NYT Op-Ed by BOB HERBERT
Does anyone know where George W. Bush is?
You don’t hear much from him anymore. The last image most of us remember is of the president ducking a pair of size 10s that were hurled at him in Baghdad.
We’re still at war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Israel is thrashing the Palestinians in Gaza. And the U.S. economy is about as vibrant as the 0-16 Detroit Lions.
But hardly a peep have we heard from George, the 43rd.
When Mr. Bush officially takes his leave in three weeks (in reality, he checked out long ago), most Americans will be content to sigh good riddance. I disagree. I don’t think he should be allowed to slip quietly out of town. There should be a great hue and cry — a loud, collective angry howl, demonstrations with signs and bullhorns and fiery speeches — over the damage he’s done to this country.
This is the man who gave us the war in Iraq and Guantánamo and torture and rendition; who turned the Clinton economy and the budget surplus into fool’s gold; who dithered while New Orleans drowned; who trampled our civil liberties at home and ruined our reputation abroad; who let Dick Cheney run hog wild and thought Brownie was doing a heckuva job.
The Bush administration specialized in deceit. How else could you get the public (and a feckless Congress) to go along with an invasion of Iraq as an absolutely essential response to the Sept. 11 attacks, when Iraq had had nothing to do with the Sept. 11 attacks?
Exploiting the public’s understandable fears, Mr. Bush made it sound as if Iraq was about to nuke us: “We cannot wait,” he said, “for the final proof — the smoking gun that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.”
He then set the blaze that has continued to rage for nearly six years, consuming more than 4,000 American lives and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. (A car bomb over the weekend killed two dozen more Iraqis, many of them religious pilgrims.) The financial cost to the U.S. will eventually reach $3 trillion or more, according to the Nobel laureate economist Joseph Stiglitz.
A year into the war Mr. Bush was cracking jokes about it at the annual dinner of the Radio and Television Correspondents Association. He displayed a series of photos that showed him searching the Oval Office, peering behind curtains and looking under the furniture. A mock caption had Mr. Bush saying: “Those weapons of mass destruction have got to be somewhere.”
And then there’s the Bush economy, another disaster, a trapdoor through which middle-class Americans can plunge toward the bracing experiences normally reserved for the poor and the destitute.
Mr. Bush traveled the country in the early days of his presidency, promoting his tax cut plans as hugely beneficial to small-business people and families of modest means. This was more deceit. The tax cuts would go overwhelmingly to the very rich.
The president would give the wealthy and the powerful virtually everything they wanted. He would throw sand into the regulatory apparatus and help foster the most extreme income disparities since the years leading up to the Great Depression. Once again he was lighting a fire. This time the flames would engulf the economy and, as with Iraq, bring catastrophe.
If the U.S. were a product line, it would be seen now as deeply damaged goods, subject to recall.
There seemed to be no end to Mr. Bush’s talent for destruction. He tried to hand the piggy bank known as Social Security over to the marauders of the financial sector, but saner heads prevailed.
In New Orleans, the president failed to intervene swiftly and decisively to aid the tens of thousands of poor people who were very publicly suffering and, in many cases, dying. He then compounded this colossal failure of leadership by traveling to New Orleans and promising, in a dramatic, floodlit appearance, to spare no effort in rebuilding the flood-torn region and the wrecked lives of the victims.
He went further, vowing to confront the issue of poverty in America “with bold action.”
It was all nonsense, of course. He did nothing of the kind.
The catalog of his transgressions against the nation’s interests — sins of commission and omission — would keep Mr. Bush in a confessional for the rest of his life. Don’t hold your breath. He’s hardly the contrite sort.
He told ABC’s Charlie Gibson: “I don’t spend a lot of time really worrying about short-term history. I guess I don’t worry about long-term history, either, since I’m not going to be around to read it.”
The president chuckled, thinking — as he did when he made his jokes about the missing weapons of mass destruction — that there was something funny going on.
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
What a pair...
CNN New Year's Eve
Bring in the New Year with Anderson Cooper & Kathy Griffin, live from Times Square in New York! Live coverage begins 11 ET PT
** I would rather bleed out my eyes. Its like putting Colin Powell with Gary Coleman to ring in 2009 on BET. Or the guy who won the Nobel Prize in Phsycis with Spencer from The Hills on MTV...I think this is a forboding sign for 2009...
Bring in the New Year with Anderson Cooper & Kathy Griffin, live from Times Square in New York! Live coverage begins 11 ET PT
** I would rather bleed out my eyes. Its like putting Colin Powell with Gary Coleman to ring in 2009 on BET. Or the guy who won the Nobel Prize in Phsycis with Spencer from The Hills on MTV...I think this is a forboding sign for 2009...
The Newest Republican in Alaska
Bristol Palin, the 18-year-old daughter of former Republican vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin, gave birth on Saturday to a healthy 7 lb., 7 oz., baby boy in Palmer, Alaska.
"We think it's wonderful," said Colleen Jones, the sister of Bristol's grandmother Sally Heath, who confirmed the news. "The baby is fine and Bristol is doing well. Everyone is excited."
The baby's name is Tripp Easton Mitchell Johnston and he was born at 5:30 a.m., according to Jones. Baby Tripp takes his surname from his dad, Levi Johnston, an apprentice electrician and former Wasilla High School hockey player who has been dating Bristol for three years. Bristol Palin is currently residing in Wasilla and completing her high-school diploma through correspondence courses.
Johnston is studying to become an electrician. He told the Associated Press in October that he and fiancée Bristol plan to wed in 2009 and raise the child together.
** This reads like the baby announcement in the Warren Weekly. Diploma through correspondence courses?!?! I feel like they should be living next door to me with a truck on the lawn and empty budweiser cans in the mailbox.
"We think it's wonderful," said Colleen Jones, the sister of Bristol's grandmother Sally Heath, who confirmed the news. "The baby is fine and Bristol is doing well. Everyone is excited."
The baby's name is Tripp Easton Mitchell Johnston and he was born at 5:30 a.m., according to Jones. Baby Tripp takes his surname from his dad, Levi Johnston, an apprentice electrician and former Wasilla High School hockey player who has been dating Bristol for three years. Bristol Palin is currently residing in Wasilla and completing her high-school diploma through correspondence courses.
Johnston is studying to become an electrician. He told the Associated Press in October that he and fiancée Bristol plan to wed in 2009 and raise the child together.
** This reads like the baby announcement in the Warren Weekly. Diploma through correspondence courses?!?! I feel like they should be living next door to me with a truck on the lawn and empty budweiser cans in the mailbox.
Nuking the Fridge
The whole webpage is worth reading...but this struck me as particularly hilarious. Its all about the biggest movie WTF?!s of 2008...
STAR WARS: THE CLONE WARS -- CAPOTE THE HUTT
George Lucas not only seems to enjoy murdering precious childhood memories, but also seems to relish jumping up and down on their corpses. That was abundantly clear half way through his animated yarn "Star Wars: The Clone Wars" when Ziro the Hutt -- Jabba's uncle -- appears. Looking like Dame Edna at Burning Man, Ziro jarringly speaks in such a fabulously affected manner that it would set off the gaydar of a coma patient. Lucas reportedly demanded that Ziro's voice be modeled on Truman Capote, and, for better or worse, that's exactly who Ziro sounds like.
http://movies.yahoo.com/photos/collections/gallery/1328/nuking-the-fridgeWednesday, November 19, 2008
Housing Index (Oct)
Housing starts, permits at record lows
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Housing starts and permits, both of them key measurements of home construction, hit record lows in October, the Commerce Department reported Wednesday.
Housing starts reached an annual rate of 791,000 last month, the lowest level since the department began tracking starts in 1959. The rate tumbled 4.5% from the revised reading of 828,000 in September.
Building permits fell 12% to an annual rate of 708,000 in October, breaking the previous low of 709,000 in March 1975. The annual rate for September was revised to 805,000.
"Housing starts were a little better than expected, but unfortunately the expectations were so low, the bar was easy to cross," said Art Hogan, chief market strategist at Jefferies & Co. "I don't think there's anybody in the free world who doesn't know we've got a problem with real estate."
An annual rate of 780,000 housing starts was expected for October, according to a consensus of economist opinions from Briefing.com. Building permits were expected to fall to an annual rate of 772,000 in October.
Concerns about the housing slump pressured stocks Tuesday after a survey of homebuilders showed sentiment fell to yet another low in November.
The National Association of Home Builders (NAHB)/Wells Fargo housing market index for November fell to a seasonally adjusted reading of 9, the lowest recorded level since the index began in 1985. That was worse than expected. Economists surveyed by Thomson/IFR expected the index to remain at 14, the previous record low set in October.
A reading below 50 indicates that builders who think home-sales conditions are poor outnumber those who think the environment is positive for sales.
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Housing starts and permits, both of them key measurements of home construction, hit record lows in October, the Commerce Department reported Wednesday.
Housing starts reached an annual rate of 791,000 last month, the lowest level since the department began tracking starts in 1959. The rate tumbled 4.5% from the revised reading of 828,000 in September.
Building permits fell 12% to an annual rate of 708,000 in October, breaking the previous low of 709,000 in March 1975. The annual rate for September was revised to 805,000.
