skip to main |
skip to sidebar
...after blaming everything on Congressional Republicans. Read the original here.
White House Snubs McConnell Invitation To Obama
WASHINGTON | Thu Jun 30, 2011 12:51pm EDT
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The White House effectively turned down an invitation by Republican Senate Leader Mitch McConnell for President Barack Obama to visit his members on Capitol Hill on Thursday to discuss raising the debt limit.
White House press secretary Jay Carney, while not directly saying the invitation had been rejected, said Obama did not need to hear Republicans tell him what they would not support.
That, Carney said, was "not a conversation worth having."
(Reporting by Alister Bull)
Read the original here.
Justice Department Launches Criminal Probe Into Deaths During CIA Interrogations
The Justice Department is moving forward with criminal investigations relating to CIA interrogations of two detainees who died in the agency's custody.
The decision is the result of a nearly two-year preliminary review into the Bush-era interrogations by prosecutor John Durham, Attorney General Eric Holder said Thursday
In a statement, Holder said further investigation of the other cases under review is "not warranted."
"Mr. Durham and his team reviewed a tremendous volume of information pertaining to the detainees. That review included both information and matters that had never previously been examined by the department. Mr. Durham has advised me of the results of his investigation, and I have accepted his recommendation to conduct a full criminal investigation regarding the death in custody of two individuals. Those investigations are ongoing," Holder said. "The Department has determined that an expanded criminal investigation of the remaining matters is not warranted."
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/06/30/justice-department-to-conduct-full-probe-cia-interrogations/#ixzz1QmrAyUll
If you didn't notice the sarcasm. The TSA is a joke, just like the DMV and the Post Office. So glad they strip searched that 95 year old terminally ill grandmother's diaper. It goes along with my theory, that government sucks at running things, because there's no inherent motivation. They don't take hits for performing badly and it's not their own money they're wasting. Good thing healthcare isn't run by....oh crap. Read the original here.
Authorities Arrest Nigerian Olajide Noibi For Allegedly Flying From John F. Kennedy International Airport JFK To LAX Los Angeles Using Expired Boarding Pass « CBS New York
NEW YORK (CBSNewYork/AP) – CBS News has confirmed that authorities are looking into a shocking security breach that took place at John F. Kennedy International Airport last week.
Investigators say Olajide Oluwaseun Noibi, a Nigerian, boarded Virgin America Flight 415 to Los Angeles without a valid passport or identification, using an expired boarding pass for a flight the day before that belonged to someone else.
Officials say Noibi got through security and was able to board the plane. No one noticed until the flight was airborne when a flight attendant realized Noibi was sitting in a seat that was supposed to be vacant.
He showed the attendant the expired boarding pass that was in someone else’s name and then showed a University of Michigan identification card with his picture on it.
Investigators say the boarding pass belonged to a man who said his boarding pass went missing from his pocket on his way to the airport on June 23.
Investigators say Noibi used that pass to board the plane the next day.
Noibi was allowed to get off the plane when it landed in Los Angeles.
Days later, investigators say he went back to LAX and tried to board a Delta flight to Atlanta.
This time, he was searched and airport officials found 10 expired boarding passes in his bag , none of them in his name.
The Transportation Security Administration says Noibi was screened before he boarded the flight from New York.
“Every passenger that passes through security checkpoints is subject to many layers of security including thorough physical screening at the checkpoint,” Transportation Security Administration spokesman Greg Soule said. “TSA’s review of this matter indicates that the passenger went through screening.”
Noibi was taken into custody and has been charged with being a stowaway but not under any terror or security laws.
The investigation is still ongoing.
(TM and Copyright 2011 CBS Radio Inc. and its relevant subsidiaries. CBS RADIO and EYE Logo TM and Copyright 2011 CBS Broadcasting Inc. Used under license. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.)
for the post-partisan president...hrm....wait. via RWN:
In my 43 years, I have never witnessed any president who is as outgoingly partisan as Barack Obama. Behind closed doors, sure, a president may get snippy. But, out it in public, they general attempt to stay above the fray, without the partisan rancor. Obama, though, he is spending all his time acting more like the head of the DNC than POTUS. He’s always had a rather combative tone, but, now he is ramping it up more like candidate Obama than President Obama
President Obama belittled congressional Republicans for taking vacations amid difficult deficit-reduction talks. He contrasted lawmakers with his young daughters. And he brushed off criticism of his Libya policy as a “fuss” that is all about politics.
Using the grand backdrop of an East Room news conference, Obama clearly had a mission Wednesday: to reassert a commanding presence on the economic and foreign policy issues that are defining his presidency — and could determine whether he wins reelection.
Of course, he is more worried about framing the debate than Doing Something. But, then, he is lost in a partisan fog of incompetence and cluelessness, so, all he has are words.
He accused Republicans — no less than six times — of favoring corporate-jet owners over average folks in the party’s refusal to consider tax increases as part of a deficit deal.
Which is funny because, as Allahpundit points out, that tax break was implemented in Obama’s (outsourced) failed stimulus.
And, showing a combative side that Americans rarely see, he said that Republicans “need to do their job.”
Rarely see? It is mostly all we see. Well, along with golfing and stuffing his face full of food his wife says is evil.
“They’re in one week, they’re out one week,” the president said. “And then they’re saying, ‘Obama has got to step in.’
What Obama is whining about is the House’s schedule, where they spend two weeks in session, then another where they can go back and, God forbid, spend time with their constituents. And, hey, Chump? The people whining for you to step in are your own Party legislators and pundits.
“You need to be here,” he added sternly. “I’ve been here. I’ve been doing Afghanistan and bin Laden and the Greek crisis. You stay here. Let’s get it done.”
But, hey, it’s not like Obama has played golf for the last 13 straight weekends. Gone on 33 fundraisers already this year. Had lots of parties. Taken vacations. He’s been doing….interesting that he mentions Greece, though, isn’t it? Because that’s what his policies are turning America into.
The Politico refers to this as Obama framing the 2012 campaign
“It’s time for the president to stop lecturing and start doing his job,” responded Cantor spokesman Brad Dayspring.
Another GOP aide was more blunt. “It’s counterproductive schoolyard crap. … [It’s] awfully childish for the ‘adult in the room,’” the aide told POLITICO.
It is high time that the GOP took the gloves off, and started treating NMP Obama as the pure partisan hack he is.
“On the debt issue, he did a good job of framing the issue and contrasting his willingness to accept painful cuts with the GOP’s intransigence on revenue — even from, as he said, millionaires and billionaires and oil companies,” said Democratic strategist Paul Begala, an adviser to a PAC founded by two former Obama aides.
In doing so, he made “the GOP look weak and uncaring,” Begala added.
Well, now, that is a fantastic method to obtain cooperation from the GOP, isn’t it? I’m sure the GOP will roll right over and agree to the drastic tax increases, excuse me, expenditures in the tax code. Interesting that Obama campaigned on his judgement. Which seems to be sorely lacking. Which is no surprise from a chump with no actual leadership experience, who substitutes partisan browbeating over management and leadership skills.
Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach
Gov. Brown had better not act surprised about this....although if I had to place a wager, I'd guess Brown will be shocked at the reaction, and vilify any business that pulls out of California. Read the original here.
Amazon Ends Deal With 25,000 California Websites | Amazon, Affiliate, California
Gov. Jerry Brown has signed into law California's tax on Internet sales through affiliate advertising which will immediately cut small-business website revenue 20% to 30%, experts say.
The bill, AB 28X, takes effect immediately. The state Board of Equalization says the tax will raise $200 million a year, but critics claim it will raise nothing because online retailers will end their affiliate programs rather than collect the tax.
Amazon has already emailed its termination of its affiliate advertising program with 25,000 websites. The letter says, in part:
(The bill) specifically imposes the collection of taxes from consumers on sales by online retailers - including but not limited to those referred by California-based marketing affiliates like you - even if those retailers have no physical presence in the state.
