Archive for the ‘liberal’ Category

Liberal Dream Agenda

March 28, 2009

Government-run health care, a cap-and-trade carbon tax, a vast array of personal and business tax increases, and government authority to seize financial institutions in addition to banks…..

By Fred Barnes
Weekly Standard

Once the House passed a 90 percent tax on AIG bonuses, a mad rush was on in the Senate. Majority Leader Harry Reid went to the Senate floor to propose a quick vote on similar legislation. A single senator could object, delaying a vote for weeks. But fear of siding with reviled AIG executives prevailed, and no senator stepped forward–until Republican whip Jon Kyl finally did. “I don’t believe Congress should rush to pass yet another piece of hastily crafted legislation in this very toxic atmosphere,” he said. “Therefore, I object.” A vote was put off, the AIG furor abated, and the tax on bonuses is now probably dead.

That was easy. A nervy act by a single senator stopped the scramble to punish AIG. That was two weeks ago. Last week, the decision by Republican senator Arlen Specter to oppose card check legislation was similarly decisive. He relegated that bill, designed to let labor organizers form unions without a secret ballot vote by workers, to the unlikely-to-pass bin. Senate Republicans had worked diligently to produce unanimous opposition to card check. But again, the act of one Republican senator was crucial.

So much for easy victories. Republicans now face the most important test of their opposition to liberal legislation since they blocked President Clinton’s health care scheme–HillaryCare–in 1994. This time the task is far greater and the number of Republican senators is fewer (41 now, 44 then). And the only hope is the Senate. House Republicans, lacking the power to filibuster, can’t help.

The iberal onslaught comes in four parts: government-run health care, a cap-and-trade carbon tax, a vast array of personal and business tax increases, and government authority to seize financial institutions in addition to banks. This is the liberal dream agenda. If passed, it would do what conservatives fear most. It would make America more like Europe, with growing nanny statism and more reliance on government, considerably less on individuals. Let’s look at the four.

Health care. President Obama is fond of saying his plan allows people to choose between the health insurance they get through their employer and a government program currently limited to federal workers. Sounds wonderful, doesn’t it? It’s not. Rather, it’s the path to a single-payer health care system–the kind Obama has said he prefers but isn’t actually proposing.

His program would have the distinct advantage of not having to make a profit. So it would always be able to offer greater benefits at lower cost (with taxpayers taking up the slack when it lost money). Businesses would have….

Read the rest:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten
t/Public/Articles/000/000/016/336gisqv.asp

Read the rest:
 U.N. ‘Climate Change’ Plan Would Likely Shift Trillions to Form New World Economy

Federal Government Paying “Volunteers” To Teach Liberal Values

March 25, 2009

In the House, North Carolina Republican Virginia Foxx complained last week that legislation to expand the number of national service slots from 75,000 to 250,000 would be a waste of money.

“I think it’s important that we encourage volunteers,” she said. “But this is a paid job. This is a government-authorized charity.”

NPR

And she questioned the program’s effectiveness, especially at a cost of about $6 billion over five years.

In fact, AmeriCorps has been criticized for mismanagement in the past, although agency officials say they’ve fixed the problems. One year it enrolled 20,000 more volunteers than it had the money to pay for.

Read it all:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/sto
ry.php?storyId=102280114&ft=1&f=1003

See Michelle Malkin:
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/03/2
5/to-give-and-to-serve-the-6-billion-n
ational-service-boondoggle/

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

Related:
Obama’s Americorps: Hitler Youth Or Putin’s Nashi

Forget ACORN, Obama’s Americorps Has “strong odor of creepy authoritarianism”

In a time of economic crisis, it seems almost unbelievable that we are considering the president’s current budget: which is packed with spending, debt and irresponsibility.

The Associate Press writes, “Obama’s budget has ignited a firestorm on Capitol Hill, with Republicans assailing it for record spending and budget deficits. Democrats are generally supportive, though some have sticker shock over the deficit figures.”

Read it all:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100da
ys/2009/03/25/democrats-knife-obamas
-budget/

Obama: Press Conference Hints at Class Warfare

Euopean Union President: Obama “will undermine the stability of the global financial market” 

President Obama failed to sell his budget plans to the American people

Obama the centrist, pragmatic problem-solver is gone: now liberal spendathon, no accountability

March 19, 2009

Obama is pursuing a traditional liberal agenda…. support of the $787 billion stimulus bill, his $3.6 trillion budget proposal, his tax proposals, his health care proposals, his environmental proposals, his flexibility on earmarks …. Where did my old Bro Go?

