Category Archives: Barack Obama

One of the left's knocks on conservatives has been claiming they're demagogues that play on emotion to push a certain point of view. It's been said about Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and the Tea Party movement. 

However, HBO's "Real Time with Bill Maher" host Bill Maher doesn't seem to take issue with using trumped up emotions to push an agenda. The difference - he is approaching things from the opposite end of the ideological spectrum. Maher appeared on MSNBC's March 10 "Countdown" and defended his demand from his own March 5 program that President Barack Obama quit smoking. The reason - so he would get angry and use that emotion to promote his agenda.

"No, what I was - you know, the point of the rule was that when people quit smoking, they get angry," Maher explained. "And I like my president angry, because, you know, considering how much in this country people are poisoned, ripped off and lied to, we should all be angry, but especially that guy, who has to deal with Congress every day in trying to get this health care bill through and all that. And you know, I like him when he's out on the stump in a sort of a partisan mode. I think his biggest mistake, that he has made, in his first year, was to out put bipartisanship ahead of fixing the country. He spent all his political capital on getting three damned votes for that stimulus bill instead of coming in with all the energy from the election and saying, ‘You know what, we're in a crisis mode, I won this election by a sizable mandate, here's what we're going to do. If you don't like it, Republicans, you can suck on it.'"

"Countdown" fill-in host Lawrence O'Donnell asked what else Obama could do to push this initiative - having given numerous speeches both in public and on TV. According to Maher, the legislation now has to stand for itself.

"Well, there's nothing more he can do, because he's sort of made his bed already with the plan that they have," Maher said. "You know, I mean, again, I think he made a big mistake, not from the get-go, not supporting a public option and standing up for that because I personally do not believe that this plan will save money the way that they say it will."

Maher lamented that in his view, the legislation was weak. However, he suggested the issue of health insurance should be viewed as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that are occurring to given people the perspective the United States' medical system is "failing."

"I think they wussied out on standing up to the things that will actually be cost cutting," Maher said. "So, I don't believe that part of it. And so he's stuck with this plan, which I think is - it's not a great plan. I mean, yes, it accomplishes some things, and I guess I would call it a quarter loaf is better than none. But, you know, we asked this question on the show a couple of weeks ago. You know, 45,000 people die every year because they don't have health care. Can you imagine if that many people were dying in Iraq or Afghanistan? Why is the, that that's an impossibility in the country, that that many people can die, or in a terrorist attack, but it's OK that they die from a failing medical system?"

Maher also faulted Obama for framing the debate that if you preferred the status quo, then you would not be affected. However, had Obama taken a different tack and employed fear - making it seem that the public had no choice but to alter their health care coverage, it could have spurred more action.

"I don't know why they framed the debate the way they did, or rather, that they didn't," Maher said. "They should have framed it in a moral sense like that and they should have framed it for people who are more selfish thinking, that this is a -- that you are going to go broke. Democrats need to use fear the way the Republicans use fear. And it's true. I mean, health care costs keep going up."

And what would this fear entail? According to the "Real Time" host, Democrats should have manipulated people into thinking financial calamity was on the verge of occurring without so-called health care reform.

"They should have scared the American people into thinking, look, I know you think you like the plan you have now, but it's going to slowly drown you in debt," Maher said. "He started out all wrong by saying, ‘If you have - if you like the plan you have, you can keep it.' And everybody went, ‘Well, then what's the problem? Why are we spending all this money?'"

We learned today that Massachusetts senator Scott Brown, who's been a senator for just 35 days, has a book deal! According to the Wall Street Journal, Brown's expected to write about his upbringing, his early career, and how he beat Martha Coakley to win his Senate seat.

Maybe he could call it, "It's Not About the Truck."  Just a thought, but, didn't people used to write their memoirs after their careers? This guy's been in office, what, a month?

Of course, this comes almost two years to the day after Matthews effusively praised Barack Obama's memoir, "Dreams From My Father" -- originally published in 1995 when Obama was gearing up to run for the Illinois State Senate -- on the March 13, 2008 "Hardball":

CHRIS MATTHEWS: It's unique because he's a politician and not since U.S. Grant has a politician written his own book.

MICHAEL SMERCONISH, radio talk show host: Exactly.

MATTHEWS: And that is refreshing.

SMERCONISH: Yes.

MATTHEWS: And you're thoughts here? Did you read the book? Once you read it you have a different take. It's almost like Mark Twain. It's so American, it's so textured. It's so, almost sounding like great fiction because it reads like us. It's picturesque. Is that the right word? Picturesque? I think it's got that quality.

"Don't we have a constitutional ban against setting religious tests for public office? I've never heard somebody scoff [sic] up votes by saying he's better at his religion than the other guy," Matthews huffed.

But in 1980, when Chris Matthews was working for then-President Jimmy Carter, the Democratic incumbent ran a TV ad in which he touted his religious faith:

Museum of the Moving Image
The Living Room Candidate
"Bible," Carter, 1980

MALE NARRATOR: Though he carefully observes our historic separation of church and state, Jimmy Carter is a deeply and clearly religious man. He takes the time to pray privately and with Rosalynn each day. Under the endless pressure of the Presidency, where decisions change and directions change, and even the facts change, this man knows that one thing remains constant: his faith. [with TEXT] President Carter.

In a clear sign liberal media elites are growing weary of the White House, comedian David Letterman went after President Obama's Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel Tuesday evening.

During the "Top Ten" segment of the "Late Show," Letterman counted down the signs that Emanuel is nuts.

Before beginning the list, Letterman explained with shocking detail that this was precipitated by Rep. Eric Massa's (D-N.Y.) assertion that Emanuel once cornered him in the Congressional shower room wearing nothing but an evil grimace.

Maybe most surprising, Letterman managed to lampoon the COS without once referencing to Sarah Palin (video embedded below the fold with transcribed list, h/t Story Balloon):

10. Every morning takes a leak off the Truman balcony
9.  President Obama smokes cigarettes; Rahm eats them
8.  Spotted today at Toyota dealership
7.  He's leaving Obama to become a special advisor to Richard Nixon
6.  In a fit of rage, he snapped Dennis Kucinich in half
5.  Changing his name to Rahm Emanuel Lewis
4.  Refers to every cabinet official as "Clarkie"
3.  Recently got into heated policy debate with his stapler
2.  You mean, besides walking around D.C. naked?
1.  Even Andy Dick is telling him to chill  

Following "Saturday Night Live's" pointed attack on the Administration this weekend, it appears broadcast network comedians and their writers are finally beginning to feel comfortable going after this White House. 

On Tuesday’s The O’Reilly Factor on FNC, during the show’s regular "Pinheads and Patriots" segment, host Bill O’Reilly picked up on Dan Rather’s recent gaffe connecting "articulate" President Obama with "selling watermelons," as the FNC host gave on-screen attribution to NewsBusters as his source while a clip of Rather’s words from Sunday’s Chris Matthews Show played.

O’Reilly then observed the double standard between the likely media interest if a right-leaning personality like himself made such a statement which seems to employ racial stereotyping versus the lack of interest in such words being uttered by the left-leaning Rather.

Below is a transcript of the relevant portion of the Tuesday, March 9, The O’Reilly Factor on FNC:

BILL O'REILLY: On the pinhead front, listen to Dan Rather on President Obama.

DAN RATHER: Part of the undertow in the coming election is going to be President Obama's leadership. And the Republicans will make a case – and a lot of independents will buy this argument: Listen, he just hasn't – look at the health care bill. It was his number one priority, and it took him forever to get it through, and he had to compromise it to death. And a version of, listen, he's a nice person, he's very articulate – this is what’s going to be used against him – but he couldn't sell watermelons if you gave him watermelons to flag down the traffic.

O'REILLY: Now, if I had said the word "watermelon" within a 100- mile radius of President Obama, I would have been hammered beyond belief by the liberal press. And you know it. But not a word about Mr. Rather, who really didn't mean anything derogatory, in my opinion. But you can decide if he's a pinhead.

One of the more extreme proposals floated early in the national health care debate was the idea of taxing soda and other sugary beverages. That trial balloon was almost immediately shot down by the American public, but the Obama administration is attempting to achieve, by subterfuge, soda taxes and a lot of other ways to micromanage our lives in the name of public health—whether or not ObamaCare passes. The mechanism is buried in last year’s $862-billion-and-counting stimulus bill, and works by diverting hundreds of millions of dollars that should be promoting economic growth to instead pay lobbyists to push for higher taxes and nanny-state controls over our lives.

It’s on pages 66 and 67 on the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which created a $1 billion “Prevention and Wellness Fund.” Of that, $650 million went to Kathleen Sebelius’s Department of Health and Human Services and has been used to start a new program at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) called “Communities Putting Prevention to Work” (CPPW).

Where does that giant pot of grant funding under the CPPW go? What it calls “MAPPS Interventions for Communities Putting Prevention to Work.” MAPPS stands for “Media, Access, Point of decision information, Price, and Social support/services.” In other words, strategies for changing our behavior, for social engineering on a large-scale, and, it seems, circumventing the normal democratic process. In a 14-page guidance for grant applicants, the CDC details tactics that grant applicants should include in their plans. It includes “counter-advertising” against targeted products, complete tobacco usage bans, limiting “unhealthy food availability” (the really bad stuff like “whole milk, sugar sweetened beverages, high-fat snacks”), and of course taxes (or in CDC lingo: “changing relative prices of healthy vs. unhealthy items”).

A supplemental document explains in more detail what the targets are, including restricting availability of soft drinks “in homes, schools, work sites, and communities.”

It also recommends local zoning changes to put fast food restaurants out of business, trans-fat bans, salt regulation, and food taxes. They even suggest a TV ban of sorts, recommending: “specific regulations/policies that limit television and other screen media.”

The first $120 million of funds has already been awarded to the states, and local grant recipients are expected to be announced soon. In Wisconsin, for example, we already know that the state department of health submitted a grant to use federal stimulus dollars to hire lobbyists to push for bans on flavored tobacco programs at the local level.

Although the grants under this program are supposedly restricted from funding lobbying activities, there is imply no way these objectives can be accomplished without major legislative changes at the state and local level. Our federal stimulus dollars are being used to hire lobbyists to push for these taxes, bans, restrictions, rules and regulations on what we eat, drink, smoke, and do for recreation. It’s a sweeping micromanagement of our lives that we didn’t vote for, made even worse by the fact that it’s being funded by stimulus money that was supposed to put people other than lobbyists back to work.

At the top of Tuesday's CBS Early Show, co-host Harry Smith proclaimed: "President Obama makes a tough final push, going on the offensive against health insurance companies. Will it work?" Later, co-host Maggie Rodriguez gushed: "It looked like a campaign rally yesterday with President Obama center-stage taking his fight for health care reform out of Washington and into America's heartland."

White House correspondent Bill Plante followed up Rodriguez's fawning intro by reporting: "It did indeed look like a campaign. I'll tell you, the President is racing hard to get across the finish line with health care reform. He's trying to convince the public to ignore what he calls 'Washington's obsession with keeping score in politics.'" An on-screen headline read: "Obama on the Offensive; Attacks Insurers In Latest Push for Reform."

Plante ignored the Obama administration's constant political score-keeping and instead lamented how despite the President "taking on the pundits and the political establishment...polls show Mr. Obama has an uphill battle." Plante cited a recent Gallup poll showing 49% of Americans oppose ObamaCare, though failed to point out that only 42% of respondents in that poll favored the plan.

On Thursday, the Early Show claimed that ObamaCare was on the "fast-track" to being passed.

Rather than feature any Republican opponents of the legislation in his piece, Plante simply summed up the GOP response this way: "Republicans are calling the President's pitch 'snake oil' and predicting failure." He then added: "Still, Mr. Obama vows to push ahead."

Plante concluded that the "reason for the President's urgent tone" was "the insurance industry is planning to mount a comeback campaign, an ad campaign for about a million dollars, this week."

Following Plante's report, Smith discussed the President's latest push with Face the Nation host Bob Schieffer. Smith noted how Obama's "trying to get public support for this and in our latest CBS News poll, 52% of the public concerned about the economy versus health care. He's got an uphill fight here." Schieffer argued: "I think they would tell you in the White House that this was the President's signature issue. This is what he campaigned on, was getting health care for all Americans." Schieffer added: "I don't question his sincerity. I also think it's – he thinks it's the right thing to do."

Smith then wondered about the amount of support for ObamaCare in Congress: "Does he have the numbers?" Schieffer replied: "No, he does not have the numbers. And one test of how you can always tell when they have the votes is that leaders in the Congress bring it to a vote. I don't think there's anybody who would say that at this point the President has the votes in the House of Representatives to get this passed."

Schieffer went on to highlight the President's tactic of going after health insurance companies: "a very important shift. He suddenly is not so much running against Republicans as he's running against the insurance companies themselves....this is the shift, this is what is different now." Plante made a similar observation in his report: "The new strategy, raise the temperature on insurance companies, and hope audiences, like the one in Pennsylvania Monday, will pressure Congress to pass the bill." In reality, Obama and the Democrats have been employing that failing strategy for months.   

Here is a full transcript of Plante's report:

MAGGIE RODRIGUEZ: And now to health care reform. It looked like a campaign rally yesterday with President Obama center-stage taking his fight for health care reform out of Washington and into America's heartland. CBS News senior White House correspondent Bill Plante is at the White House this morning with more on how the President is turning up the heat. Good morning, Bill.

BILL PLANTE: Good morning, Maggie. It did indeed look like a campaign. I'll tell you, the President is racing hard to get across the finish line with health care reform. He's trying to convince the public to ignore what he calls 'Washington's obsession with keeping score in politics.'

BARACK OBAMA: What does it mean for your poll numbers? Is this good for the Democrats or good for the Republicans? Who won the news cycle?

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Obama on the Offensive; Attacks Insurers In Latest Push for Reform]

PLANTE: The President may be taking on the pundits and the political establishment, but polls show Mr. Obama has an uphill battle. 49% of those in a Gallup poll now oppose the Obama health care plan and in a recent CBS News/New York Times poll, the bitter fight left 48% believing that the President has spent too much time on the issue and 52% saying he's spent too little time on the economy and jobs.

JOHN DICKERSON: Everybody who's looking for an explanation of what went wrong is now focusing on the staffers inside the White House. What these stories miss, though, is the fact that it's the President who has kept going forward on health care.

PLANTE: The new strategy, raise the temperature on insurance companies and hope audiences, like the one in Pennsylvania Monday, will pressure Congress to pass the bill.

OBAMA: They're telling their investors this, 'we are in the money, we are going to keep on making big profits even though a lot of folks are going to be put under hardship.'

PLANTE: But Republicans are calling the President's pitch 'snake oil' and predicting failure. Still, Mr. Obama vows to push ahead.

OBAMA: I don't know how passing health care will play politically. But I do know that it's the right thing to do.

PLANTE: There's a reason for the President's urgent tone, time is short. The insurance industry is planning to mount a comeback campaign, an ad campaign for about a million dollars, this week.

Barack Obama’s money train has steamrolled uncontrollably across the country, compiling record-breaking budgets, deficits, and debt along its path. Now, the train is running out of fuel, and the nation’s retirement money may find its way on board, to keep the train on the tracks.

Earlier this year, the U.S. Treasury and Labor Departments began a public discussion on the aim to convert 401(k) saving plans and Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs) into annuities and other forms of guaranteed income streams. Deputy Assistant Treasury Secretary Mark Iwry stated, “the question is how to encourage it, and whether the government can and should be helpful in that regard.” The supposition that the government is looking to be helpful with this proposal should automatically cause alarm.

The rationale for what would ultimately serve as a government takeover of the nation’s private pension system is of the same mold as the position Obama and Congressional Democrats have staked throughout the debate on health-care reform; “trust us, we know better than you”. Their assertion is that a weakened economy and a volatile stock market call for them to protect you and your interests, in this case your retirement money.

Last month, Newt Gingrich and Peter Ferrara editorialized on the Investor’s Business Daily website:

“The idea is for the government to take your retirement savings in return for a promise to pay you some monthly benefit in your retirement years. They will tell you that you are “investing” your money in U.S. Treasury bonds. But they will use your money immediately to pay for their unprecedented trillion-dollar budget deficits, leaving nothing to back up their political promises, just as they have raided the Social Security trust funds.”

If such a scheme sounds familiar to you, that’s because it is—cue Amos Lee’s I’ve Seen It All Before.

When Obama-mania was sweeping the world, and the then-Senator from Illinois was weeks away from making history, Argentina was searching for a solution to keep its own runaway train on the tracks—in hopes of improving its ability to service the nation’s debt and prevent another national default. Socialist President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner’s solution came in the form of the seizure of the $30 billion Argentines had amassed in their private pension funds and immediate transfer of the money into the nation’s social security system. Unsurprisingly, her administration defended the nationalization of the system as a means to guarantee pensions during a time of global economic uncertainty, and attacked the private system’s administrators who criticized the government’s intervention.

In February, Obama unveiled his budget for fiscal year 2011 which includes a proposal to require small businesses to establish automatic IRAs for employees. With his cronies from the financial services industry by his side, the measure is being marketed as a means to create a nation of savers. But this proposal wasn’t conjured up with your interests at heart. In actuality, the president is licking his lips, with his eyes set on sweetening an already massive lottery jackpot for the government.

As of the third quarter of 2009, Americans held a combined $8 trillion in 401(k) plans and IRAs, according to the most recent retirement market report from the Washington D.C.-based Investment Company Institute. Furthermore, his proposal for health-care reform calls for an extension of the 2.9% Medicare tax to unearned income, which means those annuities and other forms of guaranteed income streams you would receive in exchange for relinquishing the freedom you currently possess over your retirement funds, would be subject to taxation. The American people consistently lose when the government desires to be helpful.

The presidency of Barack Obama is nearly 14 months old, and the campaign-feel good rhetoric waxed about the Change We Need in Washington has materialized into the concoction of a young president channeling his inner-Daley to transform the nation’s capital into Chicago on the Potomac. Now, the citizenry of this nation should prepare for him to channel his inner-Kirchner to provide a taste of Argentine politics.

Unfortunately, it won’t taste as good as the steak.

All this talk about reconciliation is a distraction from the bigger picture: In one year Obama has lost his own party. He can’t get them to pass his signature bill. And now he has lost their trust. (Even though the media rarely mentions it, he had a filibuster proof majority in the senate and a super majority in the house and he STILL couldn’t get it done.)

The WSJ has a great piece on this

The cleanest option for Democrats would be for the House to pass the Senate’s Christmas Eve bill word for word, thereby bypassing a Senate filibuster under the normal rules and forwarding ObamaCare directly to the Rose Garden signing ceremony. But Speaker Nancy Pelosi has repeatedly said the votes simply don’t exist for the Senate bill as is…

Thus the convoluted scheme the White House has mapped out. The House would first pass the Senate bill, and then pass a reconciliation bill that addresses these objections—in effect converting the process into a makeshift and unprecedented vehicle for amendments…

Iron-clad promise—or double-cross? After all, the White House would much prefer the Senate bill, because by its lights the cost-control programs are tougher than what the House prefers…

In other words, perhaps Mr. Obama has embraced this reconciliation two-step only to renege as soon as the House gives him what he wants.

Add in Rep. Massa’s (D-NY) accusations that Obama’s boys booted him out because he voted against the “health care” bill and the allegations that Obama gave away a judicial appointment to Congressman Matheson (D-Utah) to get his vote for health care and the unbelievable has occurred. The bill looks sleazier than it did after the Cornhusker Kickback, The Louisiana Purchase and the Gator Aid.

Moderate Democrats can’t trust their own president. Getting ANY health care bill passed is now Obama’s top priority. He has convinced himself that it will be his legacy. He knows it’s very unpopular with the American people. (Even SNL knows that). But he believes the people just don’t know what’s good for them and they will eventually thank him for it. The lefties think you are too stupid to handle your own affairs – watch Robert Reich.

REICH: Yes, let them compete across state lines, fine. But not a race to the bottom. Set minimum federal standards because we’ve seen over and over again that the recipients of health insurance don’t know what they are buying very often. Until there are common standards, minimal standards, then people are going to be taken. And that is what’s happened over and over again.

WILL: There you have the premise of this legislation and the core of today’s liberalism: the American people are such dopes they can’t be counted upon to buy their own insurance.

See, they are smarter than you and you need to let them make the major decisions in your life. They want the government in charge of your retirement, your health care, your education, and even the amount of money you make.

I’m seriously worried how close they are to having their way. Thankfully, I think people are waking up.

Hey, Obama finally apologized for health care and I know how long Charlie Rangel’s “leave of absence” will be. Check it out.

CHRIS MATTHEWS: Let's talk about politics.  Who's more popular: Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, Joe Biden? Put them in order.  Who's the most popular figure?

ETHAN BRONNER: I would say Bill Clinton is the most popular of the four. And I would say Hillary is probably next.

MATTHEWS: The Secretary of State.

BRONNER: That's correct.  And then I would say Joe Biden, and then President Obama.

MATTHEWS: OK, that tells you a lot. So tell me why the President of the United States is so far [inaudible].  Is it his middle name? Hussein?

BRONNER: I would say that there is some level of prejudice about the fact that he had some Islamic background through his stepfather.  But I think it has more to do with the fact that when he came into office a year ago he wanted to recalibrate the relationship between the United States and the Muslim world. And the easiest and clearest way of doing that was to put some distance between the United States and Israel. And he did that, and that made people nervous.  I think there's also some sense here, some degree of racism to be perfectly honest.

MATTHEWS: Yeah, because they see him as a black man.

