithner’s mentor.  Geithner is the protoge.  I don’t know how Obama fires one and keeps the other,” a top man in New York financial circles told us.

So maybe that is why Obama has not yet fired Geithner.

Obama Talks Too Much: Time For Action
(Time to Fire Geithner and Summers Too?)

US President Barack Obama, seen here on January 29, 2009, sits ... 
US President Barack Obama, seen here on January 29, 2009, sits alongside Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner.  Obama has to get his face out of the same photo with Geithner’s face….

And maybe that is why the stimulus contained a provision to allow the AIG bonuses: Geithner and Summers made sure it was put in.

Dodd would know but hasn’t named names.

Heck: Dodd has a house in Ireland to make his retirement happy and secure.

With the nation in what the president has called a financial “crisis” and even a “catastrophe,” Obama is moving away from his top financial advisors at least on some issues, and sticking close to the advice of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and policy advisor David Axelrod.

“Those guys know politics.  They are listening to the Hill and watching the media and the polls.  That’s driving Obama’s policy right now,” a top political analyst told us.

Last year, while still a senator, Obama voted for the bailout for AIG….

Meanwhile, Ben Bernanke is taking heat from media folks.

Bernanke released  more money into the nation’s money supply this week and the price of gold went up while the value of the dollar dropped…..

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

Dodd under fire in his home state:

Dodd’s decision to move his family to Iowa to campaign for a doomed bid for president, his initial refusal to release documents of his two controversial mortgages with Countrywide, criticism of how he financed a vacation cottage in Ireland, and now his involvement as Senate Banking Committee chairman in the bill that ultimately protected bonuses for executives at insurance giant AIG have all taken their toll.

Read it all:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/2009
0321/ap_on_re_us/aig_outrage_dodd_3

Related:
Wall Street Journal: “Geithner Incapacitated;” President Voices Support

Government To Have Bigger Role in All American Lives; Obama Seeks to Increase Oversight of Executive Pay
Bankers Press Case Against Punitive Tax 

Obama, Geithner, Congress Squandering Confidence Needed For Recovery

Bonus backlash hits Wall Street

American Democracy With Checks and Balances is Broken; Media, Congress Failing

Obama’s Radicalism Is Killing the Stock Market

 Obama Spending, Tax Plans Likely Out The Window As CBO Predicts Much More Debt

Obama: Why Are We Saving Geithner and His Incestuous Relationship With Wall Street?

Finance, one of America’s great industries, being destroyed by Congress during crisis?

For Cuomo, AIG, Financial Crisis Is His Political Moment

 Did Obama White House Fuel AIG Bonus Mess To Enact Tougher Rules With Public Support, “Outrage”?

American Democracy With Checks and Balances is Broken; Media, Congress Failing

March 21, 2009

Budgets make policy.  Budgets are policy.

Politics has become, “Listen to what I say, but if you really want to know the truth, dig into where the money goes.”

President Obama is a perfect example of that.  Ignore the speeches: research the budgets.

In the era of sound bites and videos and You Tube, nobody seems to want to do any tough work any more.  So it is easy to lap up the cool aid of political talk and then ignore the budget.

But your money is being spent in the budget.  That is where words turn into actions.

And the Obama budgets so far are full of waste and mistakes and bad policy: that is why congress was told to rush through the stimulus which ultimately created the AIG bonus flap.

Now that’s an outrage.

If $165 million cause that “outrage”, think what a careful review of the other $170 some BILLION may have found?

And because of media acquiessence which had given Obama carte blanche, and a free ride most of the time, our Democrocy is just about broken.

Two legs of our system of checks and balances are paralyzed: Congress and the media.  The AIG snafu should be all the proof anyone needs.

Geithner and everyone who had their hands on the stimulus should be fired because rapid fire legislation and budgeting is almost always bad legislation and budgeting.

You ever do a 5 hour term paper in 20 minutes?

Obama already enjoys a huge Democrat majority in the congress and can get anything he wants: why add rushed legislation and other tricks to the supposedly “deliberative process”?

Because the budgets are hiding many serious problems that, when they see the light of day, can be fixed.

“Inside budgets you’ll find a lot of bad political judgment,” a friend and senior policy advisor told me. “Budget guys aren’t policy guys and political guys rarely have time to read the budget.  When the stimulus raced through the congress without hearings, you had no checks and balances.  Congress gave that role up.  So there were bound to be problems.”