Now we have a liberal president, a teflon president, a telegenic president and a telepromter president.

And we are about to have a confiscatory 90 percent tax president and congress.

Never mind that the AIG bonuses were legal, protected by the “stimulus” written by this congress and signed by this president.  Ooops.  We goofed so you’ll pay.  The consequences are all yours: please excuse the president, congress, Treasury and Fed…..

A bait and switch president….

Welcome to the New America.

News at eleven followed by Jay Leno and Barack on the National Barack Channel….

Obama, Pelosi: Anything to Win

Obama, Congress, Treasury, Fed: Shameful Mismanagement of Your Money, Recovery

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

Fed to pump another $1 trillion into U.S. economy “from thin air”

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

By Byron York
The Examiner

In September 2008, during the first debate between John McCain and Barack Obama, McCain said his Democratic opponent had “the most liberal voting record in the United States Senate — it’s hard to reach across the aisle from that far to the left.”

The “most liberal” critique was a staple of Republican talking points. And it had some basis in fact: A survey by the nonpartisan National Journal found Obama’s record in 2007, the year he began running for president, “the most liberal in the Senate.”

Obama rejected the charge.  “This is all old politics,” he said in February 2008. “Those old categories don’t work, and they’re preventing us from solving the problems that the American people want us to solve.”

From that, the image of Obama as a centrist, pragmatic problem-solver was born. It was an image that would last through the campaign, and through the election, and all the way until Inauguration Day.

But now, after nearly two months of the Obama administration, more and more voters are wondering: Is the Barack Obama they voted for the same Barack Obama who now occupies the Oval Office?

Early signs — Obama’s support of the $787 billion stimulus bill, his $3.6 trillion budget proposal, his tax proposals, his health care proposals, his environmental proposals, his flexibility on earmarks — suggest that Obama does, in fact, fit into those “old categories” he once rejected.

Obama is pursuing a traditional liberal agenda. If he continues to walk that path, the question will become why anyone ever believed he would do otherwise.

Well, for one, he was a great candidate, and McCain was not. Beyond that, though, Obama was what political strategists call an “aspirational candidate.” He represented something that voters aspired to be: Part of an America that was good enough, and far enough removed from its racial past, to elect a strong candidate who was also an African-American.

The feeling touched liberals and conservatives alike. On the right, conservatives who opposed Obama still expressed happiness that he was a serious contender.  A few went beyond that, giving rise to the much-discussed “Obamacon” phenomenon.

“Having a first-class temperament and a first-class intellect, President Obama will surely understand that traditional-left politics aren’t going to get us out of this pit we’ve dug for ourselves,” wrote Christopher Buckley, son of conservative icon William F. Buckley, when he endorsed Obama in October.

Just a few weeks of the Obama administration caused Buckley to wonder if he had judged Obama correctly. Another admirer, the New York Times columnist David Brooks, wrote this month of having been forced “to confront the reality that Barack Obama is not who we thought he was.”

They’re not alone. Right now, Americans who feel a creeping sense of buyer’s remorse about Obama are still in the minority; his job approval rating is still high, and his personal approval rating is higher.

But Obama knows what might come. Back in early 2008, when he found himself in trouble over his 20-year relationship with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Obama said plaintively, “I may not know him as well as I thought.” Now, Obama’s fear is that voters might be thinking the same thing.

Related:
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/
03/19/first-they-came-for-aig-bonuses/

Taking On The “Establishment”: Michelle Malkin

March 15, 2009

Michelle Malkin was ready to pounce when a new report appeared last week detailing the Democratic House speaker’s use of military aircraft.

“Nancy Pelosi is the Jennifer Lopez of congressional travel,” Malkin wrote. Her March 11 column outlined the nature of Pelosi’s trips and quoted from her staffers’ impatient demands — and from the befuddled responses of military officials, worried at the misuse of resources. “No word on whether Pelosi required vanilla-scented candles, Evian water and fresh white lilies aboard the flight,” she concluded.

By DAVID FREDDOSO
Examiner Staff Writer

This is Malkin at her best. Fans enjoy her syndicated column for its documentation of liberal outrages, but also for her provocative, humorous presentation of the facts. Critics bridle at the provocations, missing the humor entirely. The formula makes Malkin distinctively controversial, and loved or hated by everyone who reads her.