HDNet's Dan Rather stepped on one mine after another in the racial minefield that exists when talking about the nation's first black President as the former CBS anchor, on the syndicated Chris Matthews Show over the weekend, uttered the following take on the President's ability to get health care passed and how the GOP and independents would view it. [audio available here]

DAN RATHER: Part of the undertow in the coming election is going to be President Obama's leadership. And the Republicans will make a case and a lot of independents will buy this argument. "Listen he just hasn't been, look at the health care bill. It was his number one priority. It took him forever to get it through and he had to compromise it to death." And a version of, "Listen he's a nice person, he's very articulate" this is what's been used against him, "but he couldn't sell watermelons if it, you gave him the state troopers to flag down the traffic."

While Rather may not have been being intentionally racist one has to wonder what the reaction would be if a conservative had used similiar language on the show. (Thanks to the MRC's Bob Parks for alerting us to the remark and creating the video.)

Earlier Rather called the current legislation a "Republican health care bill" as seen in the following exchange as it was aired on the March 8th Chris Matthews Show:

CHRIS MATTHEWS: Will health care, the health care bill of Barack Obama, the one he roughly is for now, coming out of the Senate and coming out of the House. Will it become law? Will he win?
...
DAN RATHER: Yes because what we have now is basically a Republican health care bill, if it gets through. It's, it's got a lot...but I think the President finally putting his whole sack in on it, yes he wins but it's not a certain thing.

MATTHEWS: Andrea?

ANDREA MITCHELL: I think close call it has to win or else this presidency is in serious...

MATTHEWS: So in other words they'll make it happen.

MITCHELL: They've got to make it happen.

MATTHEWS: Joe Klein?

JOE KLEIN, TIME: Congressional Democrats are dreadful but they're not entirely stupid. They have to pass it.

MATTHEWS: And Nancy Pelosi will have her greatest triumph.

KLEIN: Sort of.

RATHER: When you talk about a triumph though. One, part of the undertow in the coming election is going to be President Obama's leadership. And the Republicans will make a case and a lot of independents will buy this argument. "Listen he just hasn't been, look at the health care bill. It was his number one priority. It took him forever to get it through and he had to compromise it to death." And a version of, "Listen he's a nice person, he's very articulate" this is what's been used against him, "but he couldn't sell watermelons if it, you gave him the state troopers to flag down the traffic."

Washington is abuzz these days with talk of “reconciliation” a word in our usual lexicon that suggests bringing people together. In this case, however, it is a larceny of language. It is divisive and not conciliatory and it is, understandably, creating anguish and outrage among those who understand the subterfuge at play here. Political mischief is about to run amok as this corruption of Senate rules becomes the strategic center piece President Obama and the Democratic majority in Congress will utilize to ram their health care bill into law.

To be sure, the reconciliation process has been used a number of times during the past thirty years, usually without much angst or controversy. It has, essentially, been used in the past to remove legislative stumbling blocks to initiatives with fairly strong bi-partisan support. American tradition as well as old-fashioned common sense has generally dictated that consequential legislation enjoy broad bipartisan consensus and, in fact, the most ambitious reconciliation bills of the past have been, more often than not, popular on both sides of the aisle. In these cases, reconciliation was used for procedural reasons, not to force through a bill that couldn’t get 60 votes. It has, however, never been used to advance legislation that a substantial majority of Americans have said they do not want. Nor should it be.

It was one of the wisest and most respected of Democrats, the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who warned his colleagues, “Never pass major legislation that affects most Americans without real bipartisan support. It opens the door to all kinds of political trouble.” It appears that the Administration and the congressional Democrats are, indeed, going to open the door to all kinds of political trouble. To paraphrase Professor Harold Hill who once bellowed in the musical comedy Music Man, “There’s trouble right (there) in River City”…the river now being the Potomac and the city being our nation’s capital, Washington, D.C.

To better understand this, we need to take a quick look at the rules of the United States Senate. Back in 1789 both the House and Senate allowed debate to be ended and a vote taken upon the vote of a simple majority when the question was called. That changed during the Jefferson Administration in 1804 when the Senate dropped the rule opting instead for unlimited debate, a practice that in one form or another has been used in other western democracies. This non-stop talkathon is known as a filibuster. The actual filibuster is no longer required. The declared intent to use it is enough under current Senate rules to stop the advance of contentious legislation.

We can always expect sanctimonious protests from either side of the aisle that “a few are thwarting the will of the majority,” when the proponents of contentious legislation are stymied by the 60-vote rule. In practice, however, the opposite is often true. For instance, what is being stymied by the threat of a filibuster in the current health care debate is an extreme makeover of a major segment of our economy that most Americans have said, repeatedly, they do not want.
In 1917 President Wilson, angry about Congress’ failure to vote on certain war measures, convinced the Senate to adopt a rule cutting off debate by a two-thirds vote. In 1975 the required vote was reduced to three-fifths or sixty percent.

Nevertheless, even with a reduction to a three-fifths vote the Senate also adopted a new process intended to allow consideration of contentious budget bills by a mere majority pursuant to reconciliation instructions in a budget resolution. The process was further refined by adoption of a rule in 1985 (the so-called Byrd Rule) that explains what kind of fiscal bill is subject to reconciliation. Since that time both parties have invoked the reconciliation process over 20 times, but never on anything resembling such a massive change in the relationship between government and private citizens and never without even a modicum of bipartisan support.

Senator Byrd, considered by many to be the dean of parliamentary law and the man who penned the Byrd rule mentioned above, stated in a written opinion at the outset of the healthcare debate, “I oppose using the budget reconciliation process to pass health care reform and climate change legislation. Such a proposal would violate the intent and spirit of the budget process, and do serious injury to the Constitutional role of the Senate.”

Rule changes often push the envelope and test the limits of legislative propriety. In the case of the reconciliation process, who advocates its use depends on whose ox is being gored. Back in 2005 when President Bush’s judicial nominees were being filibustered, making a mockery of the “advise and consent” process, the frustrated GOP majority threatened to invoke reconciliation to get up or down votes on the nominees, a threat which the Democrats named “the nuclear option.” Ironically, the very same Democrats who were so outraged by the Republican threat to use the reconciliation process to allow an up or down vote on judicial nominees now refer to its use as “nothing extraordinary.”

Then Senator Obama said “he [President Bush] hasn’t gotten his way and that is now prompting a change in the Senate rules that really, I think, would change the character of the Senate forever and what I worry about is that you essentially have … two chambers … but you have…absolute power on either side and that’s not what the Founders intended.” No, it certainly wasn’t what the Founders intended, but it does seem to be what President Obama intends now that he is in the White House and not merely in the Senate.

Now comes current Majority Leader Harry Reid, the poster-boy for hypocrisy, who noted back then “the right to extend a debate is never more important than when one party controls both Congress and the White House. The filibuster serves as a check on power [to] preserve our limited government.” Perhaps, someone should remind Senator Reid that limitation on government is particularly important when the people are sending clear messages that they are strongly opposed to what the Congress is doing.

Current Secretary of State, but then Senator, Clinton then called on her GOP colleagues to go to Bush and tell him reconciliation is “a bridge too far” that “you have to restrain yourself Mr. President.” Senator Charles Schumer then spoke of using reconciliation as bringing us to “the precipice of a constitutional crisis” saying to the majority that if “you didn’t get your way 100% of the time [it is like] throwing a temper tantrum.” However, in 2005, a bipartisan group of senators avoided testing the limits of reconciliation by agreeing to an up or down vote on several of the nominees and the issue died down.

Backing away from the brink on health care may prove more difficult. The better part of a year has been devoted to what is seen as President Obama’s signature issue. Moreover, in 2008, the Democrats were handed, by recent historical standards, very significant majorities in Congress. They interpreted this not as a rejection of the exorbitant spending during the Bush Administration or weariness with an unpopular war, but as a mandate to make unprecedented changes to enlarge the role of government in our lives. Then candidate Obama boasted, “We are going to fundamentally transform America.” With regard to health care, the President and the Democratic Congress now propose to take over more than 17% of our economy just at a time when the public has become far more attuned to the enormous danger the country faces as a result of our ever-growing budget deficits and our gargantuan national debt.

Moreover, public opinion polls in the last year, along with several off-year elections, town hall meetings and the growing anti-incumbent sentiment make it clear that the American public does not want the 2,700-page bill now before Congress. In the face of this evidence, however, and because of the election of Scott Brown to the Senate, thereby denying the Democrats a veto proof majority, the majority party proposes to undo over 200 years of Senate procedure to narrowly enact into law a 2.5 trillion dollar measure. It is a proposal of no less importance or long lasting implications to our society than the enactment of Social Security and Medicare…. and it is being pushed down the throats of the American People under the entreaties of the same Democratic politicians who in 2005 railed against expansion of the reconciliation procedure on an issue nowhere near as far reaching. Is it any wonder, Americans have lost faith in their elected leaders?

Leave aside the merits, or lack thereof, of the health care legislation. The use of reconciliation to pass a bill of such magnitude and over the objections of most Americans represents what may be the greatest display of arrogance by Congress in American history. It shows a complete disregard for the Senate’s own rules whenever it suits them. If this process is used, can anyone give us an example of any legislation when it would be improper? Actually, come to think of it we can: whenever Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi or Barack Obama find it to their partisan advantage. Does anyone see a resemblance, however, faint it might still be, to Hugo Chavez’s brand of democracy?

To add insult to injury, if the Democrats use reconciliation to advance their health care bill they would also have to engage in other legislative chicanery. The Senate, it seems, would have to pass a new and separate bill containing only amendments to its original bill in order to satisfy the House, which opposes the Senate bill as it stands. The House would then have to pass the Senate amendment bill and send that bill to the president for signature. Then the House would have to pass the first Senate bill and send it to the president for signature. The president would then have to sign the separate amendment into law first and then sign the original bill, in effect enacting into law an amendment to a law that did not yet officially exist. This sleight of hand would cross the eyes of any legitimate parliamentarian. Of course if the Senate Parliamentarian nixes the procedure, Vice President Biden, as the presiding officer of the Senate, can over-rule the Parliamentarian and the proverbial fix would be in.

We would argue that the elites of the liberal left believe they are smarter than everyone else and that the rest of the public simply won’t notice their perversion of acceptable procedure. But, the public does notice and it resents being steamrolled and taken for fools. The entire country ultimately sees and takes into account all the abuses of power that a tyrannical majority tries to get away with no matter who is in power.

Thus, the importance of this arcane little rule may have far more profound consequences than jamming a terrible and unpopular health care bill into law as bad and costly as that may be to the nation. What may very well be far worse is the price we pay in the loss of respect Americans have for their government. For more than two centuries this American experiment has endured, and indeed, strengthened in times of crisis because we trust its basic premise that it is founded on the rule of law. When that trust is stretched to the breaking point, we risk the emergence of even more fringe groups, conspiracy theorists, dangerous demagogues and the emergence of a segment of the population that simply will justify the evasion of what they perceive to be unjust law. Our system, at its core, depends upon the trust of the people. Loss of that trust would free a genie we may never be able to get back in the bottle.
by HAL GERSHOWITZ AND STEPHEN PORTER
Of Thee I Sing 1776

Near the end of Monday's CBS Early Show, co-host Erica Hill touted a new Parade magazine survey on volunteerism in America: "it indicates America is in the midst of what some are calling a compassion boom." Moments later, the magazine's contributing editor, Emily Listfield, argued: "There's something we call the 'Obama Effect.' People are responding to the President's call to service."

Interestingly, the Parade article made no mention of an "Obama Effect" in explaining why people are volunteering more. Apparently Listfield only felt the need to make that observation when appearing on CBS.

Hill set up Listfield's explanation by noting: "91% in the survey said community service, their community service involvement has gone up over the past 18 months." Hill then asked: "Why are you seeing that increase, and where are you seeing it the most?" A headline on screen read: "Compassion Counts; America's New Volunteering Boom."

—Kyle Drennen is a news analyst at the Media Research Center. You can follow him on Twitter here.

Dan Rather and Andrea Mitchell said this weekend that Barack Obama made a huge mistake pushing healthcare reform so soon in his first term.

Appearing on the syndicated program "The Chris Matthews Show," the former "CBS Evening News" anchor said of ObamaCare, "Bad choice. Particularly looking back on it. Jobs should have been the first choice."

A few minutes later, Mitchell concurred, "I agree with Dan and everyone here that this was a big miscalculation to go into it."

Yet, they also both agreed that even if it was a mistake to tackle this issue, Obama has to win (video embedded below the fold with partial transcript):

CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: The President's determination to get healthcare against all odds has even some Democrats wishing he had chosen to pursue jobs, something far less partisan. Congress watcher Charlie Cook calls it, "One of the biggest miscalculations in modern political history." Dan, he has made the decision. It's healthcare. Bad choice?

DAN RATHER, HDNET: Bad choice. Particularly looking back on it. Jobs should have been the first choice. Smart choice for him. Not saying that healthcare is not important, but your question is, was it a mistake, at least in hindsight? Absolutely. Because the economy is what it's about, jobs, jobs, jobs.

MATTHEWS: Okay, in foresight. Now that he has made the call and he sunk his teeth into this and his feet into this. Does he have to win on healthcare this month?

RATHER: Absolutely positively without question he's got to win on this. [...]

ANDREA MITCHELL, NBC: I agree with Dan and everyone here that this was a big miscalculation to go into it. But now that they're into it, they've got to win it.

Interesting: mistake to go for it, but he's got to win.

Quite a contrast to when George W. Bush was President and the media were constantly pushing him to admit errors they believed he made.

I guess "character" only matters to these folks when there's an "R" next to your name. Move that letter far to the left in the alphabet and victory is much more important.

Color me quite unsurprised.

As anyone who has any recollection of the aftermath of the 2008 election cycle knows, the GOP is hopelessly behind on the internet, cannot possibly marshal any web resources on its behalf because it’s stuck in the 19th century politically and will be eclipsed by the forces of Web 2.0 as surely as Democrats were eclipsed by talk radio.

Or at least, that’s what the Mainstream Media force-fed to people after the 2008 election cycle. Naturally, like most Mainstream Media memes, it was an abject lie, but still, somehow the fear worked its way around establishment GOP circles to the point that a veritable avalanche of hysteria crashed down on party activists. “Why, if the internet swings to the Left,” many supposedly “concerned conservative” commentators opined, “then surely our restrictive, overly ideological makeup will make it impossible for us to attract anyone!”

One can’t blame them for buying an argument which was made with such nauseating frequency. Yet, as recent events since the Obama election have shown, the idea that conservatism cannot capture the internet is not at all accurate. What few people may realize, however, is why this argument was so inaccurate, and more importantly, why it took a Messianic bumbler like Obama to expose its falsehood. With respect, therefore, I must disagree with my fellow contributor’s rejection of youth culture as something irrevocably tainted by liberalism, though I understand his frustration entirely.

However, as I mean to prove, the current youth ethos embodied by internet subculture is fundamentally conservative in character, even if its denizens have not yet caught on to that fact. In order to prove this, I will draw on knowledge that I have gained both as an avid internet user and as a member of a generation for whom digital communication is a second language – knowledge which would require investigating not only the harmless environs of Youtube, Facebook and Twitter, but also the darkest, least talked about nether-regions of the internet – websites which produce 90% of the internet’s cultural references, and yet are so riddled with perversity that their own patrons take it as an unspoken rule never to talk about them.

Not that these sites have gone unnoticed – indeed, some of their less savory exploits are infamous. For instance, on September 22, 2008, National Review blogger Andrew Grossman named one such website in an article dealing with the hacking of Governor Sarah Palin’s email account: “According to reports, one of a group of online delinquents who hang out on a message board called ‘/b/’ on a site called 4chan — they’re known as ‘b-tards’ — discovered that Governor Palin uses Yahoo! for her e-mail. He was able to reset the account’s password using information gleaned from Google searches: Palin’s zip code, her birthdate, and where she met her spouse…After he posted the details of his exploit on 4chan, a slew of forum denizens accessed the account to root through Palin’s correspondence.”

Now, to be sure, there are those among the “b-tards” whom Grossman describes who would no doubt fit the description of “delinquent,” but what no one out there seems to realize is that, were it not for websites like the aforementioned /b/, not only would countless recognizable internet memes not exist, but also, at least one influential political figure would arguably not have nearly the level of recognition he currently enjoys.

I refer to the truest example of an internet mobilizing politician, Dr. Ron Paul of Texas. Though many people only know Paul as a vaguely conspiracy-minded, neo-isolationist anti-Federal Reserve crusader, what they may not know is that one of Paul’s many titles is “President of the Internets,” (WARNING!!! EXTREMELY NSFW)  a title which was bestowed on him early in the 2008 election cycle by the 4chan-affiliated wiki website, Encyclopedia Dramatica. As a result, according to Encyclopedia Dramatica (or ED, as its frequent patrons know it), “Paul placed FIRST (37%) in the MySpace primary, ahead of Huckabee (18%) and Giuliani (16%).” And though 90% of what gets posted on Encyclopedia Dramatica is freely acknowledged by its readers as ironic, intentionally offensive nonsense, when it comes to meticulously documenting the evolution of internet phenomena, it is one of the most reliable sources available, if you can stomach the NSFW images and extremely offensive language.

Alright, you may be wondering, but so what? Even if a bunch of rabid anarchy-mongering internet crazies turned out for Paul, what does that have to do with the GOP’s power on the internet? The answer is that, even if you accept the framing of such sites as hotbeds of craziness and rabid disorder, there is a method to their madness. As for what that madness is, once you get past the persistent ironic glorifications of perversity and take a look at how the people who frequent these sites actually behave, and more importantly, who they target, it becomes abundantly clear that not only are the values of such sites fundamentally conservative, but that their communications strategies, even if toned down for a mainstream audience, are nothing less than the perfect weapons for disassembling the Obama Presidency.

If this seems strange, it shouldn’t. In fact, much as the highly controversial and obscene Comedy Central show South Park gave rise to a populist, pro-National Security, anti-political correctness breed of young Republican in the early 2000s, I would argue that the new decade could see a similar rise of iconoclastic, libertarian, anti-political correctness sentiment among what I would term “4chan Republicans.” There are three reasons why this could easily happen, which I will explore in detail below.

Firstly, as already alluded, the current administration embodies everything internet subculture hates. For instance, some of the most common targets for internet backlash are people suffering from cases of what is termed “unwarranted self-importance.” There is perhaps no term which has been better coined to describe the current President’s outlook on life and governance. Billing oneself as the sole causal factor in reducing climate change and expecting one’s personal preferences to constitute a compelling reason to move the Olympics are hardly signs of humility. Moreover, one element of internet subculture which is persistently invoked is the drive for free expression (often of the most politically incorrect variety possible), unhampered by restrictions of either an economic or governmental variety, and certainly without regard for offended parties.

The Democratic party, dominated as it is by multiculturally-minded quasi-socialists, many of  whom have arguably been long since emasculated by sensitivity training, speech codes and other cornerstones of “progressive” victim-mongering, could not possibly provide a satisfactory home to such people. In fact, judging by the actions of internet goons, some of the Democrats’ most treasured constituencies have already fallen afoul of them.

And who are these targets? Besides the one conservative/mainstream example of Sarah Palin (who has not been pestered since), the answer is that the targets for repeated attacks are, by and large, people who most of wider society considers undesirable, many of whom are shielded from more official criticism by the wall of political correctness. These targets include such revolting examples as feminist bloggers who muse openly about aborting their teenage sons because all men are “potential rapists,” stalking vloggers who draw terrifying cartoon pornography of themselves with female friends, open white supremacists and, perhaps most infamously, the Church of Scientology. While one can disapprove of the tactics used against these institutions/individuals (some of which make the much vilified “enhanced interrogation techniques” look positively benign by comparison), it is worth noting that ultimately, the power of internet goons lies in their ability to enforce social norms against the most flagrantly vile members of society through private sanction – something which conservatives from Russell Kirk and Irving Kristol to Tom Coburn and Dick Cheney have endorsed. What’s more, at the point where their targets/members actually run afoul of the law, these users have historically turned the relevant information over to law enforcement, suggesting a desire to be hard on crime.

In short, unlike previous generations, when all the forms of counterculture have swung to the Left and emboldened the forces of chaos and social subversion, the darkest, most countercultural corners of the internet are possessed of a singular desire for spontaneous and brutally enforced social order. What’s more, their allergy to self-importance and the authoritarianism of victimhood marks them as prime targets for liberalism’s self-appointed multicultural targets, and as potential sleeper cells in the culture war. Given the power of these sites to define internet subculture, rally donations, win polls and crown previous third tier candidates as prophets of an insurgent movement, it seems indisputable that the conservative movement has much to gain if it only learns to speak in their language.

For the second week in a row George Will gave a much-needed education to one of the media's most beloved liberal economists.

During the Roundtable segment of Sunday's "This Week," Berkeley professor Robert Reich falsely claimed health insurance companies are exhibiting huge profits: "That is money directly out of the pockets of Americans."

Will countered, "[C]onfiscate all the profits of all the health insurance companies, with those profits you could finance our healthcare for 48 hours."

Reich arrogantly responded, "[R]ecipients of health insurance don't know what they are buying very often. Until there are common standards, minimal standards, then people are going to be taken."

This nicely set Will up to drive the ball out of the park, "There you have the premise of this legislation and the core of today's liberalism: the American people are such dopes they can't be counted upon to buy their own insurance" (video embedded below the fold with transcript): 

ROBERT REICH, AMERICAN PROSPECT: The health insurers are not, George, you said they're popular and everybody likes their health insurer. They like their doctor. They hate their health insurer. And health insurance is going up in terms of rates 20, 30, 40, 50 percent in many states. In fact, Goldman Sachs just this past week has said to its many of its investors, "Invest in some insurance companies because they don't have competition, and they have, are exhibiting huge profits." That is money directly out of the pockets of Americans.

