Saturday, October 04, 2008
CSI Political Corruption: Let's play investigator. If you're investigating a crime, and you're looking at the crime scene one thing you do is dust for prints and try to identify potential suspects. Let's say we've surveyed the crime scene and found failed banks, credit vacuum, failed lending institutions, rampant corruption of public officials, etc. We've run the finger prints and here are our possible suspects:
Chris Dodd- Senator. Democrat. Authored legislation that President Bill Clinton signed making it legal for Aurthur Andersen to serve Enron as both auditor and as investment consutlant. Recipient of the largest total campaign contributions of all U.S. Senators over last the 20 years from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Helped thwart Republican efforts in the Senate in 2003, 2004, and 2005 to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac by using Senate procedures to kill legislation in committee.
Bill Clinton- Democrat. Former President. Signed authorizing legislation allowing Arthur Andersen to both audit and advise Enron. Set the stage for manipulation of Enron books and the ultimate collapse of Enron. Appointed Jamie Gorelic to Vice Chair of Fannie Mae in 1997.
Bob Reuben- Democrat. Former Clinton Treasury Secretary. Made the frantic call to President Bush's Treasury Secretary in 2001 requesting the Bush Administration intervene and save Enron.
Arthur Andersen- Audit firm and Consulting agency for Enron. Oversaw the management of Enron's books while also running their audits. Prior to the legislation written and sponsored by Democrat Senator Chris Dodd and signed by Democrat President Bill Clinton, it was illegal for an investment and consulting firm to also serve as the auditor for customer companies.
Ken Lay- Presiding CEO of Enron when it collapsed. Frequent golf friend of President Bill Clinton. Frequent Lincoln Bedroom guest of President Bill Clinton. Convicted on 10 of 11 counts of securities fraud against him in connection with the fall of Enron. Bob Reuben, President Clinton's former Treasury Secretary tried a last minute request to the Bush Administration to rescue Enron.
Enron- Formerly a Houston based energy that went bankrupt in late 2001. Systemic securities fraud and corruption brought the company down resulting in the conviction of Ken Lay and the dissolution of Arthur Andersen after Enron and Arthur Andersen took advantage of the law that was changed to allow AA to serve as auditor and investment consultant. Dangerous investment practices that would, under the previous law, have been detected in the audit process were, after the change, obscured during AA's audits so as not to impact their profitable investment business.
Diane Feinstein- Senator. Democrat. Steered lucrative defense contracts to her husbands company though legislative pressure.
William Jefferson- Congressman. Democrat. Under investigation by the FBI for graft. Found with $90,000 of FBI sting money wrapped in tin foil in his home freezer.
Charlie Wrangle- Congressman. Democrat. Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, the committee that writes tax law. Discovered to have failed to pay any income taxes on the income of his off-shore rental properties. House Ethics Committee is "investigating" him after his statements that he had neglected to pay taxes on $75,000 in rental income from a vacation home in the Dominican Republic. Back taxes due on this are estimated to be $10,000. He is also under investigation for using a rent-controlled apartment in Harlem, rented at below-market rate, as a campaign office- a violation of New York State Law.
Nancy Pelosi- Congresswoman. Democrat. Speaker of the House. Second in the successional line for the Presidency. Tax filings revealed she funneled hundreds of thousands of dollars of PAC money to her husbands company. Publicy decries the practice of funneling PAC money to congressional relatives and tried to ban it. Her effort to ban the practice was defeated and she has continued to practice this to present day.
Harry Reid- Senator. Democrat. Senate Majority Leader. Investigated by the Los Angeles Times for suspicious land deals in Nevada. Reid and family members profit through kick backs on commercial land deals in Nevada.
Barney Frank- Congressman. Democrat. Chairman of the committee charged with oversight of the banking system. Defended Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Chairmen during committee hearings in 2003, 2004, and 2005. Helped kill legislation in 2005 authored by John McCain to reign in Fannie and Freddie practices.
Maxine Waters- Congresswoman. Democrat. Defended and complimented stewardship of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in Congressional hearings in 2005.
Jamie Gorelic- Deputy Attorney General under Clinton Administration, Vice Chairman of Fannie Mae from 1997 - 2003 during which a $10 billion accounting scandal was discovered. Government Regulators accused Fannie Mae in 2002 of improper accounting to the tune of $9 billion in unrecorded losses. In addition, in another scandal it was discovered that falsified financial transactions helped Fannie Mae meet earning targets in 1998 and thus triggered multi million-dollar bonuses for top execs- Gorelic received $779,625
Jim Johnson- Former Executive Officer of Fannie Mae. Stepped down after fraudulent morgage transactions nearly bankrupted Fannie Mae. Johnson personnally profited by $21 million through pay and compensation. Jim Johnson was also a managing director with Lehman Brothers, another financial institution that has collapsed in recent months. Personally led Barack Obama's process for selecting Obama's running mate. Donated the individual maximum contribution of $4,600 to Barack Obama's presidential campaign and raised and bundled between $200,000 and $500,000, also for Obama. Participated for Obama in efforts to recruit former President Bill Clinton supporters for the Obama team.
Franklin Raines- Sitting Executive Officer of Fannie Mae when it collapsed. Took over $90 million in personal payments based on overstated earnings of about $6.3 billion before the collapse of Fannie Mae. Civil charges were filed against Raines by the OFHEO seeking $110 million in penalties and $115 in returned salary bonuses from Raines and two other Fannie Mae executives. Raines was one of several public officials who received below-market rate loans from Countrywide Financial based on his personal associations. While CEO of Fannie Mae, he received over $3 million in loans. Raines has told people and it was reported in the Washington Post that he has taken calls from Barack Obama for advice on the housing and lending industries.
ACORN- Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. The original, failed "$700 Billion Bailout Bill" that died a public and painful death from a House vote contained an earmark that would have given 20% of all funds recooperated from the $700 billion bailout to ACORN. That's 20% of all money that comes back to the government from the re-sale of the bad mortgages and loans purchased by the federal government through this bailout legislation. ACORN: A "community organizer" organization. In 2004 four ACORN employees indicted by federal grand jury for submitting false voter registration forms. In 2005 two Colorado ACORN workers sentenced to community service for submitting false voter registrations. In November 2006, four part time ACORN workers were indicted in Kansas City for voter registration fraud. In 2007, five Washington state ACORN workers were sentenced to jail and paid King County $25,000 for investigative costs. So far in 2008, the Michigan State Secretary of State reported ACORN has been submitting sizeable numbers of duplicate and fraudulent voter applications/registrations. Barack Obama served as a community organizer with ACORN and served as their legal representative as well. Obama trained it's members in Chicago and, in turn, ACORN volunteers served on his campaigns.
Barack Obama- Senator. Democrat. Democrat Party Presidential Candidate. Recipient of second largest total campaign contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac over a 20-year period even though he's only been in the Senate for four years. Appointed Jim Johnson, former Fannie Mae Chairman, as head of his Vice Presidential Candidate Selection Committee. He reportedly sought advice of Franklin Raines on housing and mortgage issues. Raines was Chairman of Fannie Mae when it collapsed and had profited by $90 million in pay and bonuses from Fannie Mae. Obama served as community organizer, trainer, and legal representative for ACORN in his early years and the recent $700 billion bailout legislation that failed in the House of Representatives contained an earmark that would have steered to ACORN 20% of all money returning to the federal government from re-sale of bad loans. Barack opted to avoid returning to Washington to help work on this legislation, returning only when directly requested by President Bush. Obama was very careful to avoid any direct contact with the legislation and studiously avoided providing any specific, detailed input.
