If you hold me the the same standards as white people I am going to cry rascism!

OOPS! CHARLIE FORGOT THIS $1M HOUSE

by CHARLES HURT | Bureau Chief NYPost

WASHINGTON -- Rep. Charles Rangel failed to report as much as $1.3 million in outside income -- including up to $1 million for a Harlem building sale -- on financial-disclosure forms he filed between 2002 and 2006, according to newly amended records.

The documents also show the embattled chairman of the Ways and Means Committee -- who is being probed by the House Ethics Committee -- failed to reveal a staggering $3 million in various business transactions over the same period.

This week, Rangel filed drastically revised financial-disclosure forms reflecting new, higher amounts of outside income and numerous additional business deals that had not been reported when the reports were originally filed.

In 2004, for instance, Rangel reported earning between $4,000 and $10,000 in outside earnings on top of his $158,100 congressional salary.

(more...)

-----

Its hard to find fault with Charlie Rangel. He is so busy proposing to raise everyone else's tax bill he has no time to take account of HIS own wealth. A few buildings in rent-controlled NYC (Which clearly someone of his stature deserves instead of the spirit of the law), property in PR, and god know what else, no surprise he's unaware of his personal tax liability. Too bad they wont send him to jail, or at least hit him confiscatory tax bill of upwards of 80% like they would do to any of us. Another fine example of some pig being more equal than others.

The gentle art of making enemies

The Fall Guy

CIA Director Leon Panetta getting sacked by his own team.

In the game of political football that is today national security, spare a thought for CIA Director Leon Panetta. Quarterbacking is hard enough without getting sacked by your own team.

President Barack Obama fought hard for the former California congressman during his uncertain February confirmation fight. That's about the last thing the president has done for his spy chief. Quite the opposite: If the latest flap over CIA interrogations shows anything, it's that Mr. Panetta has officially become the president's designated fall guy.

The title has been months in the making. Mr. Obama is contending with an angry left that's riled by his decisions to retain some Bush-era counterterrorism policies. He's facing Congressional liberals still baying for Bush blood. He's hired Attorney General Eric Holder, who is giving the term "ideological purity" new meaning. Mr. Obama's way to appease these bodies? Hang the CIA and Mr. Panetta out to dry.

(more...)

------------------
Well after an extended break of watching 44 slip lower and lower in the polls...Hmmm, who would have predicted, its time to get back to it. No need to talk about imploding 44care just yet:


Yes it sucks to be Leon Panetta but WTF did he think was going to happen after the well had been posioned by Democrats over the past 5 years, that they were going to treat the CIA with kid-gloved just because an ex-Clintonite was there? Hey LP, bend over and take it like a man from your friends in the WH and congress.

The press corps crazy, old, aunt lady asks a question

Obama's Gitmo

WSJ Opinion Journal Apr. 21

Helen Thomas: Why is the president blocking habeas corpus from prisoners at Bagram? I thought he taught constitutional law. And these prisoners have been there . . .

Robert Gibbs: You're incorrect that he taught on constitutional law.

You know we live in interesting times when Helen Thomas is going after Barack Obama. Miss Thomas was asking the White House press secretary last week why detainees at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan should not have the same right to challenge their detention in federal court that last year's Supreme Court ruling in Boumediene v. Bush gave to Guantanamo's detainees. All Mr. Gibbs could do was interrupt and correct the doyenne of the White House press corps about Mr. Obama's class as a law professor.

The precipitate cause of Miss Thomas's question was a ruling earlier this month by federal district Judge John Bates. Judge Bates says that last year's Supreme Court ruling on Gitmo does apply to Bagram. The administration has appealed, saying that giving detainees such rights could lead to protracted litigation, disclosure of intelligence secrets and harm to American security. The wonderful irony is that, at least on the logic, everyone is right.

Start with Judge Bates. The judge is surely correct when he says the detainees brought in to Bagram from outside the country are "virtually identical" to those held at Guantanamo. He's also correct in asserting that the Supreme Court ruled the way it did out of concern "that the Executive could move detainees physically beyond the reach of the Constitution and detain an individual" at Bagram.

But President Obama's appeal is also right. Though most headlines from the past few days have focused on the release of Justice Department memos on CIA interrogation, the president's embrace of the Bush position on Bagram is far more striking. Mr. Gibbs became tongue-tied while trying to explain that stand. But the Justice Department brief is absolutely correct in asserting that "there are many legitimate reasons, having nothing to do with the intent to evade judicial review, why the military might detain an individual in Bagram."

(...More)

----

All within his first 100 days....quelle suprise! I'm sorry but how stupid were 44 supportors to believe the web of BS he was spinning. They made GWB out to be the devil incarnate but the truth is that many of the policy decision made by 43 were ruled in rational thought, looking not just at the moment but several steps down the road. I don't blame canidate 44 for his stance, he needed it in order to get votes, but the lefties are the ones who deserve our greatest scorn for hog-tieing the executive branch...good to see 44 is holding them off for now.

Hypocrisy meter: 10 of 10

Mookie* meter : 7 of 10

*Mookie...as in 'Do the Right Thing"

Teleprompter gives 44 the wrong info on arms control

The Nuclear Illusionist

Obama's 'moral authority' won't deter Tehran or Pyongyang.

"Rules must be binding. Violations must be punished. Words must mean something."

So declared President Obama Sunday in Prague regarding North Korea's missile launch, which America's U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice added was a direct violation of U.N. resolutions. At which point, the Security Council spent hours debating its nonresponse, thus proving to nuclear proliferators everywhere that rules aren't binding, violations won't be punished, and words of warning mean nothing.

AP

Treaties never stopped a downpour.

Rarely has a Presidential speech been so immediately and transparently divorced from reality as Mr. Obama's in Prague. The President delivered a stirring call to banish nuclear weapons at the very moment that North Korea and Iran are bidding to trigger the greatest proliferation breakout in the nuclear age. Mr. Obama also proposed an elaborate new arms-control regime to reduce nuclear weapons, even as both Pyongyang and Tehran are proving that the world's great powers lack the will to enforce current arms-control treaties.

There's no doubting the emotive appeal of Mr. Obama's grand no-nukes vision. Ronald Reagan shared a similar hope, and in recent years these pages have run a pair of news-making essays by George Shultz, Henry Kissinger, William Perry and Sam Nunn positing such a diplomatic goal. They probably gave Mr. Obama the idea. But the Gipper understood the practical limits of arms control in delivering such a world, and Messrs. Shultz and Kissinger are hard-headed enough to know that global rogues must be contained if we are going to have any hope of a nuclear-free future.

Mr. Obama recognized this rogue proliferation threat in his Prague address, but to counter it he offered only more treaties of the kind that are already ignored. OK, not merely more treaties. Two days earlier in Strasbourg he also vouchsafed the power of his own moral example.