"Housing starts were a little better than expected, but unfortunately the expectations were so low, the bar was easy to cross," said Art Hogan, chief market strategist at Jefferies & Co. "I don't think there's anybody in the free world who doesn't know we've got a problem with real estate."
An annual rate of 780,000 housing starts was expected for October, according to a consensus of economist opinions from Briefing.com. Building permits were expected to fall to an annual rate of 772,000 in October.
Concerns about the housing slump pressured stocks Tuesday after a survey of homebuilders showed sentiment fell to yet another low in November.
The National Association of Home Builders (NAHB)/Wells Fargo housing market index for November fell to a seasonally adjusted reading of 9, the lowest recorded level since the index began in 1985. That was worse than expected. Economists surveyed by Thomson/IFR expected the index to remain at 14, the previous record low set in October.
A reading below 50 indicates that builders who think home-sales conditions are poor outnumber those who think the environment is positive for sales.
Consumer Price Index (Oct)
Consumer Prices Drop 1.0% in October to 61-Year Low
Consumer prices plunged by the largest amount in the past 61 years in October as gasoline pump prices dropped by a record amount.
The Labor Department said Wednesday that consumer prices fell by 1% last month, the biggest one-month decline on records that go back to February 1947. The drop was twice as large as the 0.5% decline analysts expected.
The big drop reflected not only a huge fall in gasoline and other energy costs, but widespread declines in other areas. Core consumer prices, which exclude food and energy, fell by 0.1% last month, the first drop in core prices in more than a quarter-century.
The big retreat in consumer prices reflects a remarkable turnaround from just a few months ago when a relentless surge in energy prices raised concerns that inflation could get out of control.
Since that time, the economy has been jolted by the most serious financial crisis in seven decades with all the turbulence expected to push the country into a severe and prolonged recession.
The U.S. troubles have quickly spread overseas, depressing growth around the world and cutting into demand for oil and other products, a development that has resulted in sharp declines in the price of crude oil and other commodities.
While some are worried that the price retreat could raise the prospect of a deflation, a prolonged bout of falling prices, most economists believe that current conditions are not likely to set the stage for such a development, which last occurred in the U.S. during the Great Depression.
Over the past 12 months, consumer prices have risen by 3.7%, substantially below the 17-year high of a 12-month price increase of 5.6% set this summer. Core prices are up 2.2% over the past 12 months.
This price moderation is giving the Federal Reserve the room it needs to cut interest rates to battle the economic slump. The central bank is expected to cut the federal funds rate, the interest that banks charge each other, down to 0.5% at its December meeting, even lower than the 1% where the funds rate stands currently. The 1% funds rate ties the record low for the past half century.
Consumer prices plunged by the largest amount in the past 61 years in October as gasoline pump prices dropped by a record amount.
The Labor Department said Wednesday that consumer prices fell by 1% last month, the biggest one-month decline on records that go back to February 1947. The drop was twice as large as the 0.5% decline analysts expected.
The big drop reflected not only a huge fall in gasoline and other energy costs, but widespread declines in other areas. Core consumer prices, which exclude food and energy, fell by 0.1% last month, the first drop in core prices in more than a quarter-century.
The big retreat in consumer prices reflects a remarkable turnaround from just a few months ago when a relentless surge in energy prices raised concerns that inflation could get out of control.
Since that time, the economy has been jolted by the most serious financial crisis in seven decades with all the turbulence expected to push the country into a severe and prolonged recession.
The U.S. troubles have quickly spread overseas, depressing growth around the world and cutting into demand for oil and other products, a development that has resulted in sharp declines in the price of crude oil and other commodities.
While some are worried that the price retreat could raise the prospect of a deflation, a prolonged bout of falling prices, most economists believe that current conditions are not likely to set the stage for such a development, which last occurred in the U.S. during the Great Depression.
Over the past 12 months, consumer prices have risen by 3.7%, substantially below the 17-year high of a 12-month price increase of 5.6% set this summer. Core prices are up 2.2% over the past 12 months.
This price moderation is giving the Federal Reserve the room it needs to cut interest rates to battle the economic slump. The central bank is expected to cut the federal funds rate, the interest that banks charge each other, down to 0.5% at its December meeting, even lower than the 1% where the funds rate stands currently. The 1% funds rate ties the record low for the past half century.
McCain Running for 5th Term (that's 30 years on the job...)
WASHINGTON -- Sen. John McCain, whose presidential bid was snuffed out two weeks ago by President-elect Barack Obama, is setting up a political action committee as a first step in running for a fifth term in the Senate.
A McCain spokesperson says the 72-year-old senator decided with his senior advisers Tuesday night to set up the fundraising PAC. The spokesperson spoke anonymously because the decision had not yet been made public.
A McCain spokesperson says the 72-year-old senator decided with his senior advisers Tuesday night to set up the fundraising PAC. The spokesperson spoke anonymously because the decision had not yet been made public.
Totally...
Hugh Jackman: The Sexiest Man Alive
A romantic in a hard body, the Aussie star leaves women saying "Oh ... my ... God"
He's a triple threat: a star who can sing, dance and wield a weapon.
At 6 ft. 2 in., all scruff and biceps, Hugh Jackman looms large in the epic Australia, which he says kept him "dirty 95 percent of the time" and left people stammering, "Oh ... my ... God," according to costar Nicole Kidman, who adds, "Women's jaws drop when Hugh walks into a room."
Jackman's wife of 12 years, Deborra-Lee Furness, calls his perfect form "the Body of Doom – but I like what's inside": a romantic who sings ballads at home and makes pancakes for Oscar, 8, and Ava, 3. A hard body with a soft center – 2008's Sexiest Man Alive sat down with PEOPLE's Elizabeth Leonard and Julie Jordan to reveal most of his secrets.
You turned 40 Oct. 12 and now you're the Sexiest Man Alive. What was your wife's response?
God bless her, she said, "I could've told them that years ago!" And then she said, "Obviously, Brad wasn't available this year." And I said, "That was a joke, right?"
"Hugh is tough and romantic at the same time," says costar Kidman. "Australian men are a different breed. They're rugged and they sweat."
I bet they showed the Obamas the best place to hide booze...
Bush daughters give tour to Obamas
(CNN) — Jenna and Barbara Bush, the president's daughters, personally toured Barack Obama's daughters around the White House Tuesday, a White House spokeswoman said.
The Bush daughters showed Malia and Sasha Obama their future rooms and other parts of their soon-to-be home, according to Sally McDonough, first lady Laura Bush's press secretary.
“Mrs. Bush hosted Mrs. Obama and her family at the White House this afternoon. Barbara and Jenna joined, and they enjoyed showing their rooms to the Obama girls," McDonough said. "The visit lasted approximately one hour.”
(CNN) — Jenna and Barbara Bush, the president's daughters, personally toured Barack Obama's daughters around the White House Tuesday, a White House spokeswoman said.
The Bush daughters showed Malia and Sasha Obama their future rooms and other parts of their soon-to-be home, according to Sally McDonough, first lady Laura Bush's press secretary.
“Mrs. Bush hosted Mrs. Obama and her family at the White House this afternoon. Barbara and Jenna joined, and they enjoyed showing their rooms to the Obama girls," McDonough said. "The visit lasted approximately one hour.”
Just Go Away Already...
Texas grand Jury indicts Cheney, Gonzales
(CNN) — A grand jury in south Texas indicted Vice President Dick Cheney and former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales on separate charges related to alleged prisoner abuse in federal detention centers, Willacy County District Attorney Juan Angel Guerra told CNN Tuesday.
On the southern tip of Texas, Willacy County is on the United States-Mexico border.
Democratic state Sen. Eddie Lucio, Jr. is also charged in the indictment. Michael R. Cowen, an attorney for Lucio, issued a statement calling Guerra a "one man circus."
"In the March 2008 Democratic Primary, 70 percent of the Willacy County voters elected to remove Juan Guerra as Willacy County District Attorney," Cowen said in a statement. "Now, with only a few weeks left in his term, Mr.Guerra has again chosen to misuse his position in an attempt to seek revenge on those who he sees as political enemies."
Cheney spokeswoman Megan Mitchell said, "The vice president has not received an indictment."
The Associated Press reported that the indictment stems from Cheney's investment in the Vanguard Group — an investment management company that reportedly has interests in the prison companies in charge of the detention centers. It also charges Gonzales halted an investigation into abuse at the detention centers while he was attorney general.
(CNN) — A grand jury in south Texas indicted Vice President Dick Cheney and former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales on separate charges related to alleged prisoner abuse in federal detention centers, Willacy County District Attorney Juan Angel Guerra told CNN Tuesday.
On the southern tip of Texas, Willacy County is on the United States-Mexico border.
Democratic state Sen. Eddie Lucio, Jr. is also charged in the indictment. Michael R. Cowen, an attorney for Lucio, issued a statement calling Guerra a "one man circus."
"In the March 2008 Democratic Primary, 70 percent of the Willacy County voters elected to remove Juan Guerra as Willacy County District Attorney," Cowen said in a statement. "Now, with only a few weeks left in his term, Mr.Guerra has again chosen to misuse his position in an attempt to seek revenge on those who he sees as political enemies."
Cheney spokeswoman Megan Mitchell said, "The vice president has not received an indictment."
