Archive for the ‘Limbaugh’ 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/

Advertisements

Mark Levin Reminds Americans that Values Count

March 24, 2009

Republicans need to review the past in order to effectively move into the future.

And Republicans need to regain their core values fast in order to effectively work through the current Obama Administration’s march toward socialism.

The Republican past is not John McCain, much as he is loved and admired.

And though many of us think about Ronald Reagan, we must grasp the values and not the personalities we need now — a personality will rise in his or her own time.

Mark Levin’s book  “Liberty and Tyranny” is an effort to get us all to think again about the values we need.

Judd Gregg, who nearly became Barack Obama’s Commerce Secretary, seems to have regained his good thinking and is now speaking out about the Obama budget.

“It just seems inappropriate and irresponsible to spend so much that we send along a huge debt to our children and grandchildren,” he said today on the Fox News Channel.

Good Republican thinking.

“This is a massive spending document that increases government and taxes dramatically.”

So is that a good thing?

Republican cannot allow Rahm Emanuel, Robert Gibbs and the others to define them.  Democrats fear a united conservative movement and have worked hard to make the discussion about Limbaugh or Steele.

The discussion is not about who.  The discussion is about the values and how best to achieve them.

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

 Republicans Must Hang Together, or One By One

Michelle:
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/03/2
4/congrats-mark-levin/

 Liberated “Almost Commerce Sec” Gregg: Obama’s Harshest Budget, Debt Critic

 U.S. Seeks Expanded Power to Seize Firms

 Because of Obama, Our enemies sense weakness

Senators Ready To Abandon Missile Defense:
http://senatus.wordpress.com/2009/03/24/lev
in-hopes-missile-defense-compromises-lead-t
o-russian-assistance-on-iran/

GOP sees signs of life in Northeast

Obama Rhetoric, Reality Clash, Causing Backpedaling, Messy Messages

March 21, 2009

Barack Obama’s optimistic campaign rhetoric has crashed headlong into the stark reality of governing.

In office two months, he has backpedaled on an array of issues, gingerly shifting positions as circumstances dictate while ducking for political cover to avoid undercutting his credibility and authority. That’s happened on the Iraq troop withdrawal timeline, on lobbyists in his administration and on money for lawmakers’ pet projects.

From the Associated Press

”Change doesn’t happen overnight,” Obama said at a town-hall style event in California on Thursday, seeming to acknowledge the difficulty in translating campaign pledges into actual policy. Asked by a campaign volunteer how his supporters can be most effective in helping him bring the sweeping change he promised, Obama said: ”Patience.”

The event was part of a weeklong media blitz that Obama had hoped would help sell his budget — the foundation of the health care, education and energy changes he promised in the campaign. But his budget message was overshadowed for much of the week by the public furor over $165 million in executive bonuses paid by American International Group Inc. after the insurance giant had received billions in federal bailout funds.

”There was a lot of excitement during the campaign and we were talking about the importance of bringing about change,” Obama told the volunteer. ”We are moving systematically to bring about change. But change is hard.”

It’s the same delicate dance each of his predecessors faced in moving from candidate to president, only to find he couldn’t stick exactly by his word. Each was hamstrung by his responsibility to the entire nation and to individual constituencies, changes in the foreign and domestic landscapes, and the trappings of the federal government and Washington itself.

Once in the White House, presidents quickly learn they are only one part of the political system, not in charge of it. They discover the trade-offs they must make and the parties they must please to get things done. Inevitably, they find out that it’s impossible to follow through completely on their campaign proposals.

For now at least, Obama’s deviations have served only to invite occasional cries of hypocrisy from some Republicans and infrequent grumbles of disappointment from some Democrats. He has popularity on his side, and it seems people mostly are chalking up his moves to much-needed flexibility at a difficult time.

But the shifts could take a toll over time if they become a persistent pattern and the public grows weary. His overall job-performance marks could suffer and jeopardize his likely re-election campaign in 2012. People could perceive him as a say-one-thing-do-another politician and the Democratic-controlled Congress could see him as a weak chief executive.

Obama’s moves and maneuvering for political cover run the gamut.

He spent most of the campaign promising to bring combat troops home from Iraq 16 months after taking office, though he left himself wiggle room.

