What do You Want Obama to Say Wednesday Night?

What do You Want Obama to Say Wednesday Night?

President Obama will address a joint session of Congress next Wednesday night (September 9th) and make his case for health reform. What do you want him to say?

All the media are saying this is high wire, high risk speech-making for the president. And perhaps it is. But it is what we expected from him all along. We hoped that his sense of timing would mean that he would start really putting himself on the line sometime in September, after Congress had had the chance to draft its legislation. And so it has come to pass (Biblical allusion intentional).

This weekend, Obama and his speech writers and advisors will be drafting his address. As many organizations have noted, now is the time to make your views known.

There are a few options I can think of:

1. Make an emotional and moral appeal for health reform. Talk about people dying and suffering without health insurance or going broke with it. Explain why it is a disgrace that the U.S. does not cover all its citizens while every other industrialized country has done so for a long time. Maybe mention his mother and grandmother again.

2. Make a more factual and analytic appeal. Talk about costs (again). Show connection with the deficit. Explain how health reform can be funded. Get specific.

3. Use the time to knock back the myths and lies about health reform. Shame the Republicans in the Chamber for their death panel, granny-killing, abortion-covering, Medicare destroying lies.

4. Come out swinging. Remind those who voted for him why they did. Stand firmly behind the public option. Be tough.

5. Be bipartisan. Reach out to Republicans in the Chamber. Do not embarrass them. Ask them to join him in passing health reform. Make some compromises and offer yet another olive branch. Suggest the public option as a trigger if private plans don't behave.

6. Some combination of the above. But with what emphasis? How much detail? What do you think Jane Q. Public will or can hear?

This weekend is the time to make your opinions known. But be constructive. There has been plenty of mindless opposition this summer. If you don't like one of the above options, explain why and give your own suggestion. Maybe someone in the White House will listen!

THE DEATH OF NEO CONSERVATISM, THOUGHTS ON RUSH LIMBAUGH, AND THE REAL REASON FOR ALL OF THE RECENT BLUSTER-THE UPCOMING FIGHT OVER PRESIDENT OBAMA’S

THE DEATH OF NEO CONSERVATISM, THOUGHTS ON RUSH LIMBAUGH, AND THE REAL REASON FOR ALL OF THE RECENT BLUSTER-THE UPCOMING FIGHT OVER PRESIDENT OBAMA’S BUDGET

 

 

           

            On Saturday, February 28, 2009, Mr. Rush Limbaugh gave a speech to the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC).  He has been called the voice of the Republican Party and the heart of the conservative movement, and in my mind he is the apparent savior of the Neoconservative movement that dominated politics in the last 8 years, holding Ronald Regan as a sacred cow. 

 

            The focus of Mr. Limbaugh’s speech was for Conservatives to take back the Republican Party and the Nation.  Punctuating by jumping up and down, chest thumping, fist pumping, and heart slamming, his talk was about staying the conservative course in the Republican Party and being proud of Obstructionism and non-bipartisan politics.  The tone of the speech has been called “mocking, bulling, full of contempt, harsh, unapologetic”, and in some instances eerily “sinister.”  As is his tendency, there was very little substance, and there was a lot more playing to the crowd, attempting to energize the group.  Unfortunately, he had very little substantially to say and his angry, insulting, rude and unapologetic message, considering the mess the Bush Administration and the Neocons left the American People with, was in appropriate.

            "We conservatives have not done a good enough job of just laying out basically who we are because we make the mistake of assuming that people know. What they know is largely incorrect, based on the way we're portrayed in pop culture, in the drive-by media, by the Democrat party," the neoconservative talk show host told a mostly-young crowd of energized supporters.

            His basic premise in his speech based on some basic tenants of conservative philosophy, sprinkled with a combative, begrudging tone about the recent political losses the movement had suffered as a result of the Presidential election,

            "We want every American to be the best he or she chooses to be. We recognize that we are all individuals. We love and revere our founding documents, the Constitution and the Declaration of Independent. We believe that the preamble of the Constitution contains an inarguable truth, that we are all endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights, among them life, liberty, freedom. And the pursuit of happiness."

 

            That all sounds good Rush, but when you examine more closely what you had to say, the ‘pursuit of happiness’ is primarily reserved for the upper class, “achievers” and the rest of us will just have to wait.  He went on to say that conservatives don’t hate anybody, and since all people are created equal, we all start out the same, but what separates us is our will to succeed, our desire to be the best.  He went on to say, that we must succeed on our own, without any government interaction.  The people who do not accept the government’s help are achievers and anyone who does is a loser.  The losers fail because the government makes them passive people who do not strive to make their lives better and government intervention harms these people, making them soft, passive under achievers, that are done a great disservice by an overreaching, our of control government.  Large, overextended government stifles our creativity, our entrepreneurship, and in doing so contributes to a welfare state, prolonging the war on poverty.  Belonging to an American political party or movement makes you a contestant with the other guys, and the only choice is to pound them into submission, winners survive and losers be damned.