We oppose this bill because it is unconstitutional and counterproductive. It is supported by big-box retailers, most of which are based outside California, that seek to harm the affiliate advertising programs of their competitors. Similar legislation in other states has led to job and income losses, and little, if any, new tax revenue. We deeply regret that we must take this action.
The new law won't affect customers, Amazon said, but added that the immediate termination of the affiliate program also applies to endless.com, myhabit.com and smallparts.com.
(Full disclosure: I have a personal website that has been an Amazon affiliate. It made $2 last quarter. That is not 30% of my income.)
Almost all the California Amazon affiliates have fewer than 75 employees and a large percentage have no employees, according to Rebecca Madigan executive director of the Performance Marketing Association, a Camarillo-based nationwide trade association.
"This law won't impact Amazon that much but it is a crisis for website owners who make revenue by placing ads on their websites for thousands of online retailers," Madigan said. "Most of them don't have a physical presence in California."
California Retailers Association stated: "We thank Governor Jerry Brown and the leaders in the California State Legislature who have demonstrated their leadership and commitment to California businesses by passing and signing e-fairness into law. Small and large businesses across the state have been held at a major disadvantage by the current law that out-of-state online companies like Amazon.com and Overstock.com have exploited for years. This has cost us jobs and revenues."
The U.S. Supreme Court in 1992 ruled that states cannot tax businesses that aren't physically within their boundaries. Such taxes would regulate interstate commerce, which is a federal government prerogative.
However, New York in 2008 passed a law to require companies with online affiliate advertising programs to collect sales tax for sales through those affiliates based in New York. Since then Rhode Island, North Carolina, Illinois, Arkansas and Connecticut passed similar laws.
Amazon is suing New York over the law, and the Performance Marketing Association is suing Illinois.
Amazon affiliate Keith Posehn, owner of zorz.com in San Diego, said he had affiliate advertising agreements with more than 70 companies and these programs were 35% of his company revenue before the California legislature passed a similar bill last year. Then-Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed that bill.
"We got 70 termination letters in one night before he vetoed it," Posehn said. After that, he started changing his business away from affiliate advertising and has started a new mobile application company.
"I have pitched investors and several question the wisdom of staying in California," Posehn said. "Some venture capitalists are very keen on placing startups outside California because start-up costs are less."
However, another Amazon affiliate, Glenn Richards, an independent recording artist in Orange County (MightyFleissRadio.com), is angry with Amazon and its head Jeff Bezos.
"I think that Amazon.com's decision to throw their affiliates, (including myself) under the bus is a national disgrace," Richards said. "Jeff Bezos should be ashamed of his conduct. His bully boy practice and tactics of extinguishing small business in California should be (condemned). Small business has no power...and no hope to confront Internet giants like Amazon.com."
Board of Equalization Member George Runner blasted Brown for signing the law. "Even as Governor Jerry Brown lifted his pen to sign this legislation, thousands of affiliates across California were losing their jobs. The so-called 'Amazon tax' is truly a lose-lose proposition for California. Not only won’t we see the promised revenues, we’ll actually lose income tax revenue as affiliates move to other states."
Anyone else see this as a very bad move? Probably to be expected from Jerry Brown, but still. Anyone really think internet commerce is going to stick around California any more than it really needs to? Do other politicians like Jerry Brown think that taxing more money out of companies is going to help the economy? Do they not understand economics? Of course this could be a huge opportunity for neighbouring states to attract businesses. Read the original here.
Internet Sales Tax: Online Retailers To Start Collecting Sales Taxes In California
Reporting from Sacramento—
Shopping at Amazon.com Inc. and other major Internet stores is poised to get more expensive.
Beginning Friday, a new state law will require large out-of-state retailers to collect sales taxes on purchases that their California customers make on the Internet — a prospect eased only slightly by a 1-percentage-point drop in the tax that also takes effect at the same time.
Getting the taxes, which consumers typically don't pay to the state if online merchants don't charge them, is "a common-sense idea," said Gov. Jerry Brown, who signed the legislation into law Wednesday.
The new tax collection requirement — part of budget-related legislation — is expected to raise an estimated $317 million a year in new state and local government revenue.
But those taxes may come with a price. Amazon and online retailer Overstock.com Inc. told thousands of California Internet marketing affiliates that they will stop paying commissions for referrals of so-called click-through customers.
That's because the new requirement applies only to online sellers based out of state that have some connection to California, such as workers, warehouses or offices here.
Both Amazon in Seattle and Overstock in Salt Lake City have told affiliates that they would have to move to another state if they wanted to continue earning commissions for referring customers.
"We oppose this bill because it is unconstitutional and counterproductive," Amazon wrote its California business partners Wednesday. Amazon has not indicated what further actions it might take to challenge the California law.
Many of about 25,000 affiliates in California, especially larger ones with dozens of employees, are likely to leave the state, said Rebecca Madigan, executive director of trade group Performance Marketing Assn. The affiliates combined paid $152 million in state income taxes last year, she pointed out.
"We have to consider it," said Loren Bendele, chief executive of Savings.com, a West Los Angeles website that links viewers to hundreds of money-saving deals. "It does not look good for our business."
The larger bite from buyers' pocketbooks will be eased only a bit because California's basic sales tax rate also will drop to 7.75% on Friday when a 2-year-old temporary increase expires. The basic rate in the city of Los Angeles falls back to 8.75%.
Brown's signature on the budget bills is aimed at closing a loophole that freed Amazon and other out-of-state retailers from collecting sales taxes for California.
Not collecting sales taxes gave Internet retailers a competitive price advantage over California's small businesses such as independent booksellers and big-box retailers with a presence in the state, including Barnes & Noble Inc., Wal-Mart Stores Inc.,Best Buy Co. and Target Corp.
"You can't give one segment of retail a 10% discount every day. It's just not fair," said Bill Dombrowski, president of the California Retailers Assn., a major player in a coalition of large and small stores supporting the legislation.
California's new requirement will generate badly needed state revenue and send a signal to Congress that "we want to see a national solution" to the issue of taxing Internet sales, Dombrowski said.
California is the seventh and largest state in the country to pass a law to collect taxes on out-of-state Internet sales. Illinois, Arkansas and Connecticut acted earlier this year, North Carolina and Rhode Island in 2009 and New York in 2008. Amazon sued to overturn the New York law and lost in the lower courts. The company is paying sales taxes into an escrow account pending an appeal.
Other states currently are considering similar sales tax collection bills.
California's new law was drafted to circumvent a 1992 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that sellers can't be forced to collect sales taxes unless they have a physical presence in the state.
The new statute would establish that presence in two ways: when sellers pay commissions to other Internet sites in California, known as affiliates, that refer buyers; and when sellers have a related company operating in the state.
Amazon has thousands of such affiliates in California. It also has related business operations that include Lab126 Inc. in Cupertino, which develops Kindle electronic book readers, and a Studio City office for its Internet Movie Database unit.
One affiliate, Ken Rockwell of San Diego, the owner of a 12-year-old photography website, said he planned to move out of state.
"Will it be Las Vegas or Scottsdale or Ensenada?" he said. "It's a question of where, not if."
marc.lifsher@latimes.com
First Syria leads the UN Human Rights Commission, now this? Anything else required to prove the UN is a joke now? Why do we pay for them? Read the original here.
North Korea To Head U.N. Conference On Disarmament
3:26 PM, JUN 29, 2011 • BY ANNE BAYEFSKY
On Tuesday, the United Nations again made itself an international laughing stock – except perhaps to the American taxpayers who continue to foot 22 percent of the bill – by appointing North Korea chair of the U.N. Conference on Disarmament. That would be the same North Korea that, according to an article this week by Senator John Kerry, head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has “twice tested nuclear weapons…is developing missiles to carry them…has built facilities capable of producing highly enriched uranium for more nuclear weapons” and has defied a U.N. arms embargo by exporting weapons and sensitive technologies to rogue regimes.
Alas, Senator Kerry is also one of the lead champion of the United Nations in the Senate. According to the U.N., "The Conference is funded from the UN regular budget, reports to the General Assembly and receives guidance from it."