George W. Bush- President. Republican. Tried in 2003 and 2004 to get legislation through Congress to tighten regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Legislation died in committee each time. Democrats on those committees complimented the management of Fannie and Freddie and lauded their efforts to increase the number of loans made to people who would not have qualified under previous lending policies and encouraged them to continue increasing the risky loans.
John McCain- Senator. Republican. Republican candidate for President. Authored legislation in 2005 to strengthen regulation and oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Legislation died in committee when Democrats in both chambers used parliamentary procedures to prevent committee votes.
Can we draw any conclusions from this list?
-One party set the legal wheels in motion and then protected the processes that allowed the credit melt down.
-One party populated the major credit institutions with party faithfuls who raked millions of dollars out them before they ultimately destroyed them.
-One party and one administration refused to bail out and cover up the looting and collapse of Enron
-One party began trying to head off the problems as early as 2003 and was defeated at every turn by the other party who protected their money makers
-One party has a Presidential candidate that actively alerted the nation to the problems and authored legislation to fix it in 2005 but was stymied by the other party
-One party has a Presidential candidate that, when the scope of the problem became clear, flew back to D.C. and tried to participate- again- in fixing the problem. The other party derided him and ridiculed him before their "plan" collapsed in a humiliating defeat in the House of Representatives
-One party has a Presidential candidate that is so closely tied to the collapse of the credit market through cash donations and the active involvement of key campaign chairmen and advisors that he COULD NOT participate in the fix and kept as much distance between himself and "the problem" as possible.
-One party seems to have a thread of corruption that runs through the very highest levels of it's party and political offices
It's a lengthy list of suspects and conclusions. But it appears there are two suspects you can dismiss from the investigation right off the bat. To sort through and investigate the remaining suspects, it will likely take a Special Prosectuor and a Grand Jury- if there is any national interest in such an investigation.
Chris Dodd- Senator. Democrat. Authored legislation that President Bill Clinton signed making it legal for Aurthur Andersen to serve Enron as both auditor and as investment consutlant. Recipient of the largest total campaign contributions of all U.S. Senators over last the 20 years from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Helped thwart Republican efforts in the Senate in 2003, 2004, and 2005 to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac by using Senate procedures to kill legislation in committee.
Bill Clinton- Democrat. Former President. Signed authorizing legislation allowing Arthur Andersen to both audit and advise Enron. Set the stage for manipulation of Enron books and the ultimate collapse of Enron. Appointed Jamie Gorelic to Vice Chair of Fannie Mae in 1997.
Bob Reuben- Democrat. Former Clinton Treasury Secretary. Made the frantic call to President Bush's Treasury Secretary in 2001 requesting the Bush Administration intervene and save Enron.
Arthur Andersen- Audit firm and Consulting agency for Enron. Oversaw the management of Enron's books while also running their audits. Prior to the legislation written and sponsored by Democrat Senator Chris Dodd and signed by Democrat President Bill Clinton, it was illegal for an investment and consulting firm to also serve as the auditor for customer companies.
Ken Lay- Presiding CEO of Enron when it collapsed. Frequent golf friend of President Bill Clinton. Frequent Lincoln Bedroom guest of President Bill Clinton. Convicted on 10 of 11 counts of securities fraud against him in connection with the fall of Enron. Bob Reuben, President Clinton's former Treasury Secretary tried a last minute request to the Bush Administration to rescue Enron.
Enron- Formerly a Houston based energy that went bankrupt in late 2001. Systemic securities fraud and corruption brought the company down resulting in the conviction of Ken Lay and the dissolution of Arthur Andersen after Enron and Arthur Andersen took advantage of the law that was changed to allow AA to serve as auditor and investment consultant. Dangerous investment practices that would, under the previous law, have been detected in the audit process were, after the change, obscured during AA's audits so as not to impact their profitable investment business.
Diane Feinstein- Senator. Democrat. Steered lucrative defense contracts to her husbands company though legislative pressure.
William Jefferson- Congressman. Democrat. Under investigation by the FBI for graft. Found with $90,000 of FBI sting money wrapped in tin foil in his home freezer.
Charlie Wrangle- Congressman. Democrat. Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, the committee that writes tax law. Discovered to have failed to pay any income taxes on the income of his off-shore rental properties. House Ethics Committee is "investigating" him after his statements that he had neglected to pay taxes on $75,000 in rental income from a vacation home in the Dominican Republic. Back taxes due on this are estimated to be $10,000. He is also under investigation for using a rent-controlled apartment in Harlem, rented at below-market rate, as a campaign office- a violation of New York State Law.
Nancy Pelosi- Congresswoman. Democrat. Speaker of the House. Second in the successional line for the Presidency. Tax filings revealed she funneled hundreds of thousands of dollars of PAC money to her husbands company. Publicy decries the practice of funneling PAC money to congressional relatives and tried to ban it. Her effort to ban the practice was defeated and she has continued to practice this to present day.
Harry Reid- Senator. Democrat. Senate Majority Leader. Investigated by the Los Angeles Times for suspicious land deals in Nevada. Reid and family members profit through kick backs on commercial land deals in Nevada.
Barney Frank- Congressman. Democrat. Chairman of the committee charged with oversight of the banking system. Defended Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Chairmen during committee hearings in 2003, 2004, and 2005. Helped kill legislation in 2005 authored by John McCain to reign in Fannie and Freddie practices.
Maxine Waters- Congresswoman. Democrat. Defended and complimented stewardship of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in Congressional hearings in 2005.
Jamie Gorelic- Deputy Attorney General under Clinton Administration, Vice Chairman of Fannie Mae from 1997 - 2003 during which a $10 billion accounting scandal was discovered. Government Regulators accused Fannie Mae in 2002 of improper accounting to the tune of $9 billion in unrecorded losses. In addition, in another scandal it was discovered that falsified financial transactions helped Fannie Mae meet earning targets in 1998 and thus triggered multi million-dollar bonuses for top execs- Gorelic received $779,625
Jim Johnson- Former Executive Officer of Fannie Mae. Stepped down after fraudulent morgage transactions nearly bankrupted Fannie Mae. Johnson personnally profited by $21 million through pay and compensation. Jim Johnson was also a managing director with Lehman Brothers, another financial institution that has collapsed in recent months. Personally led Barack Obama's process for selecting Obama's running mate. Donated the individual maximum contribution of $4,600 to Barack Obama's presidential campaign and raised and bundled between $200,000 and $500,000, also for Obama. Participated for Obama in efforts to recruit former President Bill Clinton supporters for the Obama team.
Franklin Raines- Sitting Executive Officer of Fannie Mae when it collapsed. Took over $90 million in personal payments based on overstated earnings of about $6.3 billion before the collapse of Fannie Mae. Civil charges were filed against Raines by the OFHEO seeking $110 million in penalties and $115 in returned salary bonuses from Raines and two other Fannie Mae executives. Raines was one of several public officials who received below-market rate loans from Countrywide Financial based on his personal associations. While CEO of Fannie Mae, he received over $3 million in loans. Raines has told people and it was reported in the Washington Post that he has taken calls from Barack Obama for advice on the housing and lending industries.
ACORN- Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. The original, failed "$700 Billion Bailout Bill" that died a public and painful death from a House vote contained an earmark that would have given 20% of all funds recooperated from the $700 billion bailout to ACORN. That's 20% of all money that comes back to the government from the re-sale of the bad mortgages and loans purchased by the federal government through this bailout legislation. ACORN: A "community organizer" organization. In 2004 four ACORN employees indicted by federal grand jury for submitting false voter registration forms. In 2005 two Colorado ACORN workers sentenced to community service for submitting false voter registrations. In November 2006, four part time ACORN workers were indicted in Kansas City for voter registration fraud. In 2007, five Washington state ACORN workers were sentenced to jail and paid King County $25,000 for investigative costs. So far in 2008, the Michigan State Secretary of State reported ACORN has been submitting sizeable numbers of duplicate and fraudulent voter applications/registrations. Barack Obama served as a community organizer with ACORN and served as their legal representative as well. Obama trained it's members in Chicago and, in turn, ACORN volunteers served on his campaigns.