In 2004, when the Virginian-Pilot of Norfolk dropped her column, its editors denounced her as “too stridently anti-liberal” and claimed that she “habitually mistakes shrill for thought-provoking and substitutes screaming for discussion.” Malkin, whose column is routinely picked up and dropped by newspapers without comment, mused on her blog that the paper probably should never have picked her up in the first place. “I was just as ‘anti-liberal’ five years ago as I am now,” she wrote.

Malkin is generous with harsh words, and she spares no one in the public eye.

Read the rest:
http://www.dcexaminer.com/politic
s/Michelle-Malkin-Making-War-Wit
h-Words-41215392.html

http://michellemalkin.com/200
9/03/15/sunday-open-thread-6/


Michelle Malkin, 38, established her combative writing style in her pre-blog career at the Los Angeles Daily News and the Seattle Times. Her old columns from the 1990s attack multiculturalists, moral relativists, teachers unions, Bring Your Daughter to Work Day and apologists for the Rodney King rioters. ANDREW HARNIK/EXAMINER


We owe a lot to Michelle Malkin… and also Barry Obama, Joke Biden, TurboTax Geithner, Rosy Romer…..

Tax Marijuana, Health Benefits? Obama Will Fiddle While It All Burns….

If you don’t get well at least you can get high….

Where in the World Is Matt Lauer? In The Tank With Obama…

March 13, 2009

Where in the World Is Matt Lauer?  Easy: he’s holed up at the liberal bastion: NBC (National Barack Channel).

He won’t be travelling the world this spring because so many people in the world blame the U.S. for the global recession and even more are starting to worry that Barack Obama can’t make things better soon enough.

Matt can’t go to Rome: he’s pro-abortion and the Pope is there.  Matt can’t go to China, where 20 million migrants are out of jobs and the government fears “social unrest.”  Matt can’t go to Tibet: the Chinese will have a fit.  Even after Barack Obama gave up on human rights abuses in Chinese, their Premier said he’s worried about buying more U.S. Treasuries.  Matt can’t go to Britain: Obama “snubbed” their PM and the Brit media has taken up the Welcome Mat, Matt.

Matt can’t go to Japan after the Japanese got the feeling Obama was getting soft on North Korea.

Matt can’t go to Switzerland.  The Swiss are nervous after scores of new Yanks arrived to avoid paying higher taxes in the U.S. — and because congress wants Switzerland to allow them to find out who these Yanks are….

Matt can’t go to Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan or Pakistan — despite the fact that Obama loves them all, they are too dangerous; filled with guys the Obama Administration won’t name.

Hint: terrorists.

There just are too few places for poor Matt Lauer to go. 

Even Ban Ki-moon, the Secretary General of the U.N. called the U.S. a “deadbeat nation.”

So the trip is cancelled.

Related:
http://www.breitbart.com/article.p
hp?id=D96T995O3&show_article=1

Obama Backs-Off On Human Rights Issues: Economy is That Important

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

 Fleeing Obama’s Taxes in Switzerland

 Pakistan: Circling The Drain?

Obama Throws Britain Under the Bus: Relationship “Reset” and “Regime Change”

http://americaswatchtower.com/2009/03/13/ene
rgy-companies-make-plans-to-move-to-switzerlan
d-to-avoid-obamas-taxes/

Obama’s 52 Mistakes in 52 days:
http://www.fireandreamitchell.com/2009/0
3/13/don-surber-is-being-generous-52-days
-52-obama-mistakes/

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/03/1
3/52-days-52-mistakes/

http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber
/2009/03/12/52-days-52-mistakes/

Why Obama’s left leaning is no tactical feint

March 9, 2009

Obama: “It was hard for me to believe that you were entirely serious about that socialist question.”

http://washingtontimes.com/weblogs/joe-
curl/2009/Mar/08/obama-makes-oval-
office-call-reporters/

Well, President Obama may be just shocked that some think he is far left and maybe even socialist; but some that wonder about his socialism include FT and The Wall Street Journal….

Michelle:
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/03/09/oba
ma-im-not-a-socialist-i-just-play-one-on-tv/

Can Democracy Fail With Obama’s Socialist Help?

Obama Doesn’t Understand What Many Americans Are Thinking

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

By Clive Crook
FT

On this page last week I argued that Barack Obama’s first budget showed him to be more of a left-leaning liberal than I and many others – sceptics and admirers alike – had previously supposed. People I respect have accused me of going off the deep end about this, or of neglecting Mr Obama’s tactical finesse, or both.