After directing his commanders to map out a responsible pullout, President Obama adjusted that timeline to 19 months and said 50,000 troops, about one-third of the current force, would remain.

While campaigning, Obama frequently swiped at lobbyists, saying, ”When I am president, they won’t find a job in my White House.”

Then he took office and had to fill thousands of positions. He did allow former lobbyists to join his administration. But he imposed ethics rules barring them from dealing with matters related to their lobbying work or joining agencies that they had lobbied in the previous two years. In several cases, he has made outright exceptions.

Obama the candidate pledged to curb spending directed at lawmakers’ pet projects; they’re known in Washington as ”earmarks.” Obama the president signed an ”imperfect” $410 billion budget measure that included 8,500 earmarks.

He had little choice. The measure, a holdover from last year, was needed to keep government from shutting down. But to blunt the fallout, Obama outlined guidelines to ensure tighter restraints on the spending and made a new promise: Future earmarks won’t become law so easily.

As for politics, Obama campaigned as a new-style leader who chastised partisanship and renounced divisiveness in Washington. But as president, Obama’s White House aides wasted little time pouncing on Republicans and mocking conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh as the GOP’s leader.

On fiscal matters, Obama the candidate urged Americans to tighten their belts. Once in office and saddled with recession, though, he signed a $787 billion stimulus measure and outlined a $3.6 trillion budget plan that will plunge the nation deeper into the red. But again he paired the proposal with a new promise, to cut the deficit by more than half by the end of his first term.

Read the rest:
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/03/
21/washington/AP-Rhetoric-Reality-Analys
is.html?_r=1

My Hope Doesn’t Allow Me To Swallow Obama The Way the Media Has…

March 16, 2009

There is just too much on the plate here to swallow.

As Andrew Malcolm wrote in the L.A. Times today:

Listen for more such positive tweaks in coming days. It’s bad. But we’re strong. If we can go to the moon, we can automate all medical records and cover everyone with health insurance and reform the country’s education system and stop foreclosures and expand the war in Afghanistan and create a federal deficit with more zeroes than most civilian calculators contain and then cut the deficit in half by giving 95% of Americans tax cuts and sticking it to a few rich people. And the only thing we have to fear is fear itself.

That and, perhaps, China calling in all its loans at once.

Oh, and cure cancer, solve global warming (if it is the disaster Al Gore claims) and rid ourselves of oil, gas and coal.

Frankly, my dear, I do give a damn.

And I give a damn about working on jobs, banks and the economy first: without fixing the “cisis” we cannot afford to fix the rest of the country and the world…..

And the swallow Obama media can’t be too smart: many of the newspapers that got behind Obama early and without criticism are now going out of business.  Even consevative talk radio guys that haven’t had the impact of the “Obama boost” inthe form of Rahm Emanuael’s orchestrated attacks, like Rush Limbaugh, are failing.

So here is the recipe for future success:

Mitch McConnell and other Republicans need to fight the Obama plan, slow down all non essential legislation, and get people to listen.

Then need to set down principles the way Newt did in the “Contract with America” and they need to stick to them the way Ron Silver did even when Hollywood wouldn’t hire him.

It’s the economy, stupid.

Principles, sticking to principles and getting the word out will work.  It worked before.

The conservative civil war

March 16, 2009

Beltway conservatives are turning against Rush Limbaugh. The most recent assassin is David Frum. The former Bush speechwriter and fellow at the American Enterprise Institute wrote an article, “Why Rush is wrong,” in the March 16 edition of Newsweek, attacking the popular talk radio host.

By Jeffery Kuhner
The Washington Times

Mr. Frum argues that Mr. Limbaugh should not be the “public face” of the conservative movement. Mr. Frum says Mr. Limbaugh is caught in a time warp, championing small government and tax cuts when economic realities have changed. Mr. Frum criticizes Mr. Limbaugh’s Feb. 28 speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference. Mr. Frum also excoriates Mr. Limbaugh for saying he hopes President Obama fails. This supposedly puts conservatives on the defensive, making us look mean, petty and unsympathetic to the suffering of Americans during the financial crisis.