"And I had an excellent meeting with President Medvedev of Russia to get started that process of reducing our nuclear stockpiles, which will then give us a greater moral authority to say to Iran, don't develop a nuclear weapon; to say to North Korea, don't proliferate nuclear weapons," Mr. Obama said, implying that previous American Presidents had lacked such "authority."

(more...)

-----

Seriously, you couldn't come up a better policy innitiative than to jump into weapons reduction? Stick with the job at hand...the economy. When everything is working again, then go after something new to f$@k up. Quit trying to be buddy-buddy with Russia, don't you remember how well they worked for GWB? They're just going to stab you in the back and make you look like a fool for trusting them.

Hypocracy Meter : 0 of 10

Stupidity Meter: 8 of 10

Strength of Spine: 2 of 10 - nearly spineless

What 44 Isn't...

The 5 biggest myths about Obama

By ALEX CONANT | 3/18/09 4:42 AM EDT | Politico.com

By trade if not by choice, I have become something of a Barack Obama aficionado. POLITICO’s Mike Allen wrote last week that I have “probably listened to more President Obama speeches than any human besides [White House spokesman Robert] Gibbs.” Working at the Republican National Committee last year, I closely watched every public appearance by Obama. And I learned a lot about our new president along the way.

He loves pies, but he doesn’t appreciate beer. And when he is presented with an uncomfortable question at a town hall, he usually turns the question on the questioner. (Q: Will my son’s death in Iraq be in vain? A: How did your son die?)

I’ve concluded that much of the conventional wisdom about Obama is wrong. Here are five of the biggest misconceptions:

1. Obama is bold. Actually, he is overly cautious. It’s no coincidence the first bills he signed into law were the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act and an expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, two populist favorites. Signing these bills was not an act of courage any more than attacking lobbyists or selecting Joe Biden as a running mate. In fact, Obama’s entire agenda is cautious (sometimes to a fault, in the case of his housing and banking bailouts). Are the numbers in his proposed budget eye-popping? Yes. But eye-popping budgets are well within the Democratic mainstream now.

2. Obama is a great communicator. Cut away the soaring rhetoric in his speeches, and the resulting policy statements are often vague, lawyerly and confusing. He is not plain-spoken: He parses his language so much that a casual listener will miss important caveats. That’s in part why he uses teleprompters for routine policy statements: He chooses his words carefully, relying heavily on ill-defined terms like “deficit reduction” (which means tax increases, rather than actual “savings”) and “combat troops” (as opposed to “all troops in harm’s way”).

3. Obamaland is a team of rivals. Obama earned the label “No-Drama Obama” for a reason. His closest advisers — those who actually shape his thinking, strategy and policies — are loyal and, by all accounts, like-minded. Obviously, they regularly disagree with each other, as any group of smart individuals does. But reading the (many) profiles of Obama aides written since the election, it’s striking that there are no anecdotes of serious disputes inside Obamaland. Obama does try to bring political foes into the fold when it’s convenient, but his team is primarily made up of political friends.

4. Obama is smooth. Despite being deliberate, Obama is surprisingly gaffe-prone. Reporters on my e-mail lists last year know he consistently mispronounced, misnamed or altogether forgot where he was. (In one typical gaffe in Sioux Falls, S.D., he started his speech with an enthusiastic “Thank you, Sioux City!”) His geographic gaffes are not just at routine rallies but at major events, including the Democratic National Convention and his first address to Congress. Any politician occasionally misspeaks, but the frequency of Obama’s flubs is notable.

5. Obama has a good relationship with the media. Working with the hundreds of reporters who covered the Obama campaign last year, I was struck by how many of them would quietly complain about Obama’s borderline disdain for the press. Sometimes it is readily visible — like when he scolded a reporter for asking a question during a presidential visit to the White House briefing room. Other times it’s more passive, like long gaps between press conferences, or it’s reflected in his staff’s attitude.

Obama has a lot of qualities that are indeed admirable: He is without a doubt smart and disciplined, and his mastery of politics is unmatched. But despite popular perceptions, he is far from perfect.

Alex Conant is a communications consultant who served as the Republican National Committee’s national press secretary during the 2008 presidential campaign. Previously, he was a spokesman at the White House and in the U.S. Senate.

-------
The curtain will be drawn back soon.

"Imperial Presidency" is only imperial when the President is a Republican

Obama Channels Cheney
MARCH 6, 2009, 10:37 P.M. ET |WSJ Online

The Obama Administration this week released its predecessor's post-9/11 legal memoranda in the name of "transparency," producing another round of feel-good Bush criticism. Anyone interested in President Obama's actual executive-power policies, however, should look at his position on warrantless wiretapping. Dick Cheney must be smiling.

In a federal lawsuit, the Obama legal team is arguing that judges lack the authority to enforce their own rulings in classified matters of national security. The standoff concerns the Oregon chapter of the Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation, a Saudi Arabian charity that was shut down in 2004 on evidence that it was financing al Qaeda. Al-Haramain sued the Bush Administration in 2005, claiming it had been illegally wiretapped.

At the heart of Al-Haramain's case is a classified document that it says proves that the alleged eavesdropping was not authorized under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA. That record was inadvertently disclosed after Al-Haramain was designated as a terrorist organization; the Bush Administration declared such documents state secrets after their existence became known.

In July, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the President's right to do so, which should have ended the matter. But the San Francisco panel also returned the case to the presiding district court judge, Vaughn Walker, ordering him to decide if FISA pre-empts the state secrets privilege. If he does, Al-Haramain would be allowed to use the document to establish the standing to litigate.

The Obama Justice Department has adopted a legal stance identical to, if not more aggressive than, the Bush version. It argues that the court-forced disclosure of the surveillance programs would cause "exceptional harm to national security" by exposing intelligence sources and methods. Last Friday the Ninth Circuit denied the latest emergency motion to dismiss, again kicking matters back to Judge Walker.

(more...)

-----
So who didn't see this coming. 44 talks one way to the children in his constituancy but now he's in charge of the 3-ringed circus, it's quite a different story. It's not that I disagree with the policy in this matter, but good God, do you have no shame at all. Skewering Bush and Cheney for the past 5 years on totally sensible policy and then for you follow directly in their footsteps. This is the reason I started this blog, exposing the callow and feckless nature of the Democrats in charge of Executive and Legislative branches.
Hypocracy Meter : 10 of 10

Still snorting at the trough

Reid to Obama: Let us keep earmarks

By MANU RAJU | 2/25/09 12:20 PM EST Updated: 2/25/09 2:27 PM EST | politico.com

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid wants the White House to tread lightly on earmarks, saying that any push by the Obama administration to clamp down on pet projects would be met with strong opposition from congressional leaders.

"We cannot let spending be done by a bunch of nameless, faceless bureaucrats," Reid said, arguing that lawmakers are much more in tune with federal money needs for their states than agencies in Washington.

Reid's comments came as he and Democratic leaders vowed swift action on Obama's agenda.