GEORGE WILL, ABC: A, you say they have huge profits. As you know, confiscate all the profits of all the health insurance companies, with those profits you could finance our healthcare for 48 hours. What you do for the next 363 days I don't know. Second, you say there's not enough competition? Fine, let them compete in a national market across state lines.

REICH: Yes, let them compete across state lines, fine. But not a race to the bottom. Set minimum federal standards because we've seen over and over again that the recipients of health insurance don't know what they are buying very often. Until there are common standards, minimal standards, then people are going to be taken. And that is what's happened over and over again.

WILL: There you have the premise of this legislation and the core of today's liberalism: the American people are such dopes they can't be counted upon to buy their own insurance.

For the record, as NewsBusters has previously reported, health insurance companies are amongst the least profitable of all America's industries. Here are 2008's rankings done by Fortune magazine:

2008 Industry Rank as % of Revenues
1 Network and Other Communications Equipment 20.4
2 Internet Services and Retailing 19.4
3 Pharmaceuticals 19.3
4 Medical Products and Equipment 16.3
5 Railroads 12.6
6 Financial Data Services 11.7
7 Mining, Crude-Oil production 11.5
8 Securities 10.7
9 Oil and Gas Equipment, Services 10.2
10 Scientific, Photographic, and Control Equipment 9.9
11 Household and Personal Products 8.7
12 Utilities: Gas and Electric 8.7
13 Aerospace and Defense 7.6
14 Food Services 7.1
15 Industrial Machinery 6.9
16 Food Consumer Products 6.7
17 Electronics, Electrical Equipment 6.5
18 Commercial Banks 5.2
19 Telecommunications 5.1
20 Chemicals 5.0
21 Construction and Farm Machinery 5.0
22 Insurance: Life, Health (stock) 4.6
23 Information Technology Services 4.5
24 Computers, Office Equipment 4.3
25 Metals 3.9
26 Wholesalers: Diversified 3.5
27 Insurance: Property and Casualty (stock) 3.3
28 Specialty Retailers 3.2
29 General Merchandisers 3.2
30 Health Care: Pharmacy and Other Services 3.0
31 Packaging, Containers 3.0
32 Beverages 2.9
33 Engineering, Construction 2.7
34 Health Care: Medical Facilities 2.4
35 Health Care: Insurance and Managed Care 2.2
36 Petroleum Refining 2.1
37 Food and Drug Stores 1.5
38 Pipelines 1.5
39 Wholesalers: Health Care 1.3
40 Semiconductors and Other Electronic Components 1.0
41 Energy 0.9
42 Home Equipment, Furnishings 0.7
43 Food Production 0.6
44 Wholesalers: Electronics and Office Equipment -0.3
45 Diversified Financials -0.6
46 Motor Vehicles and Parts -0.7
47 Insurance: Life, Health (mutual) -3.0
48 Hotels, Casinos, Resorts -4.5
49 Automotive Retailing, Services -7.9
50 Forest and Paper Products -9.6
51 Entertainment -10.0
52 Real Estate -13.4
53 Airlines -13.5

So, in 2008, health insurers ranked 35th in profitability returning a meager 2.2 percent on revenues. What this means is that for every dollar health insurers brought in, they made 2.2 cents.

Sadly, for liberal media members like Reich, that's considered TOO MUCH! Nice job of Will to point out his inanity.

Of course, he'll probably be the next liberal economist in the media to win a Nobel Prize.

But for now, Reich was just the second media darling in eight days to go head to head with Will and lose.

For those that have forgotten, George smacked around New York Times columnist Paul Krugman on last Sunday's "This Week."

Who's next?

"Saturday Night Live" mocked the entire Democrat establishment last evening taking on President Obama, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), and healthcare reform.

Fred Armisen playing Obama in a mock address to the American Nursing Association continually referred to healthcare legislation currently before Congress as "surprisingly unpopular."

"Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid have assured me that unpopular though it may be, in the days ahead this bill will be passed by both the House and Senate and sent to my desk for signature," assured Armisen.

"Finally, after decades of effort, we will have real healthcare reform even though, as I have said, it may not be popular. Or viewed favorably by Americans. Or what the people want us to do" (video embedded below the fold with transcript, h/t Story Balloon):

FRED ARMISEN AS PRESIDENT OBAMA: Good afternoon. Roughly sixteen years ago in 1993 and ‘94, a newly-elected Democratic President Bill Clinton working with the Democratic majorities in both the House and Senate attempted to pass the first serious health care reform in a generation. Predictably, the forces of the status quo went into action. The bill was attacked relentlessly. Unfairly distorted and became so unpopular it was finally abandoned. That fall of '94, the Democrat Speaker of the House was defeated in his own district and the Republicans took over both houses of Congress. I am here today joined by House Speaker Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Reid to tell the American people this is not going to happen again. Now, polls may show the healthcare reform bill currently before Congress to be surprisingly unpopular.

KRISTEN WIIG AS NANCY PELOSI: They really don't like it.

WILL FORTE AS HARRY REID: I thought it would be much more unpopular. Much more popular, excuse me.

WIIG: I was stunned.

ARMISEN: All the same. It is not going to be abandoned. It is a good bill. A good bill hat we have perhaps failed to properly explain. Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid have assured me that unpopular though it may be in the days ahead, this bill will be passed by both the House and Senate and sent to my desk for signature. Finally, after decades of effort, we will have real healthcare reform even though as I have said, it may not be popular. Or viewed favorably by Americans. Or what the people want us to do.
Naturally the same forces that fought reform sixteen years ago are back trying to convince members of Congress that a vote for this legislation is political suicide.

Now, granted this bill is very unpopular, but come on, does anyone seriously think Nancy Pelosi could lose in her San Francisco district? A place where Republican candidates often finish fourth behind professional dominatrixes - and homeless people. Let's get real, that's not going to happen.

Now, Senator Reid, I'll admit, is in a different situation. He's up for re-election this fall in Nevada where healthcare reform is especially unpopular. I'm not sure why, but it is.
Really, really unpopular. Angry mob unpopular. So let's be frank, Harry could lose this November, but let me make something clear, I don't think he will. Or at least it won't be because of this unpopular healthcare bill. After all, he's got other problems. Healthcare could poll at 100% and Harry Reid would still have problems. I think even Harry would agree he's not the most telegenic or charismatic guy around. Am I right about that?
Plus he has been hurt by some of the sleazy deals he cut with other Senators in order to get health care passed. I mean you have to acknowledge they were sleazy.

FORTE: You're right, they were. They were.

ARMESON: I mean the Cornhusker Kickback. It just smelled bad.

FORTE: It did.

ARMESON: Also, Harry hasn't been able to spend much time back in Nevada campaigning as he's been tied up here in Washington working on this deeply unpopular healthcare bill. But that doesn't help. But still, I wouldn't count Harry Reid out. He's a scrapper. Plus even if he should lose, we'll still have enough Democratic senators for a majority. I mean, no offense.

FORTE: None taken.

ARMESON: I mean, who knows? We might even be better off without him. I don't know.

FORTE: Maybe.

ARMESON: But I'll tell you what, even with all of Harry's problems, I'll bet he makes it, although you never know. Nevada is weird. Now, Nancy here, I'm sure of. Come on, San Francisco.

WIIG: I feel pretty good.

ARMESON: As for myself, I will unfortunately not be on the ballot this fall. I wish I could be because unlike this healthcare bill, I am really, really popular. You'll see what I mean in 2012. Thank you and live from New York, it's Saturday Night!

Interesting how the folks at "SNL" really harped on how unpopular the bill is, and how Obama, Pelosi, and Reid are willing to force it through regardless of what the people want.

Nice to see some honesty in the media concerning this issue even if from a comedy show.

Although this wasn't very funny, this skit more accurately depicted what's going on with healthcare reform than what's been emanating from so-called "real journalists" for months.

Bravo, SNL. Bravo!

Talk about tough love . . .

Frank Rich believes Barack Obama is approaching a "do or die moment" and that "we face the alarming prospect that his presidency could be toast" if he doesn't push ObamaCare through.  Rich's New York Times column of today, The Up-or-Down Vote on Obama’s Presidency, is a crushing compendium of criticism for a president he sees as talented but too timid.  

I'd encourage readers to read the full piece, but let's have fun with this super-condensed version of Frank's frustration-venting:

his preposterous backdrop . . .cheesy theatrics . . . This finest hour arrived hastily and tardily . . . We’ve heard this too many times before . . . “They are waiting for us to lead.” Actually, they have given up waiting . . .a sinking sense of disillusionment about his ability to exercise power . . . it won’t even be the opposition’s fault . . . The G.O.P. would be able to argue this fall, not without reason, that the party holding the White House and both houses of Congress cannot govern . . . The leadership shortfall we’ve witnessed during Obama’s yearlong health care march . . . missed deadlines, the foggy identification of his priorities, the sometimes abrupt shifts in political tone and strategy . . . theories as to why Obama has disappointed in Year One . . . In governing, Obama has yet to find a theme that is remotely as arresting to the majority of Americans . . . there is no consistent, clear message . . . the bill became a mash-up that baffled or defeated those Americans on his side and was easily caricatured as a big-government catastrophe . . . His domestic policies, whether on climate change or health care or regulatory reform, are reduced to items on a standard liberal wish list . . . too timid to confront the financial industry backers of his own campaign . . . and too fearful of sounding like a vulgar partisan populist . . . Obama offers no overarching narrative . . . Even. . . Warren Buffett . . . sounds more fired up about unregulated derivatives and more outraged about unpunished finance-industry executives than the president does.

Yikes.  This from one of PBO's historically most avid supporters.  The column's concluding words are "the clock runs out on Nov. 2."  If Rich is representative of Dem thinking and emotion, that clock might sound very loudly indeed.

Supertrain 2010 = Supertrain 1979!

President Barack Obama has pledged $8 billion in tax dollars to build a national network of high-speed rail—trains that can carry passengers at speeds in excess of 150 MPH.

But the Supertrain fantasy was a mistake back in the 1970s, when it gave rise to one of the most expensive—and rotten—TV shows in history. And it’s just as much of a wreck in the 21st century for at least three reasons:

1. The lowball costs. CNN estimates that delivering on the plan could cost well over $500 billion and take decades to build, all while failing to cover much of the country at all. Internationally, only two high-speed rail lines have recouped their capital costs and all depend on huge subsidies to stay in operation.

2. The supposed benefits. “We’re gonna be taking cars off of congested highways and reducing carbon emissions,” says Vice President Joe Biden, an ardent rail booster. But most traffic jams are urban, not inter-city, so high-speed rail between metro areas will have no effect on your daily commute. And when construction costs are factored in, high-speed rail “may yield only marginal net greenhouse gas reductions,” say UC-Berkeley researchers.

3. The delusional Amtrak example. Obama and Biden look to Amtrak as precedent, but since its founding in 1971, the nation’s passenger rail system has sucked up almost $35 billion in subsidies and, says The Washington Post’s Robert J. Samuelson, “a typical trip is subsidized by about $50.” About 140 million Americans shlep to work every day, while Amtrak carries just 78,000 passengers. There’s no reason to think that high-speed rail will pump up those numbers, though there’s every reason to believe its costs will grow and grow.

“Supertrain 2010″ was written and produced by Meredith Bragg and Nick Gillespie, who also hosts. Approximately 3 minutes.

Go to Reason.tv for iPod, HD, and audio versions, and for supporting materials and more videos.

And subscribe to Reason.tv’s YouTube channel to get automatic notifications when new material goes live.

Conservative radio host Steve Malzberg on Wednesday laid into MSNBC and Joe Scarborough for cropping George W. Bush out of the cover of Newsweek.

As NewsBusters reported, "Morning Joe" earlier that day showed a picture of the Newsweek cover altered to omit former President Bush's face from the shot.

"Big conservative Joe Scarborough. Big conservative my butt," said an angry Malzberg.

"They know no shame," he continued. "Good thing Obama keeps having those hosts over to the White House for little private meetings" (audio available here, transcript below the fold):

STEVE MALZBERG, HOST: Alright, ladies and gentlemen. Our friends at NewsBusters have pointed this out. On MSNBC's "Morning Joe" show, they showed the cover of Newsweek, a little Paul Simon - "We's all on the cover of Newsweek". Well, it says, "Victory at Last: the Emergence of a Democratic Iraq." And it featured, the cover, the real cover of Newsweek, features a picture of George W. Bush walking the deck of an aircraft carrier. But the image of Newsweek that appeared on the screen on MSNBC cropped out President Bush's face. It showed Bush on the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln in 2003, after his mission accomplished speech, and MSNBC, it includes half of Bush's body and face, the real cover. MSNBC further cropped the image to leave only the arm of the former President visible.

Now, we posted both of these at the website at WORRadioNet.com, the new, the link to the NewsBusters story, WORRadioNet.com. But do you understand, do you understand what I'm saying? Big conservative Joe Scarborough. Big conservative my butt. And they crop out Bush's face. Now, am I shocked? Well, I'm a little shocked because this is a Newsweek cover. But it didn't stop the bastards at MSNBC from doing it now, did it? They know no shame. They know no shame. Good thing Obama keeps having those hosts over to the White House for little private meetings. Who knows what they'll crop out next? Maybe the American flag.

Indeed. 

Bravo, Steve. Bravo.

“Despite persistent violence and a critical election coming up, President Obama hardly ever mentions the war in Iraq,” Joseph Curl reports in today’s Washington Times, and the news media are largely aiding in this neglect. Curl discloses that “the last time a White House reporter asked about the Iraq war was June 26,” while ABC, CBS and NBC aired just 80 minutes of coverage in all of 2009.

The near-media blackout means that the success of President Bush’s “surge” policy in 2007 — a policy opposed by President Obama and Vice President Biden when both were presidential candidates and ridiculed by the networks as a "Lost Cause" — has gone virtually unreported in the past year. This week’s Newsweek is an exception, with a big Iraq War cover story declaring “Victory at Last.”

According to Newsweek’s Babak Dehghanpisheh, John Barry  and Christopher Dickey: “It has to be said and it should be understood – now, almost seven hellish years later -- that something that looks mighty like democracy is emerging in Iraq. And while it may not be a beacon of inspiration to the region, it most certainly is a watershed event that could come to represent a whole new era in the history of the massively undemocratic Middle East."

Curl documents the lack of media interest in a war in which nearly 100,000 U.S. troops continue to serve:

The White House press corps hasn't asked Mr. Obama about the Iraq war in months. The president was last asked about the conflict on Dec. 7, during an Oval Office press availability with Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan. But the question came from a Turkish reporter - after an Associated Press reporter asked about the economy.

In fact, the last time a White House reporter asked about the Iraq war was June 26, when National Public Radio's Don Gonyea asked an Iraq-related question during a joint news conference of Mr. Obama and German Chancellor Angela Merkel, according to records kept by CBS Radio reporter Mark Knoller....

The three main broadcast networks - ABC, NBC and CBS - have moved on to other topics as well. In 2008, the Iraq war was the seventh most heavily covered story, with the three networks devoting 288 minutes to reports about the war, according to the Tyndall Report, which monitors the weekday nightly newscasts of the networks. In 2009, the Iraq war dropped off the top 10 list, with just 80 minutes of coverage.

The New York Times wrote 374 "substantial" stories on Iraq in 2008 (meaning the word "Iraq" appears at least 10 times in article), according to the Nexis database. In 2009, that dropped to 208. The same went for The Washington Post - 422 "substantial" stories on Iraq in 2008; 169 in 2009, after Mr. Obama had taken office.

You can find the full article at The Washington Times.

Sad, but some of our fellow countrymen are actually buying this.

Sad, but some of our fellow countrymen are actually buying this.

There was an old English saying, “A mayde schuld be seen, but not herd” which has since morphed into ‘Children should be seen and not heard’. The latter was the world I grew up in, and as one finds as one grows up, there is wisdom in old sayings.

I remember being with my father and his friends as a child, and that saying was the rule, because of course, I had very little to offer an adult conversation. That was then.

I also remember the Bill Clinton/Whitney Houston 80s and 90s. Bill Clinton for coining the phrase “for the children” and Whitney Houston for that sappy song “The Greatest Love Of All’ with what we thought were harmless lyrics….

I believe the children are our are future
Teach them well and let them lead the way
Show them all the beauty they possess inside
Give them a sense of pride to make it easier

Between the two of them, talk about the makings of the big head.

Let me preface the remainder of this column by saying that when I refer to young people, I don’t mean all. Some of them get it. Obviously, most of them don’t.

Those kids grew up with progressive teachers who, because of the power of the grading system (which can make or break futures), told them they knew more than their ignorant parents; they knew more than simpleton adults. Their opinions, despite the lack of life experience, were equal, and important, if not superior, to adults. We gave them the technological means for self-expression which they now use to bully themselves and others.

They now believe they know everything because of what they were taught by educational authority figures. They believed in recycling, came home and told us we should too. They believed in the Palestinians, and came home and told us we should too.

Think about this: do you think young teen-aged girls, yapping away on cellphones about themselves and boys at the mall would soon be ready to place themselves between an Army bulldozer and a suspected terrorist hideout on the West bank without a little prodding from some opinionated college professors?

They now believe in global warming caused by evil corporations and our lust for the very fossil fuels that enabled us to take their lazy butts to the mall, came home and told us we should too. Then they believed in a man named Barack Obama for all the wonderful things he would do to fix this imperialist, racist, homophobic society that enabled them to live relatively carefree lives.

They came to our homes; they came to our schools; they came to our workplaces; they came via our television shows; they came to our websites and demanded we think like they wanted us to think, vote like they wanted us to vote, or else.

Now, they roam the streets when we have party conventions, destroy public and private property, wearing black masks in full view seemingly to give us all the middle finger of defiance while they intentionally break the law.

What else did that “or else” entail?

They got in our faces. They called us names when they couldn’t debate the realities of what Obama’s policies could cost us all, which was not big deal to them because most of them still live at home, don’t pay rent, don’t pay for food, don’t pay for their cellphone bill (and bitch when they exceed their text limits), don’t pay for the Internet bill, don’t pay for power, don’t do dishes, and many don’t even wash their own clothes, yet THEY KNOW what’s best for the nation.

THEY KNOW that Cap-and-Trade will be good for the economy and will create “green jobs” although they can’t tell us what specifically they’ll be.

THEY KNOW that universal health care is something they all want, although probably none of them could define it two years ago.

Personally, I’m tired of having arrogant, narcissistic children question my intelligence publicly online while they can’t even accurately spell their insults. I’m tired of being told my opinion on foreign affairs don’t matter because I never served (even though I am a Navy veteran). I’m tired of hearing Bill Clinton and Whitney Houston’s voices every time I’m told that my opinions don’t count because I won’t be around much longer, the world belongs to them, and they’ll show us with their soon-to-be-served Coffee Parties.

I plan of being around (as I’m not THAT old) when the social utopia they insisted would come about doesn’t and they whine because we saw this coming and didn’t warn them. I plan on being around watching them bitch and moan when they have to pay 80 cents on every dollar they earn because of socialist policies their president imposed on the rest of us that limits their freedoms. And they thought a grounding was bad. Soon they’ll have to pay for the privilege and it’ll be their own damn fault.

The very young people we sacrificed decades of our lives feeding, clothing, and housing have declared war on the rest of us. If you think I’m being sensational, ask yourselves this: where would we be today had those young people listened to the advise of those who’ve seen and experienced more? Would we be talking about “reconciliation” or “carbon credits” or “death panels”? Would our entertainment and education industrial complexes have had the power to turn the very children we supported with our unconditional love and toil against us?

Maybe, maybe not, but much of the youth of America has declared war on the rest of us and we all need to decide what we’re going to do about it.

Personally, with the coming midterm and presidential elections looming, I think I may offer what my father would’ve said.

Children should be seen and not heard.

And if that doesn’t work, “Shut up!”

There was an old English saying, “A mayde schuld be seen, but not herd” which has since morphed into ‘Children should be seen and not heard’. The latter was the world I grew up in, and as one finds as one grows up, there is wisdom in old sayings.

I remember being with my father and his friends as a child, and that saying was the rule, because of course, I had very little to offer an adult conversation. That was then.

I also remember the Bill Clinton/Whitney Houston 80s and 90s. Bill Clinton for coining the phrase “for the children” and Whitney Houston for that sappy song “The Greatest Love Of All’ with what we thought were harmless lyrics….

I believe the children are our are future
Teach them well and let them lead the way
Show them all the beauty they possess inside
Give them a sense of pride to make it easier

Between the two of them, talk about the makings of the big head.

Let me preface the remainder of this column by saying that when I refer to young people, I don’t mean all. Some of them get it. Obviously, most of them don’t.

Those kids grew up with progressive teachers who, because of the power of the grading system (which can make or break futures), told them they knew more than their ignorant parents; they knew more than simpleton adults. Their opinions, despite the lack of life experience, were equal, and important, if not superior, to adults. We gave them the technological means for self-expression which they now use to bully themselves and others.

They now believe they know everything because of what they were taught by educational authority figures. They believed in recycling, came home and told us we should too. They believed in the Palestinians, and came home and told us we should too.

Think about this: do you think young teen-aged girls, yapping away on cellphones about themselves and boys at the mall would soon be ready to place themselves between an Army bulldozer and a suspected terrorist hideout on the West bank without a little prodding from some opinionated college professors?

They now believe in global warming caused by evil corporations and our lust for the very fossil fuels that enabled us to take their lazy butts to the mall, came home and told us we should too. Then they believed in a man named Barack Obama for all the wonderful things he would do to fix this imperialist, racist, homophobic society that enabled them to live relatively carefree lives.

They came to our homes; they came to our schools; they came to our workplaces; they came via our television shows; they came to our websites and demanded we think like they wanted us to think, vote like they wanted us to vote, or else.