Barack Obama- Senator. Democrat. Democrat Party Presidential Candidate. Recipient of second largest total campaign contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac over a 20-year period even though he's only been in the Senate for four years. Appointed Jim Johnson, former Fannie Mae Chairman, as head of his Vice Presidential Candidate Selection Committee. He reportedly sought advice of Franklin Raines on housing and mortgage issues. Raines was Chairman of Fannie Mae when it collapsed and had profited by $90 million in pay and bonuses from Fannie Mae. Obama served as community organizer, trainer, and legal representative for ACORN in his early years and the recent $700 billion bailout legislation that failed in the House of Representatives contained an earmark that would have steered to ACORN 20% of all money returning to the federal government from re-sale of bad loans. Barack opted to avoid returning to Washington to help work on this legislation, returning only when directly requested by President Bush. Obama was very careful to avoid any direct contact with the legislation and studiously avoided providing any specific, detailed input.
George W. Bush- President. Republican. Tried in 2003 and 2004 to get legislation through Congress to tighten regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Legislation died in committee each time. Democrats on those committees complimented the management of Fannie and Freddie and lauded their efforts to increase the number of loans made to people who would not have qualified under previous lending policies and encouraged them to continue increasing the risky loans.
John McCain- Senator. Republican. Republican candidate for President. Authored legislation in 2005 to strengthen regulation and oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Legislation died in committee when Democrats in both chambers used parliamentary procedures to prevent committee votes.
Can we draw any conclusions from this list?
-One party set the legal wheels in motion and then protected the processes that allowed the credit melt down.
-One party populated the major credit institutions with party faithfuls who raked millions of dollars out them before they ultimately destroyed them.
-One party and one administration refused to bail out and cover up the looting and collapse of Enron
-One party began trying to head off the problems as early as 2003 and was defeated at every turn by the other party who protected their money makers
-One party has a Presidential candidate that actively alerted the nation to the problems and authored legislation to fix it in 2005 but was stymied by the other party
-One party has a Presidential candidate that, when the scope of the problem became clear, flew back to D.C. and tried to participate- again- in fixing the problem. The other party derided him and ridiculed him before their "plan" collapsed in a humiliating defeat in the House of Representatives
-One party has a Presidential candidate that is so closely tied to the collapse of the credit market through cash donations and the active involvement of key campaign chairmen and advisors that he COULD NOT participate in the fix and kept as much distance between himself and "the problem" as possible.
-One party seems to have a thread of corruption that runs through the very highest levels of it's party and political offices
It's a lengthy list of suspects and conclusions. But it appears there are two suspects you can dismiss from the investigation right off the bat. To sort through and investigate the remaining suspects, it will likely take a Special Prosectuor and a Grand Jury- if there is any national interest in such an investigation.
Labels: $700 Billion, Bailout, Barack Obama, Barney Frank, Bush, Democrats, Dodd, Fannie Mae, Frank, Franklin Raines, Freddie Mac, Gorelic, Jim Johnson, Lehman, McCain, Obama, Pelin, Pelosi, Reid
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Obama's "Wright" Problem: What's all the hub-bub about this Rev. Wright? He's not running for President, right? Barack Obama has "disowned" Dr. Wright's statements, right?
Not so fast. The controversy can be summed up in one word. Mentor.
We know that Barack Obama has called Rev. Wright his "mentor". Think about what that word means and how a person aligns with a "mentor". If you apply the term to your own life, a mentor is someone you respect, admire, trust, and- theoretically- agree with. You choose a mentor who advises and teaches you on things that you find agreeable. A mentor guides you on a path that you find appealing and that you are intelletually "in tune" with.
A mentor cannot teach you or guide you on a path you do not believe in. A mentor does not give you a belief system. A person chooses a mentor based on like-minded beliefs.
THAT is Barack Obama's problem with Rev. Wright. How can Barack Obama convince voters he admires Rev. Wright as his mentor but doesn't believe the things Dr. Wright believes? The math doesn't add up.
((also posted at: Sandpaper For The Soul Blog Page))
Not so fast. The controversy can be summed up in one word. Mentor.
We know that Barack Obama has called Rev. Wright his "mentor". Think about what that word means and how a person aligns with a "mentor". If you apply the term to your own life, a mentor is someone you respect, admire, trust, and- theoretically- agree with. You choose a mentor who advises and teaches you on things that you find agreeable. A mentor guides you on a path that you find appealing and that you are intelletually "in tune" with.
A mentor cannot teach you or guide you on a path you do not believe in. A mentor does not give you a belief system. A person chooses a mentor based on like-minded beliefs.
THAT is Barack Obama's problem with Rev. Wright. How can Barack Obama convince voters he admires Rev. Wright as his mentor but doesn't believe the things Dr. Wright believes? The math doesn't add up.
((also posted at: Sandpaper For The Soul Blog Page))
Labels: Barack Obama, Obama, Rev. Wright, Wright
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Barack Obama- Hiding?: Barack Obama refuses to go on Fox News. Some questions:
1. What's he hiding?
2. Why is he afraid to expose himself to a large cable news audience?
3. If he's afraid of exposing himself to American voters by way of Fox News, who else is he afraid of? Raul Castro? Kim Chong Il? Hamas? Syria? Who?
If Mr. Obama is afraid of an appearance on a large cable news network, then he probably isn't worth the time that audience will take to consider him as President.
Dear Barack- come out of hiding! There are voters out here! Don't continue being a coward!
1. What's he hiding?
2. Why is he afraid to expose himself to a large cable news audience?
3. If he's afraid of exposing himself to American voters by way of Fox News, who else is he afraid of? Raul Castro? Kim Chong Il? Hamas? Syria? Who?
If Mr. Obama is afraid of an appearance on a large cable news network, then he probably isn't worth the time that audience will take to consider him as President.
Dear Barack- come out of hiding! There are voters out here! Don't continue being a coward!
Labels: Barack Obama, Fox, Fox News, Obama
Monday, March 03, 2008
Military Advisers; Hillary's vs. Barack's: On Hillary's side, we see ex-General Wesley Clark as a senior advisor for military matters. On Barack's side we see ex-General "Tony" Merrill McPeak.
Ex-General Clark: Led the NATO effort during Kosovo. Almost broke NATO. As interested in attacking the Russians as in defeating the Serbs. Had no plan for what to do after the first five days of the "air war" failed to drive the Serbs out of Kosovo. Finally had to threaten a ground invasion even though he had no plan to do it nor any troops prepared or positioned to do it. Wrote an autobiography that was strangely reminiscent of Forest Gump.
Ex-General McPeak: Broke the Air Force. Destroyed Air Force intelligence. Drove most Air Force intelligence officers out of the service. Claims to fame include mandating v-neck t-shirts for male service members, institution of "TQM", eliminated Air Force Regulations (AFR's) based on TQM and instituted "Air Force Instructions". Investigated as Commander of Pacific Air Forces for misappropriation of funds.
Yep, some quality advisin' going on in the Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama camps!