North Korea assumes the Conference chairmanship by being the next state in the alphabetical rotation of the 65 members, which include five nuclear weapons states and 60 other countries such as Iran and Syria. North Korea will preside over the Conference for a four working-week period.
North Korea’s representative, So Se Pyong, was enthusiastic about his new job. He announced that he was “very much committed to the Conference” and that during his presidency he “welcomes any sort of constructive proposals that strengthened the work and credibility of the Conference on Disarmament.” He also said that “he would do everything in his capacity to move the Conference on Disarmament forward.”
That might make sense, if by “forward” he means toward a nuclear winter, or by “constructive,” he means steering clear of anything that might impede North Korea. The official mandate of the Conference looks a bit different and includes “all multilateral arms control and disarmament problems” with the following “main areas of interest”: “cessation of the nuclear arms race and nuclear disarmament; prevention of nuclear war, including all related matters.”
North Korea’s chairmanship was heralded by other U.N. aficionados, including the Iranian delegate to the Conference. Iran’s Mohammad Hassan Daryaei told the Conference meeting: “I would like to congratulate the distinguished ambassador of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea for the assumption of the presidency and assuring him of my delegation’s full support and cooperation.”
Iran’s support is telling. Just yesterday Iran's Revolutionary Guards tested 14 long-range missiles that could carry a nuclear weapon, with the express purpose of hitting U.S. interests and Israel, according to the head of their aerospace division.
Congratulations also poured in from such upstanding world citizens and U.N. fans as China. China’s Wang Qun “welcomed the presidency of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.”
It was left to the Canadian delegate to speak plainly. Canada’s Marius Grinius said: “[I]n the last 13 years the Conference has failed to move forward on its core disarmament responsibilities, including the negotiation of a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty…[T]he Conference on Disarmament is on life support because it no longer is the sole multilateral negotiating forum for disarmament. Indeed, it is not negotiating anything and has not been for a very long time.”
Why not just put it out of its misery and pull the plug?
Anne Bayefsky is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, a professor at Touro College, and the editor of EYEontheUN.org.
The President sets up class warfare...Read the original here.
NationalJournal.Com - Obama: It's Kids Versus Corporate Jets On Debt-Ceiling TalksKids versus corporate jets.
If President Obama's news conference accomplished anything on Wednesday afternoon, it underscored, in striking tones, his strategy for winning the debt ceiling fight with Republicans: Make it a clash of classes.
Rich versus Poor.
Us versus Them.
Those who support children, food safety, medical research and, presumably, puppies and apple pie versus the rich fat cats who don't.
In Obama's world, Democrats are for kids and Republicans are for corporate jets. That is a sharp distinction that could help put the GOP on defensive, but it may not be enough to persuade Republicans to change their posture on the debt-ceiling talks.
Republicans have cast Obama as a tax-raiser and a Big-Government spender. This was his jujitsu move to turn their arguments against them. With a hint of disdain, Obama even dredged up the death of Osama bin Laden to score a political point.
"I've been doing Afghanistan, bin Laden and the Greek crisis," Obama said, jabbing Congress for being out of session so much. "You stay here. Let's get it done."
(WATCH: Obama's Frustration with Congress on Display at Press Conference)
In his first full-scale news conference since March, the president insisted that Democrats had compromised in private talks by agreeing to billions of dollars in budget cuts that would hurt their voters. But, he said, Republicans were refusing to bend by not agreeing to eliminate tax breaks to owners of corporate jets and profit-rich oil companies. If Republicans get their way, Obama said, the end result would be unbalanced deal that lifts the debt limit but forces the government to make deeper-than-necessary cuts.
"If we do not have revenues, that means there are a bunch of kids out there who do not have college scholarships," Obama said. "[It] might compromise the National Weather Services. It means we might not be funding critical medical research. It means food inspection might be compromised. I've said to Republican leaders, 'You go talk to your constituents and ask them, "Are you willing to compromise your kids' safety so some corporate-jet owner can get a tax break?" ' ''
Just in case any viewer missed his class-clashing message, Obama referred to corporate-jet owners at least three more times before he took his second question.
This was not the first time Obama has spoken in grim terms about the consequences of cutting too deeply in order to strike a bargain that wins enough votes to raise the debt ceiling. But his rhetoric was sharper, even harsher, than in the past -- and it threatens to anger Republican leaders just as he's supposedly reaching out to them in compromise.
(RELATED: Obama Comes Close to Endorsing Gay Marriage)
Obama is gambling that public pressure will force Republicans to bow to his demand. But Republicans face pressures of their own; the influential tea party movement won't accept any tax increases and wants draconian budget cuts. Obama's rhetoric may only back them into a corner.
Normally, the constitutionally pragmatic Obama seeks a middle road in his rhetoric, keeping his options open and burnishing his image as somebody always willing to find a bipartisan solution. Look at his response in the same news conference to a New York law allowing for gay marriages. With liberal activists demanding that he support the measure and make gay marriage a cause of his presidency, Obama demurred. It's a states-rights issue, he said.
"Each community is going to be different," Obama said. "Each state is going to be different."
Obama and GOP leaders in Washington must soon come to grips with the fact that the nation's sluggish economy will almost certainly take a major hit if Congress doesn't soon increase the amount of money the U.S. can borrow. Raising the debt limit was once a routine affair, but it's been caught in the increasingly partisan Washington maw. Republicans are demanding steep budget cuts and no tax increases as the price for a few votes in favor of raising the limit. Obama hopes to save face, as well as some government programs.
"The question now is, are we going to step up and get this done?" Obama said. He knows the answer is yes, and the only question is how.
"Call me naive," Obama said, "but my expectation is leaders are going to lead." Obama is naive only if he thinks a single news conference is going to change the political paradigm.
Want the news first every morning? Sign up for National Journal's Need-to-Know Memo. Short items to prepare you for the day.
Read the original here.
Obama Scolds Congress, Says Malia And Sasha Are More Disciplined
« Previous | Main | Next »
June 29, 2011 1:05 PM
ABC's Matthew Jaffe (@jaffematt) reports:
In an animated rant that livened up an otherwise subdued press conference, President Obama today lit into Congress for failing to reach an agreement to raise the country’s $14.3 trillion debt ceiling as an Aug. 2 deadline approaches, despite repeated urgings by the administration to do so. At one point he even reprimanded lawmakers by noting that his two daughters manage to do their homework ahead of time, a diligence rarely seen on gridlocked Capitol Hill.
“If the United States government for the first time cannot pay its bills, if it defaults, then the consequences for the US economy will be significant and unpredictable and that is not a good thing,” President Obama said of the debt ceiling debate. “We don’t know how capital markets will react, but if capital markets suddenly decide, you know what, the US government doesn’t pay its bills so we’re going to start pulling our money out and the US Treasury has to start to raise interest rates in order to attract more money to pay off our bills, that means higher interest rates for businesses, that means higher interest rates for consumers. So all the headwinds that we’re already experiencing in terms of recovery will get worse. That is not my opinion – I think that’s the consensus opinion. And that means that job growth will be further stymied, it will be further hampered as a consequence of that decision.”
“These are bills that Congress ran up,” he noted. “The money’s been spent. The obligations have been made. So this is not a situation – I think the American people have to understand this – this is not a situation where you know, Congress is going to say, ‘Okay, we won’t buy this car or we won’t take this vacation.’ They took the vacation, they bought the car, and now they’re saying maybe we don’t have to pay or we don’t have to pay as fast as we said we were going to. That’s not how responsible families act. We’re the greatest nation on earth and we can’t act that way. So this is urgent and it needs to get settled.”
In response to suggestions by prominent Republicans like House Speaker John Boehner that the Aug. 2 deadline set by the Treasury Department was “artificial,” the president said, “Aug. 2 is a very important date and there’s no reason why we can’t get this done now. We know what the options are out there. This is not a technical problem any longer. This is the matter of Congress going ahead and biting the bullet and making some tough decisions.”