The Associated Press reported that the indictment stems from Cheney's investment in the Vanguard Group — an investment management company that reportedly has interests in the prison companies in charge of the detention centers. It also charges Gonzales halted an investigation into abuse at the detention centers while he was attorney general.
I Agree Mr. Broder! (except for all the nice crap you said about Hil)
A Force for Good -- but Not at State
By David S. Broder
It may be moot and it certainly is presumptuous, but I would be less than honest with readers if I did not say what I believe: Making Hillary Rodham Clinton the secretary of state in Barack Obama's administration would be a mistake.
I do not doubt that she could do the job -- and do it well. I have been a fan of the former first lady's since I covered her efforts for health-care reform 15 years ago. What I saw in the recent campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination was convincing evidence of her physical stamina and moral courage, and of her capacity to improve her own performance at every step of the process. I admired her readiness to endorse and campaign hard for Obama after her own candidacy fell short.
Equally, I admire Obama's readiness to reach out to former rivals and enlist their help in the governing enterprise he is launching. His serious discussions with Clinton, John McCain and Bill Richardson, among others, are testaments to his sincerity in wanting to move beyond the partisanship and personal differences that too often poison the atmosphere in Washington.
What, then, is the problem? Clinton is the wrong person for that job in this administration. It's not the best use of her talents, and it's certainly not the best fit for this new president.
What Obama needs in the person running the State Department is a diplomat who will carry out his foreign policy. He does not need someone who will tell him how to approach the world or be his mentor in international relations. One of the principal reasons he was elected was that, relying on his instincts, he came to the correct conclusion that war with Iraq was not in America's interest. He was more right about that than most of us in Washington, including Hillary Clinton.
Of course, he will benefit from the counsel and the contacts that his secretary of state can offer. But remember, he provided another and probably more expert source of that wisdom when he picked Joe Biden, the veteran chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, as his running mate. The last thing Obama needs is a secretary of state carving out an independently based foreign policy. He needs an agent, not an author.
Even if Hillary Clinton were ready to play such a subordinate role, which she might be, in return for a promise that her voice would be heard in the most serious policy debates, the presence of Bill Clinton makes that a doubly difficult assignment. The former president has, through the Clinton Global Initiative and his own extensive foreign travels and worldwide contacts, made himself a force in international affairs. It would be unfair, and unlikely, for him to shut down his own private foreign policy actions because they might conflict with his wife's responsibilities. But foreign leaders would inevitably see Bill Clinton as an alternative route toward influencing American policy. And he would be unlikely to remain silent.
Some commentators have suggested that Hillary Clinton is frustrated by her lack of seniority in the Senate and the fact that she is not yet a chairman of any of the committees handling big policy areas. I find that a curious notion.
Her influence, which is vast, does not rest on seniority. It rests on the respect she has won from colleagues in both parties for her hard work, her preparation and her mastery of the substance of policy. Senators want her support for their efforts, and both Republicans and Democrats are eager to join hers, because they know she commands a unique audience both in the Capitol and across the country. That was true in the past, and it is even more true after the impressive campaign she ran for the presidential nomination.
If Clinton can be of service to Obama in Foggy Bottom, she can be of even greater value as an ally on Capitol Hill.
I hope that is where she will be when January rolls around.
By David S. Broder
It may be moot and it certainly is presumptuous, but I would be less than honest with readers if I did not say what I believe: Making Hillary Rodham Clinton the secretary of state in Barack Obama's administration would be a mistake.
I do not doubt that she could do the job -- and do it well. I have been a fan of the former first lady's since I covered her efforts for health-care reform 15 years ago. What I saw in the recent campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination was convincing evidence of her physical stamina and moral courage, and of her capacity to improve her own performance at every step of the process. I admired her readiness to endorse and campaign hard for Obama after her own candidacy fell short.
Equally, I admire Obama's readiness to reach out to former rivals and enlist their help in the governing enterprise he is launching. His serious discussions with Clinton, John McCain and Bill Richardson, among others, are testaments to his sincerity in wanting to move beyond the partisanship and personal differences that too often poison the atmosphere in Washington.
What, then, is the problem? Clinton is the wrong person for that job in this administration. It's not the best use of her talents, and it's certainly not the best fit for this new president.
What Obama needs in the person running the State Department is a diplomat who will carry out his foreign policy. He does not need someone who will tell him how to approach the world or be his mentor in international relations. One of the principal reasons he was elected was that, relying on his instincts, he came to the correct conclusion that war with Iraq was not in America's interest. He was more right about that than most of us in Washington, including Hillary Clinton.
Of course, he will benefit from the counsel and the contacts that his secretary of state can offer. But remember, he provided another and probably more expert source of that wisdom when he picked Joe Biden, the veteran chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, as his running mate. The last thing Obama needs is a secretary of state carving out an independently based foreign policy. He needs an agent, not an author.
Even if Hillary Clinton were ready to play such a subordinate role, which she might be, in return for a promise that her voice would be heard in the most serious policy debates, the presence of Bill Clinton makes that a doubly difficult assignment. The former president has, through the Clinton Global Initiative and his own extensive foreign travels and worldwide contacts, made himself a force in international affairs. It would be unfair, and unlikely, for him to shut down his own private foreign policy actions because they might conflict with his wife's responsibilities. But foreign leaders would inevitably see Bill Clinton as an alternative route toward influencing American policy. And he would be unlikely to remain silent.
Some commentators have suggested that Hillary Clinton is frustrated by her lack of seniority in the Senate and the fact that she is not yet a chairman of any of the committees handling big policy areas. I find that a curious notion.
Her influence, which is vast, does not rest on seniority. It rests on the respect she has won from colleagues in both parties for her hard work, her preparation and her mastery of the substance of policy. Senators want her support for their efforts, and both Republicans and Democrats are eager to join hers, because they know she commands a unique audience both in the Capitol and across the country. That was true in the past, and it is even more true after the impressive campaign she ran for the presidential nomination.
If Clinton can be of service to Obama in Foggy Bottom, she can be of even greater value as an ally on Capitol Hill.
I hope that is where she will be when January rolls around.
I Guess Jesus Really Does Love Alaskans
Ted Stevens Loses Battle For Alaska Senate Seat
Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich (D) defeated Sen. Ted Stevens, ending the tenure of the longest-serving Republican in Senate history, after the counting of more ballots yesterday gave him a larger lead than the number of votes still untallied, Alaska elections officials said.
Begich's win gives Democrats control of 58 seats in the Senate, including two independents who caucus with them. That is two shy of the number needed to prevent Republicans from filibustering, with two races still undecided. Democrats have not controlled 60 seats since 1978.
Begich leads Stevens by more than 3,700 votes, according to the Alaska secretary of state. Gail Fenumiai, the head of the state's election division, said about 2,500 absentee votes from overseas and Alaska's most remote regions remain to be counted.
The Democrat's lead thus far -- 47.8 percent to 46.6 percent -- puts him beyond the margin of victory that would allow Stevens to call for a state-funded recount of the ballots.
"I am humbled and honored to serve Alaska in the United States Senate," Begich said in a statement declaring victory. "It's been an incredible journey getting to this point."
Alaska voters "wanted to see change," he told reporters in Anchorage. "Alaska has been in the midst of a generational shift -- you could see it."
The race was closely watched, in part because Alaska had not sent a Democrat to Congress in nearly three decades, while Stevens was vying to become the first convicted felon to win election to the Senate. He was convicted last month on seven felony counts of failing to disclose more than $250,000 in gifts.
Begich is the son of Nick Begich, the House member from Alaska who disappeared in 1972 on a flight with House Majority Leader Hale Boggs (D-La.). Both were presumed dead. No Democrat has represented Alaska in its two Senate seats and one House seat since Sen. Mike Gravel was defeated by Republican Frank Murkowski in 1980.
Begich ran as a conservative Democrat, supporting gun owners' rights and additional domestic drilling for oil production, including in wildlife areas where most Democrats have opposed drilling.
However, the race always focused on Stevens, with the campaign virtually stopping during his four-week trial. The candidates debated once, just days before the election. Begich sought to pay respect to Stevens's long service to the state, contrasting that with the recent allegations against him.
"He's done a lot for our state, and I've shared Alaska's respect for him. The past year has been a difficult one for Alaska. With the verdict, we can put this behind us," Begich said in an advertisement that aired the final weekend before Election Day.
Stevens, who is in Washington for this week's lame-duck session, said yesterday that either his campaign or the Alaska Republican Party would definitely ask for a recount if the final margin fell within the needed 0.5 percent of the votes cast.
Still to be settled are races are in Minnesota and Georgia. Minnesota officials formally began a recount yesterday in the race between Sen. Norm Coleman and Democrat Al Franken; the Republican finished 206 votes ahead of the onetime comedian out of 2.9 million ballots cast. In Georgia, Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R) faces a Dec. 2 runoff against former state representative Jim Martin. Chambliss held a 110,000-vote margin on election night, but his share of the vote did not reach 50 percent, as required by state law.
Stevens, who turned 85 yesterday and was appointed to the Senate in 1968, told reporters yesterday that he was exhausted and had not slept well since his indictment in late July. He added that he had led "three lives": as a senator, a criminal defendant and a candidate for office.
"I wouldn't wish what I've been through on anyone, [not] my worst enemy," said Stevens, who says he is considering appealing his convictions.