Related:
The End of America As We Knew It?

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

By Philip Rucker
The Washington Post

It was a diverse group of veterans that showed up Monday morning at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Two retired generals, a blind man, three men with prosthetic legs and one in a wheelchair.

They gathered in the historic Roosevelt Room, where Teddy Roosevelt’s Medal of Honor is displayed in a corner. For some veterans leaders, it was their first visit to the West Wing. When President Obama came into the room, he shook their hands, thanked them for their service and asked each for his opinion.

“He kind of blew me away,” said Randy L. Pleva Sr., president of Paralyzed Veterans of America.

They thanked Obama for proposing an 11 percent increase in the budget of the Department of Veterans Affairs and expanding health care to more veterans. But the leaders of veterans service organizations warned the president that their goodwill would vanish if he pursued a budget proposal to bill veterans’ private insurance companies for treatment of amputations, post-traumatic stress disorder and other combat-related injuries.
.

One Vietnam veteran summoned his deep voice to address Obama, calling the change “a dumb move.” An Iraq veteran said the move would be “a deal-breaker” because it would represent an abrogation of the government’s responsibility to care for the wounded and could jeopardize veterans’ insurance benefits.

After 45 minutes, the veterans posed with Obama for photographs in the Oval Office but left with no resolution. Within hours they set a media campaign in motion. A headline on Drudge Report said Obama was betraying veterans. A top Democratic senator called the proposal “dead on arrival.” An American Legion spokesman railed against it in 42 interviews with conservative talk radio hosts.

On Wednesday, trying to gain control of the situation, Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel summoned the same group of veterans back to the White House. “We said, ‘Look, don’t give [Republicans] an opportunity to slam you,’ ” said one veteran, who detailed the conversation only on the condition of anonymity. “I really don’t think there was malicious intent there. I think it was more a matter of a bad political judgment.”

Read the rest:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy
n/content/article/2009/03/20/AR20
09032003236.html?hpid=topnews

Sun Setting On American Superpower?

March 15, 2009

In February, 1979, when religious extremists overthrew and ousted the Shah of Iran, an immediate search began for “who lost Iran.”

For many Americans living in wealth at home, this may be of little concern.  But some would say, once the Shah was out of Iran we started on the road to today: an Iran on the brink of having a nuclear bomb and Isreal fearing for its very existance — a situation that has involved the U.S. for three or four decades and could ruin our whole day for years to come; unless a nuclear war comes first.

North Korea also has nuclear weapons and long range missiles and is making noise about starting trouble yet again.

Barack Obama needs to look himself in the mirror now and say, “Things are happening on my watch” and get rid of the notion that “We inherited a mess.”

Obama using recession to justify largest expansion of federal authority ever; U.S. less safe

Last week China’s Premier Wen Jiabao wondered aloud and very publically if the U.S. could be trusted to get its economic house in order.  He didn’t say this while George W. Bush was president: he said it two days ago.U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon even called the U.S. a “deadbeat” this last week.

Wen Jiabao wondered about the credibility of the U.S. after Obama failed to respond convincingly to an incident at sea between Chinese ships and an unarmed American naval vessel — and after Obama borrowed over $740 billion for the stimulus and another $410 billion for the omnibus, thus doubling the U..S. debt.

Wen Jiabao and Ban Ki-moon didn’t say, “I don’t have confidence in Bush; I do have confidence in Obama because he inherited this mess.”

When Russia maneuvered to eliminate the U.S. air base at Manas, Kyrgyzstan  recently, did anyone hear from Mr. Medvedev and Putin in Russia, “We did this because of Bush.  We are just peachy with Obama”?

When North Korea thumbed its nose at the United States last week, and threatened war, the White House indicated that it probably would not shoot down the long-range missile North Korea threatens to launch.

Japan had to step in and say, “We’ll take a shot because that North Korean missile is a threat.”

When Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez offered “a whole island with an airdrome, which we can use as a temporary base for strategic bombers,” to Russia yesterday, he didn’t say, “because of Bush.”

And when the Russians failed to say, “That’s a crazy idea,” it wasn’t because of Bush but it was because of Obama.