 

            The problem with all of this is that the Neoconservatives have failed to recognize and take into account their role in our current situation, and according to Mr. Limbaugh have no need to apologize for it.  Mr Limbaugh’s little talk failed to take into account that the Neocons version of government caused this mess by deregulating banks, inducing people to refinance mortgages to what was called a fixed rate from an adjustable rate, in an elaborate bait and switch scheme resulting in doubling or tripling our payments.  It did not take into account the unfettered spending the Neocons engaged in when they financed the War in Iraq, which was sold to the American People on the basis of a lie; that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and we must stop them or die.  It failed to take into account how that lie lead to deaths of over 4,000 American, 100,000 Iraqis and the injury and mental maiming of  100,000 more American soldiers, then potential damages and costs of which we can only guess at today.  It did not take into account the detainees at Guantanamo, who should have been afforded the rights of American citizens as we have allowed nationals in our country to possess in our criminal courts for years.  It did not take into account the people in New Orleans who suffered from the natural disaster of Katrina, only to find their government uncaring, unconcerned and unresponsive to this plight.  Nope, no apologies from old Rush; just more expressions of preserving wealth for the wealthy and yet another prayer than someday trickle down economics would finally save the day for the Republicans, the Neocons and disciples of Ronald Regan.

 

            Mr Limbaugh instead said the democrat party (he refused to call it the democratic party) relied on big government to solve all of our problems, that we cannot rely on them to answer our prayers, because in doing so this makes us weak, mindless globs of underachievers, that blindly follow along to the beat of kindly, liberal fascists.  Uh-huh?  Here is what he didn’t say.  He didn’t talk about how the Neocons had titled the table and screwed us.  He didn’t talk about how they had changed the climate in which we live and left us with a mess.  He didn’t talk about the tremendous costs of lie to us and leading us in a criminally fraudulent way into the War in Iraq, based of WMD.  Not an expression of sorry we led you into that war, sorry about the trillion dollar costs, sorry about the loss of life and treasure.  He didn’t say he was sorry about the bait and switch mortgage crisis, sorry about the con game, sorry about you being unable to pay for your car or mortgage because we took advantage of you and in doing so, we sold all of your bad paper all over the financial world, plunging the entire world in to a near depression.  He did not say that he was sorry the Neocons caused a financial crash as a result of their greed by tilting the free market of capitalism to such an extreme, that it has plunged the world into a recession bordering on a near depression.

            He did not say that he was sorry that the little financial tricks threatened the student loan system, making it more difficult to get a student loan and in turn threatening millions of college educations.  He did not say he was sorry Neo-conservatism made it hard to get sick, go to the doctor, or enter a hospital because we don’t have health insurance.  He did not say that he was sorry our last President had in effect suspended the Bill of Rights, wiretapping its citizens and insurgents alike, reading our e-mail, and violating our Right to Privacy.  When Mr. Bush detained indefinitely insurgent suspects in Guantanamo, meaning on his whim and against any person he so choose to brand an enemy of the state, he in effect suspended all of our civil rights, like the right to bail, the right to know what you have been charged with, the right to counsel, the right to defend your self, the right to discover the prosecutions’ evidence against you, the right to a speedy trial, the right to confront and cross-examine your accusers, the right against self-incrimination, (didn’t Bush and Neocons say we don’t torture?), the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, the right to be convicted only by a standard of beyond a reasonable doubt, the right to trial by jury and the right to appeal.  No, no tilting of nature and natural causes there that underlies traditional conservative philosophy. 

 

            No acknowledgement of what they did to our civil justice system either.  One of the last things Mr. Bush did before he ran out the door was to make it harder to sue a long term care facility for negligence or gross neglect of elderly patients.  So the least of us in our society has no legal protection either, but instead face dismissals of their cases under the guise of federal preemption? No right to bring a negligence action, no right to compensatory/punitive damages, no right to a jury trial, no right to address grievances?  No protection for these people against abuse?  The old, infirm, ill and sick are losers too? No apology for Katrina victims or the Bailed out banks who instead of lending money, have tried to help themselves to the governments (our) generosity to save them from ruin.  What can be inferred from his little talk is that Mr. Limbaugh is in effect saying that winners can take advantage of losers.  This reminds me of a line from the movie, Animal House, where one of the pledges lends his car to a frat brother, who returns it to him a complete wreck, and afterwards says, “hey, you f_ _ _ _ _ up.  You trusted us.”

 

            No, there was no acknowledgement of the problems created by Neocons in the last 8 years, no admission of mistakes, no accountability, no apology and let’s move on talks.  No, there was not even a bipartisan tone to the talk, in fact it was just the opposite. 