If his two daughters can do their homework with plenty of time to spare, the president then asked, why can’t Congress get their work done, too?
“You know, Malia and Sasha generally finish their homework a day ahead of time. Malia is 13 and Sasha is 10. It is impressive. They don’t wait until the night before. They’re not pulling all-nighters,” he said to laughter from the assembled press corps. “They’re 13 and 10. You know, Congress can do the same thing. If you know you’ve got to do something, just do it.”
But the president wasn’t done yet. After touting his leadership on the debt ceiling issue, pointing out that he’d met with members of Congress repeatedly in recent months, the president took some shots at the Congressional calendar that leaves lawmakers ample time to leave Washington and return to their home states and districts.
“They need to do their job. Now’s the time to go ahead and make the tough choices. That’s why they’re called leaders. And I’ve already shown that I’m willing ot make decisions that are very tough and you know, give my base of voters further reason to give me a hard time, but it’s got to be done, so there’s no point in procrastinating. There’s no point in putting it off. You know, we’ve got to get this done. And if by the end of this week we have not seen substantial progress then I think members of Congress need to understand we’re going to have to start cancelling things and stay here until we get it done. They’re in one week. They’re out one week. And then they’re saying Obama’s got to step in – you need to be here, I’ve been here, I’ve been doing Afghanistan, bin Laden, and the Greek crisis. You stay here. Let’s get it done.”
“Alright, I think you know my feelings about that,” he said with a chuckle.
- Matthew Jaffe
Read the original here.
Obama | RealClearPolitics
President Obama says he is "amused" when people say he needs to get more involved in the debt crisis talks currently being led by Vice President Joe Biden.
"If you know you have to do something, just do it. And I have to say, I am very amused when I start hearing comments about 'well the President needs to show more leadership on this.' Let me tell you something: Right after we finished dealing with the government shutdown, averting a government shutdown, I called the leaders here together. I said we have to get this done," President Obama said at a press conference this afternoon.
Obama told Congress it is up to them and "they need to do their job."
"Now's the time to go ahead and make the tough choices, that's why they're called leaders," he said.
Read the original here.
Obama Has No Idea What To Do With Captured Terrorists « Hot Air
Say, anyone have any idea how to handle a captured terrorist? Apparently not anyone in the White House, even after more than two years of running the war on terror, according to Vice Admiral William McRaven’s confidence-builder[1] in yesterday’s testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee. While Leon Panetta told Congress a few months ago that the Obama administration had a process figured out, they seem to have kept it from the people doing the capturing:
The top military official involved in the raid that killed Osama bin Laden [2]said Tuesday that the Obama administration has no clear plan for handling terrorist leaders if they are caught alive outside a war zone.
Vice Adm. William H. McRaven[3] told a Senate panel that contingency plans for detaining terrorism suspects are developed on an ad hoc basis and approved by the White House, but that there are no set rules. “That is always a difficult issue for us,” he testified. “No two cases seem to be alike.”
Panetta said earlier this year that if the US captured Osama bin Laden or Ayman al-Zawahiri, the terrorist masterminds would likely be taken to Guantanamo Bay[4]. That’s news to McRaven, who told Senator Kelly Ayotte that Gitmo is still “off the table.” Rendition is off the table, too, at least not to the countries most likely to have originated the terrorists — Somalia, Yemen, Pakistan, and Afghanistan — because of “political resistance.”
So what do we end up doing? Oh, you’ll love this plan, emphases mine:
In response to senators’ questions, McRaven said that “in many cases” prisoners captured in secret operations by Navy SEALs or the Army’s Delta Force are taken to a U.S. Navy ship until they can be tried in a U.S. court or transferred to the custody of an allied country. But if neither option turns out to be feasible, the prisoner is ultimately let go, he said.
“If we can’t do either one of those, then we will release that individual,” McRaven said in response to a question from Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.). “I mean, that becomes the unenviable option,but it is an option.”
And so we get to the back-door plan to close Gitmo and end military commissions for captured terrorists. If the Obama administration can’t try a terrorist in criminal court, it just lets the terrorist go rather than use the military commission system created and authorized by Congress to deal with them. Who cares if the terrorist goes on to kill Americans? Hey, at least we didn’t use that awful Gitmo — the one we’re still using, and that Panetta thought was good enough for bin Laden and Zawahiri just four months ago.
Perhaps the Senate can get more information on the Terrorist Catch and Release Plan. How many times have we had to use the “unenviable option” already? Has any of the released terrorists conducted any attacks afterward? Did we lose any Americans in capturing released terrorists? When exactly did the war on terror transform into a sport-fishing expedition?
References
^ confidence-builder (www.washingtonpost.com)
^ the raid that killed Osama bin Laden (www.washingtonpost.com)
^ Vice Adm. William H. McRaven (www.washingtonpost.com)
^ the terrorist masterminds would likely be taken to Guantanamo Bay(hotair.com)
^ confidence-builder (www.washingtonpost.com)
^ the raid that killed Osama bin Laden (www.washingtonpost.com)
^ Vice Adm. William H. McRaven (www.washingtonpost.com)
^ the terrorist masterminds would likely be taken to Guantanamo Bay(hotair.com)
Is this a thing? Does the administration's defense hold up? Should this be a thing? Or is this just a perk of being the incumbent? Should anyone be making a big deal of this to see if it is a thing? Read the original here.
White House says Obama Fundraising Appeal not Illegal
RealClearPolitics - Articles - Print Article
By Alexis Simendinger - June 28, 2011
President Obama appealed to supporters and donors in a videotaped message emailed by his campaign team to millions of people Monday -- a message filmed with the president inside the White House by a crew from the Democratic National Committee, according to a White House official who responded to RCP questions about the solicitation.
In the video, Obama tells supporters they can join him and Vice President Joe Biden for dinner if they win a contest offered by his campaign. "We're both really looking forward to it. Hope to see you soon," Obama says on camera. The script was written by the DNC.
The president's video is accompanied by a donor solicitation form in which supporters of the administration can check boxes donating from $5 to $700 to the Obama-Biden re-election effort. This may, or may not, constitute fundraising by a federal employee in a federal office building, a practice that is generally prohibited. Even if it is fundraising, the statutory barriers regarding the White House itself are vague.
In response to questions about whether the president and his political team had stayed safely on the legal side of the relevant statutes, White House officials made three arguments. First, they said, an open process for small donors to essentially win a raffle is not the kind of fundraising prohibited under the law -- and the president didn't make a direct appeal for donations, anyway. Second, they pointed to a longstanding advisory opinion from the Justice Department that differentiates between the residence portion of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. -- where the aide said Obama had been filmed -- and official rooms in the White House. Third, they said, Obama's approach is in keeping with the practices of his predecessors.
"It's no different than what happened under eight years of George Bush and eight years of Bill Clinton," the official explained, speaking on background.
This assertion appears to be half-true. Although the news accounts cited by White House officials do show that George W. Bush filmed political ads in the White House, they were not overt fundraising efforts. But directly raising money in the White House was indeed the context of the bitter controversy President Clinton and Vice President Al Gore provoked in 1995 and 1996 by aggressively raising millions of dollars in campaign funds during activities expressly designed to use the White House as a hook to attract donor interest.
Congress subsequently investigated Clinton's Pennsylvania Avenue courtship of donors, which included using the Lincoln Bedroom for donor sleepovers and offering intimate meetings and briefings with Clinton and other top officials inside the White House for the donors who could -- and did -- write big checks. Republican lawmakers, joined by some good-government advocates, howled that the president had sold White House access to raise money for his re-election.
Gore, who admitted that he solicited campaign cash from a telephone in his vice presidential office, famously argued during a West Wing briefing for reporters in 1997 that he had been operating within the law because there was "no controlling legal authority."
The Obama campaign video is a small part of an aggressive fundraising effort[1] being undertaken by Team Obama. It also comes on the heels of criticism that the president, who campaigned to change the way Washington works, was instead participating in some of its more questionable rituals, including a March 7 meeting with Obama arranged by the DNC in the Blue Room of the White House residence. The meeting, first described in a June 24 Politico story[2] about a list of attendees released by the White House, took place with business leaders who were former or current donors or fundraisers. White House press secretary Jay Carney told Politico the meeting was not "a fundraiser."