(Thanks again to Sandpaper for the Soul)
Ex-General Clark: Led the NATO effort during Kosovo. Almost broke NATO. As interested in attacking the Russians as in defeating the Serbs. Had no plan for what to do after the first five days of the "air war" failed to drive the Serbs out of Kosovo. Finally had to threaten a ground invasion even though he had no plan to do it nor any troops prepared or positioned to do it. Wrote an autobiography that was strangely reminiscent of Forest Gump.
Ex-General McPeak: Broke the Air Force. Destroyed Air Force intelligence. Drove most Air Force intelligence officers out of the service. Claims to fame include mandating v-neck t-shirts for male service members, institution of "TQM", eliminated Air Force Regulations (AFR's) based on TQM and instituted "Air Force Instructions". Investigated as Commander of Pacific Air Forces for misappropriation of funds.
Yep, some quality advisin' going on in the Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama camps!
(Thanks again to Sandpaper for the Soul)
Labels: advisor, Barack Obama, campaign, Clark, Clinton, election, General, Hillary, McPeak, military, Obama, War, Wes, Wes Clark
The 3:00AM Phone Call: The phone rings at the White House at 3:00AM. Who do you want answering it? Hillary has been tested and is ready to lead. Let us reflect:
Announcer: It's 3:00AM.
Phone: Ring Ring. Ring Ring.
Hillary: Bill?
Phone: Ring Ring.
Hillary: Bill?
Scene: Hillary getting out of bed and going down the hall
Phone: Ring Ring
Scene: Hillary entering the West Wing
Hillary (yelling): Bill!
Phone: Ring Ring.
Scene: Hillary entering the Oval Office
Hillary (screaming): BILL!
Monica: Shhhhhhhhh
Sound effect: bumping and thumping sounds under the desk. Chair squeaking.
Phone: Ring Ring.
Bill: Damn it, hurry up
Hillary: Damn it Bill...
Phone: Ring Ring.
Monica (whispering): Damn it, you ruined my brand new blue dress!
Phone: Ring Ring.
Bill: Damn it.
Phone: Ring Ring.
Hillary: Damn it Bill, zip up and answer the stupid phone. I am sooooo sick of this....
This has been an unpaid political statement.
(With thanks to Sandpaper for the Soul)
Announcer: It's 3:00AM.
Phone: Ring Ring. Ring Ring.
Hillary: Bill?
Phone: Ring Ring.
Hillary: Bill?
Scene: Hillary getting out of bed and going down the hall
Phone: Ring Ring
Scene: Hillary entering the West Wing
Hillary (yelling): Bill!
Phone: Ring Ring.
Scene: Hillary entering the Oval Office
Hillary (screaming): BILL!
Monica: Shhhhhhhhh
Sound effect: bumping and thumping sounds under the desk. Chair squeaking.
Phone: Ring Ring.
Bill: Damn it, hurry up
Hillary: Damn it Bill...
Phone: Ring Ring.
Monica (whispering): Damn it, you ruined my brand new blue dress!
Phone: Ring Ring.
Bill: Damn it.
Phone: Ring Ring.
Hillary: Damn it Bill, zip up and answer the stupid phone. I am sooooo sick of this....
This has been an unpaid political statement.
(With thanks to Sandpaper for the Soul)
Labels: 3:00, 3:00AM, Barack Obama, Clinton, crisis, Hillary, Obama, phone, phone call, phone rings, ready to lead, tested
Wednesday, August 01, 2007
Obama Announces Willingness to go to War- Against an Ally!: Barak Obama seems to have darted to the right in order to get the "let's go to war" vote with his announcement of his willingness to invade Pakistan- a U.S. ally. You read it right. Democrat Barak Obama announced that if President Musharraf of Pakistan didn't follow his (Obama's) orders, he (Obama) would be perfectly willing to invade the country to see his (Obama's) will done.
A couple points:
1. It's so early in the campaign we probably can't fault the U.S. Senator for being unfamiliar with diplomacy, foreign affairs, declaration of war, invasion of soveriegn allies, or consultation with the U.S. Congress.
2. It's also probably too early to expect the U.S. Senator to understand the ramifications of a jihadist government led by Ayaman al-Zawahiri- al-Qaeda's number two in command- taking control of Pakistan, Pakistan's military, and Pakistan's nuclear arsenal.
You don't need to believe me on this one, here's the source:
Obama might send troops into Pakistan
By NEDRA PICKLER,
Associated Press WriterWed Aug 1, 8:22 AM ET
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Wednesday that he would possibly send troops into Pakistan to hunt down terrorists, an attempt to show strength when his chief rival has described his foreign policy skills as naive.
The Illinois senator warned Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf that he must do more to shut down terrorist operations in his country and evict foreign fighters under an Obama presidency, or Pakistan will risk a U.S. troop invasion and losing hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid.
"Let me make this clear," Obama said in a speech prepared for delivery at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. "There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al-Qaida leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."
The excerpts were provided by the Obama campaign in advance of the speech.
Obama's speech comes the week after his rivalry with New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton erupted into a public fight over their diplomatic intentions.
Obama said he would be willing to meet leaders of rogue states like Cuba, North Korea and Iran without conditions, an idea that Clinton criticized as irresponsible and naive. Obama responded by using the same words to describe Clinton's vote to authorize the Iraq war and called her "Bush-Cheney lite."
The speech was a condemnation of President Bush's leadership in the war on terror. He said the focus on Iraq has left Americans in more danger than before Sept. 11, 2001, and that Bush has misrepresented the enemy as Iraqis who are fighting a civil war instead of the terrorists responsible for the attacks six years ago.
"He confuses our mission," Obama said, then he spread responsibility to lawmakers like Clinton who voted for the invasion. "By refusing to end the war in Iraq, President Bush is giving the terrorists what they really want, and what the Congress voted to give them in 2002: a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences."
Obama said that as commander in chief he would remove troops from Iraq and putting them "on the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan." He said he would send at least two more brigades to Afghanistan and increase nonmilitary aid to the country by $1 billion.
He also said he would create a three-year, $5 billion program to share intelligence with allies worldwide to take out terrorist networks from Indonesia to Africa
(Source Link: Obama Might Send Troops Into Pakistan)
A couple points:
1. It's so early in the campaign we probably can't fault the U.S. Senator for being unfamiliar with diplomacy, foreign affairs, declaration of war, invasion of soveriegn allies, or consultation with the U.S. Congress.
2. It's also probably too early to expect the U.S. Senator to understand the ramifications of a jihadist government led by Ayaman al-Zawahiri- al-Qaeda's number two in command- taking control of Pakistan, Pakistan's military, and Pakistan's nuclear arsenal.
You don't need to believe me on this one, here's the source:
Obama might send troops into Pakistan
By NEDRA PICKLER,
Associated Press WriterWed Aug 1, 8:22 AM ET
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Wednesday that he would possibly send troops into Pakistan to hunt down terrorists, an attempt to show strength when his chief rival has described his foreign policy skills as naive.
The Illinois senator warned Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf that he must do more to shut down terrorist operations in his country and evict foreign fighters under an Obama presidency, or Pakistan will risk a U.S. troop invasion and losing hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid.
"Let me make this clear," Obama said in a speech prepared for delivery at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. "There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al-Qaida leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."
The excerpts were provided by the Obama campaign in advance of the speech.
Obama's speech comes the week after his rivalry with New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton erupted into a public fight over their diplomatic intentions.
Obama said he would be willing to meet leaders of rogue states like Cuba, North Korea and Iran without conditions, an idea that Clinton criticized as irresponsible and naive. Obama responded by using the same words to describe Clinton's vote to authorize the Iraq war and called her "Bush-Cheney lite."
The speech was a condemnation of President Bush's leadership in the war on terror. He said the focus on Iraq has left Americans in more danger than before Sept. 11, 2001, and that Bush has misrepresented the enemy as Iraqis who are fighting a civil war instead of the terrorists responsible for the attacks six years ago.