"Bipartisanship occurs only after one other result. And that is victory," he said. "What they mean is we check our core principles at the door, come in, let them run the show, and then agree with them. To us bipartisanship is making them agree with us after we have cleaned their clocks and beaten them, and that has to be what we are focused on.” (emphasis added).  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khxpmGLxPEM

 

            So desperate are the Neocons to preserve what they believe is status quo, that Mr. Limbaugh once again reiterated that he wishes for President Obama to fail.  Never mind that if the President fails, our country might fail too.  Damn the torpedoes and the consequences, the Winners like Rush have to be in power.  Comparing the remark to his desire to see the Arizona Cardinals "fail" in this year's Super Bowl game against the Pittsburgh Steelers, Limbaugh defended his comment without denying it. "This notion that I want the president to fail, folks, this shows you a sign of the problem we've got," he said. "What is so strange about being honest and saying, I want Barack Obama to fail if his mission is to restructure and reform this country so that capitalism and individual liberty are not its foundation? Why would I want that to succeed?" he said, bringing the crowd once again to its feet.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6N1tTdpuAU

 

            See the winning and competing thing is very, very big to Rush.  Mr Limbaugh here is a clue for you.  First of all given the situation we’re in, these are extraordinary times, which call for extraordinary measures.  President Obama has said that these measures are not the norm, but immediate action needs to be taken, or the situation will get much, much worse.  A lot of economists and experts agree with him.  This is not a normal liaise faire, leave the market alone business cycle, but one artificially induced by the outside greedy forces the Neocons allowed to do as they pleased. Second, me thinks you protest too much.  The American people made their choice in November; it is time for a change, the old trickle down, Ronald Regan theories of good government have not worked.  Your movement has seen its day and it is over.  You’ve failed.  Take responsibility, be accountable for the wrongs and adjust.  Comparing the outcome of the stimulus bill or the new upcoming budget that addresses many of the issues like employment, education, healthcare, and basic civil rights is not an athletic contest.  There is much more at stake here.  To argue to drag your feet, beat our brains in, win at all costs attitude is not helpful.  Campbell Brown from CNN put it best in response to your article in the Wall Street Journal, and your criticism of the a reporter from that network who disagreed with you, “Mr. Limbaugh…the histrionics and the name calling, they undermine anything constructive that you have to say… our country is in desperate straights right now, and we need ideas.  But what we don’t need is nasty rhetoric, and useless noise.  This does not help anyone get a job, keep a job or feed their family.  If there ever was a time to put the meanness behind us and focus on real dialogue and real solutions, this is the time.”

Obama Talks About His Stimulus Package

MSNBC.com

Obama: Pass stimulus or recession lasts ‘years’

President-elect warns the downturn could become ‘dramatically worse’

BREAKING NEWS

msnbc.com news services

updated 10:41 a.m. CT, Thurs., Jan. 8, 2009

WASHINGTON - President-elect Barack Obama warned Thursday morning that the nation’s recession could “linger for years” unless Congress acts to pump unprecedented sums from Washington into the U.S. economy, adding that the current economic crisis is “unlike any we have seen in our lifetime.”

“I don’t believe it’s too late to change course, but it will be if we don't take dramatic action as soon as possible,” Obama said in a speech at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va., outside Washington. It was his highest-profile case yet on an issue certain to define his early presidency.

“A bad situation could become dramatically worse,” he added, painting a dire picture — including double-digit unemployment and $1 trillion in lost economic activity — that recalled the days of the Great Depression in the 1930s.

The current economic crisis is due to “an era of profound irresponsibility,” Obama said, adding that it is “time to set a new course for this economy, and that change must begin now.”

Obama also laid out goals of doubling the production of alternative energy over three years, updating most federal buildings to improve energy efficiency, making medical records electronic, expanding broadband networks and updating schools and universities.

It was the fourth day in a row that Obama has made a pitch for a huge infusion of taxpayer dollars to revive the sinking economy.

His events have increasingly taken on the trappings and air of the presidency, with the speech — coming a full 12 days before he takes over at the White House — a particularly showy move. Presidents-elect typically stick to naming administration appointments and otherwise staying in the background during the transition period between Election Day and Inauguration Day, but Obama has clearly made the calculation that a nation anxious about its economic outlook and eager to bid farewell to the current president, George W. Bush, needs to hear from him differently and more frequently.

Indeed, the economic news is grim.

Consumers and companies are folding under the negative forces of a collapsed housing market, a global credit crunch and the worst financial crisis since the 1930s. The recession, which started in December 2007, already is the longest in a quarter-century.

Major U.S. retailers reporter December sales that were so dismal, even Wal-Mart fell short of already low expectations.

New claims for unemployment benefits dropped unexpectedly last week, but the number of people continuing to seek aid rose sharply. The Labor Department says initial applications for unemployment insurance dropped by 24,000 to a seasonally adjusted 467,000 for the week ending Jan. 3. Wall Street economists expected initial claims to increase to 540,000. The figure partly reflects seasonal volatility that occurs around the New Year’s holiday.