Stevens, an iconic figure who helped lead Alaska to statehood in the 1950s, served as chairman of the appropriations, commerce and ethics committees in his 40-year tenure in the Senate. He was known for steering hundreds of billions of dollars to his home state for projects.
But the earmarked projects also drew the scrutiny of federal investigators.
Bill Allen Jr., the former chief executive of an oil services company, Veco, pleaded guilty in May 2007 to bribing a host of Alaskan officials. He testified at Stevens's trial that his company oversaw a massive reconstruction of the senator's home outside Anchorage, raising the A-frame house on stilts and building an entire new floor and wrap-around deck beneath it.
Stevens was charged with not reporting the home rebuilding and other assorted gifts from Allen and other powerful friends on his Senate financial disclosure forms.
A federal jury in the District convicted Stevens on Oct. 27, eight days before most voters would go to the polls in Alaska. He faces a potential jail term, but sentencing has not been set.
Stevens said yesterday that he could not talk about his legal battle, neither with reporters nor even in a closed-door meeting of Senate Republicans.
Outside the GOP meeting, he said he planned to tell his colleagues, "It's a nice day. It's a really nice day."
Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich (D) defeated Sen. Ted Stevens, ending the tenure of the longest-serving Republican in Senate history, after the counting of more ballots yesterday gave him a larger lead than the number of votes still untallied, Alaska elections officials said.
Begich's win gives Democrats control of 58 seats in the Senate, including two independents who caucus with them. That is two shy of the number needed to prevent Republicans from filibustering, with two races still undecided. Democrats have not controlled 60 seats since 1978.
Begich leads Stevens by more than 3,700 votes, according to the Alaska secretary of state. Gail Fenumiai, the head of the state's election division, said about 2,500 absentee votes from overseas and Alaska's most remote regions remain to be counted.
The Democrat's lead thus far -- 47.8 percent to 46.6 percent -- puts him beyond the margin of victory that would allow Stevens to call for a state-funded recount of the ballots.
"I am humbled and honored to serve Alaska in the United States Senate," Begich said in a statement declaring victory. "It's been an incredible journey getting to this point."
Alaska voters "wanted to see change," he told reporters in Anchorage. "Alaska has been in the midst of a generational shift -- you could see it."
The race was closely watched, in part because Alaska had not sent a Democrat to Congress in nearly three decades, while Stevens was vying to become the first convicted felon to win election to the Senate. He was convicted last month on seven felony counts of failing to disclose more than $250,000 in gifts.
Begich is the son of Nick Begich, the House member from Alaska who disappeared in 1972 on a flight with House Majority Leader Hale Boggs (D-La.). Both were presumed dead. No Democrat has represented Alaska in its two Senate seats and one House seat since Sen. Mike Gravel was defeated by Republican Frank Murkowski in 1980.
Begich ran as a conservative Democrat, supporting gun owners' rights and additional domestic drilling for oil production, including in wildlife areas where most Democrats have opposed drilling.
However, the race always focused on Stevens, with the campaign virtually stopping during his four-week trial. The candidates debated once, just days before the election. Begich sought to pay respect to Stevens's long service to the state, contrasting that with the recent allegations against him.
"He's done a lot for our state, and I've shared Alaska's respect for him. The past year has been a difficult one for Alaska. With the verdict, we can put this behind us," Begich said in an advertisement that aired the final weekend before Election Day.
Stevens, who is in Washington for this week's lame-duck session, said yesterday that either his campaign or the Alaska Republican Party would definitely ask for a recount if the final margin fell within the needed 0.5 percent of the votes cast.
Still to be settled are races are in Minnesota and Georgia. Minnesota officials formally began a recount yesterday in the race between Sen. Norm Coleman and Democrat Al Franken; the Republican finished 206 votes ahead of the onetime comedian out of 2.9 million ballots cast. In Georgia, Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R) faces a Dec. 2 runoff against former state representative Jim Martin. Chambliss held a 110,000-vote margin on election night, but his share of the vote did not reach 50 percent, as required by state law.
Stevens, who turned 85 yesterday and was appointed to the Senate in 1968, told reporters yesterday that he was exhausted and had not slept well since his indictment in late July. He added that he had led "three lives": as a senator, a criminal defendant and a candidate for office.
"I wouldn't wish what I've been through on anyone, [not] my worst enemy," said Stevens, who says he is considering appealing his convictions.
Stevens, an iconic figure who helped lead Alaska to statehood in the 1950s, served as chairman of the appropriations, commerce and ethics committees in his 40-year tenure in the Senate. He was known for steering hundreds of billions of dollars to his home state for projects.
But the earmarked projects also drew the scrutiny of federal investigators.
Bill Allen Jr., the former chief executive of an oil services company, Veco, pleaded guilty in May 2007 to bribing a host of Alaskan officials. He testified at Stevens's trial that his company oversaw a massive reconstruction of the senator's home outside Anchorage, raising the A-frame house on stilts and building an entire new floor and wrap-around deck beneath it.
Stevens was charged with not reporting the home rebuilding and other assorted gifts from Allen and other powerful friends on his Senate financial disclosure forms.
A federal jury in the District convicted Stevens on Oct. 27, eight days before most voters would go to the polls in Alaska. He faces a potential jail term, but sentencing has not been set.
Stevens said yesterday that he could not talk about his legal battle, neither with reporters nor even in a closed-door meeting of Senate Republicans.
Outside the GOP meeting, he said he planned to tell his colleagues, "It's a nice day. It's a really nice day."
Big 3 by CB
Commentary: Fixing the Big Three
By Campbell Brown
(CNN) -- The heads of Detroit's car companies -- Ford, Chrysler, GM -- bumper to bumper, are begging Congress for a bailout. Let's start by cutting through the bull and look at how the automobile companies got into this mess.
1. Americans are finally starting to turn their backs on those 12 mile-per-gallon SUVs.
Yes, it took us long enough, but we are finally starting to get it. I know, gas prices have fallen back into the $2-per-gallon range, but we all remember what it cost to fill up last summer, when gas was $4 per gallon. And we all know those days will come again.
2. Why isn't Detroit making what we want to buy now?
Where are the hybrids? Where are the batteries? Where are cars that get 70 miles per gallon? For years automakers fought tooth and nail against improving fuel efficiency standards. You say they're in the pipeline? You say we'll get 40-mile-per-gallon cars in 2020? Americans need them now. Watch Campbell Brown's commentary »
3. Ignoring the competition.
It has seemed at times like American carmakers think car buyers are so blindly loyal that they will keep coming back -- despite the sticker shock -- for crummy cars that guzzle gas, fall apart too soon, and cost too much to repair. Lots of other companies have figured out how to build better quality, more fuel-efficient cars, and even do it right here in the United States.
4. Greed.
GM Chief Executive Rick Wagoner earns almost $9 million a year. Some union workers in the automotive industry earn $30 or $40 an hour plus benefits. Retirees get pensions and health benefits that would make anyone jealous. You guys spend millions of dollars a year lobbying to keep everything the same and now you're asking us, the taxpayers, for $25 billion.
Now, I don't know if a government bailout will rescue America's auto industry but I do know that if there is a bailout, it better come with a big, bright stop sign and lots of strings attached.
The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Campbell Brown.
By Campbell Brown
(CNN) -- The heads of Detroit's car companies -- Ford, Chrysler, GM -- bumper to bumper, are begging Congress for a bailout. Let's start by cutting through the bull and look at how the automobile companies got into this mess.
1. Americans are finally starting to turn their backs on those 12 mile-per-gallon SUVs.
Yes, it took us long enough, but we are finally starting to get it. I know, gas prices have fallen back into the $2-per-gallon range, but we all remember what it cost to fill up last summer, when gas was $4 per gallon. And we all know those days will come again.
2. Why isn't Detroit making what we want to buy now?
Where are the hybrids? Where are the batteries? Where are cars that get 70 miles per gallon? For years automakers fought tooth and nail against improving fuel efficiency standards. You say they're in the pipeline? You say we'll get 40-mile-per-gallon cars in 2020? Americans need them now. Watch Campbell Brown's commentary »
3. Ignoring the competition.
It has seemed at times like American carmakers think car buyers are so blindly loyal that they will keep coming back -- despite the sticker shock -- for crummy cars that guzzle gas, fall apart too soon, and cost too much to repair. Lots of other companies have figured out how to build better quality, more fuel-efficient cars, and even do it right here in the United States.
4. Greed.
GM Chief Executive Rick Wagoner earns almost $9 million a year. Some union workers in the automotive industry earn $30 or $40 an hour plus benefits. Retirees get pensions and health benefits that would make anyone jealous. You guys spend millions of dollars a year lobbying to keep everything the same and now you're asking us, the taxpayers, for $25 billion.
Now, I don't know if a government bailout will rescue America's auto industry but I do know that if there is a bailout, it better come with a big, bright stop sign and lots of strings attached.
The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Campbell Brown.
Monday, November 17, 2008
1.21 jigawatts!? (i know, in bad taste, considering...)
'Taxi' star loses $11 million house to fires
LOS ANGELES, California (AP) -- Christopher Lloyd says he has a "different awareness" after returning to his burned-out Montecito home.
The "Back to the Future" and "Taxi" actor told ABC's "Good Morning America" that wouldn't rebuild the $11 million home in the celebrity enclave northwest of Los Angeles. It was among dozens of homes lost in wildfires.