"He confuses our mission," Obama said, then he spread responsibility to lawmakers like Clinton who voted for the invasion. "By refusing to end the war in Iraq, President Bush is giving the terrorists what they really want, and what the Congress voted to give them in 2002: a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences."
Obama said that as commander in chief he would remove troops from Iraq and putting them "on the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan." He said he would send at least two more brigades to Afghanistan and increase nonmilitary aid to the country by $1 billion.
He also said he would create a three-year, $5 billion program to share intelligence with allies worldwide to take out terrorist networks from Indonesia to Africa
(Source Link: Obama Might Send Troops Into Pakistan)
Labels: Barak, Barak Obama, bin Laden, Clinton, Democrat Party, Democrats, Musharraf, Obama, Pakistan, War, War in Iraq, War on Terror, Zawahiri
Tuesday, July 03, 2007
More Lies Spew Forth From Joe Wilson: Notorious liar and disgraced former Ambassador Joe Wilson is still perpetuating the myth (lie) that The White House and Scooter Libby were somehow involved in "outting" his wife Valerie Plame as a CIA agent. Again, more lies from the man whose lies have intruded into foreign policy and now into personal destruction.
For the record and to correct the latest Wilson Lie, Scooter Libby WAS NOT CHARGED WITH LEAKING THE NAME OF HIS WIFE TO ROBERT NOVAK! Richard Armitage did it. But the Armitage leak occured long after Liar and Disgraced Former Ambassador Joe Wilson and wife Valerie provided her name and affiliation for publication in a Washington Whose Who magazine.
For the record and to further correct the latest Wilson Lie, Special Counsel Fitzgerald DID NOT CHARGE ANYONE WITH LEAKING THE NAME OF HIS WIFE TO ROBERT NOVAK! He was either unable to prove the underlying charge or determined she did not meet the requirements to qualify for the "covert" status spelled out in the law. If she did qualify, and if there was an underlying violation of the law RICHARD ARMITAGE committed the crime.
RICHARD ARMITAGE INFORMED SPECIAL COUNSEL PATRICK FITZGERALD IN THE OPEN DAYS OF HIS INVESTIGATION THAT IT WAS HE, ARMITAGE, THAT GAVE LIAR AND DISGRACED FORMER AMBASSADR JOE WILSON'S WIFE'S NAME TO ROBERT NOVAK.
The facts are there and are public. The proof that the LIAR IS JOE WILSON is there for the viewing. Isn't it interesting that Reid, Pelosi, and Hillary Clinton have hitched their wagons to the LIAR AND DISGRACED FORMER AMBASSADOR JOE WILSON! Much as they might like, they cannot change the information I've provided in this post!
This post is to remind everyone that the actual liar in the matter is now, and has always been LIAR AND DISGRACED FORMER AMBASSADOR JOE WILSON who, by the way, is still trying to make money off his wife's CIA career.
For the record and to correct the latest Wilson Lie, Scooter Libby WAS NOT CHARGED WITH LEAKING THE NAME OF HIS WIFE TO ROBERT NOVAK! Richard Armitage did it. But the Armitage leak occured long after Liar and Disgraced Former Ambassador Joe Wilson and wife Valerie provided her name and affiliation for publication in a Washington Whose Who magazine.
For the record and to further correct the latest Wilson Lie, Special Counsel Fitzgerald DID NOT CHARGE ANYONE WITH LEAKING THE NAME OF HIS WIFE TO ROBERT NOVAK! He was either unable to prove the underlying charge or determined she did not meet the requirements to qualify for the "covert" status spelled out in the law. If she did qualify, and if there was an underlying violation of the law RICHARD ARMITAGE committed the crime.
RICHARD ARMITAGE INFORMED SPECIAL COUNSEL PATRICK FITZGERALD IN THE OPEN DAYS OF HIS INVESTIGATION THAT IT WAS HE, ARMITAGE, THAT GAVE LIAR AND DISGRACED FORMER AMBASSADR JOE WILSON'S WIFE'S NAME TO ROBERT NOVAK.
The facts are there and are public. The proof that the LIAR IS JOE WILSON is there for the viewing. Isn't it interesting that Reid, Pelosi, and Hillary Clinton have hitched their wagons to the LIAR AND DISGRACED FORMER AMBASSADOR JOE WILSON! Much as they might like, they cannot change the information I've provided in this post!
This post is to remind everyone that the actual liar in the matter is now, and has always been LIAR AND DISGRACED FORMER AMBASSADOR JOE WILSON who, by the way, is still trying to make money off his wife's CIA career.
Labels: Bush, Cheney, Clinton, commute, Libby, Obama, Pardon, Pelosi, Plame, Reid, Scooter, Wilson
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
Democrat Congress- Approval Plunge Continues: All those who continue to believe the "country has turned anti-war" should take note of the latest Gallup Poll that shows the Congressional approval ratings continuing their plunge. Congressional approval is now below that of George W. Bush. The only thing Congress has done over the last several weeks has been to delay funding the troops in the field.
Source Link: http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=27589
And the article:
May 15, 2007
Congress Approval Down to 29%; Bush Approval Steady at 33%
Both ratings are slightly lower than 2007 averages
by Joseph Carroll
GALLUP NEWS SERVICE
PRINCETON, NJ -- A new Gallup Poll finds continued low levels of public support for both Congress and President George W. Bush. Twenty-nine percent of Americans approve of Congress, down slightly from last month's reading (33%) and this year's high point of 37%, while Bush's approval rating is holding steady at 33%. Both the ratings of Congress and the president are slightly lower than their respective 2007 averages. Approval ratings of Congress are higher among Democrats than Republicans, while Bush's ratings are much higher among Republicans.
Congressional Job Approval
According to the May 10-13, 2007, Gallup Poll, 29% of Americans approve and 64% disapprove of the way Congress is handling its job. Congressional approval is down 4 percentage points since last month, and is 3 points lower than the 32% average measured during the first five months of the year. The high point for the congressional approval rating so far this year was the 37% approval measured in February. Although ratings are quite low, Americans have been more positive in their assessments of Congress this year than last year, when an average of just 25% approved of Congress.
Even though Democrats now control both houses of Congress, the poll shows that only 37% of Democrats approve of the job Congress is doing right now. These marks are, however, significantly better than those given to Congress by independents (24%) and Republicans (25%). Democrats have been more likely than Republicans to approve of Congress this year, whereas Republicans expressed a higher level of approval prior to the change of power experienced after the midterm congressional elections in November 2006.
So far this year, Republicans' approval of Congress has gradually declined, from a high of 37% in mid-January to 25% in the latest poll. By comparison, ratings among Democrats have shown more fluctuation, ranging between 33% and 44% since January, and are down 6 points this month since early April. More generally, Democrats' ratings of the job the Democratic-controlled Congress is doing are down from a higher point of 44% in February, which is just after the control of Congress switched from the Republicans to the Democrats.
Presidential Job Approval
There has been little meaningful change in the public's rating of the president in quite some time. Thirty-three percent of Americans now approve of the way Bush is handling his job as president, while 62% disapprove. Bush's approval ratings have averaged 35% in 2007, and have fallen within a narrow range between 32% and 38%. Bush's ratings were slightly higher last year, averaging 38%. Bush has not received an approval rating above 40% in any Gallup polling since September 2006.