Still, the number of people continuing to claim jobless benefits jumped unexpectedly by 101,000 to 4.61 million. That was above analysts’ expectations of 4.5 million and the highest level since November 1982.

'More families will lose their savings'
For all of 2008, employers probably slashed payrolls by at least 2.4 million. That's based on economists' forecasts for a net loss of 500,000 additional jobs in December, as well as the job losses previously reported. Some, however, think the number of jobs cut last month will be higher, around 600,000 or 700,000. The Labor Department will release that report Friday.

"For every day we wait or point fingers or drag our feet, more Americans will lose their jobs," Obama said. "More families will lose their savings. More dreams will be deferred and denied. And our nation will sink deeper into a crisis that, at some point, we may not be able to reverse."

A day after the release of a stunning new estimate — that the federal budget deficit will reach an unprecedented $1.2 trillion this year, nearly three times last year's record — Obama acknowledged the new stimulus spending will "certainly add to the budget deficit." He also acknowledged some sympathy with those who "might be skeptical of this plan" because so much federal money has already been spent or committed in an attempt — largely unsuccessful so far — to get credit, the lifeblood of the American economy, flowing freely once again.

Such statements are coded to appeal to budget hawks in both parties, whom Obama wants to win over so that approval of a package draws wide, bipartisan support in the Democratic-led Congress.

To answer their concerns, he promised to allow funding only for what works. He also pledged a new level of transparency about where the money is going. A day earlier, he promised to tackle the out-of-control fiscal problem posed by Social Security and Medicare entitlement programs and named a special watchdog to clamp down on all federal programs.

Obama made broader arguments, too, saying that the private sector, typically the answer, cannot do what is needed now.

Still-evolving package
"At this particular moment, only government can provide the short-term boost necessary to lift us from a recession this deep and severe," he said.

Obama's transition team and Democratic congressional leaders are working daily to hammer out the still-evolving package, expected to total nearly $800 billion. The initial hope had been to have a new stimulus package approved by Congress in time for Obama to sign it upon taking office on Jan. 20. That timeline has slipped considerably, into at least mid-February if not later.

The package is expected to include tax cuts for businesses and middle-class workers, money to help cash-starved states with Medicaid programs and other operating costs, and a huge share for infrastructure building, investments in energy efficiency and a rebuilding of the information technology system for health care. Much of the latter portions of the plan are aimed at what Obama likes to talk about as the need for "reinvestment" and not just "recovery."

"It is not just another public works program," he said in the speech. "It's a plan that recognizes both the paradox and the promise of this moment, the fact that there are millions of Americans trying to find work even as, all around the country, there is so much work to be done."

He also promised action to address the economy's ills beyond the package, such as tackling the massive wave of home foreclosures many experts expect, preventing the failure of financial institutions, rewriting financial regulations and keeping accountable the "Wall Street wrongdoers" who engage in risky investing.

More on Obama | stimulus

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28555437/

MSN Privacy . Legal

© 2009 MSNBC.com

Is The Case Against Blogojevich A Strong Case?

IS THE CASE AGAINST ROD BLAGOJEVICH A STRONG CASE?

 

 

            On December 9^th, 2008, Chicago U.S. Attorney Patrick J. Fitzgerald filed a criminal complaint and held a press conference and announced the arrest of the Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich, in pertinent part, because Blagojevich was alleged to have offered to sell Barack Obama’s vacated senate seat in return for personal favors and/or for cash.  This was despite the fact the 78 page complaint makes no suggestion that the governor had received nothing of value and has not made the appointment of the Senate seat.  (http://www.chicagotribune.com/media/acrobat/2008-12/43789434.pdf)

 

            The reaction to this press conference has been swift and persuasive.  Morning, noon and night round the clock television and newspaper coverage are in effect.  To say that the You Tube Video of the Fitzgerald news conference has gone viral is an understatement.  Steven Thomma in the McClatchy papers that a new Ipsos/McClatchy online poll has found:

 

• 95% of adults in Illinois that that Blagojevich should step down;
• 92% of adults in that state think he should be impeached and removed from office;
• The Illinois House of Representatives voted unanimously this week to create a committee to impeach him;
• 44% feel the state should have a special election
• 35% said the power to appoint a successor should be transferred to Lt. Governor Pat Quinn
• He is the 4^th Governor from Illinois to be charged with a felony since 1960

 

But trial attorneys are now beginning to suggest that the portion of the case involving the sale of the open Senate seat may not be the slam dunk that the media thinks it is.  As the conversation goes, that portion of the Blagojevich case maybe sexy, but also may be very defensible.  In other words, there is a possibility that at least on those allegations, he could be acquitted.  He hired a tough cookie, Edward Gensen, who represented R. Kelley, and former governor of Illinois George Ryan.  He said, “He’s not guilty, so we’re going to court.  We’re not agreeing to impeachment.  If you read the transcripts closely, you’ll find nobody did anything.  People are just talking, and that’s not against the law…Bad language doesn’t make you a criminal.” He has called the case a ‘fairy tale’ and the process (impeachment proceedings) ‘a witch hunt.’ (See Countdown Video, Blagojevich lawyer calls case a witch hunt, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QScevDxyXuY). 