"You watch TV, you see these kinds of incidents happening here and there, but you look with a kind of detachment because it's happening ... elsewhere," he said, walking through the rubble. "But suddenly to be in the midst of it, it's a very different awareness."
Lloyd said he'd been putting off organizing and storing memorabilia that he'd kept at the house.
"Kind of don't have to worry about that now," he said.
LOS ANGELES, California (AP) -- Christopher Lloyd says he has a "different awareness" after returning to his burned-out Montecito home.
The "Back to the Future" and "Taxi" actor told ABC's "Good Morning America" that wouldn't rebuild the $11 million home in the celebrity enclave northwest of Los Angeles. It was among dozens of homes lost in wildfires.
"You watch TV, you see these kinds of incidents happening here and there, but you look with a kind of detachment because it's happening ... elsewhere," he said, walking through the rubble. "But suddenly to be in the midst of it, it's a very different awareness."
Lloyd said he'd been putting off organizing and storing memorabilia that he'd kept at the house.
"Kind of don't have to worry about that now," he said.
He totally strikes me as the dork in high school trying to be cool...
Feds accuse Mavs owner Cuban of insider trading
WASHINGTON -- Federal regulators have accused billionaire Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban of insider trading for allegedly using confidential information on a stock sale to avoid more than $750,000 in losses.
The Securities and Exchange Commission filed a civil lawsuit against Cuban on Monday in federal court in Dallas. The agency said that in June 2004, Cuban was invited to get in on the coming stock offering by Mamma.com Inc. after he agreed to keep the information private.
The SEC said Cuban knew the shares of stock, put at 600,000, would be sold below the current market price, and a few hours after receiving the information, told his broker to sell all shares in the search engine company.
The commission is seeking to impose financial penalties and confiscate gains from the trades. It is up to the U.S. Attorney in Dallas to determine whether Cuban should face criminal charges.
"As we allege in the complaint, Mamma.com entrusted Mr. Cuban with nonpublic information after he promised to keep the information confidential. Less than four hours later, Mr. Cuban betrayed that trust by placing an order to sell all of his shares," Scott W. Friestad, deputy director of the SEC's Division of Enforcement, said in a statement. "It is fundamentally unfair for someone to use access to nonpublic information to improperly gain an edge on the market."
In a statement posted on Cuban's blog, blogmaverick.com, attorney Ralph C. Ferrara said Cuban would challenge the suit.
"This matter, which has been pending before the Commission for nearly two years, has no merit and is a product of gross abuse of prosecutorial discretion," Ferrara said. "Mr. Cuban intends to contest the allegations and to demonstrate that the Commission's claims are infected by the misconduct of the staff of its Enforcement Division."
In the same statement, Cuban said, "I am disappointed that the Commission chose to bring this case based upon its Enforcement staff's win-at-any-cost ambitions. The staff's process was result-oriented, facts be damned. The government's claims are false and they will be proven to be so."
According to the SEC, the complaint seeks to permanently enjoin Cuban from future violations of the federal securities laws, disgorgement (with prejudgment interest), and a financial penalty.
"Insider trading cases are a high priority for the Commission," Linda Chatman Thomsen, director of the SEC's Division of Enforcement, said in the statement. "This case demonstrates yet again that the Commission will aggressively pursue illegal insider trading whenever it occurs."
Cuban's situation is drawing comparisons to Martha Stewart's involvement in insider trading in 2001. Her case was tried in criminal court when she was charged with lying to federal investigators. Stewart was convicted in March 2004 on charges of conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and two counts of making false statements and was sentenced to prison.
Mamma.com, a Canadian company, merged with Copernic Technologies in December 2005. Copernic also offers search software and online advertising services. Mamma.com now trades under Copernic's ticker, CNIC.
WASHINGTON -- Federal regulators have accused billionaire Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban of insider trading for allegedly using confidential information on a stock sale to avoid more than $750,000 in losses.
The Securities and Exchange Commission filed a civil lawsuit against Cuban on Monday in federal court in Dallas. The agency said that in June 2004, Cuban was invited to get in on the coming stock offering by Mamma.com Inc. after he agreed to keep the information private.
The SEC said Cuban knew the shares of stock, put at 600,000, would be sold below the current market price, and a few hours after receiving the information, told his broker to sell all shares in the search engine company.
The commission is seeking to impose financial penalties and confiscate gains from the trades. It is up to the U.S. Attorney in Dallas to determine whether Cuban should face criminal charges.
"As we allege in the complaint, Mamma.com entrusted Mr. Cuban with nonpublic information after he promised to keep the information confidential. Less than four hours later, Mr. Cuban betrayed that trust by placing an order to sell all of his shares," Scott W. Friestad, deputy director of the SEC's Division of Enforcement, said in a statement. "It is fundamentally unfair for someone to use access to nonpublic information to improperly gain an edge on the market."
In a statement posted on Cuban's blog, blogmaverick.com, attorney Ralph C. Ferrara said Cuban would challenge the suit.
"This matter, which has been pending before the Commission for nearly two years, has no merit and is a product of gross abuse of prosecutorial discretion," Ferrara said. "Mr. Cuban intends to contest the allegations and to demonstrate that the Commission's claims are infected by the misconduct of the staff of its Enforcement Division."
In the same statement, Cuban said, "I am disappointed that the Commission chose to bring this case based upon its Enforcement staff's win-at-any-cost ambitions. The staff's process was result-oriented, facts be damned. The government's claims are false and they will be proven to be so."
According to the SEC, the complaint seeks to permanently enjoin Cuban from future violations of the federal securities laws, disgorgement (with prejudgment interest), and a financial penalty.
"Insider trading cases are a high priority for the Commission," Linda Chatman Thomsen, director of the SEC's Division of Enforcement, said in the statement. "This case demonstrates yet again that the Commission will aggressively pursue illegal insider trading whenever it occurs."
Cuban's situation is drawing comparisons to Martha Stewart's involvement in insider trading in 2001. Her case was tried in criminal court when she was charged with lying to federal investigators. Stewart was convicted in March 2004 on charges of conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and two counts of making false statements and was sentenced to prison.
Mamma.com, a Canadian company, merged with Copernic Technologies in December 2005. Copernic also offers search software and online advertising services. Mamma.com now trades under Copernic's ticker, CNIC.
My OTHER Choice for Sec Def
(From the NYT) AMERICA’S automobile industry is in desperate trouble. Financial instability, the credit squeeze and closed capital markets are hurting domestic automakers, while decades of competition from foreign producers have eroded market share and consumer loyalty. Some economists question the wisdom of Washington’s intervening to help the Big Three, arguing that the automakers should pay the price for their own mistakes or that the market will correct itself. But we must act: aiding the American automobile industry is not only an economic imperative, but also a national security imperative.
When President Dwight Eisenhower observed that America’s greatest strength wasn’t its military, but its economy, he must have had companies like General Motors and Ford in mind. Sitting atop a vast pyramid of tool makers, steel producers, fabricators and component manufacturers, these companies not only produced the tanks and trucks that helped win World War II, but also lent their technology to aircraft and ship manufacturing. The United States truly became the arsenal of democracy.
During the 1950s, advances in aviation, missiles, satellites and electronics made Detroit seem a little old-fashioned in dealing with the threat of the Soviet Union. The Army’s requests for new trucks and other basic transportation usually came out a loser in budget battles against missile technology and new modifications for the latest supersonic jet fighter. Not only were airplanes far sexier but they also counted as part of our military “tooth,” while much of the land forces’ needs were “tail.” And in those days, “more teeth, less tail” had become a key concept in military spending.
But in 1991, the Persian Gulf war demonstrated the awesome utility of American land power, and the Humvee (and its civilian version, the Hummer) became a star. Likewise, the ubiquitous homemade bombs of the current Iraq insurgency have led to the development of innovative armor-protected wheeled vehicles for American forces, as well as improvements in our fleets of Humvees, tanks, armored fighting vehicles, trucks and cargo carriers.
In a little more than a year, the Army has procured and fielded in Iraq more than a thousand so-called mine-resistant ambush-protected vehicles. The lives of hundreds of soldiers and marines have been saved, and their tasks made more achievable, by the efforts of the American automotive industry. And unlike in World War II, America didn’t have to divert much civilian capacity to meet these military needs. Without a vigorous automotive sector, those needs could not have been quickly met.
More challenges lie ahead for our military, and to meet them we need a strong industrial base. For years the military has sought better sources of electric power in its vehicles — necessary to allow troops to monitor their radios with diesel engines off, to support increasingly high-powered communications technology, and eventually to support electric propulsion and innovative armaments like directed-energy weapons. In sum, this greater use of electricity will increase combat power while reducing our footprint. Much research and development spending has gone into these programs over the years, but nothing on the manufacturing scale we really need.
Now, though, as Detroit moves to plug-in hybrids and electric-drive technology, the scale problem can be remedied. Automakers are developing innovative electric motors, many with permanent magnet technology, that will have immediate military use. And only the auto industry, with its vast purchasing power, is able to establish a domestic advanced battery industry. Likewise, domestic fuel cell production — which will undoubtedly have many critical military applications — depends on a vibrant car industry.