In comments to reporters Wednesday morning, Reid also blamed Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell for forcing Congress to jack up spending for congressional operations in the massive omnibus spending bill. Reid said that even though Republicans lost big in the 2008 elections, McConnell insisted that they maintain their staff levels, forcing about a 10-percent hike in funding for the legislative branch, whose budget totals some $4.4 billion.

"You should direct that question to Senator McConnell because we had trouble organizing this year,” Reid said, referring to a resolution the Senate must pass to formally organize for the new Congress. “He wanted to maintain a lot of their staffing even though they had lost huge numbers. And the only way we could get it done is to do what we did. So you should direct that question to Senator McConnell."

A GOP leadership aide said that Republican staff “aren’t getting a dime” more than they did last year. The aide also said that a $116 million-increase for the architect of the Capitol was more to blame for the increase in the cost of running Congress.

(...more)

----

We here's a big surprise! 44, stand up to these people, you said you are about change...make some GD change. Cut the deficit by the end of your first term? You don't lay down the law right now, you'll be eating those words. One party government worked wonders for the Bush enonomy, didn't it?

Lucas blows his wad all over 44

Lucas: Obama more powerful than Skywalker

By PATRICK GAVIN | 2/11/09 8:39 PM EST | Politico.com

We all know that Barack Obama has achieved superstar status. But is he an actual hero? Like in the action movie sense?

You betcha! says "Star Wars" creator George Lucas, who was in Washington Wednesday night for the Ford's Theatre reopening celebration where both he and screen legend Sidney Poitier were being honored with the Ford Theatre Society's Lincoln medal in a ceremony attended by President Barack Obama, a Lincoln aficionado.

Lucas says that, in a contest between Luke Skywalker and Obama, our 44th president wins hands down—even without the lightsaber. In addition, Poitier told Politico that Obama's rockstar status is still going strong.


------

Jesus H. Christ on a pogo-stick George, did you even watch your own movies; I mean the first 3 not the final 3 you ruined. Luke Skywalker blew up the DEATHSTAR!!! Which itself destroyed entire planets (Only one though because LS BLEW IT UP before it destroyed another) He was instrumental in bringing down the entire empire and the death of the Emperor. WTF has 44 already done to make him more powerful than Luke Skywalker? You are a sycophantic little grub selling out the one shiny part of your past.

...unless you mean Luke Skywalker in the Star Wars Christmas Special, then of course 44 is more powerful, Skywalker looks like a tranny in that.

----
For further reading on why LS might not have been all that great please read:

The Case for the Empire
Everything you think you know about Star Wars is wrong.
by Jonathan V. Last | The Weekly Standard.com

STAR WARS RETURNS today with its fifth installment, "Attack of the Clones." There will be talk of the Force and the Dark Side and the epic morality of George Lucas's series. But the truth is that from the beginning, Lucas confused the good guys with the bad. The deep lesson of Star Wars is that the Empire is good.

It's a difficult leap to make--embracing Darth Vader and the Emperor over the plucky and attractive Luke Skywalker and Princess Leia--but a careful examination of the facts, sorted apart from Lucas's off-the-shelf moral cues, makes a quite convincing case.

First, an aside: For the sake of this discussion, I've considered only the history gleaned from the actual Star Wars films, not the Expanded Universe. If you know what the Expanded Universe is and want to argue that no discussion of Star Wars can be complete without considering material outside the canon, that's fine. However, it's always been my view that the comic books and novels largely serve to clean up Lucas's narrative and philosophical messes. Therefore, discussions of intrinsic intent must necessarily revolve around the movies alone. You may disagree, but please don't e-mail me about it.

If you don't know what the Expanded Universe is, well, uh, neither do I.

I. The Problems with the Galactic Republic

At the beginning of the Star Wars saga, the known universe is governed by the Galactic Republic. The Republic is controlled by a Senate, which is, in turn, run by an elected chancellor who's in charge of procedure, but has little real power.

Scores of thousands of planets are represented in the Galactic Senate, and as we first encounter it, it is sclerotic and ineffectual. The Republic has grown over many millennia to the point where there are so many factions and disparate interests, that it is simply too big to be governable. Even the Republic's staunchest supporters recognize this failing: In "The Phantom Menace," Queen Amidala admits, "It is clear to me now that the Republic no longer functions." In "Attack of the Clones," young Anakin Skywalker observes that it simply "doesn't work."

The Senate moves so slowly that it is powerless to stop aggression between member states. In "The Phantom Menace" a supra-planetary alliance, the Trade Federation (think of it as OPEC to the Galactic Republic's United Nations), invades a planet and all the Senate can agree to do is call for an investigation.

(more...)

Someone who is telling it like it is.

A rocky first few weeks | Obama sputters out of the gate
By Camille Paglia | The Salon.com

Feb. 11, 2009 | Money by the barrelful, by the truckload. Mountains of money, heaped like gassy pyramids in the national dump. Scrounging packs of politicos, snapping, snarling and sending green bills flying sky-high as they root through the tangled mass with ragged claws. The stale hot air filled with cries of rage, the gnashing of teeth and dark prophecies of doom.

Yes, this grotesque scene, like a claustrophobic circle in Dante's "Inferno," was what the U.S. government has looked like for the past two weeks as it fights on over Barack Obama's stimulus package -- a mammoth, chaotic grab bag of treasures, toys and gimcracks. Could popular opinion of our feckless Congress sink any lower? You betcha!

Why in the cosmos would the new administration, smoothly sailing out of Obama's classy inauguration, repeat the embarrassing blunders of Bill Clinton's first term? By foolishly promising a complete overhaul of healthcare within 100 days (and by putting his secretive, ill-prepared wife in charge of it), Clinton made himself look naive and incompetent and set healthcare reform back for more than 15 years.

President Obama was ill-served by his advisors (shall we thump that checkered piñata, Rahm Emanuel?), who evidently did not help him to produce a strong, focused, coherent bill that he could have explained and defended to the nation before it was set upon by partisan wolves. To defer to the House of Representatives and let the bill be thrown together by cacophonous mob rule made the president seem passive and behind the curve.

Most mainstream American voters are undoubtedly suffering from economist fatigue these days. This one calls for tax cuts; that one condemns them. One says we're wasting hundreds of billions of dollars; the other claims that sum falls pathetically short. A plague on all their houses! Surely common sense would dictate that when Congress is doling out fat dollops of taxpayers' money, due time should be delegated for sober consideration and debate. The administration's coercive rush toward instant action, accompanied by apocalyptic pronouncements of imminent catastrophe, has put its own credibility on the line.