In the email message[3] that accompanies Obama's Monday video, however, Obama campaign manager Jim Messina explains to supporters that a minimum $5 donation is required to enter the campaign contest: "Make a donation today and be automatically registered for a chance to have dinner with President Obama and Vice President Biden together. We'll cover your airfare and the meal -- all you need to bring is your story and your ideas."
White House officials queried about the solicitation by RCP on Monday emphasized that the law permits Obama and Biden to conduct solicitations from select rooms inside the White House, including the residence, which is treated as the president's home and not his official workplace. That determination is based on an Office of Legal Counsel interpretation of the statute originating in the 1970s, a presidential spokesman told RCP before forwarding a copy of the opinion. A White House official repeatedly stated that the Obama dinner solicitation was filmed in the White House residence. If true, that would be a mitigating factor, but some observers who viewed the video believe it might be the Map Room[4], a venerated ground-floor office in the mansion that was used as a situation room for Franklin Roosevelt during the Second World War -- and where Obama himself often does official business[5]. A White House aide said Tuesday morning that he didn't think it was the Map Room, although he wasn't certain of the exact location.
The campaign's dine-with-Obama contest first began in mid-June and then added Biden to the prize this week. The campaign team is working intensively this week to solicit money from small-dollar donors to increase the size and composition of Obama's war chest prior to an important June 30, second-quarter deadline to report total campaign finance details to the Federal Election Commission.
"The web videos you're referencing don't ask for funds," the White House spokesman said. "However, even if we did it, the Office of Legal Counsel has determined that there are certain rooms in the White House in which you can do that."
He described Obama's campaigning from the White House as even more carefully scripted by the DNC than the filmed messages of Clinton and Bush. "We're going above and beyond what's required by law. The law would permit that in certain rooms. And we're not even doing what's permitted in certain rooms," he added.
To make the case that Obama acted in keeping with his predecessors, the White House sent RCP these references, as well as YouTube links:
2004: President Bush And First Lady Laura Bush Filmed Parts Of Their Campaign Ads In The White House Residence -- The Bush Campaign Pointed To 31 White House Images Used By The Clinton Campaign In 1996 For Precedent. "Bush and his wife filmed their parts of the ads last month in the White House residence. Campaign officials said both parties have used the executive mansion for political ads. By their count, President Clinton used White House images 31 times in 1996." [USA Today, 3/3/04]
2004: "The President's Reelection Campaign Filmed Mr. Bush In The White House During The Week Of Feb. 9 For Advertising To Be Aired In Swing States." "The president's reelection campaign filmed Mr. Bush in the White House during the week of Feb. 9 for advertising to be aired in swing states. Monday, it began the process of calling stations to inquire about purchasing ad time. The advertising campaign will emphasize President Bush's 'positive message' and present him as a man of 'steady leadership in the face of remarkable change,' Bush campaign spokesman Scott Stanzel said. He added that the advertising would show that the president has led 'with the strong leadership that challenging times demand.' " [CBS News, 2/11/09]
"This is not the Clinton coffees or the Lincoln bedroom," Obama's spokesman said. "This is something that was routinely done under Bill Clinton and routinely done under George Bush, so if you're going to start comparing this to those mega-scandals, you need to sort of back up and take a deep breath."
According to the advisory legal opinion on which Obama is relying as his re-election campaign begins, "Areas within the discrete private residence area included in the White House mansion, although not physically detached from areas formally given over to official office space or to areas used for ceremonial functions, may therefore reasonably be seen to fall outside the reach of the statute."
The statute governing campaign solicitations inside federal offices appears in Title 18, Section 607, of the U.S. Criminal Code and expressly includes the president and vice president. It states, "It shall be unlawful for an individual who is an officer of employee of the Federal Government, including the President, Vice President, and Members of Congress, to solicit or receive a donation of money or other thing of value in connection with a Federal, State or local election, while in any room or building occupied in the discharge of official duties by an officer or employee of the United States, from any person."
References
^ aggressive fundraising effort (www.washingtonpost.com)
^ Politico story (www.politico.com)
^ the email message (donate.barackobama.com)
^ Map Room (www.whitehousemuseum.org)
^ Obama himself often does official business (www.whitehouse.gov)
Really? Is this what the US State Department cares about now? They're an extension of the Lady Gaga touring company? I have now officially heard more from the US Secretary of State about the work in booking Lady Gaga than about the civilians being killed in the streets in Syria. I suppose if it's rubber stamping a letter, that's not a big deal, my concern is more that the State Department has been so quiet in other areas that seem more serious. And it's still a bit weird that the State Department is involved at all with a private musician. But maybe that's just me. Read the original here.
Hillary: State Dept. ‘Instrumental in Sealing Deal’ For Lady Gaga’s Gay Pride Gig
Monday, June 27, 2011
By Penny Starr
(CNSNews.com) - Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on Monday that the State Department played an instrumental role in “sealing the deal” for pop-rock star Lady Gaga to perform at a gay pride rally in Rome, Italy.
Clinton specifically pointed to a letter that David Thorne, the U.S. ambassador to Italy, sent to Lady Gaga urging her to participate in the event.
“And then there is the work that our embassy team in Rome has been doing,” Clinton said. “Two weeks ago they played an instrumental role in bringing Lady Gaga to Italy for a Euro Pride concert.
“Now as many of you know Lady Gaga is Italian American and a strong supporter of LGBT rights,” said Clinton. “And the organizers of the Euro Pride event desperately wanted her to perform and a letter to her from Ambassador Thorne was instrumental in sealing the deal.”
Mrs. Clinton made the remarks at the State Department at a celebration of LGBT Pride Month co-hosted by the department and Gays and Lesbians in Foreign Affairs Agencies (GLIFAA), a group that, according to its website, “represents lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) personnel and their families in the U.S. Department of State, U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), Foreign Commercial Service, Foreign Agricultural Service, and other foreign affairs agencies and offices in the U.S. Government.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJ6JMm76-5E
On June 11, Lady Gaga performed at a rally at the ancient Circus Maximus in Rome, Italy. The rally followed a gay pride march through the city of Rome.
Gaga sparked controversy earlier this year when she released a video of her song “Judas” on Easter Sunday. The video depicted Gaga as a Mary Magdalene figure--in a motorcycle gang—who becomes enamoured with Judas. “The video opens with a motorcycle gang cruising down a freeway, as Gaga clutches onto a Jesus-like figure who wears a golden crown of thorns,” said a Billboard.com description of the video.
“Oh, I'm in love with Judas, Judas,” says the song. “In the most Biblical sense I am beyond repentance. Fame hooker, prostitute wench, vomits her mind.”
Read the original here.
My Fox Detroit:
DDOT Directors Driving Shiny New Hybrid SUVs
“I think we bought 6 or 7 with your funding to test the hyrbid technology” says DDOT Director Lovette Williams. The City of Detroit has been forced to slash budgets and lay off workers, but DDOT directors are riding in style
Dealing with budget shortfalls, cuts to the Detroit Department of Transportation include laying off bus drivers, mechanics and cutting bus routes.
How is it then that DDOT directors get to drive home brand new hybrid SUV’s and have the insurance and gas paid for them?
How is that DDOT employees 1300 people, but only 700 of them are drivers or mechanics, what do the rest of the employees do?
aka the overseers of elections. Read the original here.
Soros and liberal groups seeking top election posts in battleground states
By Chuck Neubauer
The Washington Times
9:00 p.m., Thursday, June 23, 2011
A small tax-exempt political group with ties to wealthy liberals like billionaire financier George Soros has quietly helped elect 11 reform-minded progressive Democrats as secretaries of state to oversee the election process in battleground states and keep Republican "political operatives from deciding who can vote and how those votes are counted."