Republicans continue to be much more likely than independents or Democrats to support the president. Seventy-three percent of Republicans approve of Bush, substantially higher than the 27% approval among independents and the 9% approval among Democrats. Although the three party groups' ratings of Bush's job approval have been quite stable in recent months, since last May presidential approval ratings have shown somewhat more fluctuation among Republicans (ranging between 68% and 86%) than among independents (23% to 36%) or Democrats (4% to 15%).
Survey Methods
Results are based on telephone interviews with 1,003 national adults, aged 18 and older, conducted May 10-13, 2007. For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±3 percentage points. In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.
Source Link: http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=27589
And the article:
May 15, 2007
Congress Approval Down to 29%; Bush Approval Steady at 33%
Both ratings are slightly lower than 2007 averages
by Joseph Carroll
GALLUP NEWS SERVICE
PRINCETON, NJ -- A new Gallup Poll finds continued low levels of public support for both Congress and President George W. Bush. Twenty-nine percent of Americans approve of Congress, down slightly from last month's reading (33%) and this year's high point of 37%, while Bush's approval rating is holding steady at 33%. Both the ratings of Congress and the president are slightly lower than their respective 2007 averages. Approval ratings of Congress are higher among Democrats than Republicans, while Bush's ratings are much higher among Republicans.
Congressional Job Approval
According to the May 10-13, 2007, Gallup Poll, 29% of Americans approve and 64% disapprove of the way Congress is handling its job. Congressional approval is down 4 percentage points since last month, and is 3 points lower than the 32% average measured during the first five months of the year. The high point for the congressional approval rating so far this year was the 37% approval measured in February. Although ratings are quite low, Americans have been more positive in their assessments of Congress this year than last year, when an average of just 25% approved of Congress.
Even though Democrats now control both houses of Congress, the poll shows that only 37% of Democrats approve of the job Congress is doing right now. These marks are, however, significantly better than those given to Congress by independents (24%) and Republicans (25%). Democrats have been more likely than Republicans to approve of Congress this year, whereas Republicans expressed a higher level of approval prior to the change of power experienced after the midterm congressional elections in November 2006.
So far this year, Republicans' approval of Congress has gradually declined, from a high of 37% in mid-January to 25% in the latest poll. By comparison, ratings among Democrats have shown more fluctuation, ranging between 33% and 44% since January, and are down 6 points this month since early April. More generally, Democrats' ratings of the job the Democratic-controlled Congress is doing are down from a higher point of 44% in February, which is just after the control of Congress switched from the Republicans to the Democrats.
Presidential Job Approval
There has been little meaningful change in the public's rating of the president in quite some time. Thirty-three percent of Americans now approve of the way Bush is handling his job as president, while 62% disapprove. Bush's approval ratings have averaged 35% in 2007, and have fallen within a narrow range between 32% and 38%. Bush's ratings were slightly higher last year, averaging 38%. Bush has not received an approval rating above 40% in any Gallup polling since September 2006.
Republicans continue to be much more likely than independents or Democrats to support the president. Seventy-three percent of Republicans approve of Bush, substantially higher than the 27% approval among independents and the 9% approval among Democrats. Although the three party groups' ratings of Bush's job approval have been quite stable in recent months, since last May presidential approval ratings have shown somewhat more fluctuation among Republicans (ranging between 68% and 86%) than among independents (23% to 36%) or Democrats (4% to 15%).
Survey Methods
Results are based on telephone interviews with 1,003 national adults, aged 18 and older, conducted May 10-13, 2007. For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±3 percentage points. In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.
Labels: approval, Biden, Bush, Clinton, Congress, congressional, Democrats, Funding, Hillary, Hoyer, Iraq, Levin, Murtha, Obama, Pelosi, Poll, ratings, Reid, War
Saturday, May 05, 2007
Democrat Congressional Agenda- Status Check: Let's take a look at the Democrat Party's agenda in congress and see how effective they are. Oh wait, the Washington Post has done it for me....
Source Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/04/AR2007050402262_pf.html
Democrats' Momentum Is StallingAmid Iraq Debate, Priorities On Domestic Agenda Languish
By Jonathan Weisman and Lyndsey LaytonWashington Post Staff WritersSaturday, May 5, 2007; A01
In the heady opening weeks of the 110th Congress, the Democrats' domestic agenda appeared to be flying through the Capitol: Homeland security upgrades, a higher minimum wage and student loan interest rate cuts all passed with overwhelming bipartisan support.
But now that initial progress has foundered as Washington policymakers have been consumed with the debate over the Iraq war. Not a single priority on the Democrats' agenda has been enacted, and some in the party are growing nervous that the "do nothing" tag they slapped on Republicans last year could come back to haunt them.
"We cannot be a one-trick pony," said House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (Ill.), who helped engineer his party's takeover of Congress as head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. "People voted for change, but Iraq, the economy and Washington, D.C., [corruption] all tied for first place. We need to do them all."
The "Six for '06" policy agenda on which Democrats campaigned last year was supposed to consist of low-hanging fruit, plucked and put in the basket to allow Congress to move on to tougher targets. House Democrats took just 10 days to pass a minimum-wage increase, a bill to implement most of the homeland security recommendations of the Sept. 11 commission, a measure allowing federal funding for stem cell research, another to cut student-loan rates, a bill allowing the federal government to negotiate drug prices under Medicare, and a rollback of tax breaks for oil and gas companies to finance alternative-energy research.
The Senate struck out on its own, with a broad overhaul of the rules on lobbying Congress.
Not one of those bills has been signed into law. President Bush signed 16 measures into law through April, six more than were signed by this time in the previous Congress. But beyond a huge domestic spending bill that wrapped up work left undone by Republicans last year, the list of achievements is modest: a beefed-up board to oversee congressional pages in the wake of the Mark Foley scandal, and the renaming of six post offices, including one for Gerald R. Ford in Vail, Colo., as well as two courthouses, including one for Rush Limbaugh Sr. in Cape Girardeau, Mo.
The minimum-wage bill got stalled in a fight with the Senate over tax breaks to go along with the wage increase. In frustration, Democratic leaders inserted a minimum-wage agreement into a bill to fund the Iraq war, only to see it vetoed.
Similar homeland security bills were passed by the House and the Senate, only to languish as attention shifted to the Iraq debate. Last week, family members of those killed on Sept. 11, 2001, gathered in Washington to demand action.
"We've waited five and a half years since 9/11," said Carie Lemack, whose mother died aboard one of the planes that crashed into the World Trade Center in New York. "We waited three years since the 9/11 commission. We can't wait anymore."
House and Senate staff members have begun meeting, with the goal of reporting out a final bill by Memorial Day, but they concede that the deadline is likely to slip, in part because members of the homeland security committees of both chambers, the House Energy and Commerce Committee and the two intelligence committees all want their say. The irony, Lemack said, is that such cumbersomeness is precisely why the Sept. 11 commission recommended the creation of powerful umbrella security committees with such broad jurisdiction that other panels could not muscle their way in. That was one recommendation Congress largely disregarded.
The Medicare drug-negotiations bill died in the Senate, after Republicans refused to let it come up for debate. House Democrats are threatening to attach the bill to must-pass government funding bills.
Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), chairman of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, has proposed his own student-loan legislation, but it is to be part of a huge higher-education bill that may not reach the committee until June.
The House's relatively simple energy bill faces a similar fate. The Senate has in mind a much larger bill that would ease bringing alternative fuels to market, regulate oil and gas futures trading, raise vehicle and appliance efficiency standards, and reform federal royalty payments to finance new energy technologies.
The voters seem to have noticed the stall. An ABC News-Washington Post poll last month found that 73 percent of Americans believe Congress has done "not too much" or "nothing at all." A memo from the Democratic polling firm Democracy Corps warned last month that the stalemate between Congress and Bush over the war spending bill has knocked down the favorable ratings of Congress and the Democrats by three percentage points and has taken a greater toll on the public's hope for a productive Congress.