To be sure, the public should demand transformation and new standards in the auto industry before paying to keep it alive. And we should insist that Detroit’s goals include putting America in first place in hybrid and electric automotive technology, reducing the emissions of the country’s transportation fleet, and strengthening our competitiveness abroad.
This should be no giveaway. Instead, it is a historic opportunity to get it right in Detroit for the good of the country. But Americans must bear in mind that any federal assistance plan would not be just an economic measure. This is, fundamentally, about national security.
Wesley K. Clark, a retired Army general and former supreme allied commander of NATO, is a senior fellow at the Burkle Center for International Relations at the University of California at Los Angeles.
When President Dwight Eisenhower observed that America’s greatest strength wasn’t its military, but its economy, he must have had companies like General Motors and Ford in mind. Sitting atop a vast pyramid of tool makers, steel producers, fabricators and component manufacturers, these companies not only produced the tanks and trucks that helped win World War II, but also lent their technology to aircraft and ship manufacturing. The United States truly became the arsenal of democracy.
During the 1950s, advances in aviation, missiles, satellites and electronics made Detroit seem a little old-fashioned in dealing with the threat of the Soviet Union. The Army’s requests for new trucks and other basic transportation usually came out a loser in budget battles against missile technology and new modifications for the latest supersonic jet fighter. Not only were airplanes far sexier but they also counted as part of our military “tooth,” while much of the land forces’ needs were “tail.” And in those days, “more teeth, less tail” had become a key concept in military spending.
But in 1991, the Persian Gulf war demonstrated the awesome utility of American land power, and the Humvee (and its civilian version, the Hummer) became a star. Likewise, the ubiquitous homemade bombs of the current Iraq insurgency have led to the development of innovative armor-protected wheeled vehicles for American forces, as well as improvements in our fleets of Humvees, tanks, armored fighting vehicles, trucks and cargo carriers.
In a little more than a year, the Army has procured and fielded in Iraq more than a thousand so-called mine-resistant ambush-protected vehicles. The lives of hundreds of soldiers and marines have been saved, and their tasks made more achievable, by the efforts of the American automotive industry. And unlike in World War II, America didn’t have to divert much civilian capacity to meet these military needs. Without a vigorous automotive sector, those needs could not have been quickly met.
More challenges lie ahead for our military, and to meet them we need a strong industrial base. For years the military has sought better sources of electric power in its vehicles — necessary to allow troops to monitor their radios with diesel engines off, to support increasingly high-powered communications technology, and eventually to support electric propulsion and innovative armaments like directed-energy weapons. In sum, this greater use of electricity will increase combat power while reducing our footprint. Much research and development spending has gone into these programs over the years, but nothing on the manufacturing scale we really need.
Now, though, as Detroit moves to plug-in hybrids and electric-drive technology, the scale problem can be remedied. Automakers are developing innovative electric motors, many with permanent magnet technology, that will have immediate military use. And only the auto industry, with its vast purchasing power, is able to establish a domestic advanced battery industry. Likewise, domestic fuel cell production — which will undoubtedly have many critical military applications — depends on a vibrant car industry.
To be sure, the public should demand transformation and new standards in the auto industry before paying to keep it alive. And we should insist that Detroit’s goals include putting America in first place in hybrid and electric automotive technology, reducing the emissions of the country’s transportation fleet, and strengthening our competitiveness abroad.
This should be no giveaway. Instead, it is a historic opportunity to get it right in Detroit for the good of the country. But Americans must bear in mind that any federal assistance plan would not be just an economic measure. This is, fundamentally, about national security.
Wesley K. Clark, a retired Army general and former supreme allied commander of NATO, is a senior fellow at the Burkle Center for International Relations at the University of California at Los Angeles.
Underemployed in America
The 20-Hour Workweek
The unemployment rate seems low. That's because it's not counting all those underemployed workers.
It's hard to overstate the poor numbers coming out of Wall Street in recent months. But could it be that we're overstating the gravity of the situation? As job losses have mounted and consumer confidence has plunged, policymakers, news organizations, econo-pundits, and even some of my Slate colleagues have noted that the unemployment rate, which rose to 6.1 percent in September, seems to be at a nonrecessionary, noncatastrophic, low level. The unemployment rate is still below where it was in 2003; and between September 1982 and May 1983, the last very deep recession, it topped 10 percent. (Go here for a chart and historical data).
But maybe the employment data are much worse than they seem. In the past year, the two key measures of employment—the unemployment rate and the payroll jobs figure—have been poor but not awful. The unemployment rate has risen from 4.5 percent a year ago to 6.1 percent. And in the first nine months, 760,000 payroll jobs were lost. This is unwelcome but not catastrophic. So why do things feel so bad? It's not because, as Phil Gramm suggested, we're a nation of whiners. And it's not a matter of columnists and spin doctors shading the numbers to make things look worse.
Rather, these two figures are undermeasuring the weakness in the labor market. By some measures, in fact, the job situation is worse than it has been at any time since 1994.
Here's why. Back in the 1990s, the Bureau of Labor Statistics recognized that in a changing economy, in which outsourcing, self-employment, and contracting were becoming more commonplace, the traditional methods of measuring unemployment and job growth might not accurately portray the economic situation. And it knew its methodology had some quirks—the unemployment rate doesn't account for people who have given up looking for jobs, or who have taken themselves out of the work force. So since 1994, the BLS has been compiling alternative measures of labor underutilization. There are many different varieties of labor underutilization. There are marginally attached workers: "persons who currently are neither working nor looking for work but indicate that they want and are available for a job and have looked for work sometime in the recent past." There are discouraged workers, a subset of the marginally attached crowd, who have "given a job-market related reason for not looking currently for a job." There are people who work part-time because they can't find—or their employer can't provide—full-time work. There are people who have left the work force entirely. Neither the unemployment rate nor the payroll jobs figure captures the plight of many of these folks.
And the alternative labor underutilization measures show a lot of stress. The data on people not in the work force show the number of people not looking for work because they're discouraged about finding jobs has risen from 276,000 in September 2007 to 467,000 in September 2008—up 70 percent. The percentage of people unemployed for more than 15 weeks stood at 2.3 percent in September 2008, up from 1.6 percent in September 2007, a rise of nearly 45 percent. But the most troublesome is the U6. The U6 is sort of the summa of job angst, a shorthand tally for the aggregate of job-related frustration. (Moneybox covered some of this terrain back in 2004.) To compile the U6, the BLS takes the number of unemployed, plus all marginally attached workers, plus all of those employed part-time for economic reasons, and then calculates that total as a percentage of the sum of the entire civilian labor force plus marginally attached workers.
The U6 in September rose to 11 percent, its highest level since the data series started in 1994 and significantly higher than it was in the last recession, in 2001. The ratio between the U6 and the official unemployment rate has remained relatively steady over the last several years. But that means that as the unemployment rate has risen, so too has the portion of the population suffering from other types of work deficits. Three years ago, when the unemployment rate was 5.1 percent, an additional 3.9 percent of the labor force fell into one of those other underutilized categories. Last month, with the unemployment rate at 6.1 percent, an additional 4.9 percent of the labor force was underutilized. (See charts comparing the unemployment rate and the U6 rate.) Add it up, and more than 10 percent of American workers are essentially not contributing full-time to their families' well-being and to that of the economy at large. The unemployment rate may still be historically low, but the underutilization is historically high.
The unemployment rate seems low. That's because it's not counting all those underemployed workers.
It's hard to overstate the poor numbers coming out of Wall Street in recent months. But could it be that we're overstating the gravity of the situation? As job losses have mounted and consumer confidence has plunged, policymakers, news organizations, econo-pundits, and even some of my Slate colleagues have noted that the unemployment rate, which rose to 6.1 percent in September, seems to be at a nonrecessionary, noncatastrophic, low level. The unemployment rate is still below where it was in 2003; and between September 1982 and May 1983, the last very deep recession, it topped 10 percent. (Go here for a chart and historical data).
But maybe the employment data are much worse than they seem. In the past year, the two key measures of employment—the unemployment rate and the payroll jobs figure—have been poor but not awful. The unemployment rate has risen from 4.5 percent a year ago to 6.1 percent. And in the first nine months, 760,000 payroll jobs were lost. This is unwelcome but not catastrophic. So why do things feel so bad? It's not because, as Phil Gramm suggested, we're a nation of whiners. And it's not a matter of columnists and spin doctors shading the numbers to make things look worse.
Rather, these two figures are undermeasuring the weakness in the labor market. By some measures, in fact, the job situation is worse than it has been at any time since 1994.
Here's why. Back in the 1990s, the Bureau of Labor Statistics recognized that in a changing economy, in which outsourcing, self-employment, and contracting were becoming more commonplace, the traditional methods of measuring unemployment and job growth might not accurately portray the economic situation. And it knew its methodology had some quirks—the unemployment rate doesn't account for people who have given up looking for jobs, or who have taken themselves out of the work force. So since 1994, the BLS has been compiling alternative measures of labor underutilization. There are many different varieties of labor underutilization. There are marginally attached workers: "persons who currently are neither working nor looking for work but indicate that they want and are available for a job and have looked for work sometime in the recent past." There are discouraged workers, a subset of the marginally attached crowd, who have "given a job-market related reason for not looking currently for a job." There are people who work part-time because they can't find—or their employer can't provide—full-time work. There are people who have left the work force entirely. Neither the unemployment rate nor the payroll jobs figure captures the plight of many of these folks.