 

Bulldog Gensen is not the only lawyer who has expressed reservations in the Government’s case.  The difference between criminal activity and the normal course of political deal making is apparently a very thin line.  Does just talking about selling a political office for personal favors, like a bribe, constitute in and of itself a crime?  Does the argument that contributions to one’s campaign fund (a derivative public benefit?) in return for support in an election (another so called public benefit) sound very much like the play for pay scandal (private benefit derived from a public office) that Blago is charged with? The former is a commonly accepted practice, but the latter could be construed as attempted bribery, a crime that does not have great sex appeal in the minds of Chicago juries.  (See Scott Turow Video, Rachel Maddow Video Making the Case, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnwYRnEEKHc).  Turow, an experienced prosecutor and writer said, “Juries regard it (attempted bribery) as a crime that takes place in the head, bad thoughts, not actual conduct.”  In other word, the thinking of a crime only falls within a grey area in politics and although prosecutable, these thoughts do not necessarily lead to a conviction.

 

Other attorneys have expressed reservations as well.  Robert S. Bennett, one of Washington’s best-known white-collar criminal defense lawyers said, ““This town is full of people who call themselves ambassadors, and all they did was pay $200,000 or $300,000 to the Republican or Democratic Party… “You have to wonder, How much of this guy’s problem was his language, rather than what he really did?”  The NY Time last week said, “In the case of Mr. Blagojevich, it would be legal for the governor to accept a campaign contribution from someone he appointed to the Senate seat. What would create legal problems for him is if he was tape-recorded specifically offering a seat in exchange for the contribution. What would make the case even easier to prosecute is if he was recorded offering the seat in exchange for a personal favor, like cash, a job or a job for a family member.”  In this case, the disclosed wiretaps so far seem to show a Blagojevich that was willing to discuss trading a Senate seat for personal favors to his aids, but not with anyone else.  So the question remains, is talk enough to convict him on the pay to play for the Senate seat count?

 

“It’s a very difficult case for a number of reasons; not the least is the nebulous nature of the charges and the inherently difficult issues when you’re talking about a person executing his First Amendment right to promote a particular politician,” said Michael D. Monico, a former federal prosecutor who is now a criminal defense lawyer in Chicago.

 

“Merely thinking about something is not a crime,” said Mr. Monico, a lawyer for Christopher Kelly, a former Blagojevich fund-raiser who was indicted last year on tax charges “Just talking about something is not a crime. You need another action for someone to commit a crime.”

 

In an article written by Mike Robinson for the AP, Chicago Defense attorney John Beal said, “"The weakness in the government's case seems to be that Blagojevich schemed to do things but didn't actually do them."

 

Robinson’s piece goes on to say, “Chicago defense attorney Ron Safer, a former federal prosecutor, said that the kind of overt act needed to win a conspiracy case should be something specific.

 

"Politicians often rub each other's back -- I'll vote for your bill if you vote for mine is as old as our union -- so that's unremarkable," he said. He said that if the case goes to trial prosecutors will focus hard on any specific attempts by the governor to trade the Senate seat or other favors for cash or jobs.

 

New York attorney Martin R. Pollner noted that prosecutors must show "overt acts" to prove a conspiracy and such acts had to be more than talks with advisers.

 

To me this is an important point on this count of what appears to be a public official conspiring to bribe another public official in return for personal favors. 

 

      The essential elements for a federal conspiracy are spelled out in §371 of the federal criminal code, and may be illustrative here.  They are: (1) an agreement (2) between two or more persons (3) to act together in committing an offense, and (4) an overt act in furtherance of that agreement.

 

The term "overt act" means some type of outward, objective action performed by one of the parties to or one of the members of the agreement or conspiracy which evidences that agreement.  The notes included with the form federal jury instruction state, an overt act is “any step that indicates that the execution of the conspiracy has begun. This can be an innocuous act and need not be illegal unto itself. For example, if two persons agree to rob a bank, then purchase a ski mask, the act of buying the mask may constitute the overt act required to charge the two with conspiracy.

 

The overt act must follow the agreement and must be executed with an intent to carry out the purpose of the conspiracy. For example, if one of the potential bank robbers buys a ski mask after the agreement is made, the purchase may not constitute the overt act if the ski mask will not be worn to carry out the ROBBERY. An overt act need not be committed by each and every conspirator; an overt act by one conspirator solidifies the offense for all coconspirators. Thus, a conspirator who does not participate in the overt act can be charged with conspiracy.”