But aside from the stimulus muddle, Obama has been off to a good start. True, I was disappointed with the infestation of the new appointments list by Clinton retreads and slippery tax-dodgers. Nevertheless, I was very impressed by Obama's relaxed, natural authority with military officers on Inauguration Day, in contrast to the early Bill Clinton's palpable unease and exaggerated posturing. I applauded the signal Obama sent to the world by starting the closure of the Guantánamo detention center. Contrary to the rote claims of conservative talk radio, there is as yet no public evidence that every individual being held at Guantánamo is a proven "terrorist"-- whom we would all agree should be severely punished. That is the entire point of a rational process of indictment and trial. If Guantánamo became a symbol of un-American repression, it is the procrastinating, paralyzed Bush administration that should be blamed.

Speaking of talk radio (which I listen to constantly), I remain incredulous that any Democrat who professes liberal values would give a moment's thought to supporting a return of the Fairness Doctrine to muzzle conservative shows. (My latest manifesto on this subject appeared in my last column.) The failure of liberals to master the vibrant medium of talk radio remains puzzling. To reach the radio audience (whether the topic is sports, politics or car repair), a host must have populist instincts and use the robust common voice. Too many Democrats have become arrogant elitists, speaking down in snide, condescending tones toward tradition-minded middle Americans whom they stereotype as rubes and buffoons. But the bottom line is that government surveillance of the ideological content of talk radio is a shocking first step toward totalitarianism.

One of the nuggets I've gleaned from several radio sources is that Michigan Sen. Debbie Stabenow, who has been in the aggressive forefront of the campaign to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine, is married to Tom Athans, who works extensively with left-wing radio organizations and was once the executive vice-president of Air America, the liberal radio syndicate that, despite massive publicity from major media, has failed miserably to win a national audience. Stabenow's outrageous conflict of interest has of course been largely ignored by the prestige press, which should have been demanding that she recuse herself from all political involvement with this issue.

(more...)

-----

Camille Paglia, agree with her or not, at least she is not a hypocrite. She has always called it like she sees it no matter who feathers get ruffled. This Fairness Doctine is a pile of shit and pretty much anyone but rabid liberals can see that.

Yet another suprise

Obama breaks five-day pledge

By CARRIE BUDOFF BROWN | 2/5/09 6:21 AM EST | Politico.com


President Barack Obama kept one campaign pledge Wednesday afternoon and at the same time violated another when he signed into law the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, which extends health care coverage to 11 million low-income children.

The White House views the SCHIP legislation as a down payment on Obama’s pledge to provide universal health care by the end of his first term. The bill ran into some partisan resistance because it allows states for the first time to use federal money to cover children and pregnant women who are legal immigrants.

But Obama’s 5 p.m. signing came barely three hours after the House approved the bill, breaching Obama’s promise to have a five-day period of “sunlight before signing,” as he detailed on the campaign trail and on his website.

“Too often bills are rushed through Congress and to the president before the public has the opportunity to review them,” the Obama-Biden campaign website states. “As president, Obama will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days.”

Obama signed the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act only two days after it received final passage last week, and it wasn’t posted on the White House website until after it became law.

Politifact.com, a project of the St. Petersburg Times that tracks Obama’s campaign promises, says the five-day rule is the only pledge he has broken outright.

On the Ledbetter Act, the website wrote: “We recognize that Obama has been in office just a week, but he was very clear about his plan for a five-day comment period, and we can’t see why this one needed to be rushed. It is somewhat ironic that with the same action, Obama both keeps and breaks a campaign promise.”

A White House spokesman refused to comment on the matter.

----


How could this be a surprise to anyone. Of course he's going to sign a bill right away, especially one which is for the children, what great press. Followed by lofty words that this is one which couldn't wait.

Broken Promises Meter:
10 of 10 (sorry this meter is either 0 or 10, you can't half break a promise)

Great...

Sorry Harry Potter, no Hogwarts for you.

Tax problems torpedo two big Obama nominations

By JENNIFER LOVEN | apnews.myway.com

*

WASHINGTON (AP) - Barack Obama on Tuesday gave up his nomination fight for Tom Daschle and a second high-profile appointee who failed to pay all their taxes, fearing ugly confirmation battles that would undercut his claims to ethical high ground and cripple his presidency in just its second week. "I screwed up," he declared. "It's important for this administration to send a message that there aren't two sets of rules - you know, one for prominent people and one for ordinary folks who have to pay their taxes," Obama said in one of a series of interviews with TV anchors.

"I'm frustrated with myself, with our team. ... I'm here on television saying I screwed up," Obama said in an interview on NBC's "Nightly News with Brian Williams." He repeated virtually the same words in several other interviews. The White House announced that Daschle had asked to be removed from consideration as health and human services secretary and that that Nancy Killefer had made the same request concerning what was to be her groundbreaking appointment as a chief performance officer to make the entire government run better.

"They both recognized that you can't set an example of responsibility but accept a different standard of who serves," said spokesman Gibbs. Daschle said in a brief letter to Obama that he refused to "be a distraction" from the new president's drive for health care reform. Obama said neither he nor Daschle excused the former senator's tax errors but that he accepted his friend's decision "with sadness and regret."

Questions about Daschle's failure to fully pay his taxes from 2005 through 2007 had been increasing since they came to light last Friday. Daschle overlooked taxes on income for consulting work and personal use of a car and driver, and also deducted more in charitable contributions than he should have. To resolve it, he paid $128,203 in back taxes and $11,964 in interest last month.

(more...)

----
2010, picture a GOP election ad, 44 standing there looking all serious. Clip after clip will be spiced together of him saying "I screwed up", "we made a mistake", "oops, my bad', etc... For the past 8 years the public has said, "Why hasn't Bush ever apologized for his mistakes", well this would be the reason. It doesn't take much knowledge of negative campaign ads to figure this our; never admit your wrong, you'll get hammered for it in the press.

If 44 had been smart he would have thrown Daschle under the bus as soon as this tax issue arose and made a grand statement about how this is what he would not tolerate in his administration but obviously that would mean getting rid of a few others as well.

I guess the main point is 'don't make dumb proclamations about your administration being so much better than the last, just do it', otherwise you put a target on your back when you come up short. It's like you didn't even watch the first year Clinton tapes!

Neophyte meter:7 of 10

* ...thought bubble..."Damn she got a nice can, now I'm not going to get a chance to tap that, Hill better watch out now"

File this under "NO SHIT"

Obama's promise of ethics reform faces early test

By Peter Baker

Published: February 3, 2009

| IHT.com

WASHINGTON: During almost two years on the campaign trail, Barack Obama vowed to slay the demons of Washington, bar lobbyists from his administration and usher in what he would later call in his Inaugural Address a "new era of responsibility." What he did not talk much about were the asterisks.

The exceptions that went unmentioned now include a pair of cabinet nominees who did not pay all of their taxes. Then there is the lobbyist for a military contractor who is now slated to become the No. 2 official in the Pentagon. And there are the others brought into government from the influence industry even if not formally registered as lobbyists.

President Barack Obama said Monday that he was "absolutely" standing behind former Senator Tom Daschle, his nominee for health and human services secretary, and Daschle, who met late in the day with leading senators in an effort to keep his confirmation on track, said he had "no excuse" and wanted to "deeply apologize" for his failure to pay $128,000 in U.S. taxes.