Now, they roam the streets when we have party conventions, destroy public and private property, wearing black masks in full view seemingly to give us all the middle finger of defiance while they intentionally break the law.

What else did that “or else” entail?

They got in our faces. They called us names when they couldn’t debate the realities of what Obama’s policies could cost us all, which was not big deal to them because most of them still live at home, don’t pay rent, don’t pay for food, don’t pay for their cellphone bill (and bitch when they exceed their text limits), don’t pay for the Internet bill, don’t pay for power, don’t do dishes, and many don’t even wash their own clothes, yet THEY KNOW what’s best for the nation.

THEY KNOW that Cap-and-Trade will be good for the economy and will create “green jobs” although they can’t tell us what specifically they’ll be.

THEY KNOW that universal health care is something they all want, although probably none of them could define it two years ago.

Personally, I’m tired of having arrogant, narcissistic children question my intelligence publicly online while they can’t even accurately spell their insults. I’m tired of being told my opinion on foreign affairs don’t matter because I never served (even though I am a Navy veteran). I’m tired of hearing Bill Clinton and Whitney Houston’s voices every time I’m told that my opinions don’t count because I won’t be around much longer, the world belongs to them, and they’ll show us with their soon-to-be-served Coffee Parties.

I plan of being around (as I’m not THAT old) when the social utopia they insisted would come about doesn’t and they whine because we saw this coming and didn’t warn them. I plan on being around watching them bitch and moan when they have to pay 80 cents on every dollar they earn because of socialist policies their president imposed on the rest of us that limits their freedoms. And they thought a grounding was bad. Soon they’ll have to pay for the privilege and it’ll be their own damn fault.

The very young people we sacrificed decades of our lives feeding, clothing, and housing have declared war on the rest of us. If you think I’m being sensational, ask yourselves this: where would we be today had those young people listened to the advise of those who’ve seen and experienced more? Would we be talking about “reconciliation” or “carbon credits” or “death panels”? Would our entertainment and education industrial complexes have had the power to turn the very children we supported with our unconditional love and toil against us?

Maybe, maybe not, but much of the youth of America has declared war on the rest of us and we all need to decide what we’re going to do about it.

Personally, with the coming midterm and presidential elections looming, I think I may offer what my father would’ve said.

Children should be seen and not heard.

And if that doesn’t work, “Shut up!”

There was an old English saying, “A mayde schuld be seen, but not herd” which has since morphed into ‘Children should be seen and not heard’. The latter was the world I grew up in, and as one finds as one grows up, there is wisdom in old sayings.

I remember being with my father and his friends as a child, and that saying was the rule, because of course, I had very little to offer an adult conversation. That was then.

I also remember the Bill Clinton/Whitney Houston 80s and 90s. Bill Clinton for coining the phrase “for the children” and Whitney Houston for that sappy song “The Greatest Love Of All’ with what we thought were harmless lyrics….

I believe the children are our are future
Teach them well and let them lead the way
Show them all the beauty they possess inside
Give them a sense of pride to make it easier

Between the two of them, talk about the makings of the big head.

Let me preface the remainder of this column by saying that when I refer to young people, I don’t mean all. Some of them get it. Obviously, most of them don’t.

Those kids grew up with progressive teachers who, because of the power of the grading system (which can make or break futures), told them they knew more than their ignorant parents; they knew more than simpleton adults. Their opinions, despite the lack of life experience, were equal, and important, if not superior, to adults. We gave them the technological means for self-expression which they now use to bully themselves and others.

They now believe they know everything because of what they were taught by educational authority figures. They believed in recycling, came home and told us we should too. They believed in the Palestinians, and came home and told us we should too.

Think about this: do you think young teen-aged girls, yapping away on cellphones about themselves and boys at the mall would soon be ready to place themselves between an Army bulldozer and a suspected terrorist hideout on the West bank without a little prodding from some opinionated college professors?

They now believe in global warming caused by evil corporations and our lust for the very fossil fuels that enabled us to take their lazy butts to the mall, came home and told us we should too. Then they believed in a man named Barack Obama for all the wonderful things he would do to fix this imperialist, racist, homophobic society that enabled them to live relatively carefree lives.

They came to our homes; they came to our schools; they came to our workplaces; they came via our television shows; they came to our websites and demanded we think like they wanted us to think, vote like they wanted us to vote, or else.

Now, they roam the streets when we have party conventions, destroy public and private property, wearing black masks in full view seemingly to give us all the middle finger of defiance while they intentionally break the law.

What else did that “or else” entail?

They got in our faces. They called us names when they couldn’t debate the realities of what Obama’s policies could cost us all, which was not big deal to them because most of them still live at home, don’t pay rent, don’t pay for food, don’t pay for their cellphone bill (and bitch when they exceed their text limits), don’t pay for the Internet bill, don’t pay for power, don’t do dishes, and many don’t even wash their own clothes, yet THEY KNOW what’s best for the nation.

THEY KNOW that Cap-and-Trade will be good for the economy and will create “green jobs” although they can’t tell us what specifically they’ll be.

THEY KNOW that universal health care is something they all want, although probably none of them could define it two years ago.

Personally, I’m tired of having arrogant, narcissistic children question my intelligence publicly online while they can’t even accurately spell their insults. I’m tired of being told my opinion on foreign affairs don’t matter because I never served (even though I am a Navy veteran). I’m tired of hearing Bill Clinton and Whitney Houston’s voices every time I’m told that my opinions don’t count because I won’t be around much longer, the world belongs to them, and they’ll show us with their soon-to-be-served Coffee Parties.

I plan of being around (as I’m not THAT old) when the social utopia they insisted would come about doesn’t and they whine because we saw this coming and didn’t warn them. I plan on being around watching them bitch and moan when they have to pay 80 cents on every dollar they earn because of socialist policies their president imposed on the rest of us that limits their freedoms. And they thought a grounding was bad. Soon they’ll have to pay for the privilege and it’ll be their own damn fault.

The very young people we sacrificed decades of our lives feeding, clothing, and housing have declared war on the rest of us. If you think I’m being sensational, ask yourselves this: where would we be today had those young people listened to the advise of those who’ve seen and experienced more? Would we be talking about “reconciliation” or “carbon credits” or “death panels”? Would our entertainment and education industrial complexes have had the power to turn the very children we supported with our unconditional love and toil against us?

Maybe, maybe not, but much of the youth of America has declared war on the rest of us and we all need to decide what we’re going to do about it.

Personally, with the coming midterm and presidential elections looming, I think I may offer what my father would’ve said.

Children should be seen and not heard.

And if that doesn’t work, “Shut up!”

ED SCHULTZ: After a year of olive branches, the President is fresh out of patience. He's put up with the right-wing lies long enough. The Republicans have a choice: lead, follow or get the hell out of the way.  Small government has never gotten anybody any health care in this country.  We have people in need and they need to be helped.

Huffington Post, CBS News and WorldNetDaily have reported that a new rap group called WOLVERINES! (a reference to the 1984 anti-communist movie Red Dawn) has released a comedy music video called “O.T.P.” which claims Obama is a one term president.

The comedy video features rapping by Molotov Mitchell, Constitution Kate, DJ Dolce, The MZA, and features bottle-breaking brawls with SEIU thugs, dancing women in burkhas and even a guest appearance by Black & Right’s Bob Parks. With over 40,000 views since it launched just days ago, the video could very well become an internet sensation. Take a look, let us know what you think, and judging from the liberal response, it seems to have struck a nerve.

Well, hey, President Obama said “make yourself heard” — so here’s a video spotlighting a protester who tried to make herself heard at one of Obama’s endless campaign events yesterday in Savannah, Georgia, via WTOC:

Very reminiscent of the anti-entitlement rally in Arizona last year against the savior-based economy. Remember:

John Roberts and Kiran Chetry omitted mentioning that Annabel Park, the founder of the so-called Coffee Party, worked as a volunteer for President Barack Obama's presidential campaign, during an interview on Wednesday's American Morning. The anchors also didn't mention Park's past work for the liberal New York Times.

Roberts and Chetry interviewed the Coffee Party USA founder at the bottom of the 8 am Eastern hour. After an initial question about the origin of the name, the two asked about the principles of the nascent movement and if health care "reform" was going to be a major issue for it. In her last question to Park, Chetry did ask if the Coffee Party had any ties to a political party: "[T]he tea party movement really, in some ways, has been a challenge to Republicans to move more toward fiscal conservative ideals. Are you aligned with a party? I mean, as we know, passing health care reform has been a huge goal of liberal Democrats for decades. Are you aligned with the Democrats, trying to get them more to move to the left when it comes to health care?"

The founder denied that her movement was aligned to any party, and actually criticized the longstanding two-party system in the United States as being "incredibly outdated." In reality, as William A. Jacobson of Legal Insurrection blog exposed, Park worked for one of the two parties, as an organizer and operator of the United for Obama video channel on YouTube (NewsBuster P. J. Gladnick blogged about Jacobson's expose on Tuesday evening). As the United for Obama page admits, "We are a network of Obama volunteers from all across the country and from all backgrounds working together to support Obama's message of unity and change....Some of us are filmmakers and we created this page to amplify Obama's message on YouTube...The filmmakers include...Annabel Park..."

Jacobson also noted that Park once worked as a Strategy Analyst for the New York Times. Even Reuters, while also omitting the founder's past work for the Obama campaign in a blog entry on Tuesday, noted that the Coffee Party was a movement of the left. Roberts and Chetry didn't even bother to mention that during the segment.

The full transcript of John Roberts and Kiran Chetry's interview of Annabel Park on Wednesday's American Morning:

CHETRY: Well, the tea party movement- we've heard a lot about it recently- and it's been spreading like wildfire with tens of thousands turning out for rallies and also protests. Well, now, there is a new political movement. It's also gaining some steam. It's called the Coffee Party USA.

ROBERTS: And while the two share similar names and a frustration with gridlock in Washington, the similarities may end there.

The founder of the Coffee Party USA, Annabel Park, joins us now live from Washington. Annabel, great to see you this morning. The question many people might have, right off the bat, is- tea party has gotten some historical context to it. Why the name, the Coffee Party, and why the need?

ANNABEL PARK: Right. First of all, I love coffee, though at times, I definitely like tea as well. But there is actually a historical reference as well. During the American Revolution, after they dumped tea into the harbor, they actually declared coffee the national drink. That was the solution to the problem. So I associate coffee, not only with solutions, but also with people working- working hard, because we need to wake up and work hard to get our government to represent us. So-

CHETRY: All right. Annabel, what are some of the principles? What do you guys stand for? Where do you want to see change in Washington?

PARK: Well, we basically, just like in the American Revolution, we're looking for real representation. We don't feel represented by our government right now, and we don't really feel represented well by the media either. So it's kind of a simple call to action for people to wake up and take control over their future and demand representation, and it requires people standing up and speaking up, and that's what we're encouraging people to do by getting together and start the conversation going.

ROBERTS: We should point out, Annabel, that all of this started on your Facebook page-

PARK: Yes.

ROBERTS: Which now has 64,000 fans. It's just been around for a few weeks as well. But we also noticed, too, there's a little survey on there. Sixty-one percent of people who have responded to the survey say that health care is their number one issue. Is this a political movement that could be built around health care as an issue?

PARK: Well, I think what's happening is people are responding to what happened in the past year with the health care debate, because it was something that is obviously very important to many Americans, and it was reflected in the 2008 election. And since we feel like the health care debate showed not only that we are very divided country, but there's something really wrong with our political process. We kind of got to see the innards of the political process, and realize there's something very broken, and I think that's what we're responding to, not only the negativity that we see in the rhetoric and the discussions, but the fact that it's- there's just something very wrong with- kind of the system, the entire political system. So we want that change. We want that addressed, because it doesn't matter what issue it is- we can't make progress if we can't even talk to one another. So we want to really focus on the political culture.

CHETRY: And it is interesting, because the tea party movement really, in some ways, has been a challenge to Republicans to move more toward fiscal conservative ideals. Are you aligned with a party? I mean, as we know, passing health care reform has been a huge goal of liberal Democrats for decades. Are you aligned with the Democrats, trying to get them more to move to the left when it comes to health care?

PARK: No. I wouldn't say we're aligned with the Democrats or Republicans or any party. In fact, I think most of us feel that kind of that two-party system is an incredibly outdated system. It encourages people to think of politics as a kind of game, like a football game, in which there are two sides, and it's a zero-sum situation. If one person wins, the other person loses, and that's really not a healthy way to conduct collective decision making. That's not a democracy. Democracy should start with the sense that we're a community, and we share common goals and values, and that there's such a thing as a common good that we're all working towards, and the two-party system really doesn't encourage that way of thinking about it. It's about winning and losing, and we're really tired of it.

ROBERTS: All right. It's called the Coffee Party. It's a brand- new political movement. Annabel Park, the founder, thank you for joining us this morning. We'll keep watching this real closely.

PARK: Thank you.

CHETRY: Good to talk to you this morning, Annabel.

John Roberts and Kiran Chetry omitted mentioning that Annabel Park, the founder of the so-called Coffee Party, worked as a volunteer for President Barack Obama's presidential campaign, during an interview on Wednesday's American Morning. The anchors also didn't mention Park's past work for the liberal New York Times.

Roberts and Chetry interviewed the Coffee Party USA founder at the bottom of the 8 am Eastern hour. After an initial question about the origin of the name, the two asked about the principles of the nascent movement and if health care "reform" was going to be a major issue for it. In her last question to Park, Chetry did ask if the Coffee Party had any ties to a political party: "[T]he tea party movement really, in some ways, has been a challenge to Republicans to move more toward fiscal conservative ideals. Are you aligned with a party? I mean, as we know, passing health care reform has been a huge goal of liberal Democrats for decades. Are you aligned with the Democrats, trying to get them more to move to the left when it comes to health care?"

The founder denied that her movement was aligned to any party, and actually criticized the longstanding two-party system in the United States as being "incredibly outdated." In reality, as William A. Jacobson of Legal Insurrection blog exposed, Park worked for one of the two parties, as an organizer and operator of the United for Obama video channel on YouTube (NewsBuster P. J. Gladnick blogged about Jacobson's expose on Tuesday evening). As the United for Obama page admits, "We are a network of Obama volunteers from all across the country and from all backgrounds working together to support Obama's message of unity and change....Some of us are filmmakers and we created this page to amplify Obama's message on YouTube...The filmmakers include...Annabel Park..."

Jacobson also noted that Park once worked as a Strategy Analyst for the New York Times. Even Reuters, while also omitting the founder's past work for the Obama campaign in a blog entry on Tuesday, noted that the Coffee Party was a movement of the left. Roberts and Chetry didn't even bother to mention that during the segment.

The full transcript of John Roberts and Kiran Chetry's interview of Annabel Park on Wednesday's American Morning:

CHETRY: Well, the tea party movement- we've heard a lot about it recently- and it's been spreading like wildfire with tens of thousands turning out for rallies and also protests. Well, now, there is a new political movement. It's also gaining some steam. It's called the Coffee Party USA.

ROBERTS: And while the two share similar names and a frustration with gridlock in Washington, the similarities may end there.

The founder of the Coffee Party USA, Annabel Park, joins us now live from Washington. Annabel, great to see you this morning. The question many people might have, right off the bat, is- tea party has gotten some historical context to it. Why the name, the Coffee Party, and why the need?

ANNABEL PARK: Right. First of all, I love coffee, though at times, I definitely like tea as well. But there is actually a historical reference as well. During the American Revolution, after they dumped tea into the harbor, they actually declared coffee the national drink. That was the solution to the problem. So I associate coffee, not only with solutions, but also with people working- working hard, because we need to wake up and work hard to get our government to represent us. So-

CHETRY: All right. Annabel, what are some of the principles? What do you guys stand for? Where do you want to see change in Washington?

PARK: Well, we basically, just like in the American Revolution, we're looking for real representation. We don't feel represented by our government right now, and we don't really feel represented well by the media either. So it's kind of a simple call to action for people to wake up and take control over their future and demand representation, and it requires people standing up and speaking up, and that's what we're encouraging people to do by getting together and start the conversation going.

ROBERTS: We should point out, Annabel, that all of this started on your Facebook page-

PARK: Yes.

ROBERTS: Which now has 64,000 fans. It's just been around for a few weeks as well. But we also noticed, too, there's a little survey on there. Sixty-one percent of people who have responded to the survey say that health care is their number one issue. Is this a political movement that could be built around health care as an issue?

PARK: Well, I think what's happening is people are responding to what happened in the past year with the health care debate, because it was something that is obviously very important to many Americans, and it was reflected in the 2008 election. And since we feel like the health care debate showed not only that we are very divided country, but there's something really wrong with our political process. We kind of got to see the innards of the political process, and realize there's something very broken, and I think that's what we're responding to, not only the negativity that we see in the rhetoric and the discussions, but the fact that it's- there's just something very wrong with- kind of the system, the entire political system. So we want that change. We want that addressed, because it doesn't matter what issue it is- we can't make progress if we can't even talk to one another. So we want to really focus on the political culture.

CHETRY: And it is interesting, because the tea party movement really, in some ways, has been a challenge to Republicans to move more toward fiscal conservative ideals. Are you aligned with a party? I mean, as we know, passing health care reform has been a huge goal of liberal Democrats for decades. Are you aligned with the Democrats, trying to get them more to move to the left when it comes to health care?

PARK: No. I wouldn't say we're aligned with the Democrats or Republicans or any party. In fact, I think most of us feel that kind of that two-party system is an incredibly outdated system. It encourages people to think of politics as a kind of game, like a football game, in which there are two sides, and it's a zero-sum situation. If one person wins, the other person loses, and that's really not a healthy way to conduct collective decision making. That's not a democracy. Democracy should start with the sense that we're a community, and we share common goals and values, and that there's such a thing as a common good that we're all working towards, and the two-party system really doesn't encourage that way of thinking about it. It's about winning and losing, and we're really tired of it.

ROBERTS: All right. It's called the Coffee Party. It's a brand- new political movement. Annabel Park, the founder, thank you for joining us this morning. We'll keep watching this real closely.

PARK: Thank you.

CHETRY: Good to talk to you this morning, Annabel.

Ex-Clinton aide turned journalist George Stephanopoulos on Tuesday gushed over the results of Barack Obama's first White House physical, even going so far as to defend the President's continued smoking. Talking to Dr. Richard Besser, the Good Morning America host defended, "My reaction is, what is the big deal? He's got the most stressful job on the planet." [Audio available here.]

The former Democratic operative continued, "Couple cigarettes a day. So what?" Besser, ABC News' medical editor, was forced to bring his colleague back to reality: "You know, there's more and more research coming out on the impact of light smoking. What you're finding is, if you have three cigarettes a day, you have about 70 percent of the risk of someone who is having two packs a day."

During the segment, it was explained that Obama's bad cholesterol is 138. (An ideal number would be 100 or lower.) This didn't stop Stephanopoulos from enthusing, "[Obama's] in great shape, with the heart of an athlete."

Besser did note the President's good numbers: "You look at the ratio of your total cholesterol to your- your high cholesterol. You want that under, five. His is 3.4, which is really very good. You also look at something called CRP, and you want that under one. His is very low."

However, viewers may be wondering, if Stephanopoulos will defend Obama's smoking, is there anything he won't spin?

A transcript of the March 2 segment, which aired at 7:13am EST, follows:

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Let's bring in Dr. Richard Besser. And, Rich, 95 percent cured of smoking, that's been the White House line for about a year now. Now, I guess that's not the kind of term a doctor would use. But what does it mean?

RICHARD BESSER: It's not the kind of term you use. 95 percent Of what? It depends on where you started from. Clearly, it sounds like he's making progress. He's getting closer to quitting. And it's easier to quit if you're a light smoker than if you're a heavy smoker. But, he hasn't quit.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Right. But we were talking about this yesterday after we first learned about it. My reaction is, what is the big deal? He's got the most stressful job on the planet. Couple cigarettes a day. So what?

BESSER: You know, there's more and more research coming out on the impact of light smoking. What you're finding is, if you have three cigarettes a day, you have about 70 percent of the risk of someone who is having two packs a day.

STEPHANOPOULOS: 70 percent?

BESSER: Yeah. There's a lot of cardiovascular problem from just a few cigarettes a day. Getting cigarettes totally out is what you have to shoot for. Most people who try and quit smoking, they fail the first few times. And so, he shouldn't give up. He's in a great position to teach the country about how hard it is, but how you can succeed.

STEPHANOPOULOS: How do you take the last step?

BESSER: You need help. He's doing the Nicorette gum. Even with the support, only about 30 to 40 percent will be smoke-free in a year. But if you do it on your own, 95 percent of people at the end of a year, back to smoking.

STEPHANOPOULOS: The President clearly in great shape. 180 Pounds. Low heart rate. Yet his cholesterol goes up.

BESSER: Two years ago, he had cholesterol below 100, which is in the optimal range. Now, it's above 130, which is in the borderline high range. The press secretary blames it on his diet. And that's a good place to start. He has some other markers, though, that are very good signs of cardiac health. You look at the ratio of your total cholesterol to your- your high cholesterol. You want that under, five. His is 3.4, which is really very good. You also look at something called CRP, and you want that under one. His is very low. So, there's some mixed markers and he can go after that with diet.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But, and we only have a few seconds left here- If it's borderline, why not just take the statens?

BESSER: I think putting someone on a drug for their entire life when you can treat it with diet isn't the way to go. There's some mixed opinions on that. But he's going to tackle it by adding fruits, vegetables and fiber.

It’s time to stop playing along with this ridiculous game called, “The government says the health care bill will cost…” It’s always wrong. And it’s always wrong by underestimating the cost. Why don’t the Republicans point this out? (Probably because they’ve been big government spenders, too.)