 

In other words, the defense attorneys are right, just talking about doing something without taking any further steps to do an illegal thing may not constitute a crime.  Does Fitzgerald have a smoking gun on those tapes, or have we already heard and read his best shot?  His investigation is ongoing, so we shall see what develops.  It is of some importance that Blagojevich has been under federal investigation for years.  The NY Times reports that he has had ongoing battles with Mayor Richard M. Daley of Chicago; he irked Michael Madigan, the powerful Democratic state speaker, over the budget; and he infuriated just about every legislator by staying put in Chicago (rather than moving his family to the Governor’s Mansion in Springfield). His penchant for promoting his headline-grabbing proposals — like those for universal preschool and cheaper drugs from Canada — on television, rather than in the quieter halls of Springfield, also won him no friends.

 

“Rod reveled in fighting with members of the General Assembly,” said Representative Tom Cross, the state Republican leader. “He came out of the box fighting: He was the populist, and we were the big, bad General Assembly. He didn’t seem interested in policy, the budget was in disarray, and he was never there.”

 

His approval ratings that had sunk to 13 percent as details of the federal investigation into his administration had seeped out over the past three years.  At Christmastime in 2004, a nasty spat cropped up between Mr. Blagojevich and his political benefactor and father-in-law, Richard Mell, a ward chief on the northwest side of Chicago, whose political connections helped to put Blago in office, the fallout stretching well beyond the family, offering some of the clearest public hints of Mr. Blagojevich’s coming troubles. In response, Blagojevich shut down a landfill operated by a relative of Mr. Mell, saying it was taking types of waste it was not licensed to accept. Mr. Mell accused Mr. Blagojevich of shutting the facility as a personal vendetta against him, and then accused his top fund-raiser of trading appointments to state commissions and boards for campaign donations, just the image Mr. Blagojevich had been trying to avoid.  This lead to extensive investigations of Blago’s political activities and legal fees to the firm of Winston and Strawn in amounts alleged to have been paid in excess of $1 million dollars with an additional $750,000.00 still due and owing.  Other politicians avoided public appearances with him and Blago seemed to spend all of his time answering questions about political corruption allegations even before this criminal complaint was filed.

 

Lisa Madigan, the daughter of his enemy Mike Madigan, and Attorney General of the State of Illinois, filed a case with the Supreme Court of Illinois requesting that Blago be dismissed on the basis of incapacity.  She also happens to be considered by many to be his chief rival for the Governor’s seat.  That case was dismissed this week by the Illinois Supreme Court.

 

Governor Blagojevich campaigned on the basis of political ethics and reform.  He is sinking on a leaky boat of corruption and allegations of pay to play politics.  The real question is this:  Is he just a talker and a politically disliked man, who in this instance has taken no steps toward the completion of an illegal plan or is has he been caught on tape, red handed?

 

NYTIMES: IT'S BIDEN

August 24, 2008
Obama Chooses Biden as Running Mate
By ADAM NAGOURNEY and JEFF ZELENY

WASHINGTON — Senator Barack Obama has chosen Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware to be his running-mate, turning to a leading authority on foreign policy and a longtime Washington hand to fill out the Democratic ticket, people told of the decision said.

Mr. Obama’s selection ended a two-month search that was conducted almost entirely in secret. It reflected a critical strategic choice by Mr. Obama: To go with a running-mate who could reassure voters about gaps in his resume, rather than to pick someone who could deliver a state or reinforce Mr. Obama’s message of change.

Mr. Biden is the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and is familiar with foreign leaders and diplomats around the world. Although he initially voted to authorize the war in Iraq — Mr. Obama opposed it from the start — Mr. Biden became a persistent critic of President Bush’s policies in Iraq.

The selection was disclosed as Mr. Obama moves into a critical part of his campaign, preparing for the party’s four-day convention in Denver starting on Monday. Mr. Obama’s aides viewed the introduction of his vice presidential choice– including an afternoon rally Saturday at the old State Capitol in Springfield, Ill., the same place where Mr. Obama announced his candidacy on a freezing winter morning almost two years ago, and a tour of swing states – as the beginning of a week-long stretch in which Mr. Obama hopes to dominate the stage and position himself for the fall campaign.

Word of Mr. Obama’s decision leaked out hours before his campaign was scheduled to inform supporters via text and e-mail messages, and hours after informing two other top contenders for the vice presidential nomination – Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana and Gov. Tim Kaine of Virginia – that they had not been chosen.

As the selection process moved to an end, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, who Mr. Obama had defeated in his bid for the Democratic presidential nomination, had slipped out of contention -- to the degree that Mr. Obama had ever seriously considered her.

Mr. Biden is Roman Catholic, giving him appeal to that important voting bloc, though he favors abortion rights. He was born in a working class family in Scranton, Pa., a swing state where he remains well-known. Mr. Biden is up for re-election to the Senate this year and he would presumably run simultaneously for both seats.