But the episode has already shown how, when faced with the perennial clash between campaign rhetoric and Washington reality, Obama has proved willing to compromise.

Every four or eight years a new president arrives in town, declares his determination to cleanse a dirty process and invariably winds up trying to reconcile the clear ideals of electioneering with the muddy business of governing. Obama on his first day in office imposed perhaps the toughest ethics rules of any president in modern times, and since then he and his advisers have been trying to explain why they do not cover this case or that case.

"This is a big problem for Obama, especially because it was such a major, major promise," said Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. "He harped on it, time after time, and he created a sense of expectation around the country. This is exactly why people are skeptical of politicians, because change we can believe in is not the same thing as business as usual."

And so in these opening days of the administration, the Obama team finds itself being criticized by bloggers on the left and the right, mocked by television comics and questioned by reporters about whether Obama is really changing the way Washington works or just changing which political party works it.

Some Republicans saw a double standard. "What would it be like if Hank Paulson had come in without paying his taxes, or any other member of the cabinet?" asked Terry Nelson, a political strategist who worked for President George W. Bush and Senator John McCain, referring to Bush's Treasury secretary. "It would be roundly attacked and roundly criticized." ....

(More...)

----

Great, now the MSN is finally speaking up...just to cover their ass in 6 months when people say "hey, why still all this 44 adulation".

Hey Harry Potter, pay your taxes like everyone else!!!

Daschle apologizes, fights to salvage nomination

By KEVIN FREKING | AP News Myway

WASHINGTON (AP) - Fighting to salvage his Cabinet nomination, Tom Daschle pleaded his case Monday evening in a closed meeting with former Senate colleagues after publicly apologizing for failing to pay more than $120,000 in taxes. President Barack Obama said he was "absolutely" sticking with his nominee for health secretary, and a key senator added an important endorsement.

The White House both underscored the magnitude of the problem and tried to downplay it in the space of seven words. "Nobody's perfect," said press secretary Robert Gibbs. "It was a serious mistake. ..."

Nobody was predicting defeat for Daschle's nomination as secretary of health and human services, but it was proving an unsavory pill to swallow for senators who only last week confirmed Timothy Geithner as treasury secretary despite his separate tax-payment problems. It's an issue that strikes a nerve among lawmakers' constituents who are struggling with their own serious money problems.

On the bright side for Daschle, he got warm words of support from the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, the panel that will have the first say on his fate. Daschle has been "an invaluable and expert partner" in efforts toward health care reform, said Democrat Max Baucus of Montana - an especially important endorsement since the two men have had tussles in the past over Baucus' handling of GOP tax-cut proposals, Medicare changes and other issues.

Republicans weren't so quick to get in line.

Going into the private meeting with Daschle, Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley, top Republican on the Finance panel, was asked if supported the nomination. He responded, "Ask me after the hearing a week from tomorrow," a reference to Daschle's public confirmation hearing.

Said Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, as he went into the meeting: "I'm going to just listen and pay attention very closely."

Daschle, the former Senate Democratic leader, expressed his remorse in a letter to the Finance Committee, saying he was "deeply embarrassed and disappointed" about what he said was an unintentional failure to pay taxes that he owed. He recently filed amended returns for 2005-07 to report $128,203 in back taxes and $11,964 in interest.

(...more)

----

The hypocrisy of democrats makes me sick. It's not like the GOP is less hypocritical, but the DEMS have taken the moral high ground so many times that they must really believe their shit don't stink. Bitch and moan about American corporations going off shore because the US has one of the highest corporate tax rates which make us less competitive and you can't even pay your own personal taxes! You self-rightous scum. Get a GD job, justify yourself to your shareholders, compete against other market forces on a daily basis!

Hypocrisy Meter:7 or 10

More MSM douchebaggery

Sitting with Obama, Lauer held up a copy of US Magazine, and pointed to how the editors cut him out of the cover photo with his wife and daughters. In the upper right-hand corner of the cover was a photo of a curvier Simpson and the headline: “Weight Battle.”

Did POTUS diss Jessica Simpson?

By CARRIE BUDOFF BROWN | Politico.com


...

“They took you out of it,” Lauer said of the magazine.

“It — it’s — it’s a little hurtful,” Obama said.

“You got replaced by Jessica Simpson,” Lauer said.

“Yeah, who’s losing a weight battle apparently,” Obama said, according to the NBC transcript of the interview. “Yeah. Oh, well.”

The ladies didn’t like that one. Karen Tumulty at Time’s Swampland blog, and others across the blogosphere, schooled the new president.

“Barack Obama may be the most eloquent politician on the scene today, but he laid a big one in yesterday's interview with Matt Lauer,” Tumulty wrote Monday.

----
Tsk, tsk, tsk 44. Don't fall into the MSM's traps by answering questions about everyday life, they will allow you to be crucified for it. Women, all those gushing suburban mommies who voted for you, will turn on you quicker that that Rosie O'Donnell at an 'all you can eat' buffet when they tell her they're out of cheese sauce, if you comment about some fatty gaining weight. If you wouldn't say it about your wife, don't say it about anyone else, you're no longer a private citizen!

I am a private citizen, so but down the bucket of chicken and the side of cracklins you white trash fatty.

Scandal meter:
3 of 10

Calling it like it is meter:
10 of 10

Stupidy:
7 of 10

When the Rubber Hits the Road

GOP weapon: Obama earmarks pledge

By LISA LERER & CARRIE BUDOFF BROWN | 1/26/09 8:57 PM EST - Politico.com

As Barack Obama meets with Republicans Tuesday, some in the GOP have enlisted an unlikely ally to derail his $825 billion stimulus plan – Barack Obama.

They’re using Obama’s pledge to keep earmarks out of the massive bill to criticize Democrats in Congress – saying projects like family-planning funding and arts spending in the House version are exactly the kind of pork-barrel spending Obama promised he’d fight.

“Many conservatives are just getting upset that Barack Obama comes into office talking about change and his first big initiative is a massive $800 billion dollar pork barrel project,” said Brian Darling, director of U.S. Senate Relations at the conservative Heritage Foundation. “If he wants to cut wasteful spending the first the thing he should do is veto his own stimulus bill.”

At issue is a list of programs that Republicans say will do little to stimulate economic recovery, including $21 million to sod the National Mall, $50 million to fund the National Endowment of the Arts and $650 million for digital TV coupons. Republicans also have seized on millions that would be spent under the bill to expand family-planning services in the states.

The projects are a fraction of the massive spending bill – and Democrats dispute that they’re pork. But the items have given Republicans a hook to rally opposition to the bill, on conservative talk-radio and elsewhere.

And they’ve put Obama in an uncomfortable spot. He swept into Washington promising to find a new way of doing business in the Capitol, one that would be more focused on bipartisan compromise and less on wasteful special interest earmarks.

(more...)