And the alternative labor underutilization measures show a lot of stress. The data on people not in the work force show the number of people not looking for work because they're discouraged about finding jobs has risen from 276,000 in September 2007 to 467,000 in September 2008—up 70 percent. The percentage of people unemployed for more than 15 weeks stood at 2.3 percent in September 2008, up from 1.6 percent in September 2007, a rise of nearly 45 percent. But the most troublesome is the U6. The U6 is sort of the summa of job angst, a shorthand tally for the aggregate of job-related frustration. (Moneybox covered some of this terrain back in 2004.) To compile the U6, the BLS takes the number of unemployed, plus all marginally attached workers, plus all of those employed part-time for economic reasons, and then calculates that total as a percentage of the sum of the entire civilian labor force plus marginally attached workers.
The U6 in September rose to 11 percent, its highest level since the data series started in 1994 and significantly higher than it was in the last recession, in 2001. The ratio between the U6 and the official unemployment rate has remained relatively steady over the last several years. But that means that as the unemployment rate has risen, so too has the portion of the population suffering from other types of work deficits. Three years ago, when the unemployment rate was 5.1 percent, an additional 3.9 percent of the labor force fell into one of those other underutilized categories. Last month, with the unemployment rate at 6.1 percent, an additional 4.9 percent of the labor force was underutilized. (See charts comparing the unemployment rate and the U6 rate.) Add it up, and more than 10 percent of American workers are essentially not contributing full-time to their families' well-being and to that of the economy at large. The unemployment rate may still be historically low, but the underutilization is historically high.
Rougher Waters Ahead
Economy sailing into rougher waters
WASHINGTON - The country is sinking deeper into an economic hole, and it's likely to stay there for a while.
That's part of the latest outlook from forecasters in a survey to be released Monday by the National Association for Business Economics, also known as NABE.
Approximately 96 percent of the economists polled believe a recession has started, and nearly three-fourths think it could persist beyond the first quarter of 2009.
Under one definition, a recession happens when the economy shrinks for two quarters in a row. The economy contracted 0.3 percent in the third quarter as consumers cut back sharply on spending, the government reported last month. It was the worst showing since 2001, when the country was last in a recession.
NABE economists, among other experts, predict activity will continue to contract in the final quarter of this year and the first quarter of next year as weary consumers hunker down further under the stresses of rising unemployment, shrinking nest eggs and falling home values.
"Business economists became decidedly more negative on the economic outlook for the next several quarters as a result of the intensification of credit market stresses and evidence of spillover to the real economy," said NABE president Chris Varvares, president of Macroeconomic Advisers.
NABE economists are now forecasting the economy to shrink at a 2.6 percent pace in the final quarter of this year and then at a 1.3 percent pace in the first three months of 2009. The new projections marked downgrades from the association's previous survey, which called for growth of 0.1 percent in the final quarter of this year and 1.3 percent in the following quarter.
Weakest economy since 2001
For all of 2008, the association's economists are predicting the economy's growth will slow to 1.4 percent, down from 2 percent in 2007. If the new, lower projection proves correct, it would mark the weakest performance since 2001.
The picture could turn worse in 2009. The NABE economists are projecting the economy will jolt into reverse, shrinking by 0.2 percent for all of next year. If that happens, it would be the worst showing since 1991, when the country was starting to pull out of a recession.
With the economy losing traction, the nation's unemployment rate will climb to 7.5 percent by the end of next year, the economists predict. Other analysts think it could rise to 8 percent then, It could hit 10 percent or higher if a U.S. auto company were to go under.
The nation's unemployment rate bolted to 6.5 percent in October, a 14-year high, the government reported earlier this month.
To cushion the fallout, the Federal Reserve has slashed a key interest rate, dropping it to just 1 percent, a level seen only once before in the last half-century.
Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke has warned that the country's economic weakness could last for some time — even if the government's unprecedented $700 billion financial bailout package and other steps do succeed in getting financial and credit markets to operate more normally.
Lower interest rates?
In a speech Friday, Bernanke left the door open for another rate reduction, warning that financial markets remain under "severe strain."
Wall Street investors and economists believe the Fed probably will lower interest rates again on Dec. 16, its last regularly scheduled meeting this year, by one-quarter or even one-half percentage point.
The NABE survey of 50 forecasters was taken Oct. 28 through Nov. 7.
The raft of grim economic news prompted Sandra Pianalto, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland, to say in a speech Friday that "the signs point to a recession beyond just a 'garden variety' downturn."
"The length and severity of the recession will depend on how quickly credit markets return to normal," she said.
WASHINGTON - The country is sinking deeper into an economic hole, and it's likely to stay there for a while.
That's part of the latest outlook from forecasters in a survey to be released Monday by the National Association for Business Economics, also known as NABE.
Approximately 96 percent of the economists polled believe a recession has started, and nearly three-fourths think it could persist beyond the first quarter of 2009.
Under one definition, a recession happens when the economy shrinks for two quarters in a row. The economy contracted 0.3 percent in the third quarter as consumers cut back sharply on spending, the government reported last month. It was the worst showing since 2001, when the country was last in a recession.
NABE economists, among other experts, predict activity will continue to contract in the final quarter of this year and the first quarter of next year as weary consumers hunker down further under the stresses of rising unemployment, shrinking nest eggs and falling home values.
"Business economists became decidedly more negative on the economic outlook for the next several quarters as a result of the intensification of credit market stresses and evidence of spillover to the real economy," said NABE president Chris Varvares, president of Macroeconomic Advisers.
NABE economists are now forecasting the economy to shrink at a 2.6 percent pace in the final quarter of this year and then at a 1.3 percent pace in the first three months of 2009. The new projections marked downgrades from the association's previous survey, which called for growth of 0.1 percent in the final quarter of this year and 1.3 percent in the following quarter.
Weakest economy since 2001
For all of 2008, the association's economists are predicting the economy's growth will slow to 1.4 percent, down from 2 percent in 2007. If the new, lower projection proves correct, it would mark the weakest performance since 2001.
The picture could turn worse in 2009. The NABE economists are projecting the economy will jolt into reverse, shrinking by 0.2 percent for all of next year. If that happens, it would be the worst showing since 1991, when the country was starting to pull out of a recession.
With the economy losing traction, the nation's unemployment rate will climb to 7.5 percent by the end of next year, the economists predict. Other analysts think it could rise to 8 percent then, It could hit 10 percent or higher if a U.S. auto company were to go under.
The nation's unemployment rate bolted to 6.5 percent in October, a 14-year high, the government reported earlier this month.
To cushion the fallout, the Federal Reserve has slashed a key interest rate, dropping it to just 1 percent, a level seen only once before in the last half-century.
Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke has warned that the country's economic weakness could last for some time — even if the government's unprecedented $700 billion financial bailout package and other steps do succeed in getting financial and credit markets to operate more normally.
Lower interest rates?
In a speech Friday, Bernanke left the door open for another rate reduction, warning that financial markets remain under "severe strain."
Wall Street investors and economists believe the Fed probably will lower interest rates again on Dec. 16, its last regularly scheduled meeting this year, by one-quarter or even one-half percentage point.
The NABE survey of 50 forecasters was taken Oct. 28 through Nov. 7.
The raft of grim economic news prompted Sandra Pianalto, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland, to say in a speech Friday that "the signs point to a recession beyond just a 'garden variety' downturn."
"The length and severity of the recession will depend on how quickly credit markets return to normal," she said.
My Pick for Sec Def
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/11/03/081103fa_fact_bruck?printable=true
I've totally loved Chuck Hagel since he started calling out his party and the military adminstration for their handling of Iraq. You gotta respect a man who bucks the republican party admist their poor judgement and hiding of secrets. And he's good-looking. Which TOTALLY qualifies him.
Best quote (and why I thought McCain would have stayed on the straight and narrow through his campaign -- since they are good friends and he seemed to agree at the time).
Hagel is quoted as saying, “The most dangerous element of our political future in this country is candidates who debase and degrade the political process by straight-out lies and misleading spots on television. It’s a cancer to our system.” Hagel told me that McCain came to his office to talk to him about the article and said, “You know, I’m really proud of you for doing that. Not many people would have done it.”
****
Nevertheless, he and McCain have remained friends, Hagel told me in a series of interviews over the past several months. “That’s the problem with Washington, quite frankly—if you disagree with somebody, you should dislike them, too,” said Hagel, who is sixty-two and has white hair, a worn, ruggedly handsome face, and a forthright manner. “It’s hard, it seems, for some people to comprehend how John and I can be on such different paths on something so important, and still fundamentally have a relationship that’s pretty deep.”
****
For Hagel, almost as disturbing as Palin’s lack of experience is her willingness—in disparaging remarks about Joe Biden’s long Senate career, for example—to belittle the notion that experience is important. “There’s no question, she knows her market,” Hagel said. “She knows her audience, and she’s going right after them. And I’ll tell you why that’s dangerous. It’s dangerous because you don’t want to define down the standards in any institution, ever, in life. You want to always strive to define standards up. If you start defining standards down—‘Well, I don’t have a big education, I don’t have experience’—yes, there’s a point to be made that not all the smartest people come out of Yale or Harvard. But to intentionally define down in some kind of wild populism, that those things don’t count in a complicated, dangerous world—that’s dangerous in itself.