Mr Obama is calling for little that he did not promise in the campaign, I am reminded, so he cannot be accused of springing a surprise. I welcome many of the budget’s main elements, notably healthcare reform and the cap-and-trade system for carbon emissions, and the president made it clear all along that he wished to reverse the Bush tax cuts for the high paid. So the revelation that Mr Obama is a progressive liberal must arise from the proposal to curb high earners’ income-tax deductions. That was a surprise, but a small matter: hence the charge that I am getting carried away.

Alternatively, I am told, Mr Obama is playing a shrewder game. Like any good negotiator, he has adopted a maximalist opening position. He expects to be walked back from it, ending up where he wanted to be in the first place, with a more centrist plan than the one he pitched.

An outside view of the New York Stock Exchange on Wall street. ...

On the first point, the tax-deduction proposal is not so small. Instead of applying the highest marginal rates of tax to each deduction, the plan would apply a 28 per cent rate. This is equivalent to a tax increase of roughly $35bn (€28bn, £25bn) a year on households earning more than $250,000. Hardly chicken feed, it is roughly half of the amount raised by returning high earners’ marginal rates to their pre-Bush levels.

Not everybody would regard two-earner households with an income of $250,000 a year as rich; and many of the taxpayers in question have seen their retirement savings, college funds and housing equity destroyed. The scandal of widening inequality that still animates the Democrats’ thinking is a story about the top fraction of one per cent of the income distribution, not the top end of the middle class. Also, it is out of date: as though the housing and stock market meltdowns had never happened, the budget raises taxes on the “rich” to where they were before the Bush administration – and then some.

Granted, other things being equal, reducing the value of tax deductions – not just for the highest earners, but for every taxpayer – makes sense. It broadens the tax base and requires lower marginal tax rates for any given amount of revenue raised. But look at Mr Obama’s proposal in context. He is not broadening the base to lower marginal rates. He is raising marginal rates on the highly paid, and increasing their effective tax rate by rolling back deductions. The measure is an unexpected element of redistribution in a package that was highly redistributive to begin with.

Standing back, the budget’s two great innovations are healthcare reform, an enormous undertaking only partly paid for in the plan, and cap and trade, a big new source of revenue. A centrist administration might have married the two – arguing, correctly, that a public investment as costly and far-reaching as healthcare reform should impose some costs on most taxpayers, not just on a few million at the top. Instead, the revenues from cap and trade are spent mainly on wage subsidies and tax cuts tilted toward the working poor. The down-payment on the cost of healthcare reform is financed by an additional tax increase on the rich.

A centrist administration would have thought about how to create a political constituency for cost control in health, and in public spending more generally. The administration rightly emphasises that healthcare cost control is the single biggest challenge in fiscal policy. Without it, public debt will stay on its present unsustainable path until it hits the wall of a new financial crisis. The need to create a wider constituency for fiscal discipline is the best argument for associating healthcare reform with a new and broadly based tax. Instead, the budget makes this already small constituency even smaller, telling almost all taxpayers they can have everything for nothing.

This message comes through loud and clear in the budget taken as a whole. Mr Obama is not a centrist – unless the second point is correct and I am underestimating Mr Obama’s tactical intelligence. His political skills are undeniable. Yet I find the view that you make a phoney offer and aim to be bargained down difficult to credit.

The question is, who is Mr Obama supposed to be bargaining with? If the answer were a Republican-controlled Congress, this theory might be worth entertaining. Scare conservatives with a pitch for social transformation – a new New Deal – then settle for a judicious nudge to the left. But the bargains Mr Obama needs to strike are not with Republicans, who for the moment are clueless, leaderless and powerless. The people he needs to do business with are members of his own party – and unless I am much mistaken, those people are liberals.

Read the rest:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/328430d0-0
c0c-11de-b87d-0000779fd2ac.html

Related:
Venezuela’s Chavez Urges Obama, U.S. Down Socialist Path

Obama’s Radicalism Is Killing the Stock Market

NYT: After March 6 Economic News, “2009 is Probably a Lost Cause”

Obama’s First Weeks: Economic Disaster, Socialist Agenda, Congressional Pork, Limbaugh Attacked, and “We Won”

http://spectator.org/archives/2009/
03/09/slickness-with-a-straight-face

Stimulus: “Obama is popular but has no clout”

February 14, 2009

Leading liberal and conservatives columnists and TV talking heads agreed tonight that for President Barack Obama the economic stimulus is a “Short term gain but a long term loss.”

Syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer said, “Obama contradicted everything he said he stood for” during the process of making the stimulus.

“He did not work toward bipartianship and got not one conservative Republican vote.”

Krauthammer said “the president showed he would enact legislation by ramming it down throats,” a reference to the language President Obama used at last Monday’s press conference.

He also criticized the ugly process used to make the stimulus bill and the speed of the legislation; much of the blame for which lies with Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of Calif., center, flanked by House ... 
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of Calif., center, flanked by House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Md., left, and Rep John Larson, D-Conn., right, speaks during a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington, Friday, Feb. 13, 2009, after the House passed the stimulus legislation.(AP Photo/Susan Walsh)

“Not one House member or Senator read this package and understands it,” Krauthammer said.

Liberal Juan Williams said, “I agree with Charles that ‘haste makes waste’ but in this economic situation haste was necessary.”

Conservative Fred Barnes said, “The president got no help from Republicans.”

Barnes said, “The president obviously wasted his time in Peoria, Fort Myers, and Elkhart….And he wasted his time holding a cocktail party and a Super Bowl party.”

Barnes said Obama was popular “but has no clout.”

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/02/13/
the-house-dems-who-voted-no-the-sena
te-vote-underway/

http://willobrien.wordpress.com/2009
/02/13/three-lessons-for-managers-fro
m-president-obama/

.
http://johnbrodigan.com/2009/02
/13/kill-the-rinos-really/

.
“We’re not moving quickly because we’re trying to jam something down people’s throats. We’re moving quickly because if we don’t, the economy’s going to keep getting worse.”

That’s what President Barack Obama said late Thursday (Feb 5) at a spa in Williamburg, VA.

Related:
Stimulus: Obama May Need To Make a Deal

What he clearly meant to say was “We’re trying to move quickly because quick action will pay dividends not because we’re trying to jam something down people’s throats….”

If we don’t what?  Jam this down people’s throats?  The President of the United States used that turn of a phrase?  Just like he hauled “catastrophe” out of the verbal closet this week?

The great communicator is in danger of becoming Joe Biden: a guy you don’t want off the script, off the telepromter.

It won’t matter that “I won.”

No clout….

 ‘Catastrophe’ Obama Is Angry; And We Might Be Too

Incoming White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel gestures prior ... 
Leadership and clout?  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)

Barack Obama: Credibility Lost?

February 2, 2009

In two weeks as president, Barack Obama has thrown away his credibility and destroyed trust — more than any other President of the United States in the History of the Republic.

Let’s just say that for the sake of argument.

This is now like bleeding from a thousand cuts.

Related on FEB 3 about 1 PM Eastern:
Daschle Out; Major Obama Setback

Nothing like Bill Clinton’s early-going gays in the military effort or Hillary’s closed door try at revising the American medical system in the dawning days of Bill’s presidency….

But Barack Obama’s preaching about “bipartisanship” was not matched with actions as Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats crafted the economic stimulus package without taking into account Republican viewpoints.

Maybe if Barack had been in the Senate longer he’d know more about bipartisanship….

“We won” Republicans were told, when they objected to certain stimulus package goodies like funding to fight bird flu.

That only saves jobs if workers don’t die at work….

The Treasury Secretary admitted to tax evasion.  Ditto the president’s nominee for HHS, Tom Daschle.

Psst: This is what transparency gets us.  The right thing to do when things like this come up is to ask the guy to withdraw, not ask for an ‘exception.”

Nancy Killefer, who failed for a year and a half to pay employment taxes on household help, has withdrawn her President Obama nomination to be the first chief performance officer for the federal government, the White House said Tuesday.

Chief Performance Officer Nancy Killefer
Nancy Killefer
.
Robert Gibbs
 
White House spokesman Gibbs said, “Nobody’s perfect.”  Did he mean Daschle?

The nominee for Deputy Secretary of Defense used to be a lobbyist.  He’s still in the running, despite the president’s vows against lobbyists and for ethics.

On al-Arabiya TV the president made a plea to Muslims.  So Iran demanded an apology for American wrongs.

Just 11% of U.S. voters think America should apologize to Iran for “crimes” against the Islamic country.

The stimulus bill written by Democrats has a “buy American provision.”  China, Germany and others objected.