----
Now the bullshit is starting to draw flies. First putting someone in Treasury who doesn't pay his taxes, next clearly breaking your pledge against lobbyist working in your administration, but now, one of the few things which gained you votes among the GOP, cutting pork spend. Are you going to stand up for what you ran on or will you crumble like everyone else? Stand up to Pelosi now or she is going to make you her bitch for the next 4 years.

Heavy is the head which wears the crown

CURL: Obama press aide gets bashed in debut

Joseph Curl (Contact)

Friday, January 23, 2009- Washington Times.com

The White House press operation got off to a fumbling and stumbling start Thursday, with the day's opening briefers insisting on being identified only as "senior administration officials," followed swiftly by the new president's spokesman accidently outing one of the secret aides less than two minutes into his first White House briefing.

Although President Obama swept into office pledging transparency and a new air of openness, the press hammered spokesman Robert Gibbs for nearly an hour over a slate of perceived secretive slights that have piled up quickly for the new administration. It wasn't pretty.

"Why did the administration believe it was important for the American people not to know the name of the two senior administration officials who briefed us this morning on Guantanamo?" one reporter asked in the packed and steaming hot briefing room just off the White House West Wing.

"I hope that you all found the exercise that we did this morning helpful," Mr. Gibbs offered helpfully.

"Do you know," the reporter followed, "that you've used ... one of those senior officials' first names several times in this briefing?" A very long pause ensued.

"I do," the spokesman said, his cornflower-colored tie suddenly looking a bit too tight. "Are we allowed to repeat that name?" Mr. Gibbs answered by citing as precedent of Brazilian soccer stars being known only by a single name - sure to one day be a classic White House non-answer.

Then it got uglier.

"How is it transparent," another reporter asked, "when you control the only image of the re-swearing - there's nobody in there but four print reporters, there's no stills, there's no television? And the only recording that comes out, as I understand it, is one that a reporter made, not one that the White House supplied."

(More...)

-----
It's not so easy, now is it? Better give the press everything it wants from you or they will turn on you quicker than snakes on a plane.

Good news, Princess Caroline has realized that only one tax dodge can make it into government at a time, especially if you are a political lightweight. Don't know or care who will take up the post but I am very glad it's not a Kennedy with no credentials. Now if only Minn. could get it double-counting head out of its ass we can get the show started.

Hypocrisy meter:
5 of 10, should be higher as its so soon into the administration but I am feeling generous.

The clock starts now

Dear Mr. President,

I wish you the best for the sake of our whole country and even the world. Watch your enemies but keep a closer eye on those who may call themselves friends...yes I mean you Pelosi and Reid.

Welcome to Mos Eisley*

OPINION: POTOMAC WATCH JANUARY 16, 2009

Meet Obama's Loyal Opposition

By KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL for the Wall Street Journal

"I do not work for Barack Obama." Mitch McConnell, Senate minority leader? No. Ben Bernanke, Fed chief? No, again.

Try Harry Reid, huffing at the idea anyone calls the shots on Capitol Hill other than him. What was that about "change"?

The president-elect used that word on the campaign trail in the context of bipartisanship. To that extent, he's doing a fabulous job. Some of the gushiest quotes about him are emanating from Republicans, giddy at his outreach.

But the "change" Mr. Obama really needs is to avoid the fate of the last two Democratic presidents, both sabotaged by their own majorities. So far, not good. Mr. Obama has yet to assume office, and already his own party is beating his priorities like a conga drum.

When the incoming Democratic president asked the outgoing GOP president to request the second $350 billion in rescue money, Mr. Bush graciously complied. At which point the Democratic majority informed the Democratic president that he'd see not a dime until they decided how to spend it. After all, giving Mr. Obama control over his own Treasury funds would rob them of a pot that they could earmark for Detroit, or bankruptcy judges, or local institutions.

When incoming Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag proved reluctant to commit Mr. Obama to specific uses of the money, Florida's Sen. Bill Nelson accused him of spouting "mumbo jumbo." North Dakota's Sen. Kent Conrad, fresh off dictating the shape of Mr. Obama's stimulus tax cuts, had to intervene. In a last-ditch effort to rally Democratic support, Mr. Obama was forced to agree in writing to commit up to $100 billion to homeowners. Even so, nine of his own senators yesterday voted to deny him the funds.

Speaking of the stimulus, the Obama team, trying to shelter the party from accusations of profligate spending, initially capped the package at (a whopping) $775 billion. At which point Mr. Reid explained, publicly, that at least 20 of Mr. Obama's own economists felt it should in fact be at least, $800 billion -- maybe even $1.3 trillion! Five impoverished Democratic governors chimed in that anything less than $1 trillion really wasn't worth it. At last count, Mr. Obama had been talked up to $825 billion (and rising).

As to the makeup of the stimulus bill, Mr. Obama directed at least $300 billion go to tax cuts. This was partly to fulfill a campaign pledge, partly to sweeten the deal for Republicans, partly because his economic team might actually believe it a good idea -- especially business provisions.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein pronounced herself "concerned" (uh-oh) that so much might go to Americans, over appropriators. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi informed the incoming president that, duh, he should be raising taxes. Rep. Charlie Rangel, who heads Ways and Means, and knows it, decreed $300 billion a maximum, not a minimum. At last count, that number was $275 billion (and falling).

"I love earmarks," said House Majority Whip James Clyburn, as he griped that the president-elect had banned them in the stimulus. Mr. Obama wants no whiff of pork that might further sour a wary public. Mr. Clyburn is nonetheless leading a House rebellion against the edict. After all, it's only fair Democrats get to buy votes with stimulus dollars.

"There will be no earmarks in the stimulus. Nada. Zero. Zilch," said a Reid spokesman. The majority leader might have made the comment himself, had he not been busy reassuring Nevadans that he'd just go around the ban by leaning on Obama agencies to deliver dollars to his state's projects. Meanwhile, Mr. Reid is making as his first present to the president a pork-riddled public-lands bill that includes $3.5 million for a city's birthday party, $5 million for botanical gardens, and $3 million for a "road to nowhere" in (where else?) Alaska.

(more...)

*wretched hive of scum and villainy

------

Good luck with this rabble 44, you're going to need it.

Memories of Zoe & Kimba

Tax problems may plague Obama's treasury pick

By JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS – 45 minutes ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — A Capitol Hill grilling is likely for Timothy Geithner, President-elect Barack Obama's pick to head the Treasury Department, after public revelations he failed to pay $34,000 in taxes several years ago.

Senate Democrats are pressing to schedule a quick confirmation hearing for Geithner on Friday, hoping to tee up swift approval of his nomination on Inauguration Day. But newly released information about the tax goofs by Geithner, regarded as a brilliant financial markets specialist well-positioned to deal with the nation's considerable economic problems, could complicate the process.

Republicans have yet to sign off on expediting the hearing, although senior Democrats expressed confidence that the disclosures would do little to slow Geithner's path to confirmation. At least one Republican, Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, said he had "no problem" with Geithner.