"The primary message coming out of the November election was that the American people are sick and tired of the fighting and the gridlock, and they want both the president and Congress to start governing the country," warned Leon E. Panetta, a chief of staff in Bill Clinton's White House. "It just seems to me the Democrats, if they fail for whatever reason to get a domestic agenda enacted . . . will pay a price."
Republicans are already trying to extract that price. Sen. Jon Kyl (Ariz.), chairman of the Senate Republican Conference, said Democrats are just "trying to score political points on the war. . . . Part of their party can't conceive of anything else to talk about but the war."
Norman J. Ornstein, a Congress watcher at the American Enterprise Institute, said a Congress's productivity is not measured solely on the number of bills signed into law. Bills and resolutions approved by either chamber totaled 165 during the first four months of this Congress, compared with 72 in 2005. And Congress recorded 415 roll-call votes, compared with 264 when Republicans were in charge and the House GOP leaders struggled to impose their agenda on a closely divided Senate.
Democratic leaders remain hopeful that a burst of activity will put the doubts about them to rest. They have promised to pass a war funding bill and a minimum-wage increase that Bush can sign, to complete a budget blueprint and to finish the homeland security bill by Memorial Day. The House wants to pass defense and intelligence bills, its own lobbying measure and the first gun-control legislation since 1994, which would tighten the national instant-check system for gun purchases. The Senate hopes to complete a comprehensive overhaul of immigration laws.
Rep. Chris Van Hollen (Md.), chairman of the House Democratic campaign committee, said his party needs to get some achievements under its belt, but not until voters begin to focus on the campaigns next year. "People understand the Democrats in Congress are doing everything in their power to move an agenda forward, doing everything possible to change direction in the war in Iraq, and the president is standing in the way," he said.
Kyl was not so sanguine. If accomplishments are not in the books by this fall, he said, the Democrats will find their achievements eclipsed by the 2008 presidential race. Panetta agreed.
"This leadership, these Democrats have shown that they can fight," he said. "Now they have to show they can govern."
Source Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/04/AR2007050402262_pf.html
Democrats' Momentum Is StallingAmid Iraq Debate, Priorities On Domestic Agenda Languish
By Jonathan Weisman and Lyndsey LaytonWashington Post Staff WritersSaturday, May 5, 2007; A01
In the heady opening weeks of the 110th Congress, the Democrats' domestic agenda appeared to be flying through the Capitol: Homeland security upgrades, a higher minimum wage and student loan interest rate cuts all passed with overwhelming bipartisan support.
But now that initial progress has foundered as Washington policymakers have been consumed with the debate over the Iraq war. Not a single priority on the Democrats' agenda has been enacted, and some in the party are growing nervous that the "do nothing" tag they slapped on Republicans last year could come back to haunt them.
"We cannot be a one-trick pony," said House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (Ill.), who helped engineer his party's takeover of Congress as head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. "People voted for change, but Iraq, the economy and Washington, D.C., [corruption] all tied for first place. We need to do them all."
The "Six for '06" policy agenda on which Democrats campaigned last year was supposed to consist of low-hanging fruit, plucked and put in the basket to allow Congress to move on to tougher targets. House Democrats took just 10 days to pass a minimum-wage increase, a bill to implement most of the homeland security recommendations of the Sept. 11 commission, a measure allowing federal funding for stem cell research, another to cut student-loan rates, a bill allowing the federal government to negotiate drug prices under Medicare, and a rollback of tax breaks for oil and gas companies to finance alternative-energy research.
The Senate struck out on its own, with a broad overhaul of the rules on lobbying Congress.
Not one of those bills has been signed into law. President Bush signed 16 measures into law through April, six more than were signed by this time in the previous Congress. But beyond a huge domestic spending bill that wrapped up work left undone by Republicans last year, the list of achievements is modest: a beefed-up board to oversee congressional pages in the wake of the Mark Foley scandal, and the renaming of six post offices, including one for Gerald R. Ford in Vail, Colo., as well as two courthouses, including one for Rush Limbaugh Sr. in Cape Girardeau, Mo.
The minimum-wage bill got stalled in a fight with the Senate over tax breaks to go along with the wage increase. In frustration, Democratic leaders inserted a minimum-wage agreement into a bill to fund the Iraq war, only to see it vetoed.
Similar homeland security bills were passed by the House and the Senate, only to languish as attention shifted to the Iraq debate. Last week, family members of those killed on Sept. 11, 2001, gathered in Washington to demand action.
"We've waited five and a half years since 9/11," said Carie Lemack, whose mother died aboard one of the planes that crashed into the World Trade Center in New York. "We waited three years since the 9/11 commission. We can't wait anymore."
House and Senate staff members have begun meeting, with the goal of reporting out a final bill by Memorial Day, but they concede that the deadline is likely to slip, in part because members of the homeland security committees of both chambers, the House Energy and Commerce Committee and the two intelligence committees all want their say. The irony, Lemack said, is that such cumbersomeness is precisely why the Sept. 11 commission recommended the creation of powerful umbrella security committees with such broad jurisdiction that other panels could not muscle their way in. That was one recommendation Congress largely disregarded.
The Medicare drug-negotiations bill died in the Senate, after Republicans refused to let it come up for debate. House Democrats are threatening to attach the bill to must-pass government funding bills.
Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), chairman of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, has proposed his own student-loan legislation, but it is to be part of a huge higher-education bill that may not reach the committee until June.
The House's relatively simple energy bill faces a similar fate. The Senate has in mind a much larger bill that would ease bringing alternative fuels to market, regulate oil and gas futures trading, raise vehicle and appliance efficiency standards, and reform federal royalty payments to finance new energy technologies.
The voters seem to have noticed the stall. An ABC News-Washington Post poll last month found that 73 percent of Americans believe Congress has done "not too much" or "nothing at all." A memo from the Democratic polling firm Democracy Corps warned last month that the stalemate between Congress and Bush over the war spending bill has knocked down the favorable ratings of Congress and the Democrats by three percentage points and has taken a greater toll on the public's hope for a productive Congress.
"The primary message coming out of the November election was that the American people are sick and tired of the fighting and the gridlock, and they want both the president and Congress to start governing the country," warned Leon E. Panetta, a chief of staff in Bill Clinton's White House. "It just seems to me the Democrats, if they fail for whatever reason to get a domestic agenda enacted . . . will pay a price."
Republicans are already trying to extract that price. Sen. Jon Kyl (Ariz.), chairman of the Senate Republican Conference, said Democrats are just "trying to score political points on the war. . . . Part of their party can't conceive of anything else to talk about but the war."
Norman J. Ornstein, a Congress watcher at the American Enterprise Institute, said a Congress's productivity is not measured solely on the number of bills signed into law. Bills and resolutions approved by either chamber totaled 165 during the first four months of this Congress, compared with 72 in 2005. And Congress recorded 415 roll-call votes, compared with 264 when Republicans were in charge and the House GOP leaders struggled to impose their agenda on a closely divided Senate.
Democratic leaders remain hopeful that a burst of activity will put the doubts about them to rest. They have promised to pass a war funding bill and a minimum-wage increase that Bush can sign, to complete a budget blueprint and to finish the homeland security bill by Memorial Day. The House wants to pass defense and intelligence bills, its own lobbying measure and the first gun-control legislation since 1994, which would tighten the national instant-check system for gun purchases. The Senate hopes to complete a comprehensive overhaul of immigration laws.