Canada hopes U.S. officials will exempt America’s top trading partner from “Buy American” provisions in the economic stimulus bill before Barack Obama arrives in Canada this month for his first foreign trip as president.

The stimulus, meant to create jobs, contained at least two two questionable items  — $75 million for smoking cessation programs and $400 million to slow the spread of HIV and other sexually transmitted disease.  Both  have already been dropped from the most recent draft of the measure.  You can recall others like the sod for the Mall in Washington DC….

Nearly half of U.S. voters (49%) say Barack Obama is politically more liberal than they are.

The president promised to close Gitmo and pull out of Iraq.  He has done neither: but has angered some militay people.

He has cut defense by 10% and started to discontinue the term “war on terror.”

The president has opened an exchange of words with radio personality Rush Limbaugh….

The number of voters saying Obama is more liberal than they thought on election day is growing…..

Tough two weeks.  Even with a dedicated Democratic House and Senate the public can lose trust and confidence …..

John E. Carey
Peace and Freedom

Related:
Mullen: Cash crunch threatens US security, Defense Spending

Obama Orders U.S. Defense Cut 10%

Under Obama, `war on terror’ catchphrase fading

 Obama Team Wants Pentagon Budget Focused More on Current War, Less on Future Programs

Obama Told His Actions On Gitmo Could “jeopardize those who are fighting the war on terror”

Troubling Obama Trends Seen By Some In Military? Why Die For “Limited Goals” In Afghanistan?

Obama’s Unnecessary Muslim Apologia; Misguided on al-Qaeda

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

CNN:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS
/02/02/campbell.brown.transparenc
y/index.html

The New York Times also has an editorial on Tuesday suggesting that Mr. Daschle should withdraw his name too.

Bill Richardson withdrew after being nominated as Commerce Secretary as a grand jury was at work investigating portions of his state government.

Caroline Kennedy draws criticism after latest tour

December 30, 2008

Caroline Kennedy‘s latest trip under the spotlight as a Senate hopeful didn’t get much better reviews than her first. A New York Daily News columnist said “the wheels of the bandwagon are coming off.” New York Post state editor Fred Dicker already put her on his list of 2008 losers. And The New York Times said “she seemed less like a candidate than an idea of one: eloquent but vague, largely undefined and seemingly determined to remain that way.”

By MICHAEL GORMLEY, Associated Press Writer

Caroline Kennedy responds during an interview, Friday, Dec. ... 
Caroline Kennedy responds during an interview, Friday, Dec. 26, 2008 in New York. Kennedy’s name first surfaced as a possible replacement for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton in early December after President-elect Barack Obama nominated Clinton to be secretary of state.(AP Photo/Stephen Chernin)

On Friday after weeks of silence, Kennedy agreed to sit down for interviews with The Associated Press and New York City cable TV’s NY1. Over the weekend, she scheduled another round of interviews with other news organizations from the Times to the Buffalo News. The New York Daily News noted she frequently used the phrases “you know” and “um” during the interview, which was skewered in political blogs Monday.

Related:
Caroline Kennedy Has “Nothing to Say” (And Says It Badly)

Read the rest:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/2008123
0/ap_on_re_us/caroline_kennedy

Caroline Kennedy: Welcome To The Heat; “Ya Know”

Caroline Kennedy Has “Nothing to Say” (And Says It Badly)

December 29, 2008

Fraser Seitel the media consultant said on Fox News Channel today that “Caroline Kennedy has nothing to say.”

“Sad,” he said, of her now infamous interviews with The New York Times, New York Post and other media outlets. 


Mr. Seitel

“They are running her out there to give New York Governor David Paterson cover to appoint her to Hillary Clinton’s senate seat.  By all accounts she is a wonderful woman.  But these interviews have been sad,” Mr. Seitel said.

And what Caroline Kennedy has said so far she has said badly, You Know?

By John E. Carey
Wakefield Chapel, Virginia

New York Gov. David Paterson speaks during a news conference ... 
New York Gov. David Paterson speaks during a news conference in Albany, N.Y., Tuesday, Dec. 16, 2008. Caroline Kennedy has told Paterson that she’s interested in the U.S. Senate seat being vacated by Hillary Rodham Clinton, making her the highest-profile candidate to express a desire for the job.(AP Photo)

Related:
Caroline Kennedy: Welcome To The Heat; “Ya Know”

From CNN: Paterson, Rock and a Hard Spot
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/1
8/caroline.kennedy.senate/index.html

Caroline Kennedy draws criticism after latest tour