Still, the disclosures virtually guarantee a tough hearing for Geithner before the Senate Finance Committee, which is considering his nomination.

Geithner failed to pay self-employment taxes for money he earned from 2001 to 2004 while working for the International Monetary Fund, according to materials released by the committee Tuesday.

He paid some of the taxes in 2006, after an IRS audit discovered the discrepancy for taxes paid in 2003 and 2004. But it wasn't until much later — days before Obama tapped him to head Treasury late last year — that Geithner paid back most of the taxes, incurred in 2001 and 2002. He did so after Obama's transition team found that Geithner had made the same tax mistake his first two years at the IMF as the one the IRS found he made during his last two years there.

(more...)

----

"These errors were not intentional; they were honest mistakes," -Max Baucus, D-Mont

You know what? Go try telling this to the IRS during an audit, see if it flies for John and Jane America. Unless you are part of the establishment you will have your world ripped apart. "his mistake was a common one for people hired by international organizations and foreign embassies that don't pay the employer share of Social Security taxes"...well not shit, they set the system up so it takes a rocket scientist to fill out anything but the EZ form, why not take this moment to fix the system!

You would have thought those smarter than I would remember Zoe Baird and Kimba Woods; clearly not. Maybe Team Obama is not as sharp as everyone believes.

Scandal Meter : 4 of 10 | The tax code is too confusing for everyone - FIX IT

Stupidity Meter: 7 of 10 | Going to the treasury and still can't get taxed paid correctly +2; Thinking no one would notice the error was corrected just after being nominated +2; Not realizing that the same thing torpedoed 2 Clinton nominees +3

Journalist a just a bunch of breening, self-absorbed, anti-thinkers...kind of like bloggers

Obama's 'first mistakes' mount

By ANDIE COLLER | 1/8/09 5:01 AM EST - Politico.com

Team Obama has made its first mistake — again.

When Gov. Bill Richardson withdrew his nomination as commerce secretary earlier this week, NBC’s Andrea Mitchell declared it “the Obama team’s first misstep.”

But Mitchell had been scooped.

On Nov. 7 — just three days after the election — Los Angeles’ KNBC said Obama’s flubbed joke about Nancy Reagan and séances was his “first misstep.”

On Nov. 14, Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban wrote a Huffington Post piece on Obama’s economic advisory team titled “President-Elect Obama’s First Big Mistake.”

And on Nov. 19, Michael Goodwin of the New York Daily News said Obama’s secretary of state dealings with Hillary Clinton might just have been “his first big mistake.”

First-flub spotting has become something of a national pastime since Nov. 4, with the press floating trial balloons as the first victory balloons hit the ground.

On Nov. 5, the American Prospect wondered whether reports that Obama was considering Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to head the Environmental Protection Agency might qualify as his “first mistake.”

The “first mistake” stories kept trickling in until the week before Christmas, when Obama decided to ask Pastor Rick Warren to give the inaugural invocation. Everyone from the Washington Blade to Fox News piled on with versions of the first-big-blunder story.

MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow called Obama’s choice “the first big mistake of his post-election politicking.”

“Mr. Obama’s First Misstep?” the Hartford Courant asked.

“Obama’s first mistake!” the blogosphere answered.

While the Blagojevich scandal prompted a few more “first mistake” rumblings, the press seemed to have decided that the president-elect’s first mistake had come and gone — until Monday, when NBC gave Team Obama another mulligan.

It is not hard to understand why members of the media are interested in catching the incoming administration’s first real gaffe. “It is the business of the media to find error and point it out — there’s nothing wrong with that,” says Stephen Hess, senior fellow emeritus in governance studies at the Brookings Institution.

Besides, Obama — credited with running a nearly mistake-free presidential race — seemed long overdue for one.

(More...)

That because you are unimportant!

Obama apologizes to Feinstein for his CIA surprise

WASHINGTON (AP) - Sen. Dianne Feinstein said Tuesday that President-elect Barack Obama apologized to her for not notifying her ahead of time that Leon Panetta was his pick for CIA director.

His name leaked to the press before Obama informed Feinstein, a California Democrat and incoming Senate Intelligence Committee chairman, who will oversee Panetta's nomination hearing.

"I have been contacted by both President-elect Obama and Vice President-elect Biden, and they have explained to me the reasons why they believe Leon Panetta is the best candidate for CIA Director," she said.

Feinstein complained Monday she had not been told about Panetta and expressed doubts he has the necessary experience.

(More ...)

----

This will be common in the new administration as they learn painfully that the little kings and queens don't like it when you don't consult them for even minor details. These spats will play out in the press letting Repubs to gleefully watch from the sidelines.

Scandal Meter:

0 of 10

Pissing Contest:

3 of 10

For a guy who held a press conference everyday after being elected, someone is pretty quite now

BLANKLEY: Being president 101

Early lessons for the incoming administration

....

WashingtonTimes.com

What history may judge more harshly is Mr. Obama's silence (as I write this column) on the Israeli/Hamas war. Even if he speaks by the time this column is published, he has badly mismanged his "Muslim outreach" initiative, which he described during the campaign as important, asserting that he wanted to "reboot" America's relations with the 1.4 billion Muslims. (The term "reboot" itself was an unfortunate choice - given the Muslims' disdain for the human shoe.) He went to Israel during the campaign and said - referring to Hamas rockets hitting Israel - that if such a thing happened to his daughters there is nothing he wouldn't do to stop it. That statement was clearly seen as a green light for Israel to defend itself - whether Mr. Obama intended it that way we will never know.

Then, when Israel took actions two weeks ago, Mr. Obama remained silent. The result in the Middle East was well described by the British Guardian newspaper this weekend: "Obama is losing a battle he doesn't know he's in. The president-elect's silence on the Gaza crisis is undermining his reputation in the Middle East. Barack Obama's chances of making a fresh start in US relations with the Muslim world, and the Middle East in particular, appear to diminish with each new wave of Israeli attacks on Palestinian targets in Gaza. That seems hardly fair, given the president-elect does not take office until January 20. But foreign wars don't wait for Washington inaugurations." Now I, and many other conservatives, always thought Mr. Obama was being unforgivably naive in thinking he could talk us out of the clash of civilizations between radical Islam and the West.

But my views notwithstanding, given Mr. Obama's intentions, his first gratuitous words (in Israel) followed now by his loud silence seem rather obviously destined to undercut his own intentions. If he intends to shrewdly lead the world, he should understand that images of him golfing in Hawaii while saying nothing as Palestinians are being bombed to death are going to be both seen and condemned in the Middle East that he aspires to lead to better days.

Perhaps, like Jack Kennedy's Bay of Pigs fiasco, this will be an early lesson for Mr. Obama in being president 101.

---

Hey 44, you talked almost everyday since being elected, where are you now when there is a tough call to make?