Moreover, Mr. Frum maintains that Mr. Limbaugh’s macho, cigar-chomping, bombastic personality, combined with his angry libertarian populism is driving key segments of the electorate – women, Hispanics, independents and college graduates – away from the Republican Party. In his view, Mr. Frum wants to “enlarge” the Republican coalition while Mr. Limbaugh seeks to “narrow” it in the name of doctrinal purity.

Mr. Frum is part of a growing number of elitist conservatives seeking to revamp and redefine the political right. Others include David Brooks, Ross Douthat, Reihan Salam, Ramesh Ponnuru and Newt Gingrich.

These conservatives are amateur Machiavellians posing as sophisticated political strategists. They offer policy prescriptions that will supposedly transform the GOP into a national governing majority once again. They claim to represent the future; Mr. Limbaugh the past.

However, they are effete policy wonks who lack firm principles. During the 1990s, Mr. Frum argued that the problem with Republicans is they lacked the will to fight the liberal ruling class. They had abandoned their anti-statist, tax-cutting, socially conservative roots.

Now, he argues the very opposite: It’s time for the GOP to accommodate prevailing social liberal forces. Mr. Frum recommends that the GOP jettison income tax cuts and embrace free-market health-care reform. He suggests Republicans adopt pro-environment policies and gay rights. He also wants the party to be more receptive to pro-choice vice presidential candidates such as Tom Ridge who, if chosen as John McCain’s running mate, would have made Pennsylvania more competitive in the November election.

In other words, Mr. Frum now wants to create a progressive conservatism characterized by expanding health-care coverage, environmentalism and hostility – or at least indifference – to traditional values. This is not adapting conservative principles to current realities, but diluting them to the point that they morph into liberalism. He is not saving conservatism; he is destroying it.

Mr. Frum is consistently wrong. For example, he has led the charge in defense of uncontrolled immigration, claiming it is good for business and America. When conservatives point out that no nation can absorb such a massive influx of immigrants – both legal and illegal – without profound social and economic dislocations, Mr. Frum dismisses them as “nativists.” The very Hispanics voting for the Democrats by large majorities are the direct result of the open-borders policies advocated by the likes of Mr. Frum.

Mr. Frum has taken credit for coining the phrase “Axis of Evil.” He predicted the war in Iraq would be quick, decisive and easy. Instead, it has degenerated into a protracted, bloody experiment in nation-building.

Elitist conservatives, like Mr. Frum, are consumed by power. They are not genuine, independent public intellectuals. Rather, they serve as the communications arm of the GOP. Ideas are simply pieces on a chessboard in which to checkmate the Democratic opposition. Principles, truth, morality – they are all expendable in the grand game of politics. They are deracinated narcissists who live in a policy bubble and are detached from the values and interests of Middle America.

What Mr. Frum and his ilk don’t understand is that most voters don’t care about free-market health-care reform – or other boutique policy issues, such as hybrid cars, health savings accounts or partially privatizing Social Security. These will not revive the GOP.

Voters do care about the state of the country. What they have seen under Republican rule during the Bush years has been colossal incompetence: rampant corruption, runaway spending, soaring deficits, failing schools, broken borders, corporate plutocracy and quagmire in the Middle East.

The GOP has lost the electorate’s trust as a responsible party capable of governing. Posing as progressive Republicans will not solve the problem. In fact, it will only reinforce the electorate’s cynicism about the GOP’s lack of principles and honesty.

The Republican Party is supposed to be not only the conservative party, but the nationalist party. It has stood for great transcendental causes – abolishing slavery, preserving the constitutional republic of limited government and federalism, defeating totalitarian communism. If it abandons the seminal issues of our time – the defense of the family and the unborn – then it has lost its historical purpose. Social conservatives and pro-lifers will leave in droves. The GOP will become morally and ideologically rudderless; its various factions will fracture, reducing a once-dominant party into a rump.

Many elitist conservatives – including Mr. Frum – backed former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani to be the 2008 Republican standard-bearer, even though it threatened to rupture the GOP. He was their dream candidate: pro-choice, pro-gay rights, pro-environment, pro-immigration, pro-education reform – the ideal nominee for women, independents and educated professionals. Mr. Giuliani’s candidacy, however, crashed and burned. His failure should have served as a warning. Voters – from both parties – don’t care for progressive Republicans.