So we all need to think now that Barack Obama promises a lot of things that might, maybe, possibly could lead to a better America: health care, improved schools, a new energy system, the curing of cancer, the elimination of global warming, and etc. — all great stuff.

But will there be people asking: “Who lost Japan?  Who lost Korea?  Who lost Afghanistan, Pakistan and other nations?”

And will the certain losses matter, juxtaposed to the maybe gains?

And if American debt is so great that China stops buying U.S. Treasuries, or China “calls the shots” with America, will that matter?

And if our border with Mexico becomes overrun with Mexican drug cartels, I mean, just suppose, while we are looking the other way and fixing health care and spending our limited treasury on everything else, will that matter?  I am just dreaming here, I know.

That could never happen.  But just suppose…..

John E. Carey
Wakefield Chapel, Virginia

PS:  I am starting to hate this “inherited” BS.  Obama ran to get into the White House, along with all the goodies and problems that came with that.

Nobody “inherits” the White House unless death is involved….

Obama, Israel Split On Iran?

Obama Maybe Doesn’t Know: Nice guys get finished first

Related:
Obama Has Failed To Spell Out His Vision

Analysts: Russia outmaneuvered U.S. over air base

 Obama Could Lose Afghanistan, Pakistan

 Obama bans term “enemy combatant,” joins “terrorist” in unusable list

Obama Policy On Gitmo, Taliban, Afghanistan, Intel: As Stupid as It Gets

http://urdunews.wordpress.com/200
9/03/14/zardari-remains-firm-prot
ests-continue/

 Obama Backs Off, Japan Ready To Shoot Down North Korean Missile

Obama: Troop move to Mexican border under consideration

Obama Could Lose Afghanistan, Pakistan

Russia Sees Obama, U.S., Others As “Weak,” “Naive”

 Barack, Hillary: Moronic “Reset” Idea for Relations With Russia

China:
China’s Love/Hate Relationship With The U.S

Obama Wasting America’s Strategic World Power; China Surges Despite Economy
.
Era of Obama, American Weakness Emboldens Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, Terrorists

 Global Economy Weakness Leading To Social Unrest

Stimulus: China Will Fund U.S. Debt But “We Hate You Guys”

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITIC
S/03/15/cheney.interview/index.html

Behind the U.S. and China At Sea Incident

Pelosi’s Stimulus II? Lawmakers Propose No Cost, High Employment Energy Package

China Buying Oil, Uranium, Gold, Other Products At Bargain Prices

Russia, “Desperate For Cash,” Sells Oil to China In “Very Bad Deal”

What’s China’s Long Term Global Strategy?


American adversaries are thumbing their noses, while this man wanted to run the census and now will supervize the writing of a measure to federalize schools. Incoming White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel gestures prior to the inauguration ceremony of Barack Obama as the 44th President of the United States, in Washington, January 20, 2009.(Jim Young – UNITED STATES/Reuters)

Obama’s mythical mystique of government and science and their inherent moral benevolence

March 13, 2009

Presiden Obama is now on track to federalize schools, health care, some aspects of the media, science and just about every aspect of your American life.

Alarmist?

Maybe.  You judge for yourself.

The point is: some people do not believe that federal government rules for our schools will lead to better education across the board.

Some people do not believe that government control of health care will really mean better “care.”

Some people do not believe it is time to tax coal and gas and oil companies while we harvest the wind….There might still be too much hot air in the energy/climate change discussion….

Some people no longer beliive our national intelligence system: they said there were weapons of mass destruction is Iraq, they missed the fall of the Soviet Union, they now say what about Iran and nukes and the president wanted an anti-Isreal and pro-China guy named Freeman for a key intelligence job. Politicized?  Maybe.

Some people do believe that the spending, taxing and socialist trends we are now seeing will lead to a bankrupt America with the social life the Netherlands or Sweden.

And some people suspect that when the White House Chief of Staff engineers an assault on a private American citizen speaking his mind (Rush Limbaugh) and some folks talk about  ……  free speech will be curtailed before long.

I no longer believe in the benevolence of government.  And I surely suspect trouble in the promised benevolence of science, government and stem cell research….

And I just don’t believe in the promises of Barack Obama: the post-partisan, post-racial hope-filled future was a lie….