Known as the Secretary of State Project (SOSP), the organization was formed by liberal activists in 2006 to put Democrats in charge of state election offices, where key decisions often are made in close races on which ballots are counted and which are not.
The group's website said it wants to stop Republicans from "manipulating" election results.
"Any serious commitment to wresting control of the country from the Republican Party must include removing their political operatives from deciding who can vote and whose votes will count," the group said on its website, accusing some Republican secretaries of state of making "partisan decisions."
SOSP has sought donations by describing the contributions as a "modest political investment" to elect "clean candidates" to the secretary of state posts.
Named after Section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code, so-called 527 political groups — such as SOSP — have no upper limit on contributions and no restrictions on who may contribute in seeking to influence the selection, nomination, election, appointment or defeat of candidates to federal, state or local public office. They generally are not regulated by the Federal Election Commission (FEC), creating a soft-money loophole.
While FEC regulations limit individual donations to a maximum of $2,500 per candidate and $5,000 to a PAC, a number of 527 groups have poured tens of millions of unregulated dollars into various political efforts.
SOSP has backed 11 winning candidates in 18 races, including such key states as Ohio, Nevada, Iowa, New Mexico and Minnesota.
"Supporting secretary of state candidates with integrity is one of the most cost-efficient ways progressives can ensure they have a fair chance of winning elections," SOSP said on its website, adding that "a relatively small influx of money — often as little as $30,000 to $50,000 — can change the outcome of a race."
SOSP was formed in the wake of the ballot-counting confusion in Florida during the 2000 presidential election and a repeat of that chaos in Ohio in the 2004 presidential election. Democrats accused Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris and Ohio Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell, both Republicans, of manipulating the elections in favor of GOP candidates — charges Mrs. Harris and Mr. Blackwell denied.
"Does anyone doubt that these two secretaries of state ... made damaging partisan decisions about purging voter rolls, registration of new voters, voting machine security, the location of precincts, the allocation of voting machines, and dozens of other critical matters?" SOSP asked on its website.
SOSP said it raised more than $500,000 in 2006 to help elect five Democratic secretaries of states in seven races.
The Commission on Federal Election Reform, co-chaired by former President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James A. Baker III, recommended in 2005 taking away the administration of elections from secretaries of state and giving it to nonpartisan election officers.
"Partisan officials should not be in charge of elections," said Robert Pastor, co-director of the Center for Democracy and Election Management at American University. "Both Democrats and Republicans not only compete for power, they try to manipulate the rules to get an advantage.
"We want to make sure that those counting votes don't have a dog in that game," said Mr. Pastor, who served as executive director and a member of the commission.
One of the SOSP's financial backers is Mr. Soros, the billionaire hedge-fund operator who spent $27 million in 2004 in an unsuccessful effort to defeat President George W. Bush. Mr. Soros spent $5.1 million in the 2008 election supporting Democratic candidates and causes. In 2008, he gave $10,000 to SOSP.
A spokesman for Mr. Soros downplayed the financier's role in the project.
"He supports the organization," said Michael Vachon, who manages Mr. Soros' political donations. "He was in favor of electing Democrats secretary of state. George was not a founder of the project, and he never had an operational role or helped plan strategy."
But many of SOSP's founders and supporters have long-standing ties to Mr. Soros and the organizations he founded or helped fund, including Democracy Alliance, a liberal-leaning group whose membership includes some of the country's wealthiest Democrats. Created in 2005 with major financial backing from Mr. Soros and millionaire Colorado businessmen and gay-rights activist Tim Gill, Democracy Alliance has helped direct nearly $150 million to progressive organizations.
SOSP's founders include Michael Kieschnick, a Democracy Alliance member who also is president of a telecommunications company that donates to progressive nonprofit groups; James Rucker, former director of Soros-supported MoveOn.org, a stridently anti-Bush group known for its ads comparing Mr. Bush to Adolf Hitler; and Becky Bond, former director at ActBlue, a political committee that bills itself as "the nation's largest source of funds for Democrats," whose contributors include Mr. Soros.
Mr. Kieschnick, Mr. Rucker and Ms. Bond did not respond to emails and telephone messages seeking comment.
Democracy Alliance members who gave to SOSP include furniture company heir John R. Hunting; computer company executive Paul Rudd; medical-supply firm heiress Pat Stryker; venture capitalist Nicholas Hanauer; ex-Clinton administration official Rob Stein; Tides Foundation founder Drummond Pike; real estate developer Robert Bowditch; charitable foundation co-chairman Scott Wallace; clothing executive Susie Tompkins Buell; real estate developer Albert Dwoskin; child psychologist Gail Furman; and Taco Bell heir Rob McKay.
Ms. Furman also is president of the Furman Foundation, a major donor to the Soros-backed Tides Center, which has provided more than $300 million to "progressive" causes.
Mr. Dwoskin also is chairman of Catalist, a Soros-funded political consultancy in Virginia that, according to its website, "brings easy to use web-based tools and a high quality voter database of all voting-age individuals in the United States to progressive organizations and campaigns."
Other SOSP donors include Daniel Berger, who helped create Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, whose donors include Democracy Alliance and Mr. Soros' Open Society Institute; and Chris Findlater, chairman of the Florida Watch Ballot Committee, whose funding comes from America Votes, a Soros-supported get-out-the-vote group.
The SOSP also used ActBlue to help raise funds for itself and its candidates from Democratic donors nationwide. ActBlue says it has raised more than $190 million online for Democratic candidates since 2004.
Mr. Soros and several SOSP contributors also are part of a small group of wealthy liberals who have been among the top donors to 527 organizations set up to mobilize Democratic voters in recent years.
In 2004, Mr. Soros was the largest individual donor to America Coming Together (ACT), a 527 group he helped create along with Mr. McKay, the Taco Bell boss, to defeat Mr. Bush. Mr. Soros gave $7.5 million. Mr. McKay, now chairman of Democracy Alliance, gave $245,000 to ACT, and he and his family foundation donated $35,000 to SOSP.
Alida Messinger, a Rockefeller heiress, gave $2.25 million to ACT and $25,000 to SOSP, according to records compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics, a watchdog group that monitors campaign finances. She and other top SOSP donors also were major donors to America Votes 2006, another Soros-backed liberal group that sought to elect Democratic candidates, records show.
Mr. Soros also gave $3.5 million and was the largest donor to a short-lived political group called the Fund for America, set up in late 2007 to do voter outreach and finance attack ads for the 2008 election. Four of the fund's nine donors who gave $200,000 or more also contributed to SOSP, including Mr. Soros, Mr. McKay, Mr. Hunting and Lee Fikes of Bonanza Oil, who gave $600,000 to the Fund for America and $22,500 to SOSP.
In addition to his SOSP donation, Mr. Soros in 2006 also supported the project's candidates in Ohio, Jennifer Brunner, to whom he gave $2,500, and in Minnesota, Mark Ritchie, who got $250. Both won.
In 2006, SOSP helped elect Democratic secretaries of state in Ohio, Minnesota, New Mexico, Nevada and Iowa while its candidates lost in Colorado and Michigan. In 2008, the group backed winning candidates in Montana, West Virginia, Missouri and Oregon. SOSP raised $280,316 and spent $278,224 in that two-year election period. It could not be determined how much the project raised additionally in donations for the candidate's individual campaign funds.
In 2010, just two of the group's seven candidates won in a Republican year — in Minnesota and California. It lost in Ohio, Colorado, Iowa, South Dakota and Michigan. The group said it raised $193,767 and spent $243,112. It could not be determined how much it raised in additional donations for individual candidates.
Minnesota is the prime example of the project's success. Helping to elect Mr. Ritchie in 2006 and 2010, Democrats had one of their own making key decisions when the extremely close U.S. Senate race between incumbent Norm Coleman, a Republican, and his challenger, former comedian Al Franken, went to a recount in 2008.
Mr. Ritchie headed the canvassing board that conducted the recount. Mr. Coleman initially had a lead of 206 votes out of 2.9 million cast, but after the recount, the board decided Mr. Franken had won by 225 votes. Republicans criticized Mr. Ritchie and the canvassing board, but the Minnesota Supreme Court unanimously upheld the finding.