Look back at when Medicare was first created:

At its start, in 1966, Medicare cost $3 billion. The House Ways and Means Committee estimated that Medicare would cost only about $ 12 billion by 1990 (a figure that included an allowance for inflation). This was a supposedly “conservative” estimate. But in 1990 Medicare actually cost $107 billion.

In 2007, total Medicare spending was $431 billion! That isn’t even close to the costs predicted in 1965. Why do we act like the numbers coming out of Congress and the CBO have any basis in reality?

The predictions for Medicaid were just as wrong:

In 1987, Congress projected that Medicaid – the joint federal-state health care program for the poor – would make special relief payments to hospitals of less than $1 billion in 1992. Actual cost: $17 billion.

The list goes on. The 1993 cost of Medicare’s home care benefit was projected in 1988 to be $4 billion, but ended up at $10 billion. The State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), which was created in 1997 and projected to cost $5 billion per year, has had to be supplemented with hundreds of millions of dollars annually by Congress.

Yet, Obama, Pelosi, etc. tell us with a straight face that this new plan won’t really cost as much as we think. That’s not even counting the smoke and mirrors they’re using on the CBO to come up with their happy deficit reduction numbers.

We don’t know enough to create adequate models to predict the outcomes, the models we do have are being fed flawed data, yet we continue to act like we know what will happen five, ten, twenty and 100 years from now.

Does anyone really believe that Congress can design a health care system that will provide the best care at the lowest cost?

Here is an example of how dumb some of our “leaders” are. Congresswoman Maxine Waters doesn’t even know the difference between the discount rate and the federal funds rate. Watch her make a fool of herself while questioning Ben Bernanke. By the way, she’s on the Financial Services Committee and is on the Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit! God, help us.

How about getting government out of the way and letting us work this out with our doctors.

1) No mandates on insurance. I choose what I want.

2) I can buy any plan I want from any state.

3) I get the same tax breaks for insurance that my employer gets.

4) I can put as much as I want in my Health Savings Account – tax free – as long as I only spend it on health care.

5) I can pay for routine care out of my HSA and buy a catastrophic insurance plan only.

6) I buy health status insurance so I will always be insurable even if I develop a “pre-existing condition.”

No new government program is necessary. I just saved us a gazillion dollars. You’re welcome. Let’s roll.

Reporters noticed the extremist Nation of Islam leader Rev. Louis Farrakhan’s latest three-and-a-half hour jeremiad on Sunday, but some left the most extreme rhetoric out. Kim Janssen of the Chicago Sun-Times caught it:

Speaking to an estimated 20,000 followers of the black nationalist movement at the United Center on Sunday, the 76-year-old Farrakhan said, "The white right is trying to set Barack up to be assassinated."

Referring to a Southern Baptist preacher's recent prayer that the president die, Farrakhan said, "There are Christians praying for God to kill Obama."

But the AP dispatch (carried by CBSNews.com, Foxnews.com, and MSNBC.com) left out the assassination part:

The 76-year-old leader said the "white right" was conspiring to make Mr. Obama a one-term president, and pointed to his stalled efforts to introduce health care legislation as proof. He said those opponents and lobbyists were trapping him into a future war with Iran that could lead to mass destruction.

The word 'prophet' is too cheap a word. I am a light in the midst of darkness," Farrakhan said at the annual convention of the movement that embraces black nationalism. "It ain't ego, it's my love for you."

The AP reporter did notice that Farrakhan toyed with the audience (and the reporters present) by neither confirming nor denying that he and Obama met:  

He would not say if he and Mr. Obama had ever met on the issue.

"They all want to know did I ever meet with him and what did I say or what did he say," Farrakhan said in the speech. "I ain't going there."

Obama's longtime minister, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, was a friend of Farrakhan and talked about traveling to Libya with him. So the odds that they met are very strong.

"Wait, What? Obama Still Smokes?!"

That was the reaction of Newsweek's Sarah Ball to Navy physician Capt. Jeffrey Kuhlman noting ongoing "smoking cessation efforts" by President Obama in a publicly-released memo regarding the results of Sunday's physical exam of the commander-in-chief.

After going over a few takes from other media outlets about the story, Ball shared with readers of the magazine's The Gaggle blog her favorite headline:

But Huff Po's Andy Borowitz wins the Headline Award: OBAMA TO GOP: I WILL QUIT SMOKING IF YOU WILL QUIT BEING DICKS. 

I guess it's hilarious if you're a liberal journalist that thinks poor President Obama's biggest obstacle to passing his health care agenda has been the minority Republicans and not warring factions within the House Democratic caucus -- remember the abortion fight pitting pro-choice vs. pro-life Dems? -- and fence-riding Senate Democrats who produced boondoggles like the so-called Louisiana Purchase [Landrieu] and the "Cornhusker Kickback" [Ben Nelson].

In a further attack on the housing market, the New York Times recently reported that President Obama may be amending his loan modification program to make it even more difficult for defaulting homeowners to be foreclosed upon.  The Times states:

The Obama administration, under intense pressure to help millions of people in danger of losing their homes, is considering a ban on foreclosures unless they have first been examined for potential modification, according to a set of draft proposals.

That would raise the stakes from the current practice, which strongly encourages lenders to evaluate defaulting borrowers for a modification but does not make it mandatory.

Meg Reilly, a Treasury Department spokeswoman, said Thursday that the proposed foreclosure ban was “one of the many ideas under consideration in the administration’s ongoing housing stabilization efforts.” The proposal was first reported by Bloomberg News.

To be fair, the effects of this program may be minimal, with some interpreting the ban to be more about PR than anything substantive:

Laurie Goodman, a senior managing director at the Amherst Securities Group who has been highly critical of the government’s modification program, said even if the proposal came to pass, it would not be “a major change. We think there is a large public relations element to this.”

…The Mortgage Bankers Association said its members were already doing what the administration was considering.

“Lenders generally go to foreclosure as a measure of last resort, after all other options, including loan modification, are exhausted,” said John Mechem, the trade group’s vice president for public affairs.

Any enhancements the government made to the modification program would be unlikely to stem many foreclosures, said Howard Glaser, a prominent housing consultant.

Regardless of the impact however, this potential loan modification addendum adds insult to the injury of an already wrongheaded and destructive policy, and will only prolong the pain in the housing market.

The reasons for the woes in housing are quite simple.  Banks extended mortgages to borrowers that were poor credit risks, and many borrowers took out mortgages that they shouldn’t have either out of speculation or profligacy.  That the depression is throwing people out of work and keeping many jobless exacerbates the problem, in that unfortunately many who could have reasonably expected to afford their homes now cannot given their lack of sufficient cash flow.  Of course, truly prudent buyers might have saved to purchase their homes outright with cash.

In any event, to fix the housing market requires these folks to be foreclosed upon.  Keeping homes off the market artificially suppresses supply, propping up prices that already necessarily needed to fall, as house prices rose to unjustifiable levels due to the Fed’s pump priming, the CRA and the surge in demand these two factors engendered.  To keep people in homes they cannot afford besides creating moral hazard and distorting banks’ balance sheets also has the effect of keeping worthy buyers from purchasing homes at decreased prices.  It further prevents apartment owners from renting out their excess inventory to underwater and/or insolvent former homeowners.  The effects of the government intervention in the housing market are amplified significantly when one considers the volume of securities backed by mortgages not being adequately serviced.

Government has no business in throwing this market into disequilibrium.  But President Obama believes otherwise.  In campaigning for Harry Reid and while announcing a further imprudent measure to provide $1.5 billion in mortgage relief in five states hit acutely by the downturn, Obama had this to say about the housing market:

“Now, government has a responsibility to help deal with this problem. Government can’t solve this problem alone. We got to be honest about that. Government alone can’t solve this problem. And it shouldn’t…It can’t stop every foreclosure, and tax dollars shouldn’t be used to reward the very irresponsible lenders and borrowers who helped bring about the housing crisis. But what we can do is help families who’ve done everything right stay in their homes whenever possible.”

This is typical Obama.  He knows how to frame the issue so that while what he is saying sets a dangerous precedent, he comes off as pragmatic.  He uses his rhetoric to appease those being taken advantage of by his policy, while spinning nicely the fact that he is going to screw them over. It is akin to when he defended himself as an “ardent defender of the free market” while touting his massive intervention into all aspects of the economy at the recent “Business Roundtable.”

Every single time he addresses an issue, you can bet that it will follow the same formula: “on the one hand [insert rational, conservative argument], but on the other [insert emotional/generally bleeding heart, liberal argument].”  It allows him to come off as a moderate and practical leader while he obfuscates the public by saying nothing.  His true stripes only show when he speaks in front of his people.

At the end of the day, the man should be judged by his actions and not his words, and his actions in the housing market are illustrative of his overall view of government’s role in the economy.  Wherever market forces are working to correct the imbalances and malinvestments of a 70-year credit expansion, this President is going to implement policies to prevent the market from working and perpetuate an illusory economy.

Factor in his foreign policy and treatment of our war with Islam, and you get the sense that this President is intentionally trying to hurt this country.  Somewhere, Jeremiah Wright is smiling.  Ironically, for all of President Obama’s apologies for our arrogance and destructiveness, as he helps sully our preeminence and power with his own policies, he remains the most arrogant and destructive American of all.

Recently the Obama Administration cut funding to Upward Bound, a successful educational program with a proven track record. Upward Bound provides support to participating students in their preparation for college entrance. Upward Bound serves high school students from low-income families and high school students from families in which neither parent holds a bachelor’s degree. 95% of Upward Bound graduates have entered post-secondary education and are four times more likely to earn a college degree than students from similar back-grounds who do not participate in the program. The Obama Administration will cut funding for this successful educational program.

Radical Safe Schools Czar Kevin Jennings will get a fat raise in funding this year.

At the same time, despite the runaway federal spending and record budget deficits, Barack Obama is including $410 million in the 2011 budget for his “safe schools” czar Kevin Jennings. This is an increase of $45 million over last year’s budget. Obviously, some things are more important than others. These funds ought to buy a whole mess of fisting kits, leather bar guides and child porn books. And, the money will come in handy for the sexual indoctrination of teens and pre-teens.
Citizen Link Blog reported:

So want does Jennings intend to do with this money?

For starters, he says he’s going to make “school climate” measurement a top priority—and, in fact, he’d love for “school climate” to eventually be made part of the “Common Core” national standards movement! He plans to begin with “a new grant program coming out of this department where we’ll be providing possibly as much as $70 million for investments in school climate projects.” (He revealed all this and much more in this month’s Phi Delta Kappan magazine. Scroll down to the “Safe at School” title.)

So at this point, you might be wondering, What on earth does “school climate” really mean? I think it’s best to take that definition from Kevin Jennings–based on his record as the longtime founder and leader of GLSEN (Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network).

Under Jennings’ leadership, GLSEN has provided students with a “school climate” continuum measurement tool. This tool reveals a lot about Jennings’ true goals: A positively rated “inclusive school,” for instance, is defined as one where “LGBT themes are fully integrated into curricula across a variety of subject areas and grade levels.”

I.e., Jennings and GLSEN want homosexual, bisexual and transgender themes taught in every subject at every grade, all the way down to the kindergarten level, maybe even preschool.

In other words Jennings will be using millions of taxpayer dollars to promote “inclusive schools” where LGBT themes are fully integrated across a variety of subject areas and grade levels. This may appear innocent enough until you take a closer look at the radical GLSEN agenda.

Kevin Jennings, the founder of the GLSEN organization, has a long history of promoting sexual material in classrooms including books that describe sex between first graders and books that promote S&M. The GLSEN group also pushes books that romanticize child rape and books that show men having sex with boy scouts in the background. Jennings’ GLSEN group also organized student-teacher seminars where instructors held fisting lectures. He sounds like just the person who deserves a fat $45 million raise, huh?

Matt Lauer pressed former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney mostly from the left, on Tuesday's Today, as he made the case that the economy is doing better thanks to the President as he posited "Aren't we better off?" and even questioned the relevance of a possible Romney 2012 presidential campaign.

MATT LAUER: In your new book No Apology: The Case for American Greatness, you say that, "The country needs a renewal and fresh ideas to cut through complicated problems." Do you see yourself as the best person to offer those fresh ideas? And I, I ask that, with all due respect, that people had a chance to look at your ideas in the last presidential election and they weighed in on them. [audio available here]

After Lauer got through the perfunctory questions about whether Romney was going to run in 2012 the Today co-anchor actually made the case the economy is doing better thanks to Obama and also suggested Obamacare wasn't that different from the health care plan devised under Romney in Massachusetts:

LAUER: But when you say the country's not better off than it was $1.8 trillion ago, when the President took office the Dow Jones was about 8,000 it's above 10,000 now. The GDP was declining at about six percent, it's rising at about six percent right now. We were talking about the possibility of a Great Depression. Most people aren't talking about that anymore. So, aren't we better off?

ROMNEY: When you have 10 percent of our people almost unemployed and a lot more that are still looking for work, when they've been promised we'd be able to hold the rate at eight percent, if we were simply going to borrow another $787 billion from the Chinese that kind of debt and that kind of unemployment does not make people in America have a brighter future. 

LAUER: Had the administration not taken some of the steps it did take, though, might not that unemployment figure, be at 12 or 13 percent?

ROMNEY: Could have taken much better steps. What, what this administration has done has added so much debt that it's frightened the financial markets, it's made it more difficult for small businesses to grow. On top of that, when they put in place talk about cap and tax, you're gonna scare businesses away from investing. When you say, we're gonna put a card check program in place, which takes away the right of workers to vote on whether or not they want a union or not and imposes that on many businesses, you create the, the incentive for many companies to pull back. The private sector is scared in America right now. It's the most anti-job, anti-growth, anti-investment agenda we've seen in Washington in decades.

LAUER: A couple of things quickly. On health care reform, you have spoken out against the President's plan. Critics say it's very close to the plan you put into law in Massachusetts. If the Democrats go the way of reconciliation, to get this bill passed in the Senate, what are gonna be the short and long-term impact, what will be the impact of that?

The following is a complete transcript of the interview as it was aired on the March 2 Today show:

MATT LAUER: President Obama travels to Savannah, Georgia today to talk with local business owners about the economy and ways to create more jobs, but it is the President's attempt to reform health care that drew recent criticism from former Massachusetts governor and Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney. He's out with a new book called No Apology: The Case for American Greatness. Governor Romney, it's good to have you back. Good morning.

MITT ROMNEY: Thanks Matt. Good to be with you. 

LAUER: You're releasing this book, and you know what people are saying. The fact that you're releasing it now, it's the unofficial launch of your presidential campaign in 2012. Are you in?

ROMNEY: You know, that's, you've heard the expression about counting chickens before the, the eggs hatch. Well, this is counting chickens before the hen has met the rooster. I haven't made a decision like that yet. I'll think about that after the 2010 elections. But frankly, this is a book that, that flows from my many years of experience in the private sector, in business, going around the world. I think America's got some real challenges.

LAUER: You sound, though, like a guy who wants to be in the mix. You know, you've been having a good time taking some shots at President Obama over the last several months. Your zingers are out. "Obama's going downhill faster than Lindsey Vonn," "America's not better off than it was $1.8 trillion dollars ago." So let me start by asking this. Has President Obama done anything right, anything good in the last 12 months?

ROMNEY: Yeah, yeah. No question about it. He's done several things well. Most of those things are places where he had changed his view from where he had during the campaign. So for instance, he's left our troops in Iraq and they're being more successful there. He, he boosted our effort in Afghanistan, which is the right course to take. He did not close Guantanamo, thank heavens. And his education effort to try and encourage more charter schools, that's a positive development. But overall, you know, I'm not gonna give him a passing grade for the year.

LAUER: But when you say the country's not better off than it was $1.8 trillion ago, when the President took office the Dow Jones was about 8,000 it's above 10,000 now. The GDP was declining at about six percent, it's rising at about six percent right now. We were talking about the possibility of a Great Depression. Most people aren't talking about that anymore. So, aren't we better off? 

ROMNEY: When you have 10 percent of our people almost unemployed and a lot more that are still looking for work, when they've been promised we'd be able to hold the rate at eight percent, if we were simply going to borrow another $787 billion from the Chinese that kind of debt and that kind of unemployment does not make people in America have a brighter future.

LAUER: Had the administration not taken some of the steps it did take, though, might not that unemployment figure, be at 12 or 13 percent?

ROMNEY: Could have taken much better steps. What, what this administration has done has added so much debt that it's frightened the financial markets, it's made it more difficult for small businesses to grow. On top of that, when they put in place talk about cap and tax, you're gonna scare businesses away from investing. When you say, we're gonna put a card check program in place, which takes away the right of workers to vote on whether or not they want a union or not and imposes that on many businesses, you create the, the incentive for many companies to pull back. The private sector is scared in America right now. It's the most anti-job, anti-growth, anti-investment agenda we've seen in Washington in decades.

LAUER: A couple of things quickly. On health care reform, you have spoken out against the President's plan. Critics say it's very close to the plan you put into law in Massachusetts. If the Democrats go the way of reconciliation, to get this bill passed in the Senate, what are gonna be the short and long-term impact, what will be the impact of that?

ROMNEY: Well, immediate reaction will be outrage on the part of the American people. They have said in every way they know how they do not like his health care plan. And by the way, our health care plan in Massachusetts, one heck of a lot better. Number one, lets states resolve these issues, whether they have a federal government one size fits all plan. That's what we did. Number two, don't raise taxes. No need to do that. Number three, don't cut Medicare on senior citizens. His plan does all those things. That's why it's wrong.

LAUER: In your new book No Apology: The Case for American Greatness, you say that, "The country needs a renewal and fresh ideas to cut through complicated problems." Do you see yourself as the best person to offer those fresh ideas? And I, I ask that, with all due respect, that people had a chance to look at your ideas in the last presidential election and they weighed in on them.

ROMNEY: Well, I have a lot of ideas. So do other people. That's the great thing about this extraordinary democracy of ours. But what I'm saying is we don't need to apologize for what America is. We have brought extraordinary economic wealth to people around the world, lifted people out of poverty. We've brought freedom to people around the world. But this country is under extraordinary stress right now. The challenges we face really could cause us to be passed by other nations, and Washington politicians have not dealt with the real challenges we face. We've got to fix our schools, we've got to fix energy, we've got to stop spending money we don't have, and we've got to get our entitlements on a sustainable basis. That's not happening. It's got to happen soon.

LAUER: The book is No Apology: The Case for American Greatness. When you do decide whether or not you're running, will you come and announce it here?

ROMNEY: It'll be right here, Matt.

LAUER: I appreciated it. Mitt Romney, Governor, it's always good to see you.

ROMNEY: Good to see you.

LAUER: Thanks very much.

Today's open thread. Have at it.

Here's something interesting:

Barack Obama should not only try harder to kick his smoking habit, his team of doctors warned, but they also recommended 'moderation of alcohol intake'.

It would seem the pressure of the U.S. presidency - and all those White House receptions - are taking their toll after the 48-year-old's first medical checkup since winning the race to the White House.

So no more beer summits?

Last week, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, a crime syndicate dedicated to tightening the Democratic Party’s grip on America, dissolved its national structure.  Too much of ACORN’s corruption had been exposed to public scrutiny for it to run its vote fraud and extortion rackets effectively.  So, ACORN activists will have to soldier on in state-level organizations, such as New York Communities for Change and New England United for Justice in Massachusetts.

ACORN does indeed operate like the Mafia, but it more closely resembles another organization that began as an affiliate of the Democratic Party, the Ku Klux Klan.  Aside from intimidating some bank executives, ACORN does not engage in violence, but like the KKK it has vote fraud as a top priority.

There have been two distinct organizations known as the Ku Klux Klan.  The modern-day KKK, with whom most people are familiar, was spawned in 1915 by the Hollywood epic Birth of a Nation, premiered at the White House by a Democrat president, Woodrow Wilson.  Cross-burning and other rituals were actually inspired by the movie.  The Klan came to dominate the Democratic Party so thoroughly that the 1924 Democratic National Convention was known as the “Klanbake.”

It is not so much this Klan 2.0 that ACORN parallels as the original version.  Established in 1866, Klan 1.0 was an affiliate of the Democratic Party during the Reconstruction era.  Named for “kuklos,” the Greek word for “circle,” the Ku Klux Klan waged war against the Republican Party in the former Confederate states.  Goofy titles for its commanders such as Wizard and Cyclops were intended to disguise the fact that the KKK was a paramilitary organization.  In some areas, leadership of the Ku Klux Klan and the Democratic Party were indistinguishable.

Democrats used the Klan to suppress their political opposition, with vote fraud and intimidation and violence.  Klansmen aimed at African-Americans, nearly all Republicans in those days, and at white Republicans who tried to help them.  Once threatened by the KKK, Republicans could in many cases save their lives only by publicly swearing allegiance to the Democratic Party.  According to a southern governor, “Few Republicans dare sleep in their houses at night.”

“The suppression of enough GOP votes could ensure a Democratic victory,” wrote one historian.  “There’s no question that Klansmen closely watched the polls” – easy to do before the secret ballot was introduced in the United States in the 1880s.  All too often, Republican ballots were not even counted.

Like ACORN, the Ku Klux Klan operated with impunity until Republican politicians and journalists sounded an alarm.  In 1869, Nathan Bedford Forrest, the KKK’s Grand Dragon, ordered the Klan disbanded.  Why?  The national organization was getting too much attention, so Klansmen would have to soldier on in state-level organizations, such as the Red Shirts in South Carolina and the Men of Justice in Alabama.   Nonetheless, most members of these spin-off groups considered themselves to be Klansmen.

A congressional investigation reported that “the operations of the Klan are executed in the night and are invariably directed against members of the Republican Party.”