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

By Charles Krauthammer
The Washington Post
March 13, 2009

Last week, the White House invited me to a signing ceremony overturning the Bush (43) executive order on stem cell research. I assume this was because I have long argued in these columns and during my five years on the President’s Council on Bioethics that, contrary to the Bush policy, federal funding should be extended to research on embryonic stem cell lines derived from discarded embryos in fertility clinics.

I declined to attend. Once you show your face at these things you become a tacit endorser of whatever they spring. My caution was vindicated.

Preident Bush had restricted federal funding for embryonic stem cell research to cells derived from embryos that had already been destroyed (as of his speech of Aug. 9, 2001). While I favor moving that moral line to additionally permit the use of spare fertility clinic embryos, President Obama replaced it with no line at all. He pointedly left open the creation of cloned — and noncloned sperm-and-egg-derived — human embryos solely for the purpose of dismemberment and use for parts.
I am not religious. I do not believe that personhood is conferred upon conception. But I also do not believe that a human embryo is the moral equivalent of a hangnail and deserves no more respect than an appendix. Moreover, given the protean power of embryonic manipulation, the temptation it presents to science and the well-recorded human propensity for evil even in the pursuit of good, lines must be drawn. I suggested the bright line prohibiting the deliberate creation of human embryos solely for the instrumental purpose of research — a clear violation of the categorical imperative not to make a human life (even if only a potential human life) a means rather than an end.

On this, Obama has nothing to say. He leaves it entirely to the scientists. This is more than moral abdication. It is acquiescence to the mystique of “science” and its inherent moral benevolence. How anyone as sophisticated as Obama can believe this within living memory of Mengele and Tuskegee and the fake (and coercive) South Korean stem cell research is hard to fathom.

That part of the ceremony, watched from the safe distance of my office, made me uneasy. The other part — the ostentatious issuance of a memorandum on “restoring scientific integrity to government decision-making” — would have made me walk out.

Restoring? The implication, of course, is that while Obama is guided solely by science, Bush was driven by dogma, ideology and politics.

What an outrage. Bush’s nationally televised stem cell speech was the most morally serious address on medical ethics ever given by an American president. It was so scrupulous in presenting the best case for both his view and the contrary view that until the last few …

Read the rest:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy
n/content/article/2009/03/12/AR20
09031202764.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/03
/12/laughingstock-president-doom-
does-a-180-cancels-fear-mongering/

Obama’s Hope, Post-Partisan, Post-Racial Promises Were All BS

Never Wrong? U.S. Intelligence Says Iran Does Not Nave Any Highly Enriched Uranium
.
http://johnbrodigan.com/2009/03/12/epi
sode-v-the-republicans-strike-back/

Republicans: If You Can’t Agree On Core Values Now, Commit Harakiri

Carville Fires Back at Limbaugh Over Who Wants Which President to Fail

March 12, 2009

Democratic strategist James Carville responded to a FOX News report Wednesday that revealed he expressed hope in 2001 that President Bush would fail.

Fox News
.
James Carville fired back Wednesday at radio host Rush Limbaugh, who earlier in the day had taken the Democratic strategist to task for saying of President Bush in 2001, “I certainly hope he doesn’t succeed.”

Carville told CNN that unlike Limbaugh, who recently said he wants President Obama to fail, Carville retracted his own missive — uttered to a group of reporters on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001 — just minutes later, when he learned of the terrorist attacks on America.

“Thank God that I had the good sense to realize that the United States was at war and that changed everything, Carville said. “Once I found out that the country was at war, I said: Whatever I said, disregard it; it’s inoperative.”

“Unlike Mr. Limbaugh,” he added, who “kept insisting that he wanted the president to fail at a time of war.”

Carville was responding to Limbaugh’s statement earlier Wednesday in an exclusive FOX News report on Carville’s 2001 comments.

“The difference between Carville and his ilk and me is that I care about what happens to my country,” Limbaugh said. “I am not saying what I say for political advantage. I oppose actions, such as Obama’s socialist agenda, that hurt my country.

“I deal in principles, not polls,” Limbaugh added. “Carville and people like him live and breathe political exploitation. This is all a game to them. It’s not a game to me. I am concerned about the well-being and survival of our nation. When has Carville ever advocated anything that would benefit the country at the expense of his party?”