Republican Mary Kiffmeyer, who lost to Mr. Ritchie in 2006, said SOSP's involvement contributed to her defeat.
"They absolutely had an effect," said Ms. Kiffmeyer, now a GOP state representative. She said she was leading by 17 percentage points the week before the election, when SOSP and its allies spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on targeted television ads and mailings. She said she had no time or money to respond to the last-minute attack ads, which linked her to Mr. Bush.
Ms. Kiffmeyer said she was limited to raising no more than $500 from an individual and spending just $250,000, but the SOSP had no such limits.
Mr. Soros, who lives in New York, did not donate directly to SOSP in 2006, but he was a serious donor to other important groups in Minnesota during the 2006 campaign. He gave $200,000 to America Votes-Minnesota, which led a get-out-the-vote drive just before the election — more than half of what it raised in 2006. He also gave $10,000 to the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party on whose ticket Mr. Ritchie ran.
"I want to thank the Secretary of State Project and its thousands of grass-roots donors for helping to push my campaign over the top," Mr. Ritchie wrote. "Your wonderful support — both directly to my campaign and through generous expenditures by the strategic fund — helped me get our election reform message to Minnesota voters. And the voters overwhelming cast their ballot to protect our democracy on election day."
© Copyright 2011 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
Can you imagine the media treating the Bushes well enough to get that 'thank you'? Read the original here.
Michelle Obama: "Fortunately, We Have Help From The Media"
In an interview with CNN, First Lady Michelle Obama thanks the media for their "support" and "kindness."
CNN reporter: "How's the family ready for this [the election]? It's going to be quite vicious, isn't it? How do you prepare for that?"
First Lady Michelle Obama: "You know, it's … we're ready, you know. Our children, you know, could care less about what we're doing. We work hard to do that. Fortunately, we have help from the media. I have to say this: I'm very grateful for the support and kindness that we've gotten. People have respected their privacy and in that way, I think, you know, no matter what people may feel about my husband's policies or what have you, they care about children and that's been good to see."
Read the original here.
Politico.com
W.H. releases DNC meet names
By: Josh Gerstein and Matt Negrin
June 24, 2011 07:24 PM EDT
Former New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine, former technology executive Bernard Schwartz and banking executive James Staley were among 30 well-connected figures in the business and finance world who met with President Barack Obama at the White House in March for an unusual economic discussion organized by the Democratic National Committee.
The White House released the names on Friday under a policy Obama instituted in 2009 to disclose nearly all White House guests approximately three months after they visit.
The March 7 meeting in the Blue Room of the residence has drawn attention and criticismbecause most of the attendees were donors or fundraisers and the session was arranged by the DNC. Good-government advocates said hosting the event at the White House was ill-advised.
“There’s a pretty clear line — or there should be a clear line,” Meredith McGehee of the Campaign Legal Center, which presses for tighter controls on campaign finance, recently told POLITICO. “I don’t have a problem with the president inviting Wall Street people to the White House to discuss policy, but why does it need to be DNC-sponsored? I think that’s what raises the eyebrows. Even if it’s not a fundraiser, it’s a cultivation.”
In addition to the Wall Street financiers and business executives, the session was attended by Andy Tobias, the DNC treasurer; Patrick Gaspard, the former White House political director and current DNC executive director; and Brad Thompson, a DNC fundraiser who works with high-dollar donors and bundlers in New York.
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said last week the White House is “very transparent” about its DNC-sponsored events. White House officials have described the meeting as a chance for Obama to solicit supporters’ views on the economy. However, Obama aides have not responded to queries from POLITICO about which Obama aides accompanied him to the meeting.
At a House hearing this week, two Bush White House ethics lawyers said the session raised questions under the Hatch Act, the federal law limiting political activity on federal property and by government officials.
“It is unclear why the Democratic National Committee would have been used to organize a meeting to solicit advice on the economy. Indeed, this meeting seems to walk a fine line between official and political with all of the attendant Hatch Act concerns,” Scott Coffina, who served as an ethics adviser to the Bush White House, told the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
“I would never have agreed to having such a meeting going on in the White House itself, in any room of the White House,” said Richard Painter, who also served as an ethics counsel under Bush. “I know there’s controversy about that. But I would not want to see those meetings, quite frankly, going on on federal property. What the legal restrictions are is somewhat more ambiguous.”
Carney has said that the Blue Room meeting “was not a fundraiser” and that the DNC picked up the $68 tab for the event.
In addition, Obama aides note that the Democratic and Republican parties have sponsored events at the White House over the years. At least one of the annual Christmas parties is usually paid for by the DNC or Republican National Committee and attended by political guests, including donors. And in 2001, Vice President Dick Cheney hosted a reception on the lawn of his residence for top Republican fundraisers.
However, President Bill Clinton sparked controversy when he and Vice President Al Gore hosted dozens of DNC-sponsored policy discussions — often called “coffees” — at the White House with Democratic donors and other supporters. At least some of the guests were told they could attend if they gave a specific amount, such as $50,000, to the Democratic Party. The so-called coffees were part of a broader flap involving donors being hosted overnight in the Lincoln Bedroom.
Several participants in the March 7 session declined to comment publicly when contacted by POLITICO. However, attendees who spoke on the condition of anonymity said the meeting was entirely or almost entirely devoted to discussion of the sluggish economy.
“There was a lot of concern about the markets and how so far we’ve avoided disaster, but we’re really not out of the woods here,” one participant said Friday. “All I remember was very substantive stuff about what to do with economy [and] markets, how to get jobs growing — good solid policy stuff.”
The Blue Room event, first reported last week by The New York Times, was not on Obama’s public schedule. Obama aides have noted that the public schedule does not list every meeting Obama has and that he is the first president to pledge to disclose the names of nearly all White House visitors.
Here’s a partial guest list for the meeting (POLITICO added the affiliations and descriptions):
Thomas Bernstein, co-founder of Chelsea Piers, L.P., and chairman of the Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington (appointed by Obama in September 2010); and his wife,Andrea Bernstein
Jon Corzine, former Democratic governor of New Jersey and former CEO of Goldman Sachs
James Dinan, founder of York Capital Management
Glenn Dubin, CEO of Highbridge Capital Management
Mark Gallogly, co-founder of Centerbridge Partners and a member of the President’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board
Jeffrey Gural, chairman of the real estate firm Newmark Knight Frank
Michael Kempner, CEO at MWW Group and a member of the White House’s Council for Community Solutions
Sarah Kovner, longtime Clinton supporter and prominent New York liberal
Marc Lasry, co-founder and CEO of Avenue Capital Group
Margo Lion, of Margo Lion LTD, co-chairwoman of the Obama’s Committee on the Arts and Humanities
Brian Mathis, co-managing member of Provident Group Ltd. and co-managing partner of Longship Capital Management, LLC
Richard Richman, runs real estate/investment banking/property management conglomerate The Richman Group; and his wife, Ellen Richman, a philanthropist and Pace University marketing professor
William Rudin, chief executive of the real estate company Rudin Management
Rick Schifter, partner at TPG Capital, formerly Texas Pacific Group
Bernard Schwartz, former CEO of Loral Space & Communications, philanthropist and backer of the Democratic Leadership Council
Jay Snyder, Democratic Party activist and philanthropist
James Staley, head of JPMorgan Chase’s investment bank
Zachary Abrahamson contributed to this report.
© 2011 POLITICO LLC
Not really too much to add to this one. But I have to point out the money quote:
"True, Obama was persuasive enough to get elected president--but that was with a hapless opponent, a dour nepotist as his intraparty rival, a public fed up with the other party, and a media-driven cult of personality."
Read the original here.
Support the Tropes
Why is the World's Greatest Orator such a dreadful rhetorician?By JAMES TARANTO
(Note: We're going fishing tomorrow, to return Monday. In the meantime, you may find occasional witticisms at our Twitter feed.)