In 1871, the Republican-controlled 41st Congress passed the Ku Klux Klan Act, and a Republican president, Ulysses Grant, signed it.  Until overturned by the Supreme Court twelve years later, the law effectively banned the KKK.  Federal troops crushed Klan uprisings in South Carolina and Louisiana, while hundreds of Klansmen were convicted in federal court.  Law enforcement played a role in eliminating the Ku Klux Klan, but primarily the Klan disappeared because after Democrat regimes replaced the Reconstruction state governments there was no need for Democrats to suppress Republican opposition by covert means when government authorities could do so openly.

Back then, Klansmen had to contend with a Republican administration, but now, with a Democrat in the White House, ACORNistas know that the federal government is on their side.  With Eric Holder’s Justice Department condoning polling place thuggery [pictured] and other illicit activity against the GOP, there is less incentive for Democrats to suppress Republican opposition by covert means when government authorities are doing so openly.

The Democrat-controlled 111th Congress has made ACORN spin-off groups eligible for billions of taxpayer dollars.  Once an insurgency, community organizers are now part of the establishment.  To the victors go the spoils.

In early 2008, New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson grabbed national attention when he ran for the Democratic nomination for President. He dropped out early in the race but still made headlines for endorsing Obama over Hillary. As thanks, Richardson was named the nominee for Commerce Secretary.  One of the first scandals of the Obama Administration followed almost immediately.  Due to a controversy surrounding a pay-to-play scandal, Richardson was forced to withdraw his name from consideration after only one month.

Richardson quietly slipped out of the national spotlight and most Americans forgot about New Mexico’s corrupt Governor.  Most don’t realize that prosecution for the scandal was quietly discontinued when the Obama team drained the investigator’s budget resource, leaving them unable to pursue prosecution.  The case is still pending and will likely remain that way.

Now back in New Mexico in his final year as Governor, the behavior of a man who was an inconvenient nuisance to the Obama team has revealed itself to be nearly cataclysmic to my state’s future.

Just seven years ago, New Mexico was one of only a handful of states in the black, thanks to the leadership of our previous Republican Governor.  Now, we’ve got an estimated $500 million deficit this year thanks to a government that continues to loot the pockets of taxpayers.

Aside from the absurd corruption, pay-to-play scandals and shady investment deals one of the most obvious evidence of poor management is the sheer size of New Mexico’s government.  With new state agencies and 4,500 new employees, our state government has grown by more than 50% in the last 7 years costing taxpayers $250 million annually. Further, the numbers don’t even include the hundreds of exempt political appointees now drawing a government paycheck.  Those people got jobs as payback for family, favors and financial contributions. Estimates put new political appointees in the neighborhood of 450 costing taxpayers around $50 million a year.

Already I’ve accounted for more than half the budget shortfall, and I haven’t even begun to talk about the fraudulent investment schemes, pay-to-play scandals and pork projects that have nearly sunk our state.

To put it into perspective, for every 100 private sector employees there are 24 state and local government employees.  The average ratio is 12 per 100.  I can assure you, my interaction with government in this state is not twice as good as it was seven years ago.

And now, the Governor who doubled the size of government has to find a way to pay for his distends.  His answer?  Well, it isn’t cutting state employees.  And it isn’t cutting unfriendly regulations to grow small business.   Nope.  His answer is—you guessed it—NEW TAXES.  During our last legislative session, lawmakers proposed taxes on candy, cigarettes, soda and even tortillas.

All proposals died a slow death and our legislatures failed to come up with a budget.  Now, they’ve been called in to a special session that begins next week.

I am running for Governor of New Mexico to put an end to the graft, greed and waste that has run rampant in New Mexico.

The moment I am elected, I will immediately demand the resignation of every unnecessary political appointment.  I made a pledge this week to roll back the number from over 600 to 167.   I have called upon the Democratic candidate, Lt. Governor Diane Denish, to make the same pledge. The Lt. Governor has been trying to distance herself from the present administration’s defective distends, but a promise to return to a reasonable number of political positions would be a substantive statement, should she be willing to make it.   Sadly, I expect silence will be her response.

The issue of bloated government is not limited to New Mexico.  The waste here is merely a reflection of the corruption that is occurring nationally. For those among us who challenge the wisdom of Federal Stimulus dollars, look no further than the state of New Mexico for evidence of its failings.  Those dollars only fuel our inefficient government and do nothing to force our government to fix itself.

These must be really desperate times for the Democrats, if the syndicated Chris Matthews Show that was aired over the weekend is any indication, as both the host and one of the guests claimed Barack Obama would need to tap into military, musical and even mystical powers to get a health care reform bill passed. During the intro of his show, Matthews declared that Obama "must now lead the band with all the music and magic he has in him" and guest panelist Michael Duffy, of Time magazine, reported that Obama is going to unleash "the infantry, the air cover, the artillery" on Congress to get health care passed. [audio available here]

The following exchanges were aired on the February 28 edition of The Chris Matthews Show:

CHRIS MATTHEWS DURING INTRO: Party time! After 13 months of whispering and wooing across the aisle, the President must now win with those on his side. He must rally the Democrats to pass health care because they are all he's got. He must now lead the band with all the music and magic he has in him. Selling victory. To win his biggest test, one he set himself, the President must convince his people the prize is worth the pain. He must teach the deepest of all truths, that it's what you do with what you've got.

...

(After clip of Obama)

CHRIS MATTHEWS: Wow Mike! It seems like he's laying it down, the Democrats are gonna have to do this alone. Does he have the power, the juice, the political will to lead them into this fight? 

MICHAEL DUFFY, TIME: He doesn't right now, not today. And that's why they haven't had the vote and that's why it isn't law yet. But in the next four weeks, before the Easter recess, under the new, new, new revised schedule of health care reform, they are going to do everything they can. Put all the infantry, the air cover, the artillery they can bring to bear on the Congress and try to get this through with just Democratic votes alone before they go home.

It's not a secret that billionaire investor and Berkshire Hathaway (NYSE:BRK.A) CEO Warren Buffett is a supporter of President Barack Obama - having endorsed and raised money for him. But has Buffett's approval of the president mirrored the declining marks he's getting from the rest of America?  

No, according to Buffett, Obama's earned "high marks." Buffett appeared on CNBC's March 1 "Squawk Box" and assessed Obama's presidency to date.

"Well, I'm very glad I voted for him," Buffett said. "That has not changed. I think the problems he has run into are monumental, particularly in terms of the economy. I mean - we're running huge deficits, which we should be running from a Keynesian standpoint to try and get this economy moving. But they have consequences too. I do not envy the job of being President, but I give Obama high marks."

Asked whether the Tea Parties were on to something when it comes to the issue of federal spending and the size of government, Buffett didn't say whether he thought they were relevant, and said this was just par for the course if you look at American history.

"We've worried about that for a couple of hundred years," Buffett said. "Overall we've done OK with it. I mean, government has disappointed people many a times over the 200 years, but overall - I mean, just look at our country now compared to the past. We've always had these motivations of people worrying about the next election and all that sort of thing."

Buffett took a jab at former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, who has been mocked repeatedly for writing notes on her hands for her February speech at the National Tea Party Convention in Nashville.

"But if I'm going to comment on the Tea Party, I'll have to look at my notes here," Buffett said, looking at his hands.

It's not a secret that billionaire investor and Berkshire Hathaway (NYSE:BRK.A) CEO Warren Buffett is a supporter of President Barack Obama - having endorsed and raised money for him. But has Buffett's approval of the president mirrored the declining marks he's getting from the rest of America?  

No, according to Buffett, Obama's earned "high marks." Buffett appeared on CNBC's March 1 "Squawk Box" and assessed Obama's presidency to date.

"Well, I'm very glad I voted for him," Buffett said. "That has not changed. I think the problems he has run into are monumental, particularly in terms of the economy. I mean - we're running huge deficits, which we should be running from a Keynesian standpoint to try and get this economy moving. But they have consequences too. I do not envy the job of being President, but I give Obama high marks."

Asked whether the Tea Parties were on to something when it comes to the issue of federal spending and the size of government, Buffett didn't say whether he thought they were relevant, and said this was just par for the course if you look at American history.

"We've worried about that for a couple of hundred years," Buffett said. "Overall we've done OK with it. I mean, government has disappointed people many a times over the 200 years, but overall - I mean, just look at our country now compared to the past. We've always had these motivations of people worrying about the next election and all that sort of thing."

Buffett took a jab at former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, who has been mocked repeatedly for writing notes on her hands for her February speech at the National Tea Party Convention in Nashville.

"But if I'm going to comment on the Tea Party, I'll have to look at my notes here," Buffett said, looking at his hands.

What would Saul Alinksy do?

In the wake of defeats for the Obama administration last month both with Scott Brown’s stunning Senate victory in the bluest of blue states and the Supreme Court Citizens United decision that will let thousands of groups speak more freely about candidates positions’ in the 2010 elections and beyond, that’s the question President Obama and his allies are probably asking. It’s also the question that proponents of limited, constitutional government and free enterprise must be asking in order to anticipate the organized Left’s next moves.

Alinksy was the father of left-wing community organizing. He wrote the book Rules for Radicals and other primers, which explained to would-be leftist organizers how to “search out controversy” and “fan the latent hostilities.” Seeing the world as a never-ending conflict between the “haves and have-nots,” Alinsky wrote In Rules for Radicals that “in war, the end justifies almost any means.”  One community organizer who took Alinsky’s words to heart was a young Barack Obama, who worked for an offshoot of Alinsky’s network of organizations in Chicago in the 1980s. Throughout his career, according to the Washington Post, Obama has “embraced many of Alinsky’s tactics.”

And one tactic in Alinsky’s arsenal dovetails almost perfectly with Obama’s new focus on so-called “financial reform” and his bashing of Wall Street to score political points. One of Alinsky’s most important rules for radicals was that “you do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral garments.” In this case, the “moral garment” is the supposed interest of shareholders.

Obama and Democrats are pushing legislation they claim would empower average investors against powerful corporate executives. They propose requiring a shareholder vote on everything from CEO pay to – in a move to limit the freedoms in the Citizens United decision — companies’ weighing in on political candidates.

But the crème de la crème in using the cover of shareholders to tilt the playing field to the Left’s advantage may be a scheme called “proxy access.” Provisions regarding proxy access are embedded in House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank’s “financial reform” bill that passed the House in December, as well as a “discussion draft” of a bill introduced by Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd (D-Conn.).

After Dodd’s failure to reach agreement on a compromise bill with Senate Banking Committee ranking Republican Richard Shelby, Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) has stepped into the void and is now hashing out a bill with Dodd. It is vital that grass-roots conservatives and libertarians learn about proxy access and educate lawmakers of both parties about the threat this Alinksy-inspired policy poses both to a fragile economy and to the political playing field.

Proxy access would federalize and override decades of state law governing the structure of corporations and force publicly-traded companies to put shareholders’ nominees for a board of directors on a company’s proxy ballot along with the firm’s own nominees for those positions. Currently, in states such as Delaware, where many firms are incorporated, all shareholders can nominate their own candidates for the board of directors, but they have to finance these campaigns at their own expense. Under proxy access, companies and all their shareholders would effectively be forced to subsidize the director campaigns of certain shareholder nominees. The threshold for shareholders could be less than 1 percent, based proposals that have floated before the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Like net neutrality, another pet cause of the Left, proxy access sounds technical and somewhat boring on the surface. But also like net neutrality, and like the Fairness Doctrine, proxy access would fundamentally reshape an area of commerce to the Left’s advantage by granting a right of forced access to viewpoints that have been unable to prevail in the marketplace of ideas. And because proxy access would reach all types of businesses that are publicly traded, it could serve as a lever to force U.S. companies to bow to the Left’s wish list on every policy from “card check” that would end secret ballot for union elections to cap-and-trade rationing of electricity to a silencing of conservative voices by small group of ideological shareholders who would have veto power over the content of a media company.

Proxy access has its roots in a concept developed by Alinsky called the “proxy tactic” In Rules for Radicals, Alinsky devoted his second-to-last chapter – “The Genesis of Tactic Proxy” — to describing a new method to force corporations to bow to leftist demands.

In explaining the “proxy tactic,” Alinsky laid out a roadmap for progressive groups and individuals to pool shares of stock and “use [shareholder] proxies for political and social purposes.” Alinsky proclaimed proudly that “there was dynamite in the proxy scare” and described it as “the razor to cut through the golden curtain that protected the so-called private sector from facing its public responsibilities.” In a Playboy interview published in 1972 – a few months before he died – Alinsky would add that “the proxy tactic is also an invaluable means of gaining middle-class participation in radical causes.”

Fast forward almost 40 years to 2010. Since the 1980s, the Left had developed, in the words of George Washington University political scientist Jarol Manheim, a “network that is using shareholder resolutions and proxy voting to press American corporations to change their governance structures and social policies in ways aligned with the Progressive worldview.”

According to Manheim’s book Biz-War and the Out of Power Elite, “By one estimate in 1997 union pension funds controlled a total of $1.4 trillion [emphasis in original].” Also controlling billions of dollars of investment are left-wing foundations such as The Tides Foundation, which has funded radical environmentalism, efforts to ban guns, and the notorious Association for Community Reform Now or ACORN. Manheim writes that Tides, which had almost $150 million in net assets as of 2006, “has openly advocated policies that would advance the influence of Progressive shareholder activists.”

And hardly anything would advance that interest more than proxy access. The government employees union AFSCME has called proxy access rules “the holy grail of corporate governance.” But in reality, the shareholders these proposals would most help are leftist pressure groups – from union pension funds to George Soros-backed foundations with substantial shares of stock – at the expense of ordinary shareholders. Groups from unions to animal rights groups could run their own candidate for corporate directors and promote their special interest agendas at the company’s (and ultimately other shareholders) expense.

Even now—without “proxy access”—the public pension managers and union bosses haven’t been shy about asserting union and other social priorities that would reduce returns for their own pensioners as well as other shareholders. They’ve also used their control over worker funds in obvious efforts to aid the Democratic Party – and attempt to silence its opposition.

In 2004, when Sinclair Broadcasting was planning to air “Stolen Honor,” a documentary critical of presidential candidate John Kerry, New York’s Democrat Comptroller Alan Hevesi fired off a threatening letter to Sinclair saying that airing the program would hurt “shareholder value.” The claim was pretty dubious, as the controversy about the program would almost ensure high ratings. But Sinclair ended up airing only clips from the documentary in a news special. Ironically Hevesi, who posed as a guardian of state pension holders’ interests in Sinclair conflict, would later plead guilty to defrauding the state government and face – in the words of the New York Times — allegations that his “associates had sold access to the state’s $122 billion pension fund, using one of the world’s largest pools of assets to reward friends, pay back political favors and reap millions of dollars in cash rewards for themselves.”

Similarly, when President Bush was pushing private accounts for Social Security, the AFL-CIO threatened to pull its $400 billion fund away from any financial services company backing the accounts. “We have no intention of letting any of these companies get away with this while they manage our workers’ funds,” said top AFL-CIO lobbyist Gerald Shea, according to the Wall Street Journal. After this “pension fund blackmail,” as the Journal called it, several companies pulled out of coalitions supporting private accounts.

Other shareholder groups are pushing corporate policies that would endanger both health and American foreign policy. The radical animal-rights group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals has sponsored shareholder resolutions to stop companies from conducting animal research for potential life-saving drugs. The left-leaning Human Rights Watch pushed Caterpillar to stop sales to Israel of bulldozers, because the dozers could be used to destroy Palestinian homes. (Not mentioned in the resolution was that many of these homes belonged to terrorists or were used to cover the entrances of arms-smuggling tunnels.) The proposal was defeated by Caterpillar’s shareholders 97 percent to 3 percent.

But under “proxy access” rules, a militant minority of less than one percent, depending on where the threshold is set, could run candidates for director on the official company proxy ballot. And these groups could be “swing votes” in close director elections. This would give corporate boards and management a huge incentive to cave to various demands of interest groups on the Left.

And many squishy CEOs would give in, cutting deals with “progressive” groups at the expense of ordinary shareholders. As I note in a new report for the Capital Research Center, General Electric CEO Jeff Immelt has rarely been a target of campaigns to rein in pay of poorly performing executives, despite the fact that GE has lost almost two-thirds of its value since Immelt has been at the helm. Why? Likely because Immelt has supported liberal priorities like the energy-rationing cap and trade, and lets Leftists dominate the airwaves of GE-owned MSNBC despite abysmal ratings.

In Rules for Radicals, Alinsky admitted that his proxy tactic “will result in diminished dividends” and lower returns for middle-class investors. He even called it “corporate jujitsu.” But the negative effects on nest eggs were okay with him, because he didn’t think much of middle-class folks anyway, referring to them contemptuously as the “have-a-little-want-mores”

Radicals “are right,” Alinksy wrote, that “the values and way of life of the middle class” are “materialistic, decadent, bourgeois, degenerate, imperialistic, war-mongering, brutalized, and corrupt.” But he advised that radicals must disguise their true beliefs and appeal to the middle-class to take power for the Left. “We must begin from where we are if we are to build power for change, and the power and the people are in the big middle-class majority.”

Indeed the middle-class is where the power is. But members of this class are smarter, savvier, and more attuned to threats to the nation’s well-being than Alinsky, Obama, and other community organizers have ever given them credit for. If Democrats and/or compromising Republicans attempt to push through proxy access or any other form of Alinsky’s shareholder jujitsu, they may face an army of opposition from middle-class investors and entrepreneurs who know the principles of freedom that made this country great.

Chris Matthews believes it's too soon for George W. Bush nostalgia.

Such was discussed during this weekend's syndicated program bearing his name.

In fact, Matthews made this his big question of the day asking his guests, "Will there be George W. Bush nostalgia this November when his book comes out?"

To his discredit, Matthews was the only person of the five in front of the camera that felt the answer was no concluding, "I think he needs a little more time to be away" (video embedded below the fold with transcript):  

CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: Welcome back. On Friday, George W. Bush said his memoir comes out November. That'll be two years since Barack Obama's victory, which some say was a repudiation of the Bush years. And that brings us to this week's big question: Will there be George W. Bush nostalgia this November when his book comes out? Kelly.

KELLY O'DONNELL, NBC NEWS: Well, every president gets a bit of that and I think the more George Bush is not visible, not talking now, the more there will be interest in what he had to say.

MATTHEWS: Will there be nostalgia?

O'DONNELL: For some there will be.

MATTHEWS: Okay, David Ignatius.

DAVID IGNATIUS, WASHINGTON POST: It depends in large part on where things are in Iraq. If after the election next month, Iraq looks stable, a lot people are going to say, you know, we weren't comfortable with it at the time but George Bush was right.

MATTHEWS: Kathleen, Bush nostalgia for the young Bush?

KATHLEEN PARKER, WASHINGTON POST: I think David makes an excellent point. That will be the key to whether there's any nostalgia. But, you know, George Bush has conducted himself awfully nobly since he left office in terms of hanging back.

MICHAEL DUFFY, TIME MAGAZINE: Compared to Cheney.

PARKER: Yeah. Compared to Cheeney, as Chris would say.

MATTHEWS: No, that's how his name is pronounced actually.

PARKER: I think people will appreciate that. And they, you know, there's admiration for certain things about him that transcend his accomplishments.

MATTHEWS: So, there will be nostalgia?

PARKER: Some, yes.

DUFFY: Sure, as long as everyone's competing memoirs don't open up all the debates we've been talking about. And they are all coming out. But I think these things get better with time.

MATTHEWS: I think it's too soon. I think he needs a little more time to be away before he gets the David McCullough treatment.

Interesting how even those who disagreed with Matthews did so rather guardedly and with disdain for the former President with the possible exceptions of Ignatius and Parker.

Exit question: Who's right?

The Washington Post issued a correction on Saturday in which it apologized for a mischaracterization of the House Republican Whip's use of a printout of the Senate-passed health care bill:

In a Feb. 26 editorial, we said Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.) was "posturing" during the Thursday health-care summit by stacking the voluminous Senate bill before him. Mr. Cantor says that he had the bill with him, well-tabbed, not for show but so that Republicans could respond if specific provisions of the bill came up for discussion. That makes sense, and we should not have characterized his purpose as we did. 

What the Post didn't tell readers is that it was just mimicking President Barack Obama. As the Associated Press reported Thursday in a story available at washingtonpost.com and headlined "Obama scolds Rep. Cantor at summit for paper prop":

WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama scolded Virgina Republican Rep. Eric Cantor for the stack of paper he brought with him to the health summit, calling it the type of political stunt that gets in the way of lawmakers having a serious conversation.

Cantor said he brought a copy of the 2,400-page Senate bill and the 11-page proposal Obama posted online earlier in the week.

Taking offense at the display as Cantor began to speak Thursday, Obama said the "truth of the matter" is that health care is a very complicated subject. He said all the Republican ideas discussed during the first half of the daylong summit would generate a bunch of paper, too.

To emphasize Barack Obama's frustration with what Republicans were saying at Thursday's healthcare summit, CNN aired a montage of the faces the President was making as prominent members of the GOP spoke.

Candy Crowley introduced the segment on Sunday's "State of the Union":

As we mentioned earlier, President Obama's face said a lot last week. I was in the studio where you can watch what which call an ISO, that's the camera focused only on the president as Republicans made their points. We wanted to share.

As you watch, consider how much differently this would have been presented if it was about a Republican President's reactions to what Democrats were saying (video embedded below the fold with transcript): 

CANDY CROWLEY, HOST: As we mentioned earlier, President Obama's face said a lot last week. I was in the studio where you can watch what which call an ISO, that's the camera focused only on the president as Republicans made their points. We wanted to share.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. ERIC CANTOR (R-VA.): Between eight million and nine million people may very well lose the coverage that they have because of this, because of the construct of this bill.