FOX News revealed Carville’s controversial 2001 remark in a story that pointed out the mainstream media’s failure to report the statement. By contrast, the press gave major coverage to Limbaugh’s expressed hope that Obama fail. The influential conservative has emphasized that he wants Obama’s liberal policies to fail, not the president himself.

Click here for the original report on Carville’s remark.

At his 2001 breakfast with reporters, Carville was joined by Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg, who delighted in a survey he had just completed that revealed public misgivings about the newly minted president.

“We rush into these focus groups with these doubts that people have about him, and I’m wanting them to turn against him,” Greenberg admitted.

The pollster added with a chuckle of disbelief: “They don’t want him to fail. I mean, they think it matters if the president of the United States fails.”

Related:
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POL
ITICS/03/05/limbaugh/index.html

Why Rush Limbaugh Is Good for the Republicans

March 12, 2009

Obama aides Rahm Emanuel and Robert Gibbs knew what they were doing when they declared Rush Limbaugh the leader of the Republican opposition. They were putting Republican politicians in a trap. Repudiating Limbaugh would mean alienating millions of conservatives and declaring Limbaugh’s plainspoken conservatism – which many of those politicians share – outside the lines of the national debate. But neither could Republicans allow the insinuation that they take orders from a radio host stand. If voters got that impression, they would look weak. Worse, the polls show more people dislike Limbaugh than like him.

The Republicans escaped this trap by saying that the White House was talking about Limbaugh in order to avoid talking about Obama’s failure to come up with a financial-rescue plan. But now one Limbaugh controversy has been replaced by another. Instead of squabbling with Democrats about him, Republicans are arguing with each other. The subject of the dispute: Does Limbaugh help spread conservatism among Americans – or turn them off from it? (Read “Criticizing Rush Limbaugh: Over the Line?”)

By RAMESH PONNURU
Time Magazine

Read the rest:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20
090311/us_time/08599188428900

In the March 16 issue of Newsweek (on newsstands Monday, March ... 
March 16 issue of Newsweek (on newsstands Monday, March 9)

Team Obama Reflects the Era of Richard Nixon’s Dirty Tricks

March 11, 2009

Obama’s boy wonders, including his Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanual, remind me of the Richard Nixon era.  Back then, Republicans hired a political screwball named Donald Segretti to pull pranks on the Democrats.  He issued some false press releases, told trains bearing Democrats to leave before the  party leader’s scheduled departure and generally waged tom foolery.

But Chief of Staff Emanuel, James Carville and others including Paul Begula have raised the bar a notch by attacking one single American citizen who has never held a political office: Rush Limbaugh.

Limbaugh’s radio show has doubled its ratings since Democrats said Limbaugh wanted Obama to fail.

But when George W. Bush was the new guy, Democrat James Carville wanted HIM to fail…..

Related:
All The President’s Men: Where’s The Congressional Oversight?

Arrogance Blinds “Public Servants”

Daily Conference Call: Emanual, Carville, Stephanopoulos, Begula

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/0
3/11/a-human-jacuzzi-of-stupid/

Obama is no FDR, JFK or Lincoln:
http://rotenochsen.wordpress.com/200
9/03/12/obama-is-no-john-kennedy-n
ot-even-fdr-and-forget-lincoln-comparison/

Incoming White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel gestures prior ... 
Incoming White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel gestures prior to the inauguration ceremony of Barack Obama as the 44th President of the United States, in Washington, January 20, 2009.(Jim Young – UNITED STATES/Reuters)

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

The press never reported that Democratic strategist James Carville said he wanted President Bush to fail before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. But a feeding frenzy ensued when radio host Rush Limbaugh recently said he wanted President Obama to fail. 

Fox News
.
On the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, just minutes before learning of the terrorist attacks on America, Democratic strategist James Carville was hoping for President Bush to fail, telling a group of Washington reporters: “I certainly hope he doesn’t succeed.”

Carville was joined by Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg, who seemed encouraged by a survey he had just completed that revealed public misgivings about the newly minted president.

“We rush into these focus groups with these doubts that people have about him, and I’m wanting them to turn against him,” Greenberg admitted.

The pollster added with a chuckle of disbelief: “They don’t want him to fail. I mean, they think it matters if the president of the United States fails.”