Conservatives are in a state of civil war. The ultimate target of the attacks on talk radio is a populist conservatism that fuses patriotism, free-market capitalism and social traditionalism. First, it Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin was disparaged by the elitist right. Now, it Mr. Limbaugh is the target. Mrs. Palin energized activists across the country and Mr. Limbaugh and talk radio mobilizes and gets the message out to tens of millions of listeners.

By contrast, elitist conservatives sit in their ivory towers building castles in the sky as their country burns.

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

March 13, 2009

Arch liberal Bush hater Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) was on the conservative Fox News Channel today to say, “Our country is being looted.”

If he can get this: so can all Republicans.

This is time for Republicans to stand united or die trying.  And for some that are on the fence like Maine’s Snowe and Collins and Arlen Specter of the Keystone state: we say adieu or seppuku.

Health care?  Good luck: but try to stand united.

Schools should be federalized and the White House is writing the legislation?  No brainer.

Spending at the rate of $1 billion an hour?  Unsustainable generational theft.  Even China is worried.

Energy: are you with Al Gore or against him?

Foreign policy?  Do you believe Iran, China, North Korea and the Taliban will play nice?

Terrorism: a word Obama has removed from the lexicon, is still maybe a threat?  What say you.

Corruption: Republicans want an end of corruption and total truth and honesty in government.  Right?

Time to ressurect the Newt style contract with what’s remaining of America before it is too late guys and gals….

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

Daniel Flynn writes in today’s American Spectator, “If fiscal restraint, individual responsibility, the protection of human life, support for the 2nd Amendment and a robust military, and an abiding believe in American exceptionalism, are unpalatable to the likes of Frum, the left will certainly welcome him as the latest intellectual quisling, and exploit him for their own political designs.”

http://spectator.org/archives/200
9/03/13/frum-right-to-wrong

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

Related:

 China’s Economic Might, Arrogance Should Cause Caution in the West

Japan Ready To Shoot Down North Korean Missile

Obama’s Poll Numbers Are Falling to Earth

 Obama’s Schools Will Have To Follow Federal Rules, Like Socialist, Communist Schools

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

Culture of Corruption: Many Americans Losing Trust in Government?

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

Sounding Like a Mafia Hit Man, Rendell Says Steele’s ‘Days are Numbered’

March 12, 2009

With the nation in an extreme economic crisis: it is still business as usual among many of the nation’s political elite.

Related:

For Obama, Pelosi “Spring Break” Means Your Tax Dollars Fund the Trip: Even if You’re Unemployed

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

Card Check, Earmarks, Nancy’s Air Travel Cloud Giant That Could Eat Obama, Ruin America: The Economy

Obama: Playing not to lose

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

From Politico

Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell predicted on Thursday that Michael Steele‘s “days are numbered” as chairman of the Republican National Committee.

“He’s in trouble because I just think that those who control the Republican Party don’t want a big tent,” Rendell told reporters during a lunch hosted by the Christian Science Monitor.

Rendell, a past chairman of the Democratic National Committee, said he believes the approaching special election in New York’s 20th Congressional District — to replace Democrat Kirsten Gillibrand, who was appointed senator — is not likely a make-or-break event for Steele, whom Rendell said also faces more fundamental problems.

“I don’t know if they want a chairman who is basically pro-choice,” Rendell said, referring to an answer Steele gave to GQ magazine in which he described abortion as an “individual choice.”

Steele has since backtracked, saying in a statement to POLITICO, “I am pro-life, always have been, always will be.”

But Rendell said Steele’s explanations of that comment and of other recent gaffes may not be enough to save his job, even though Rendell believes Steele could be “effective in time.”

“Michael Steele’s days are numbered,” Rendell said. “Fortunately for us, his days are numbered.”

The RNC had no immediate comment on Rendell’s remarks.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/
20090312/pl_politico/19948

In this Friday, Jan. 30, 2009 picture, former Maryland Lt. Gov. ... 
Former Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele speaks after being elected the first black Republican National Committee chairman. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)

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

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/