Mr. Biden is known for being both talkative and prone to making the kind of statements that get him in trouble. In 2007, when he was competing for Mr. Obama for the presidential nomination, he declared that Mr. Obama was “not yet ready” for the presidency, a line certain to show up in Republican attack ads.

Although Mr. Biden is not exactly a household name, he is probably the best known of all the Democrats who were in contention for the spot, given his political and personal history (not to mention his regular appearances on the Sunday morning television news shows.) He first ran for the Senate from Delaware when he was just 29 years old.

Mr. Biden has run twice for the presidency himself, once in 1988 and again in 2008, dropping out early in both cases. He was also the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee during two of the most contentious Supreme Court nomination battles of the past 50 years: the confirmation proceedings for Robert H. Bork, who was defeated, and Clarence Thomas, who was confirmed after an explosive hearing in which Anita Hill accused Mr. Thomas of sexual harassment. Mr. Biden led the opposition to both nominations, though he came under criticism from some feminists for not immediately disclosing what were at first Ms. Hill’s closed-door accusations against Mr. Thomas.

Mr. Obama’s choice of Mr. Biden suggested some of the weaknesses the Obama campaign is trying to address at a time when at a time when national polls suggest that his race with Senator John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, is tightening. Chief among Mr. Biden’s strengths is his familiarity with foreign policy and national security issues, highlighted just this past weekend with the invitation he received from the embattled president of Georgia, Mikheil Saakashvili, to visit Georgia in the midst of its tense faceoff with Russia. From the moment he dropped out of the presidential race, he had been mentioned as a potential Secretary of State should either Mr. Obama or Mrs. Clinton win the election.

He is also something of a fixture in Washington, and would bring to the campaign – and the White House – a familiarity with the way the city and Congress works that Mr. Obama can not match after his relatively short stint in Washington.

At 65 years old, he adds a few years and gray hair to a ticket that otherwise might seem a bit young (Mr. Obama is 47). He is, as Mr. Obama’s advisers were quick to argue, someone who appears by every measure prepared to take over as president, setting a standard that appears intended to at least somewhat hamstring Mr. McCain should he be tempted to go for a more adventurous choice for No. 2. He has a long history of making statements that get him in trouble. He was forced to apologize to Mr. Obama almost the moment he entered the race for president after he was quoted as describing Mr. Obama as “the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy,” a remark that drew criticism for being racially insensitive. While campaigning in New Hampshire, Mr. Biden said that ”you cannot go to a 7-Eleven or a Dunkin’ Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent.”

Mr. Biden quit the presidential race this year after a barely making a mark; he came in fifth place in Iowa. He was forced to quit the 1988 presidential race in the face of accusations that he had plagiarized part of a speech from a Neil Kinnock, the British Labor Party leader. Shortly afterward, he was found to have suffered two aneurysms.

He is also, at least arguably, a Washington insider, having worked there for so long, though he still commutes home to Wilmington every night by train.

The choice by Mr. Obama in some ways mirrors the choice by Mr. Bush of Dick Cheney as his running mate in 2000; at 65, it appears unlikely that Mr. Biden would be in a position to run for president, should Mr. Obama win and serve two terms. Shorn of any remaining ambition to run for president on his own, he could find himself in a less complex political relationship with Mr. Obama than most vice president have with their presidents.

Mr. Biden was born in Scranton, , grew up in the suburbs of Wilmington, Del., and went to Syracuse Law School. He also was, as a young man, in the center of a gripping family drama: barely a month after he was elected to the Senate, his wife and their three children were in a car accident with a drunken driver resulted in the death of his wife and daughter. His two sons survived and Mr. Biden remarried five years later.

Carl Hulse and Jim Rutenberg contributed reporting.

Obama's vote on FISA and campaign contributions

I wrote this blog today in response to some comments that I read about people who are upset with the FISA vote and will not give money to the Obama campaign, but will vote for him in November:

Like all of you I wish the Democratic Congress would behave as if they were Democrats. I am not a fan of arming the populous nor am I a fan of permitting unreasonable government intrusion into my personal communications under the false guise of protecting me for my own good from terrorists. What I know is this, plain and simple: I am unhappy with the way things are now. I do not like an American that tortures it's political prisoners, wastes it's natural resources, pollutes our air and runs a government based on scaring us opposed to representing our genuine interests. I'm tired of hearing men that shape our politics and our economics call us 'whiners' and tell us that our problems with the economy are all in our heads. These men represented by Bush and McCain want to preserve their way of life; which seems to include the eradication of the middle class at our expense. This trickle down economics, "the rich get rich and the poor get children" doesn't work and for the last 8 years has failed. And failed miserably. We are involved in wars that most Americans don't want, we have a mortgage crisis that effects us all, we have an energy crisis that threatens the planet, we have an economic crisis that threatens our existence. They line their pockets at our expense and they just do not care about the average person. There is really only one question that you have to ask yourself: Are you better off now than you were 8 years ago? Are you happy with the way things are? Is the future that McCain-Bush offers one that you want for your children, your grandchildren, your loved ones? Do they speak to you in way that gives you any positive hope for our collective futures or do you get a business as usual feeling.