Rep. Chris Van Hollen (Md.), chairman of the House Democratic campaign committee, said his party needs to get some achievements under its belt, but not until voters begin to focus on the campaigns next year. "People understand the Democrats in Congress are doing everything in their power to move an agenda forward, doing everything possible to change direction in the war in Iraq, and the president is standing in the way," he said.
Kyl was not so sanguine. If accomplishments are not in the books by this fall, he said, the Democrats will find their achievements eclipsed by the 2008 presidential race. Panetta agreed.
"This leadership, these Democrats have shown that they can fight," he said. "Now they have to show they can govern."
Labels: Clinton, Congress, congressional, Democrats, DNC, Edwards, Hillary, Hoyer, Kennedy, Levin, Murtha, Obama, Pelosi, Rahm, Reid, Waxman
Thursday, May 03, 2007
Global Warming- The Carbon Offset Scam:
Next time you hear one of the global warming activists boasting they live a "carbon neutral" life, or are running a "carbon netural" campaign, remember the information in the following article published in the Financial Times:
Source Link: http://www.ft.com:80/cms/s/48e334ce-f355-11db-9845-000b5df10621.html
Industry caught in carbon ‘smokescreen’
By Fiona Harvey and Stephen Fidler in London
Published: April 25 2007 22:07 Last updated: April 25 2007 22:07
Companies and individuals rushing to go green have been spending millions on "carbon credit" projects that yield few if any environmental benefits.
A Financial Times investigation has uncovered widespread failings in the new markets for greenhouse gases, suggesting some organisations are paying for emissions reductions that do not take place.
Others are meanwhile making big profits from carbon trading for very small expenditure and in some cases for clean-ups that they would have made anyway.
The growing political salience of environmental politics has sparked a "green gold rush", which has seen a dramatic expansion in the number of businesses offering both companies and individuals the chance to go "carbon neutral", offsetting their own energy use by buying carbon credits that cancel out their contribution to global warming.
The burgeoning regulated market for carbon credits is expected to more than double in size to about $68.2bn by 2010, with the unregulated voluntary sector rising to $4bn in the same period.
The FT investigation found:
■ Widespread instances of people and organisations buying worthless credits that do not yield any reductions in carbon emissions.
■ Industrial companies profiting from doing very little – or from gaining carbon credits on the basis of efficiency gains from which they have already benefited substantially.
■ Brokers providing services of questionable or no value.
■ A shortage of verification, making it difficult for buyers to assess the true value of carbon credits.
■ Companies and individuals being charged over the odds for the private purchase of European Union carbon permits that have plummeted in value because they do not result in emissions cuts.
Francis Sullivan, environment adviser at HSBC, the UK’s biggest bank that went carbon-neutral in 2005, said he found "serious credibility concerns" in the offsetting market after evaluating it for several months.
"The police, the fraud squad and trading standards need to be looking into this. Otherwise people will lose faith in it," he said.
These concerns led the bank to ignore the market and fund its own carbon reduction projects directly.
Some companies are benefiting by asking "green" consumers to pay them for cleaning up their own pollution. For instance, DuPont, the chemicals company, invites consumers to pay $4 to eliminate a tonne of carbon dioxide from its plant in Kentucky that produces a potent greenhouse gas called HFC-23. But the equipment required to reduce such gases is relatively cheap. DuPont refused to comment and declined to specify its earnings from the project, saying it was at too early a stage to discuss.
The FT has also found examples of companies setting up as carbon offsetters without appearing to have a clear idea of how the markets operate. In response to FT inquiries about its sourcing of carbon credits, one company, carbonvoucher.com, said it had not taken payments for offsets.
Blue Source, a US offsetting company, invites consumers to offset carbon emissions by investing in enhanced oil recovery, which pumps carbon dioxide into depleted oil wells to bring up the remaining oil. However, Blue Source said that because of the high price of oil, this process was often profitable in itself, meaning operators were making extra revenues from selling "carbon credits" for burying the carbon.
There is nothing illegal in these practices. However, some companies that are offsetting their emissions have avoided such projects because customers may find them controversial.
BP said it would not buy credits resulting from improvements in industrial efficiency or from most renewable energy projects in developed countries.
Additional reporting by Rebecca Bream
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2007
Next time you hear one of the global warming activists boasting they live a "carbon neutral" life, or are running a "carbon netural" campaign, remember the information in the following article published in the Financial Times:
Source Link: http://www.ft.com:80/cms/s/48e334ce-f355-11db-9845-000b5df10621.html
Industry caught in carbon ‘smokescreen’
By Fiona Harvey and Stephen Fidler in London
Published: April 25 2007 22:07 Last updated: April 25 2007 22:07
Companies and individuals rushing to go green have been spending millions on "carbon credit" projects that yield few if any environmental benefits.
A Financial Times investigation has uncovered widespread failings in the new markets for greenhouse gases, suggesting some organisations are paying for emissions reductions that do not take place.
Others are meanwhile making big profits from carbon trading for very small expenditure and in some cases for clean-ups that they would have made anyway.
The growing political salience of environmental politics has sparked a "green gold rush", which has seen a dramatic expansion in the number of businesses offering both companies and individuals the chance to go "carbon neutral", offsetting their own energy use by buying carbon credits that cancel out their contribution to global warming.
The burgeoning regulated market for carbon credits is expected to more than double in size to about $68.2bn by 2010, with the unregulated voluntary sector rising to $4bn in the same period.
The FT investigation found:
■ Widespread instances of people and organisations buying worthless credits that do not yield any reductions in carbon emissions.
■ Industrial companies profiting from doing very little – or from gaining carbon credits on the basis of efficiency gains from which they have already benefited substantially.
■ Brokers providing services of questionable or no value.
■ A shortage of verification, making it difficult for buyers to assess the true value of carbon credits.
■ Companies and individuals being charged over the odds for the private purchase of European Union carbon permits that have plummeted in value because they do not result in emissions cuts.
Francis Sullivan, environment adviser at HSBC, the UK’s biggest bank that went carbon-neutral in 2005, said he found "serious credibility concerns" in the offsetting market after evaluating it for several months.
"The police, the fraud squad and trading standards need to be looking into this. Otherwise people will lose faith in it," he said.
These concerns led the bank to ignore the market and fund its own carbon reduction projects directly.
Some companies are benefiting by asking "green" consumers to pay them for cleaning up their own pollution. For instance, DuPont, the chemicals company, invites consumers to pay $4 to eliminate a tonne of carbon dioxide from its plant in Kentucky that produces a potent greenhouse gas called HFC-23. But the equipment required to reduce such gases is relatively cheap. DuPont refused to comment and declined to specify its earnings from the project, saying it was at too early a stage to discuss.
The FT has also found examples of companies setting up as carbon offsetters without appearing to have a clear idea of how the markets operate. In response to FT inquiries about its sourcing of carbon credits, one company, carbonvoucher.com, said it had not taken payments for offsets.
Blue Source, a US offsetting company, invites consumers to offset carbon emissions by investing in enhanced oil recovery, which pumps carbon dioxide into depleted oil wells to bring up the remaining oil. However, Blue Source said that because of the high price of oil, this process was often profitable in itself, meaning operators were making extra revenues from selling "carbon credits" for burying the carbon.
There is nothing illegal in these practices. However, some companies that are offsetting their emissions have avoided such projects because customers may find them controversial.
BP said it would not buy credits resulting from improvements in industrial efficiency or from most renewable energy projects in developed countries.
Additional reporting by Rebecca Bream
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2007
Labels: candidate, candidates, Carbon, carbon footprint, carbon neutral, Clinton, Crow, Democrats, Edwards, environmentalist, footprint, Global, Gore, green, Hillary, Obama, Offset, Streisand, Warming