REP. JOHN BOEHNER (R-OHIO): For the first time in 30 years, allows for the taxpayer funding of abortions. What we've been saying for a long time is let's scrap the bill.

CANTOR: What is the consequence of that? We know there are consequences that small businesses will feel because of the impact on job creation.

SEN. CHUCK GRASSLEY, (R-IOWA): Both bills hit small business with higher tax rates. The House bill by 33 percent, the Senate bill by 20 percent.

CANTOR: We're here because we Republicans care about health care just as the Democrats in this room.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

CROWLEY: All we're saying is this is not the face of a man who ought to play poker anytime soon. Whether you heard it or saw it, the message was pretty clear, patience and the days of debating health care are growing short. White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs says the president will likely make an announcement this week about the next step forward.

All we're saying is this is not the face of a man who ought to play poker anytime soon.

That's it? That's all you're saying?

Well, here are a couple of suggestions, Candy, and likely what you would have said if this was a Republican behaving this way in front of Democrats:

• This was worse than all of Al Gore's famous sighs during a presidential debate against George W. Bush in 2000 that might have cost him the election
• The President acted like a spoiled child not only in front of America's leaders but also on national television
• The President demonstrated a surprising lack of leadership and diplomacy with his behavior, and not at all what we expected from the most powerful man on the planet whose greatest skill was supposed to be communicating and being able to bring people together
• This might have been why the President failed at bringing any Republicans over to his side of this issue. 

Nope. 

All we're saying is this is not the face of a man who ought to play poker anytime soon.

George Will Sunday gave New York Times columnist Paul Krugman a much-needed lesson on what happens if ObamaCare is passed.

Krugman wrote a piece Friday accusing Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) of lying at Thursday's healthcare summit about premiums going up if the Democrats' plan is enacted.

During the Roundtable segment of Sunday's "This Week," Will pointed out, "You said in the next sentence in your column, "I guess you could say he wasn't technically lying because the Congressional Budget Office says that's true."

Krugman responded by explaining that even though "the average payments go up," many people will receive better coverage.

To this inanity, Will marvelously asked Krugman if the government forced him to buy a more expensive car, but told him it's not really more expensive because it's a better car, "Wouldn't you tell them to get off your land?" (video embedded below the fold with partial transcript, relevant section at 4:30):

GEORGE WILL, ABC NEWS: Now Paul says, that, in fact, the Republicans have no ideas. They do. Cross selling across state lines. Tort reform. All this. Just a second, Paul. Then you say they're telling whoppers, that was your view. He said about Lamar Alexander, "When he said, ‘For millions of Americans, premiums will go up.'" You said in the next sentence in your column, "I guess you could say he wasn't technically lying because the Congressional Budget Office says that's true."

PAUL KRUGMAN, NEW YORK TIMES: No, that's not what it says. Can explain this? This is actually a point.

WILL: Let me set the predicate here, because you then go on and say, "The Senate does say the average premiums would go up but people would be getting better premiums."

KRUGMAN: Let me explain what happens, because you actually have to read the CBO report. And what the CBO report tells you in fairly elliptical language is that what it will do, what the bill will do is bring a lot of people who are uninsured, who are currently young, and therefore relatively low cost into the risk pool which will actually bring premiums down a little bit. It will also however let a lot of people get better insurance. It will lead a lot of people who are currently underinsured who have insurance policies that are paper thin and don't actually protect you in a crisis, will actually get those people up to having full coverage. That makes the average payments go up, but it does not mean that people who currently have good coverage under their policies will pay more for their insurance. It does not. In fact, they'll end up paying a little bit less.

WILL: One question: If the government came to you and said, "Professor Krugman, you have a car. We're going to compel you to buy a more expensive car, but it's not really more expensive because it's a better car." Wouldn't you tell them to get off your land?

Delicious.

Taking this a step further, ABC's Jonathan Karl fact-checked what Alexander said Thursday, and reported the following:

Well, the CBO analysis does say, flatly, that "the average premium per person covered (including dependents) for new nongroup policies would be about 10 percent to 13 percent higher in 2016 than the average premium for nongroup coverage in that same year under current law." This affects the roughly 17 percent of Americans below age 65 who do not get their insurance from their employers.

Why are premiums going up? CBO cites the combination of three factors:

• Premiums would be 27-30% higher because coverage would be better. The law, for example, requires that all policies cover maternity care, prescription drugs, mental health & substance abuse and no denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions.
• Premiums would be 7 to 10 percent lower b/c of changes to the way the individual market is structured.
• Premiums would be 7 to 10 percent lower b/c of an influx of more people, many of them healthy, into the insurance market.

The net effect of those three factors: Premiums would be 10 to 13 percent higher for the average policyholders.

As such, once again Krugman was basically making stuff up.

Alas, NewsBusters readers are quite familiar with him doing this.

Bravo, George! Bravo! 

George Will Sunday gave New York Times columnist Paul Krugman a much-needed lesson on what happens if ObamaCare is passed.

Krugman wrote a piece Friday accusing Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) of lying at Thursday's healthcare summit about premiums going up if the Democrats' plan is enacted.

During the Roundtable segment of Sunday's "This Week," Will pointed out, "You said in the next sentence in your column, "I guess you could say he wasn't technically lying because the Congressional Budget Office says that's true."

Krugman responded by explaining that even though "the average payments go up," many people will receive better coverage.

To this inanity, Will marvelously asked Krugman if the government forced him to buy a more expensive car, but told him it's not really more expensive because it's a better car, "Wouldn't you tell them to get off your land?" (video embedded below the fold with partial transcript, relevant section at 4:30):

GEORGE WILL, ABC NEWS: Now Paul says, that, in fact, the Republicans have no ideas. They do. Cross selling across state lines. Tort reform. All this. Just a second, Paul. Then you say they're telling whoppers, that was your view. He said about Lamar Alexander, "When he said, ‘For millions of Americans, premiums will go up.'" You said in the next sentence in your column, "I guess you could say he wasn't technically lying because the Congressional Budget Office says that's true."

PAUL KRUGMAN, NEW YORK TIMES: No, that's not what it says. Can explain this? This is actually a point.

WILL: Let me set the predicate here, because you then go on and say, "The Senate does say the average premiums would go up but people would be getting better premiums."

KRUGMAN: Let me explain what happens, because you actually have to read the CBO report. And what the CBO report tells you in fairly elliptical language is that what it will do, what the bill will do is bring a lot of people who are uninsured, who are currently young, and therefore relatively low cost into the risk pool which will actually bring premiums down a little bit. It will also however let a lot of people get better insurance. It will lead a lot of people who are currently underinsured who have insurance policies that are paper thin and don't actually protect you in a crisis, will actually get those people up to having full coverage. That makes the average payments go up, but it does not mean that people who currently have good coverage under their policies will pay more for their insurance. It does not. In fact, they'll end up paying a little bit less.

WILL: One question: If the government came to you and said, "Professor Krugman, you have a car. We're going to compel you to buy a more expensive car, but it's not really more expensive because it's a better car." Wouldn't you tell them to get off your land?

Delicious.

Taking this a step further, ABC's Jonathan Karl fact-checked what Alexander said Thursday, and reported the following:

Well, the CBO analysis does say, flatly, that "the average premium per person covered (including dependents) for new nongroup policies would be about 10 percent to 13 percent higher in 2016 than the average premium for nongroup coverage in that same year under current law." This affects the roughly 17 percent of Americans below age 65 who do not get their insurance from their employers.

Why are premiums going up? CBO cites the combination of three factors:

• Premiums would be 27-30% higher because coverage would be better. The law, for example, requires that all policies cover maternity care, prescription drugs, mental health & substance abuse and no denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions.
• Premiums would be 7 to 10 percent lower b/c of changes to the way the individual market is structured.
• Premiums would be 7 to 10 percent lower b/c of an influx of more people, many of them healthy, into the insurance market.

The net effect of those three factors: Premiums would be 10 to 13 percent higher for the average policyholders.

As such, once again Krugman was basically making stuff up.

Alas, NewsBusters readers are quite familiar with him doing this.

Bravo, George! Bravo! 

President Obama signed the renewal of the Patriot Act in the quiet of a slow-news Saturday–the Act was set to expire Sunday, February 28–as reported by The Hill.

Photo Credit: AP Photo

The reauthorization did NOT include any reforms to the current Patriot Act–an odd display of agreement and submission to Bush-era policy–even though the Democrats had the numbers to reform the Act. The continuance of the current Patriot Act signals that Democrats are fearful of further controversary in light of American’s distrust and poor approval ratings of the Democrat-controlled Congress. From the Hill:

The House approved the bill 315-97 on Thursday, a day after the extension passed the Senate.

The provisions, including roving wiretaps, records access and tracking terror suspects not affiliated with any group, were set to expire on Sunday. Democrats opposing the extension were unable to add desired civil-liberties protections.

The Patriot Act was first passed by Congress after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks as a defense mechanism against terrorists.

The House and the Senate, behind the scenes of the healthcare fervor, quietly passed this bill with little oppostion and outrage. Democrats could have modified the Patriot Act, but didn’t.

Apparently without Bush, the Patriot Act is no longer Orwellian as Michael Moore would have it and the ACLU is now quietly voicing its differences. Even Obama criticized the Act’s compromise in 2006, but had no issue, as President, signing the identical Act he wanted reforms on.  In 2006, Obama stated on the Senate floor:

So, I will be supporting the Patriot Act compromise. But I urge my colleagues to continue working on ways to improve the civil liberties protections in the Patriot Act after it is reauthorized.

The Democrats had the numbers to make changes, but another civil war would have ensued.  In addition, it appears that when these controversial legislative pieces are passed by the Democrats, it makes it all better.  No more outrage from the MSM and the far-left, because the rules of war and engagement are clearly different because, you know, the Democrats are in charge.

Barack Obama, it was claimed, would “repair” our reputation both with our enemies and our friends. So how has he done? Let’s take Britain for example. Has he “fixed” our special relationship with the British Isles? Well, if by fixed you mean he has fastened that relationship to a negative track, well then “fixed” it is.

Let’s review some of the slights that Barack Obama delivered to our closest allies, the British.

In February, immediately after he entered office, President Obama summarily rejected the most famous bust of Winston Churchill in England loaned to the U.S. for display in the Oval Office by the people of England. The bust was sent to us by the people of the U.K. as a gesture of solidarity and friendship in the aftermath of 9/11. Despite their generosity, Obama returned the generously loaned statuette without alerting the Brits that he intended to do so, blindsiding Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s government.

Then in March Obama slighted the British once again by refusing to meet PM Brown at the airport in the previously arranged welcome-to-America press conference when the Brown’s came for a state visit.

During that same visit Obama callously gave Brown, a man who is nearly blind, a set of American DVD movies as an official gift from the U.S.A., movies that won’t even play on English DVD machines (America is “Region 1” while England is “Region 2” in DVD formats). To add insult to injury Mrs. Obama gave the Brown’s boys a few cheap toy helicopters from a Washington gift shop — likely made in China. On the other hand PM Brown gave some significant and thoughtful gifts to the Obama’s and our nation.

For his part, PM Brown gave two symbolic gifts and one that expressed national pride. Brown came bearing a pen holder carved from the timbers of the sister ship of that which gave the wood to create the famous “Resolute Desk,” the desk that has been in America’s charge since 1880. He also gave Obama the framed commission for that famous ship, the HMS Resolute. His third gift was a seven-volume biography of one of England’s greatest leaders, Winston Churchill.

Also during this state visit at least one person in Obama’s administration denigrated the famed “special relationship” that the U.S. and the U.K. have had since WWII. When Brown’s aids tried to interact with Obama’s, one of Obama’s aids reportedly said that there was no special relationship and that the Brits would be treated like any other nation in the age of Obama. Not very diplomatic that.

During March, British officials began to complain that Obama’s administration was neglecting the diplomatic phone calls that British officials were making to try to coordinate international policies. Apparently no one was picking up the phone in Washington when the Brits rang.

Later in April, the Obama’s showed an utter lack of protocol when visiting the Queen of England. Obama’s wife broke protocol by placing her hand upon the Queen’s back, a definite no-no. Michelle, it seems, was entirely too casual about her appearance before the Queen and the British were appalled by Michelle’s lack of respect. By itself this incident might seem small, but taken with all the others it seems apiece with how unimportant the Obama’s consider the British. Even long-standing protocol isn’t important enough to observe as far as the Obama’s are concerned.

Then in May Team Obama left the Queen out of its D-Day memorial plans again showing the Brits that they weren’t important enough for Obama’s attention.

It should be remembered that the D-Day incident occurred around the same time that Obama was bowing in supplication before the Saudi King showing the world that Obama would pay more deference to a repressive regime than any western democracy.

By June the British press was beginning to wonder why Obama hated them so much. Even the New York Times worried that, “on a more basic level, there is a sense that the Obama administration is ignoring the needs and counsel of longtime allies.” And so, during June several other western democracies were pronouncing their disgust at how they were being mistreated or ignored by Obama and his administration. Along with the British, the Germans, the French, and the Israelis were also becoming miffed at their treatment at Obama’s hands.

We should contrast these slights with how Obama had been bowing and scraping (both figuratively and literally) to Saudi Kings, North Korean madmen, dictatorial Iranian regimes, and South American strong men throughout this entire time. Obama was also seen in November bowing nearly to the floor before another national leader, this time before Japan’s Emperor Akihito. The Brits must have really been confused by this one. He bows to a Japanese Emperor — whose predecessor was an enemy to the U.S. — but shows little interest in their Queen — who was herself one of our longest allies and fought with us during WWII?

And now Obama’s upturned nose is again shown England as she fights to retain control of the Falklands. Instead of supporting the Brit’s assertion that the Falklands are their lawful possession Obama ignored the whole question, saying nothing, and leaving the British to twist in the wind lending Argentina’s claims upon the Islands more credence than it otherwise would have had if the U.S. had officially upheld the Brit’s rights to them.

The word in London is that Obama is punishing the British for having released sensitive U.S. intelligence on a terror suspect recently. In retaliation Obama has refused to uphold the U.K.’s long-held sovereignty over the Falklands.

This wasn’t the only punishment Obama dealt the Brits over this incident. Last week Obama also abruptly canceled a planned conference to celebrate 60 years of the two nation’s intelligence sharing arrangement.

In the final analysis it seems that Obama can act tough with the British, can callously dismiss the French and the Germans, but goes all soft in the face of murderous regimes like Iran, the Saudis, and North Korea. One would suspect that Obama hasn’t the spine to deal with real problems but, like the cuckolded hubby, lashes out where he knows its safe to do so but not where some lashing out would do some good.

With virtually zero debate - or media attention - President Barack Obama has signed a one-year extension for what many considered the most crucial and controversial aspects of the USA PATRIOT Act. The provisions, set to expire Sunday without the signature of Obama, include extensions to allow:

-1) "roving" wiretaps, permitting surveillance on multiple phones and e-mail addresses.

-2) court-approved seizures of records and property in anti-terrorism operations.

-3) surveillance on "lone-wolf" foreign nationals, who may not be part of a recognized terrorist group.

Originally set to expire in December, a two-month extension was passed by Congress late last year.

For many on the left, the Patriot Act is the defining pillar and symbol of the previous administration, emblematic of a totalitarian police state they allegedly suffered under George W. Bush. And what does not come as a surprise is the fact Obama's signature comes on a Saturday night - when all the world is surely clamoring for the latest political news.

Expect a buzzsaw of media scrutiny from the champions of the so-called candidate of "change" in mainstream media the next several news-cycles?

Me neither.

Spare us the Obama nanny-state PSAs . . .

There I was, harmlesly Olympics-watching something called the "men's snowboard parallel giant slalom"—quite a cool event, actually—when we were suddenly subjected to a commercial telling us not to phone or text while driving. 

And of all people, it was terminally un-cool Obama Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood inflicting the message and directing us to some website called www.distraction.gov. 

Now, it might be one thing if Shaun White were the spokesman.  But Ray LaHood?—and yeah, I know he used to be a Republican.  Odds he's ever texted in his life?

PS: I note that all the phoning/texting drivers escaped without a scratch. So what's the big deal? 

PPS: If that blonde believes that "time travel is totally possible," who am I to disagree?

According to a focus group done by pollster Frank Luntz, folks that voted for Barack Obama liked the recent attack on Sarah Palin done by the cartoon series "Family Guy."

As NewsBusters reported almost two weeks ago, the Valentine's Day episode of the Fox hit featured a Down Syndrome girl saying that her mother was the former governor of Alaska.

This sparked a nationwide debate about whether this was just harmless satire or deeply offensive on a number of levels.

With this in mind, Luntz put together a focus group of thirteen folks that voted for John McCain in November 2008, and eleven that voted for Barack Obama, to gauge reactions to this segment as well as to how Palin responded to it.

Though obviously a very small sample set, the results he shared on Friday's "O'Reilly Factor" were staggering to say the least (video embedded below the fold with transcript, h/t Right Scoop and @Cubachi):

BILL O'REILLY, HOST: "Personal story" segment tonight, as you may know, the FOX TV program "Family Guy" took a cheap shot at Sarah Palin and her family by using a cartoon character with Down Syndrome to mock her. Ms. Palin, of course, has a Down Syndrome baby. Well, we asked Dr. Frank Luntz to wire up the folks and get their reaction to the Frank situation - to the situation. And Frank joins us now.

Okay, the folks are whom?

FRANK LUNTZ: Philadelphia voters.

O'REILLY: Yes.

LUNTZ: 13 who voted for John McCain, 11 who voted for Barack Obama. And they watched both Sarah Palin and the cartoon itself. And the reaction we got was shocking.

O'REILLY: OK. Let's roll the cartoon. Go.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Hi, kids.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That's the girl.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes. Isn't she special?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That's the way the state of Rhode Island would put it. There's something up with her, isn't there?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes. She's got Down syndrome.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK, well, there we go.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: She's so sweet. And doesn't she have the most beautiful eyes?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The spacing seems a tad off but individually, yes, they're not awful.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Are you going to be this rude all evening? You haven't asked me anything about myself.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Oh, sorry, um, so what do your parents do?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: That's better. My dad is an accountant, and my mom is the former governor of Alaska.

(END VIDEO CIP)

O'REILLY: All right, now, after she said "former governor of Alaska,": we cut it off but where did the line go?

LUNTZ: The Republican line tanked. And we asked them if you think it's funny you dial it up.

O'REILLY: Right.

LUNTZ: If you think it's offensive you dial it down.

Now I would have assumed that Democrats, they have a reputation of being more compassionate and more caring. Republicans have a reputation for being tougher, more no nonsense. And yet, the Democrats didn't find that offensive, and the Republicans did.

O'REILLY: So it's all about Palin, not about the material?

LUNTZ: It's all about Palin. And look, The "Family Guy" people, it's almost an insult. It's not almost -- it is an insult. And when you've got -- when you've got people who are watching making fun of someone in that way, could you imagine what would have happened if a conservative had done that?

O'REILLY: Well, yes, there's always a double standard in the media, but there shouldn't be among the folks. So you're saying that basically, that the people who voted for Barack Obama were not offended by this cartoon, but the people who voted for McCain were? OK. I'm sorry it breaks down along party lines.

Now, as you may know, Sarah Palin came on "The Factor" to address the controversy. So roll the tape on that.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

O'REILLY: So, governor, what do you think? It's pretty nasty, is it not?

SARAH PALIN, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: This world is full of cruel, cold-hearted people who would do such a thing.

Look, I look at Trig and I see perfection. I see a precious little child, already toddling around. You can see that he has a heart of gold. I also can see into the future that Trig is going to have a pretty tough, challenging life in front of him. He's going to face things that special-needs children will be facing, much more difficult than we ever will.

So why make it tougher on the special-needs community? That's what I thought when I first heard about this episode. That really isn't funny.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

O'REILLY: OK.

LUNTZ: I approached this without having any political allegiance. And I'm watching those dials go. And I have to tell you candidly, that I'm thinking to myself, "What the hell?" This is not a former vice-presidential candidate or governor. This is a mom talking about a challenge with her children.

O'REILLY: A baby.

LUNTZ: A baby.

O'REILLY: You can't get above 50.

LUNTZ: Among Obama voters. I don't understand that.

O'REILLY: They hate her.

LUNTZ: But isn't it -- shouldn't we look at the person first before the politics?

O'REILLY: Well, it's not -- it isn't so much that to me. The surprising part is she wasn't talking about anything of herself. She was talking about her baby. And you couldn't get above 50 percent when she was talking about a special-needs baby.

LUNTZ: So where's the compassion?

O'REILLY: There's not -- so they couldn't -- the people that you wired up couldn't separate what happened from her.

LUNTZ: Exactly.

O'REILLY: And you saw the Republicans. They like her. But I think they were probably listening to the conversation because you -- when she hit the baby line, it went -- like that.

LUNTZ: Let me tell you. if you go back to the convention of 2008, when she talked about her children, at that point, Democrats gave her a very high rating.

O'REILLY: She hadn't been demonized yet.

LUNTZ: Exactly. And that tells you that the demonizing works all the way through.

O'REILLY: Well, it works in the Democratic precincts for her.

Amazing. 

So, the demonizing of a former governor by America's media have made some folks on the Left so hateful of her that they now think it's acceptable to make jokes about her kids.

Not only that, they now don't even feel ANY compassion for her handicapped child.

There's no other way of putting this: those in the media that have for almost a year and a half mercilessly attacked this woman and her family should be deeply ashamed of themselves.

Unfortunately, the saddest part of this saga is they're not. They're proud, because not only did these attacks help get their man in office, but they also permanently tarnished someone they saw as an enemy.

Now forgive me, but I have to go wash my hands and disinfect my keyboard; working on this piece has made me ill.