Barack Obama has presented us with a unique opportunity to change that vision of the future. He has presented us with a vision of hope. A couple of debatable missteps do not change that.
He deserves our support. Understand exactly where we are at in this moment in history: This is a fight, we are backed into a corner; we are fighting a bully; there is not way out; we must fight our way out of this corner. We cannot just rely on others this time and hope it comes out ok. We have to be involved. We have to contribute. It will take all of our effort to win this fight. It is not a fight we have chosen; it is a desperate fight. A fight we cannot afford to lose. Our champion has chosen to run our fight on public funding. Part of the reason he has been hit on all sides is they are afraid of him; afraid of you; and afraid of me. If we don't contribute to his campaign, give generously, give our time and effort, get involved in this fight, then we will deserve what we get. Envision a Democratic Congress with a Democratic President and all they could accomplish for the people of our country. Then envision 8 more years of same old fill your pockets/self-interest politics we have now. Image expanding our war into Iran. Image being homeless. Image gas at $20/gal. Image an ever increasing class of poor people. Image the continued disrespect from other foreign countries. Image any war that last 100 years. Is there any part of what is going on now that can foreseeable occur in the future that you want to be a part of? It's time for a change. Fight back now while we still have a 1st Amendment. Give your money, your time, your support to our candidate of hope. He's not God. He's not Jesus. He's imperfect. But he is offering us a sincere and reasonable opportunity to change. A true 'pursuit of happiness.' Let's not lose this opportunity. Please contribute to Sen Obama's campaign. Please give your time. Please talk and write about your feelings. Persuade others to examine their views. Engage in dialog. The Audacity of Hope is a powerful thing. If we don't contribute now, we leave him open to the 528s; the Republican attack machine; the Swift Boaters. Give generously now. Fight back. Knock that bully on his ass. Ask yourself: Are you better off today then you were 8 years ago? Obama '08

3 facts that could change this election

3 Facts That Could Change This Election Category: News and Politics
Much thanks to this person for presenting these facts for us.._____________________3 Facts That Could Change This Election (If We Share Them With Enough People)Here are 3 Stunning facts that could not only change the outcome of this election, but with regard to the first two points, they could change the results of every election for years to come *if* we make enough people aware of them.I want to keep this as simple and short as possible, so that the people who need to read this actually do. And again, I encourage you to share this information with as many people as you can, either by recommending and commenting on this thread, by emailing these points out and or by posting a link to this thread on the appropriate websites.1)-Over 70% of our National Debt was created by just 3 Republican presidents. Go ahead, get out your calculator and add up debt by president/party. Apparently the party that claims fiscally responsibility thinks it's ok to borrow massive amounts of money from foreign countries like China. Consider that we spend hundreds of billions of dollars in interest payments on this debt each year. That means more and more of your hard earned money is going to make interest only payments on what is basically a Giant National Credit Card. Not to mention the fact our debt/deficits are largely behind the weakness of our dollar, which in turns makes gas more expensive and creates other serious problems.If you want to learn more about the National Debt, check out these links:http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock /http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...http://zfacts.com/p/447.html (A running clock with the cost of the war)http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=news/business...2)-According to new research from Larry Bartels out of Princeton, real middle class wage growth is double when a Democrat is president compared to when a Republican is president. "...Even more remarkable, the real incomes of working-poor families...grew six times as fast when Democrats held the White House. Only the incomes of affluent families were relatively impervious to partisan politics, growing robustly under Democrats and Republicans alike...": http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/27/magazine/27wwln-ideal...Here is a short summary of this research: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008...And here is a good, short audio interview with Larry Bartels: http://youngturks.wmod.llnwd.net/a591/o1/4-25-08Bartels...3)-90% of Americans would pay less taxes under Obama's proposed tax plan compared to McCain's.This is according to the non-partisan Tax Policy Institute as reported by CNN: http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/11/news/economy/candidates...People making under $112,000 a year in individual (not household) income would pay less taxes under Obama's plan.By contrast, John McCain's tax cuts mostly benefit the top 10% of Americans. Under McCain's plan, people making over 2.9 million dollars in individual annual income would get almost a million dollar tax break.Conclusion: Countless millions of Americans vote Republican because they believe they'll pay less taxes and that they'll have their money spent more responsibly. As you can see, those beliefs are directly contradicted by the facts. Of course we can choose to ignore the facts and instead focus on which candidate is wearing a flag pin (you ever notice that Hillary and McCain don't wear them? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vi5nbZvS9cg ) but I think we're a smarter country than that.