Not that anybody's asking, but no, we didn't watch President Obama's speech last night announcing his latest recalibration of his Afghanistan policy to adapt to the changing conditions of the 2012 electoral battlefield. It's been a long time since we found this president's speeches worth staying home to see.
To judge by the reviews we've read, last night's performance was a political failure, precisely because it was so transparently political. Obama didn't go nearly far enough to satisfy the isolationists who want a complete pullout yesterday, but he went far enough in their direction that Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified to Congress today: "The President's decisions are more aggressive and incur more risk than I was originally prepared to accept."
It's possible that the president is more attuned to popular sentiment than are the generals, the activists and the commentators who are concerned with the actual merits of the policy. Afghanistan is not uppermost in most Americans' minds. Undeniably there is, among the general public, a general sense of war-weariness, a drift toward isolationism, which contributed to Obama's election as president. On the other hand, that drift could easily lurch in the other direction if the situation in Afghanistan worsens, and especially if terrorists hit America again. To the extent that the Obama pullback makes that more likely, it puts his re-election prospects as well as the country at greater risk.
Anyway, if Obama is following popular sentiment, he certainly isn't leading it. And has he ever managed to do that? The New York Times's incoherent mishmash of an editorial on the speech tries to damn him with faint praise: "At his best, the president can be hugely persuasive." But even that praise is highly unpersuasive. True, Obama was persuasive enough to get elected president--but that was with a hapless opponent, a dour nepotist as his intraparty rival, a public fed up with the other party, and a media-driven cult of personality.
Part of that cult of personality is the myth that he is the World's Greatest Orator, a myth the Times evokes with its hazy recollections of times when he was "highly persuasive." When was he highly persuasive? When he sold the public on the so-called stimulus and ObamaCare? When he campaigned for Democrats in 2010? When he rallied public support for his last change in Afghan policy, an increase in the U.S. troop presence?
The truth is, there's an Emperor's New Clothes aspect to Obama's supposed status as the World's Greatest Orator. We've heard the myth of his eloquence over and over, yet he keeps "unexpectedly" making gaffes or tin-eared statements. Here's the big one from his speech last night: "America, it is time to focus on nation building here at home."
The term "nation building" was popularized by George W. Bush during a 2000 presidential debate with then-Vice President Al Gore. The soon-to-be president used it as a term of derision:
The vice president and I have a disagreement about the use of troops. He believes in nation building. I would be very careful about using our troops as nation builders. I believe the role of the military is to fight and win war and therefore prevent war from happening in the first place. . . .
If we don't have a clear vision of the military, if we don't stop extending our troops all around the world and nation building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road, and I'm going to prevent that. I'm going to rebuild our military power. It's one of the major priorities of my administration.
Bush himself was subsequently accused of "nation building" in Afghanistan and Iraq, after the attacks of 9/11 caused a dramatic change in the course of his presidency. Whatever the merits of those criticisms, though, Bush's view of "nation building" as a vain, costly and wasteful distraction from national security seems to have prevailed.
So why in the world would Obama expect a call for "nation building at home" to resonate? Not only is nation building a discredited idea, but the implication is that the U.S. is a pathetic wreck of a country like Kosovo or Afghanistan or Iraq. Undeniably, America has its problems, but many of them are caused or aggravated by an obtrusive government. We don't need to be "built," just left alone to maintain and reinvigorate ourselves.
The answer appears to be that once again, the World's Greatest Orator is taking his rhetorical cues from the Worst Writer in the English Language. Remember the "Sputnik moment," the trope in Obama's State of the Union Address that was supposed to inspire us to get excited about whatever boondoggles he's pushing this year? Neither did we; we have to delve into our archives to be reminded of the details.
But we remembered who used that forgettable phrase first: Thomas Friedman of the New York Times. And Commentary's Abe Greenwald reminds us that "nation building at home" is another of Friedman's tropes. On Nov. 28, 2010, Reason's Matt Welch noted that in Friedman's column of that day, "the phrase 'nation-building at home' makes two appearances, 'nation-building in America' makes two more, and there's a fifth 'nation-building' in there, presumably for collectors."
Noting that Friedman had been beating that drum for 2½ years, Welch titled his post "Thomas L. Friedman: Nation-Building at Home Just as Crucial a Slogan Now as it Was 14 Columns Ago." Make that 15. On March 23, Friedman wrote: "If the president is ready to take some big, hard, urgent, decisions, shouldn't they be first about nation-building in America, not in Libya?"
Still, that's only one column in almost seven months, vs. almost one every other month in the period before Welch noted it. And Friedman has not mentioned Sputnik in any column since we called him on that one after the State of the Union.
How can anyone take seriously Barack Obama's status as the World's Greatest Orator when he uses Friedmanisms that have become so Friedmanistic that even Friedman avoids them?
Interesting tactic I suppose. I'm not quite sure what the strategy is here. Considering Congress's issue is with the apparent violation of the War Powers Act, I don't know why the President just hasn't gotten Congressional approval. I'm sure the vast majority of Congress would approve action in Libya with a clear mission, he just hasn't asked. Either he really has 0 clue about what he's doing or he's that afraid of his liberal anti-war base being angry at him. Read the original here.
Clinton asks Congress, whose side are you on?Jun 22, 10:16 PM (ET)
By BRADLEY KLAPPER
MONTEGO BAY, Jamaica (AP) - U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is questioning the priorities of lawmakers criticizing the U.S. intervention in Libya.
She's asking bluntly, "Whose side are you on?"
Setting up a showdown on Libya, House Republicans agreed Wednesday to vote on dueling measures, one to give President Barack Obama limited authority to continue U.S. involvement in the NATO-led operation against Moammar Gadhafi and the other to cut off funds for military hostilities.
The measures reflect widespread dissatisfaction with Obama's decision not to seek congressional consent for the 3-month-old war.
Clinton says Congress is free to raise objections but questions the priorities of the critics. She says the Obama administration and its partners are rightly siding with the Libyan people.
She spoke about Libya during a brief stop in Jamaica.
Seriously, can he do nothing without a teleprompter? This is kind of ridiculous. Is it just me? Am I expecting too much for the President to not screw this sort of thing up? Or is remembering who he presented the nation's highest military honor not "big enough" for him to remember? Read the original here.
Obama flubs at 10th Mountain meet-and-greet [UPDATE]
June 23rd, 2011 | Outside the wire | Posted by Joe Gould
As President Obama addressed troops at a Fort Drum, N.Y. DFAC, he reminisced about how as a senator and as president, in Iraq and Afghanistan, “I’ve always run into you guys. And for some reason it’s always in some rough spots.”
“I had the great honor of seeing some of you because a comrade of yours, Jared Monti, was the first person who I was able to award the Medal of Honor to who actually came back and wasn’t receiving it posthumously,” Obama said, according to the White House official transcript.
Except that Monti was receiving it posthumously. At a White House ceremony in 2009, Obama presented Sgt. 1st Class Monti’s parents with the medal for his heroic actions in Afghanistan. Monti, 30, was leading a scouting mission along the Pakistan border when a resupply helicopter blew the unit’s cover; Monti twice ran into gunfire to retrieve a wounded comrade before he was killed by an enemy grenade.
Obama appeared to have confused Monti with the only living Medal of Honor recipient, Sal Giunta. The president’s got plenty on his plate, to be sure. But if he’s sincere when he says that it’s his greatest honor to be the commander-in-chief, you’d think he’d be able to remember the lone recipient of the military’s highest honor.
The least we can do for our honored dead is to remember them.
UPDATE:
The Christian Broadcasting Network contacted the White House to see what happened and was told the President didn’t have prepared remarks. They quoted White House Press Secretary Jay Carney as saying, ”At Fort Drum, the President misspoke when discussing the first Medal of Honor he presented posthumously to Jared Monti, who was a member of the 10th Mountain Division. The President paid tribute to Monti in his remarks to troops in Afghanistan in March 2010. Last year, the President presented the Medal of Honor to Salvatore Giunta, who was the first living recipient of the Medal who served in Afghanistan.”
Posts