He left the White House in disgrace only fives months ago, but former Green Jobs Czar Van Jones is getting help from liberal media outlets with his comeback.

On Friday, CNN's Suzanne Malveaux interviewed the controversial figure, and although she asked him some tough questions about his signature at a 9/11 truther website as well as calling Republicans a**holes, her concluding sentiments with "Situation Room" host Wolf Blitzer were an obvious act of cheerleading.

"Van Jones really feels like he took a fall, and he's trying to get back up," she said. "And really, this award, an NAACP Image Award helps him with a second chance."

Her campaign for his renovation continued, "And he's going to be going on to teach at Princeton University. He's going to be also in a liberal think tank based out of Washington."

And continued, "This is really a chance for him to celebrate tonight, he said, and to share this award with people that he admired who have also gotten this award. Muhammad Ali, President Bill Clinton, Condoleezza Rice" (video embedded below the fold with transcript, h/t HotAirPundit):

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: For Van Jones, there is life after the White House, where he once had a reputation for tearing apart opponents, he now says he's all about trying to build bridges.

Our White House correspondent Suzanne Malveaux traveled to Hollywood to speak to Van Jones. Here is her interview.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

VAN JONES, FORMER WHITE HOUSE ADVISER: I gave a speech at Exeter, and some of the tea party people came to my speech.

SUZANNE MALVEAUX, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: You are kidding.

JONES: Yes. And, you know, the guy sit on the front row, and he had Glenn Beck's book right there --

MALVEAUX: Really?

JONES: -- on the front row, like, you know, maddogging me and I started talking. I started talking about American jobs and the future and how we can be one country, and the guy's book starts getting lower and lower and lower, and at the end of the speech, he came up and asked me to sign Glenn Beck's book.

MALVEAUX: You are kidding.

JONES: And you know what I wrote on it?

MALVEAUX: What did you -- what did you write?

JONES: We are one country, Van Jones.

MALVEAUX: Your critics point to a number of things. Let's deal with each one of them point by point.

JONES: Sure.

MALVEAUX: First of all, the petition that you signed in 2004, the 9/11 truthers, and which they call for an investigation of Bush administration officials may indeed have deliberately allowed 9/11 to happen perhaps as a pretext for war. You sign this petition and then you said you never believed in that statement, that it didn't reflect your views. Which is it?

JONES: Well, first of all, just let me be clear what my actual beliefs are. I do believe that 9/11 was a conspiracy by Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda and nobody else to hurt America. That's what I believe.

I learned a tough lesson on this one. I never saw that language, and I never signed anything. A group came up to me at a conference six years ago and they said, "We represent 9/11 families." And I said, "You know, OK. You know, what's going on? How can I be helpful?" They said, "We need your help, will you support our cause?" I said, "Sure."

They then, I did not know their agenda, they then went and put my name on the most abhorrent crazy language, alleging stuff that I don't believe, would never have signed on to, and it just sat there on this obscure Web site for years.

MALVEAUX: They also pointed to a YouTube video when you made a speech shortly before you actually accepted your White House post, when you used an expletive to describe Republicans. But you saw the camera rolling -- and did you think, perhaps, this isn't a good idea, maybe I should curbed my language here?

JONES: Yes. Well, first of all, I -- that was -- that was a horrible mistake on my part. I didn't see the camera, but camera or no camera, you know, sometimes we get into this partisan, you know, kinds of things and trying to be funny and whatever, and, you know, we don't stay true to our true selves.

MALVEAUX: David Axelrod, one of the president's advisers, said that he didn't -- he wasn't aware of these things, and that he probably should have done a better job. One of the other top advisers, Valerie Jarrett, said they have been following you for years and you worked in Oakland and they were very eager to get you to the White House.

Is it hard for you to believe when they say they just had no idea, they didn't know about some of these things?

JONES: I was fully candid, I mean, about my past ,about the ideas that I explored. I was a midlevel White House staffer. I reported to a Senate-confirmed nominee -- midlevel White House staffers go through a vetting process that's very -- a process that's very, very rigorous. But I wasn't a cabinet secretary. I was a worker in the White House.

Some people decided to give me this crazy title of green job czar in the media. I remember it, I came right out and said, "I'm not the green job czar, I'm the green czar jobs handyman."

MALVEAUX: There was somebody, Jeffrey Lorr (ph), he was a speech writer for the Reagan administration and he leveled this criticism saying that the Secret Service on the previous administrations, that they saw your background, that they wouldn't allow you a visitors' pass at the White House, much less the job that you had held.

Do you feel that the White House could have done a better job in vetting you and basically preventing this whole thing from happening?

JONES: I'm somebody who is at -- you know, at the top of my field globally, nationally, with regard to the literature. I was imminently qualified for this position.

MALVEAUX: That weekend before you resigned, it was radio silence at the White House. Did you feel -- did you feel betrayed at all?

JONES: Absolutely not. Nobody told me to resign. I gave my resignation. I said, "I don't want to be a distraction."

MALVEAUX: So you think it was a good thing? I mean, you've learned lessons from this?

JONES: I'm a green guy. So, if you want a healthy plant, you have to have a lot of sunshine and a lot of crap, and they call crap fertilizer. You know, if you put those two things together, you'll get a good strong plant. I have had a lot of sunshine in my life, and I have also had a lot of crap. But you know what? The successes give you that confidence. The setbacks build your character.

MALVEAUX: Tell me how you got involved in the environmental movement. You are obviously a pioneer in this field and you had a friendship with, literally, a tree hugger, if you will, Julia Butterfly Hill who was living in a tree, trying to save it from being chopped down for two years. The two of you used to do lectures together. Was she the one who inspired you?

JONES: Well, you know, first of all, I think everybody has a soft spot for nature somewhere. Not many people wake up in the morning and say, I hate bunnies and trees, you know, like most people are. Most people have a soft spot for nature.

So, I grew up on the edge of a small town. I grew up in the woods. So, I always had that, but it was buried someplace. And actually, it was when I burned out on some of the kind of more angry politics and so I tried to heal myself that I started going to the woods, you know.

And I met Julia Butterfly and I said, "Hold on a second. You got all these kids in urban America, rural America who need job. And we have some important work that needs to be done and what if we connected the two." And it was a revelation to me. We could fight pollution and poverty at the same time.

MALVEAUX: You have no resentment that you lost the White House job?

JONES: I had six great months doing stuff I never got to have a chance to do and it was time for me to go. I got a chance to walk away. And this is America, a land of second chances, the land of getting chances and start over. It's what the whole country is built on, second chances.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BLITZER: And Suzanne is joining us now from Los Angeles. Susan, I take it, he's getting this award you reported earlier on the week. He's getting this major award now from the NAACP. So, I suspect he feels he's going to get a second chance.

MALVEAUX: Well, Wolf, you heard in our interview there, Van Jones really feels like he took a fall, and he's trying to get back up. And really, this award, a NAACP Image Award helps him with a second chance, he told me. And he's going be going on the teach at Princeton University. He's going to be also in a liberal think tank based out of Washington.

This is really a chance for him to celebrate tonight, he said, and to share this award with people that he admired who have also gotten this award. Muhammad Ali, President Bill Clinton, Condoleezza Rice. His family joked that he'll have a chance to meet Beyonce tonight, which is a prize for him he said. But, in all seriousness, he also believes that this really is going to be a fresh start for him -- Wolf.

BLITZER: Suzanne Malveaux, thanks very you for that interview and that report.

Sheesh.

The only things missing were some pom poms, a short skirt, and a marching band.

Of course, CNN cheerleading for Jones is nothing new. Readers should recall Howard Kurtz shortly before Jones resigned accusing Fox News's Glenn Beck of going after the czar because of an advertising boycott started by a group with ties to Jones. 

Two weeks later, just days after Jones' resignation, Kurtz changed his tune wondering why the media -- with the exception of Fox News and conservative bloggers -- ignored the story for so long.

Exit question: can you imagine a member of the Bush White House getting this kind of treatment five months after being forced to resign in disgrace?

Poor Joe Klein. The Time magazine writer missed yesterday's epic health care lecturefest summit. I can't blame him. Olympic curling is much more fascinating.

Anyway, he's catching up and he's come to the conclusion that Professor Obama totally schooled the GOP.

Why? Because the president talked a lot but observers found the event boring, ergo proving both Obama's brilliance and the dimwittedness and poor statesmanship of the GOP opposition.

Yes, that really is the gist of his argument from a February 26 Swampland blog (emphasis mine):

Shame on me. I was elsewhere yesterday and missed the health care summit. I'm catching up now, and the tea leaves seem to indicate that Obama came out well ahead of the Republicans. How do I know that? From Matt Drudge, of course. I mean, Drudge's takeaway from the summit is that the President talked a lot--actually, the President, the Congressional Democrats and Republicans each spoke an equal amount--the Times of London found it boring and the networks turned to other programming.

Reading between the lines, you can conclude that the Republicans had nothing very interesting, or clever, to say (and were never able to get the President's goat). And that the President was his usual, unflappable, well-informed self. You can also conclude that not much progress was made at the summit, as Karen reports here--but that's a huge surprise, right?

Reading further, in the New York Times, I can't find any indications that the Congressional Democrats were actually present at this meeting. Certainly, they had nothing notable to say, no new compromises to propose--which leads to another obvious conclusion: the Republicans have been absolutely recalcitrant in this process, but the Dems are no bargain, either.

I remain convinced that if the Republicans actually wanted to deal with this issue, they might have gotten some major concessions from the President--malpractice reform, for sure; perhaps a greater use of insurance polices that emphasize catastrophic coverage (as the Republicans wanted), maybe even a system--as John McCain proposed during the campaign and health wonks everywhere favor--that truly limited the deductability of  corporate health care benefits. To get these things, however, the Republicans would have had to say yes at some point. As in, YES, I'll vote for the bill if you throw in malpractice and pay for it with the money you get from limiting deductability. That is what happens in a negotiation. That is what is supposed to happen in a democracy.

But the obvious truth here is that the Republicans do not want any sort of health care bill to pass at all because they do not want to hand President Obama a victory. Shame on them.

Jon Stewart said Thursday press reporting of President Obama's healthcare summit was so bad that if he had to score it like an Olympic event, he'd disqualify the contestants for sucking.

The comedian devoted a full ten minutes to the bipartisan meeting on Thursday's "Daily Show," and was largely an equal opportunity offender.

After taking what some would consider to be a cheap shot at "Senator Tom 'Killing Abortion Doctors Might Not Be Such A Terrible Idea' Coburn," Stewart quipped moments later, "That's Senator Chuck 'If I Was Any More Liberal and Jewish I'd Have T*ts and Be Barbra Streisand' Schumer." 

But much of his attack was about the media coverage, especially toward the end (video embedded below the fold with partial transcript):

JON STEWART: Now, obviously there was grandstanding. There was posturing but there were some really substantive points made here. And there were issues where there was great agreement on healthcare on both Democratic and Republican sides and room for negotiation. This really did have some important steps for the American people's understanding of this complex and essential issues. Or, to put it another way, media:

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MEGYN KELLY, FOX NEWS: Was any progress made? Was anyone winning?

ANDREA MITCHELL, MSNBC: Who had the best advantage so far?

ED HENRY, CNN: At least in the early -- in the first 90 minutes or so I'm not seeing any real chance for progress.

KELLY: Is any one actually winning this debate?

WOLF BLITZER, CNN: If this were sort of the Winter Olympic Games how would you score this?

(END VIDEOTAPE)

STEWART: I would disqualify you for sucking.

So would I, Jon. 

This summit might not have produced the fireworks the media were looking for, or the results. But those that actually watched the full meeting were treated to specifics about this issue -- especially from the Republicans present -- that so-called journalists have been avoiding since this debate began a year ago.

Maybe this is the problem with today's press: details are no longer important. What can't be expressed in a snappy soundbite is just too inconvenient.

On the other hand, it's possible media members didn't like what they saw because they weren't involved.

Perhaps if THEY'RE not part of the story, they can't find it newsworthy.

Hmmm.

A report on the health care summit on Friday's CBS Early Show featured a clip of President Obama scolding lawmakers for "trading talking points" during the meeting, that was followed by  correspondent Bill Plante pointing a finger at the GOP: "But from their first speaker, Republicans never backed down from their opposition to the Democrats' bill."

Plante noted that "John McCain, the President's opponent In 2008, challenged the process by which the Democrats' bill was produced." After a clip was played of McCain denouncing the lack of change in Washington, Plante touted how "the President shot back," playing a clip of Obama proclaiming "the election is over." Plante also highlighted an exchange in which Obama slammed Senator Lamar Alexander, telling the Tennessee Republican to get his "facts straight."

Oddly, after displaying the President's clearly partisan attacks, Plante concluded: "Democrats emerged from the meeting saying they still want bipartisanship. Republicans said they don't see that happening."

On Thursday's CBS Evening News, White House correspondent Chip Reid described how "exasperated" President Obama was with Republicans, who proved they were the "party of no."

Plante did acknowledge that the summit was ultimately a stalemate: "In the end, it was pretty much a draw. The President at the end seemed to suggest that he would encourage Democrats to pass a health care bill without Republicans, using the legislative tactic known as reconciliation. And then let the voters sort it all out next November."

Following Plante's report, co-host Harry Smith discussed the summit with Face the Nation host Bob schieffer and asked if the Democrats would now "go it alone" on health care reform. Schieffer responded:

I think the Democrats will probably go it alone....go ahead with this process called reconciliation....there is going to be an enormous cost, because Republicans are just going to go crazy about this and I think that they that will vow to tie up the Senate on every other single issue that comes before it this year. The Democrats, by the same token, will be saying, okay, go ahead and try to do that and see what the voters think of that.

Smith followed up by describing Obama's bold gamble: "This is basically the President saying, taking all the chips, putting them in the middle of the table saying 'I'm all in on this deal, we're going to pass this health care the way it is. I will risk my presidency, I will risk the fall elections on this one issue come hell or high water.'" Schieffer agreed: "I think you're right. And he is basically daring the Republicans to do the same thing."

Neither Schieffer nor Smith seemed to notice a just-released Gallup poll that showed that a majority of Americans, 52%, oppose the use of reconciliation, compared to only 39% who approve of the legislative tactic.

Stop the presses: David Gergen actually said something nice about the GOP Thursday.

"I don't think [the Democrats] got the breakthrough they were looking for in terms of the public, reaching the public and trying to change opinions," Gergen told Wolf Blitzer's "Situation Room" panel shortly after President Obama's healthcare summit ended.

"That is because intellectually, the Republicans had the best day they have had in years."

Gergen even reiterated, "The best day they have had in years."

Less amazing was the silence from the panel -- which consisted of Candy Crowley, John King, Gloria Borger, and Joe Johns -- when Gergen made this statement (video embedded below the fold with transcript, h/t Hot Air):

WOLF BLITZER, HOST: And the Republicans had less speaking time, but they took full advantage of the minutes they had.

DAVID GERGEN: Yes, they do. Wolf, before you get to that, the president deserves enormous credit for putting this on. He was I thought extremely graceful and occasionally with an edge, but he was graceful and dominated much of the proceedings, and the Democrats got stronger in afternoon than in the morning. Even so, I don't think they got the breakthrough they were looking for in terms of the public, reaching the public and trying to change opinions. That is because intellectually, the Republicans had the best day they have had in years. The best day they have had in years. They, you know, there has been a perception that the Republicans are brain dead and ideologically resistant to anything, and they have no ideas and the rest of it. I thought it was not just the, you know, people like Lamar Alexander and Tom Coburn, but the new people, of Ryan and Cantor were fresh, and I think that they really evened the score and kept it even.

Did you hear that pin drop on the set when Gergen said this?

Chris Matthews on Thursday said President Obama was using a Saul Alinsky communication technique during the healthcare summit earlier that day.

Talking to NBC's Chuck Todd and Savannah Guthrie about the festivities at Blair House, the "Hardball" host couldn't help but notice community organization skills on display.

"By the way, that`s the Saul Alinsky in him -- that is the community organizer," Matthews said with a smile on his face.

"Because Saul Alinsky taught, understand both sides and all the nuances, but in the end, take a side" (video embedded below the fold with transcript, h/t Story Balloon):

SAVANNAH GUTHRIE, NBC: But what we saw today -- you know, we`ve heard him say these words before -- we saw today was that advocate, somebody who showed a greater level of intensity to really try to take that --

(CROSSTALK)

CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: By the way, that`s the Saul Alinsky in him -- that is the community organizer. Because Saul Alinsky taught, understand both sides and all the nuances, but in the end, take a side.

CHUCK TODD, NBC: But on this issue, he spent more time talking about cost curves in the last 11 months because he was trying to --

MATTHEWS: Sell the R's.

To be sure, it's no surprise that Matthews reveres the "Rules for Radicals" author. After all, he told us that in December. 

But to admit that he believes Obama ALSO is an Alinsky-devotee was quite telling.

Thanks for the honestly, Chris.

The Washington Post couldn’t provide a solely objective analysis of the health "summit" in Friday’s paper. Instead, they put liberal columnist Dana Milbank on page one to crow that Obama had badly paddled the Republicans. The headline was "Prof. Obama walks tall and carries a big paddle." The opening came with a heaping spoonful of sugar for Obama:

Republicans had been hesitant to accept President Obama's invitation to participate in Thursday's White House health-care summit. Their hesitance turned out to be justified.

An equal number of Democratic and Republican legislators assembled around the table....But members of the opposition party may not have fully understood that they were stepping into Prof. Obama's classroom, and that they were to be treated like his undisciplined pupils.

The headline on the Post website also echoed that idea: "Professor Obama schools lawmakers on health-care reform." Obama called out John McCain’s "tirade," he wrote:

"Let me just make this point, John," the president said when the tirade ended. "We're not campaigning anymore. The election's over." Teacher directed student to drop the "talking points" and "focus on the issues of how we actually get a bill done."

The closest Milbank came to dropping the pom-poms for Obama’s performance was a note that Obama was good, and he knew it:

The forum matched his lawyerly skills -- and, less flatteringly, his tendency to act like the smartest guy in the room. Prof. Obama ventured deep into the weeds of health-care policy to contest Republican claims, and, for one day at least, he regained control of the fractious student body that is the Congress.

Milbank liked how Obama could run the show and order legislators around:

After several such moments, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell ((R-Ky.) spoke up. "Republicans have used 24 minutes; the Democrats, 52 minutes," he said.

Obama made McConnell look small in his chair. "You're right, there was an imbalance on the opening statements," he said, "because I'm the president."

Doesn’t Obama look small in this exchange? We don’t have to be fair, because I won the election, ha ha ha. Obama pulled the same "I won" rank on McCain.

Milbank also looked small in suggesting the public really didn’t have the attention span for a discussion like this, so maybe it wasn’t that awful for the Republicans after all: "The forum probably didn't alter the trajectory of health-care legislation, if only because few Americans could possibly have paid attention."

He granted points that this "Party of No-Doz" discussion was substantive on both sides, but ended by passionately recounting how his hero Obama brought the "rhetorical paddle" to the GOP. For example:

Spotting a huge stack of papers in front of House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.), Obama preempted him: "Let me guess: That's the 2,400-page health-care bill." It was. "These are the kind of political things we do that prevent us from actually having a conversation," the president said.

House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio), in his turn, tried all the Republican buzzwords: "scrap this bill ... bankrupt our country ... dangerous  experiment ... government takeover of health care ... new taxes ... Medicare cuts ... unconstitutional."

Obama shook his head. "John," he scolded, "every so often, we have a pretty good conversation trying to get on some specifics, and then we go back to, you know, the standard talking points."

It was the Blair House equivalent of being ordered to wear the dunce cap.

Just above Milbank's editorial on the front page, the Post plugged other liberal columnists, such as this headline: "Stephen Pearlstein on the summit: Columnist sees callousness in Republican lawmakers' approach to health care."

They also plugged their own staff editorial and their liberal blogger Ezra Klein. They didn't promote columnist Kevin Huffman trying to compare the health care debate to a Caribbean parrot.

NY Democrat Gov. David Paterson is history. He has dropped his re-election bid in the aftermath of several ethics scandals, but will finish out his term. Here’s the NYTimes story that was the catalyst for today’s coming announcement. a brief history. Here’s the NYPost story on the withdrawal this morning.
And here’s the NY Daily News:

Embattled Gov. Paterson has pulled the plug on his election bid, a source close to the governor said Friday.

Paterson will announce the decision later Friday.

Paterson has been under fire for having contacted a woman who accused one of his top aides of domestic violence.

The source said the governor has agreed not to seek election, but he will not resign – opting to serve out the remainder of his term.

The decision clears the way for Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, who is the favorite of many Democrats, to seek the nomination unimpeded.

Call it Patrick Gaspard’s revenge. Recall how Obama’s top White House domestic policy aide — the ACORN/WFP/SEIU “air traffic controller” — intervened in NY-23, has kept his till in the NY politics pot, and made the unpopular Paterson a target to pave the path for Cuomo.

Behold the persuasion of power.

"Are we on seven-second delay?"--Mark Halperin on Morning Joe, prefacing his criticism of Pres. Obama's performance at the health-care summit.

JOE SCARBOROUGH: I just wonder whether that was really in the President's best interest, whether the entire episode yesterday was in the President's best interest?

MARK HALPERIN: Are we on the seven-second delay?

SCARBOROUGH: Ah, yes.

HALPERIN: I thought, you know, he in that scene and in a few others I thought he was a little too, maybe . . .

SCARBOROUGH: Petulant?

HALPERIN: Dismissive, petulant, some might say arrogant. You know he called most of the members by their first names, I think maybe to try to sort of be ingratiating and friendly.  But it did seem to some--me--a little condescending.