Scandal Meter:

3 of 10 | Not so much a scandal but the lack of leadership is making people start to people notice.

Camalot Redux

Caroline Kennedy fails to impress

Caroline Kennedy's latest attempt to press her case to be the replacement for Hillary Clinton as a senator for New York has been widely criticised in the US media. - BBC News

Ms Kennedy - daughter of former President John F Kennedy - broke weeks of silence on her bid, by giving a series of interviews at the weekend.

But she was criticised for being unknowledgeable on key policy areas, being unable to articulate why she was seeking public office for the first time - and even for possessing a verbal tic.

NEW YORK DAILY NEWS

Under the headline "Caroline Kennedy no whiz with words", the New York Daily News mimicked Ms Kennedy's speech pattern during the round of interviews.

"Caroline Kennedy, you know, might need, you know, a speech coach, um, if she, you know, wants, um, to be a senator," the paper said.

Totting up the number of "verbal tics" during its 30-minute interview, the paper counted "you know" more than 200 times... and added that "'um' was fairly constant, too".

Asked if President George W Bush's tax cuts on the wealthy should be repealed immediately, Ms Kennedy replied: "Well, you know, that's something, obviously, that, you know, in principle and in the campaign, you know, I think that, um, the tax cuts, you know, were expiring and needed to be repealed," the paper reported.

It consulted experts to give their opinion on her speaking manner. One said it was not necessarily an indication of weakness or doubt, just inexperience. Another advised her to get coaching, to pause more often, and "to listen to her father".

Columnist Michael Goodwin wrote: "The wheels of the bandwagon are coming off. Fantasy is giving way to inescapable truth. That truth is that Kennedy is not ready for the job and doesn't deserve it. Somebody who loves her should tell her."

NEW YORK POST

The New York Post also counted up the number of times Ms Kennedy said "you know" during its interview - 235 times in 41 minutes - "which works out to saying the phrase once every 10.5 seconds," it said.

The speech expert it consulted described it as a "very, very common" verbal tic called a "vocalized pause," and said it was a "Kennedyism" as demonstrated by her uncle.

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

The Associated Press said "Kennedy offered no excuses for why she failed to vote in a number of elections since registering in New York City in 1988".

"I was really surprised and dismayed by my voting record," she told AP. "I'm glad it's been brought to my attention."

AP reported that "since word of her interest leaked out in early December, Kennedy has faced sometimes sharp criticism that she cut in line ahead of politicians with more experience and has acted as if she were entitled to it because of her political lineage".

In response, Ms Kennedy said: "Anybody who knows me knows I haven't really lived that way. And I think that in my family, I come into this thinking I have to work twice as hard as anybody else. Nobody's entitled to anything, certainly not me."

----

NY Governers, like this in many other states, are free to choose anyone they like, but NY is not 'keeping it classy' but annointing this light weight into a seat someone should at least fight for. Great, her dad got his brains sprayed all over her mom's pink Chanel and her brother died in a plane crash before he could be the chosen one, let's make her a Senator.

Hypocricy:

2 or 10 | This shit is being par for the course for Dems and GOP but at least 43, Jeb, and Hillary got themselves elected! Screw your Murkowskis, Kennedy and Biden (ok, they are just trying to set that last one up)

It's sad all the funny SNL people who died but not this un-funny man

Funny Business in Minnesota

In which every dubious ruling seems to help Al Franken.

Strange things keep happening in Minnesota, where the disputed recount in the Senate race between Norm Coleman and Al Franken may be nearing a dubious outcome. Thanks to the machinations of Democratic Secretary of State Mark Ritchie and a meek state Canvassing Board, Mr. Franken may emerge as an illegitimate victor.

Mr. Franken started the recount 215 votes behind Senator Coleman, but he now claims a 225-vote lead and suddenly the man who was insisting on "counting every vote" wants to shut the process down. He's getting help from Mr. Ritchie and his four fellow Canvassing Board members, who have delivered inconsistent rulings and are ignoring glaring problems with the tallies.

Under Minnesota law, election officials are required to make a duplicate ballot if the original is damaged during Election Night counting. Officials are supposed to mark these as "duplicate" and segregate the original ballots. But it appears some officials may have failed to mark ballots as duplicates, which are now being counted in addition to the originals. This helps explain why more than 25 precincts now have more ballots than voters who signed in to vote. By some estimates this double counting has yielded Mr. Franken an additional 80 to 100 votes.

This disenfranchises Minnesotans whose vote counted only once. And one Canvassing Board member, State Supreme Court Justice G. Barry Anderson, has acknowledged that "very likely there was a double counting." Yet the board insists that it lacks the authority to question local officials and it is merely adding the inflated numbers to the totals.

.....

----

Sweet baby Jesus Minnesota, you are more retarded than Florida. How anyone could have selected Al Franken to represent them in the Senate make as much sense why he was even on SNL. This guy has failure written all over him. At least it's exposing the Democrats as the hypocrites they are. All politicians by definition are hypocrites, not just Dems, but they more than likely tend to think their shit dont stink...and this is a massive turd of a shit!

I didn't vote for 44 but I wish him well, this site is not dedicated to slamming him, just catching the lies and hypocrisy inherent but overlooked by the MSM, I will try to be as fair as I can but Al Franken can DIAF. It's not because he's a Dem, or Liberal, or had a popular book about Rush Limbaugh...it's because he is unfunny.

44 is not funny but that's ok, he's not a comedian.

Hypocrisy Meter:

10 of 10

Team Obama dabbles in drama

By ROGER SIMON | 1/6/09 4:24 AM EST (POLITICO.COM)

For an outfit known for its lack of drama, Team Obama has become a downright thrill show.

Bill Richardson! Rick Warren! Rod Blagojevich! Roland Burris! Talk about a ride through the fun house.

President-elect Barack Obama doesn’t bear responsibility for all these speed bumps on the road to a better, happier, more respected America, but he certainly bears responsibility for some of them.

Obama’s selection of Bill Richardson for secretary of commerce didn’t seem like an awful idea. Richardson certainly has accomplished some things in his life, and he wanted an administration job really, really badly. He wanted to be vice president and didn’t get it. He wanted to be secretary of state and didn’t get it. So he lowered his sights to “Anything in the Cabinet Whatsoever,” and he got it.

Exactly why Obama felt he had to give Richardson something is unclear. Maybe it was an act of compassion. Maybe Richardson had threatened to hold his breath until he turned blue. In any case, he got the nomination.

But Richardson clearly did not get the vetting that is supposed to go along with it.

(more from Politico)

------
Vetting process are hard, everybody has skeleton in the closet, but when your new boss has asked for full disclosure if they can't make it to the light of day don't step up to the plate.

You have to assume that Transition Team 44 just thought that since Richardson ran for President all the dirty laundry would have already come out...really can you blame them. Not much of a scandal but looks bad for Dems.

Scandal Meter:
44 - 2 of 10
Dems - 6 of 10