Minutes later, as news of the terrorist attacks reached the hotel conference room where the Democrats were having breakfast with the reporters, Carville announced: “Disregard everything we just said! This changes everything!”

The press followed Carville’s orders, never reporting his or Greenberg’s desire for Bush to fail. The omission was understandable at first, as reporters were consumed with chronicling the new war on terror. But months and even years later, the mainstream media chose to never resurrect those controversial sentiments, voiced by the Democratic Party’s top strategists, that Bush should fail.

That omission stands in stark contrast to the feeding frenzy that ensued when radio host recently said he wanted President Obama to fail. The press devoted wall-to-wall coverage to the remark, suggesting that Limbaugh and, by extension, conservative Republicans, were unpatriotic.

“The most influential Republican in the United States today, Mr. Rush Limbaugh, said he did not want President Obama to succeed,” Carville railed on CNN recently. “He is the daddy of this Republican Congress.”

Limbaugh, a staunch conservative, emphasized that he is rooting for the failure of Obama’s liberal policies.

“The difference between Carville and his ilk and me is that I care about what happens to my country,” Limbaugh told Fox on Wednesday. “I am not saying what I say for political advantage. I oppose actions, such as Obama’s socialist agenda, that hurt my country.”

Read the rest:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009
/03/11/carville-wanted-bush-fail/

All The President’s Men: Where’s The Congressional Oversight?

March 11, 2009

On day one of the Obama Administration, we saw the Chief of Staff of the White House, the Chief of Staff to the President of the United States, make a gesture in public that we considered to be distainful, undignified and inappropriate.  But there’s no law against that.  Then we saw the same Chief of Staff to the President of the United States attack an individual American citizen: using a friendly and eager to please media as his assassin.  Rahm Emanual attacked Rush Limbaugh.

If any one of these actions had been carried out by a military officer serving any of the Pentagon’s Generals or Admirals, he’d be out of a job and on the way toward retirement.

Related:
The president may not have what it takes

This is more than inappropriate.  This is something Congress should examine.  Not after the fact: Congress should confirm presidential appointees that feel they have only one loyalty to one man — even as they serve all Americans (and take our tax dollars as their pay and influence the spending of trillions of our tax dollars).

When Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV) pulled his pocket sized copy of the U.S. Constitution out to criticize the President of the United States for naming White House policy czars, he wasn’t just acting like a crazy old coot.  He was making a very important point; as reiterated below by  Bruce Ackerman in today’s Washington Post….
*****************

For the first 150 years of our nation’s history, the Senate confirmed all leading members of the executive branch. But modern presidents have increasingly gained the power to make key appointments unilaterally — with President Obama taking this process to new heights. His White House czars such as Lawrence Summers and Carol Browner are likely to overshadow the Cabinet secretaries in their respective domains. Yet, as presidential assistants, they escape the need for Senate scrutiny. After the abuses of the Bush White House and the failed nominations in Obama’s own transition, this practice should be reconsidered.

By Bruce Ackerman
The Washington Post

Read the rest:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co
ntent/article/2009/03/10/AR2009031002
839.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

Related:
Obama’s clumsy, smirky staff and unelected appointees are sinking him

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

From Politico
February 25, 2009

Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.), the longest-serving Democratic senator, is criticizing President Obama’s appointment of White House “czars” to oversee federal policy, saying these executive positions amount to a power grab by the executive branch.

In a letter to Obama on Wednesday, Byrd complained about Obama’s decision to create White House offices on health reform, urban affairs policy, and energy and climate change. Byrd said such positions “can threaten the Constitutional system of checks and balances. At the worst, White House staff have taken direction and control of programmatic areas that are the statutory responsibility of Senate-confirmed officials.”

While it’s rare for Byrd to criticize a president in his own party, Byrd is a stern constitutional scholar who has always stood up for the legislative branch in its role in checking the power of the White House.

Read the rest:
http://www.politico.com/news/sto
ries/0209/19303.html

Related:
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/03/11/te
rrific-tax-subsidized-acorn-mob-teams-up-
with-la-teachers/

Incoming White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel gestures prior ... 
Incoming White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel gestures prior to the inauguration ceremony of Barack Obama as the 44th President of the United States, in Washington, January 20, 2009.(Jim Young – UNITED STATES/Reuters)