“There was a political party in this country called the Know-Nothings,” he continued. “And we’re getting on the fringe of that, with these one-issue voters—pro-choice or pro-life. Important issue, I know that. But, my goodness. The world is blowing up everywhere, and I just don’t think that is a responsible way to see the world, on that one issue. And, interestingly enough, that is one issue that stopped John McCain from picking one of the people he really wanted, Joe Lieberman or Tom Ridge”—the Independent senator from Connecticut and the Republican former governor of Pennsylvania. (Both men are pro-choice.)
I've totally loved Chuck Hagel since he started calling out his party and the military adminstration for their handling of Iraq. You gotta respect a man who bucks the republican party admist their poor judgement and hiding of secrets. And he's good-looking. Which TOTALLY qualifies him.
Best quote (and why I thought McCain would have stayed on the straight and narrow through his campaign -- since they are good friends and he seemed to agree at the time).
Hagel is quoted as saying, “The most dangerous element of our political future in this country is candidates who debase and degrade the political process by straight-out lies and misleading spots on television. It’s a cancer to our system.” Hagel told me that McCain came to his office to talk to him about the article and said, “You know, I’m really proud of you for doing that. Not many people would have done it.”
****
Nevertheless, he and McCain have remained friends, Hagel told me in a series of interviews over the past several months. “That’s the problem with Washington, quite frankly—if you disagree with somebody, you should dislike them, too,” said Hagel, who is sixty-two and has white hair, a worn, ruggedly handsome face, and a forthright manner. “It’s hard, it seems, for some people to comprehend how John and I can be on such different paths on something so important, and still fundamentally have a relationship that’s pretty deep.”
****
For Hagel, almost as disturbing as Palin’s lack of experience is her willingness—in disparaging remarks about Joe Biden’s long Senate career, for example—to belittle the notion that experience is important. “There’s no question, she knows her market,” Hagel said. “She knows her audience, and she’s going right after them. And I’ll tell you why that’s dangerous. It’s dangerous because you don’t want to define down the standards in any institution, ever, in life. You want to always strive to define standards up. If you start defining standards down—‘Well, I don’t have a big education, I don’t have experience’—yes, there’s a point to be made that not all the smartest people come out of Yale or Harvard. But to intentionally define down in some kind of wild populism, that those things don’t count in a complicated, dangerous world—that’s dangerous in itself.
“There was a political party in this country called the Know-Nothings,” he continued. “And we’re getting on the fringe of that, with these one-issue voters—pro-choice or pro-life. Important issue, I know that. But, my goodness. The world is blowing up everywhere, and I just don’t think that is a responsible way to see the world, on that one issue. And, interestingly enough, that is one issue that stopped John McCain from picking one of the people he really wanted, Joe Lieberman or Tom Ridge”—the Independent senator from Connecticut and the Republican former governor of Pennsylvania. (Both men are pro-choice.)
Friday, November 14, 2008
Ridiculous
6 Chrysler execs get 7-figure retention pay
$1.89 million
Frank Ewasyshyn, executive vice president, manufacturing
$1.8 million
Frank Klegon, executive vice president, product development
$1.66 million
Nancy Rae, executive vice president for human resources and communications
$1.65 million
Simon Boag, president, Mopar/global service and parts
$1.63 million
Steven Landry, executive vice president, North American sales
$1.53 million
Michael Manley, executive vice president, international sales, marketing and business development
$1.89 million
Frank Ewasyshyn, executive vice president, manufacturing
$1.8 million
Frank Klegon, executive vice president, product development
$1.66 million
Nancy Rae, executive vice president for human resources and communications
$1.65 million
Simon Boag, president, Mopar/global service and parts
$1.63 million
Steven Landry, executive vice president, North American sales
$1.53 million
Michael Manley, executive vice president, international sales, marketing and business development
HAHAHAHAHAHAH...you loser. if you didn't like him, why does YOUR book look JUST like his?
By: Brad O’Leary
WHO IS BARACK OBAMA?
You will be shocked to learn what lies beneath the well-polished rhetoric of this slick orator. Obama speaks vaguely about “change,” but as this book reveals, Obama’s brand of change is a hostile attack on the Judeo-Christian values and freedoms most Americans hold dear.
This isn’t “change you can believe in”—it is change designed to uproot American culture and replace it with the failed, secular, socialist policies of the past.
In "The Audacity of Deceit" you’ll learn how Obama:
Blocked emergency medical aid for babies who survived abortion.
Plans to ban the use of firearms by lawabiding citizens—even for self-defense.
Was abandoned by his bigamist father and raised in a Muslim society—and
how this influences his values.
Would raise tax rates to a Hoover-like 60 percent.
Will transform the U.S. Treasury into the United Nations’ ATM.
Wants fuel prices high and farmland taken out of production.
Will grant federal medical insurance to 12 million illegal aliens and increase
emergency room costs alone by $15.4 billion annually.
Would transfer child-rearing from parents to the federal government with his
secular “0 to 5” program.
You will also read exclusive polling results that reveal the 30 percent of Americans who pay no taxes, what they believe, and who they are planning to vote for.
His goal? Replace the Judeo-Christian values that gave birth to the “land of the free” with failed radical leftist beliefs.
This is the one book every American must read—before it’s too late!
WHO IS BARACK OBAMA?
You will be shocked to learn what lies beneath the well-polished rhetoric of this slick orator. Obama speaks vaguely about “change,” but as this book reveals, Obama’s brand of change is a hostile attack on the Judeo-Christian values and freedoms most Americans hold dear.
This isn’t “change you can believe in”—it is change designed to uproot American culture and replace it with the failed, secular, socialist policies of the past.
In "The Audacity of Deceit" you’ll learn how Obama:
Blocked emergency medical aid for babies who survived abortion.
Plans to ban the use of firearms by lawabiding citizens—even for self-defense.
Was abandoned by his bigamist father and raised in a Muslim society—and
how this influences his values.
Would raise tax rates to a Hoover-like 60 percent.
Will transform the U.S. Treasury into the United Nations’ ATM.
Wants fuel prices high and farmland taken out of production.
Will grant federal medical insurance to 12 million illegal aliens and increase
emergency room costs alone by $15.4 billion annually.
Would transfer child-rearing from parents to the federal government with his
secular “0 to 5” program.
You will also read exclusive polling results that reveal the 30 percent of Americans who pay no taxes, what they believe, and who they are planning to vote for.
His goal? Replace the Judeo-Christian values that gave birth to the “land of the free” with failed radical leftist beliefs.
This is the one book every American must read—before it’s too late!
I Still Don't Want Her Around.
Sen. Clinton eyed as secretary of state?
CHICAGO - Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is among the candidates that President-elect Barack Obama is considering for secretary of state, two Obama advisors told NBC News.
Clinton was rumored to be a contender for the job last week, but the talk died down as party activists questioned whether she was best-suited to be the top U.S. diplomat in an Obama administration. The talk resumed Thursday, a day after Obama named several former aides to President Bill Clinton to help run his transition effort.
A Democratic official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to release the information, said the two met Thursday afternoon in Obama's Chicago office.
Clinton's motorcade — she receives Secret Service protection as a former first lady — was seen leaving the office complex shortly before Obama left for the day. Clinton's office told NBC News Thursday that any decisions about the presidential transition are up to Obama and his team. Clinton spokesman Philippe Reines, on Friday, would say only "Senator Clinton had no public schedule yesterday," and referred questions to the Obama transition team, which said it had no comment.
Clinton pushed Obama hard during the campaign, and was rumored to be a possible pick for vice-president after she lost the nomination to the young Illinois senator. Obama instead chose veteran Sen. Joe Biden as his running mate, prompting speculation that that, among other reasons, he didn't want to be saddled with Clinton's restless husband, former President Bill Clinton.
Bill Clinton was cool toward Obama following the bruising nomination battle between Obama and his wife. However, any lingering animosity was put aside when both Clintons gave rousing endorsements of Obama at the Democratic National Convention in August, and later campaigned for him.
Since then, Obama has surrounded himself with several former staffers of Bill Clinton's presidency. Some of them are pushing Hillary Clinton as secretary of state. Other senators, including Democrat John Kerry of Massachusetts and Republican Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, also are thought to be under consideration.
The two Democratic officials who spoke Thursday did so on the condition of anonymity to avoid angering Obama and his staff.
In his first two weeks as president-elect, Obama has struck a bipartisan tone. He paired a Republican and a Democrat to meet with foreign leaders this weekend on his behalf in Washington, for example, and on Friday his transition office announced Obama would meet with vanquished Republican rival John McCain on Monday.
The meeting will be the first since Obama, the Democratic Illinois senator, beat McCain, an Arizona senator, by an Electoral College landslide in the Nov. 4 election.
"It's well known that they share an important belief that Americans want and deserve a more effective and efficient government, and will discuss ways to work together to make that a reality," Obama spokesman Stephanie Cutter said in announcing the meeting.
Cutter also said the two will be joined at Obama's Chicago transition office by Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, a McCain confidant, and Rep. Rahm Emanuel, the Illinois Democrat whom Obama has chosen to be his White House chief of staff.
NOOOOOOOOO. I don't like her. I do like Chuck Hagel alot though. He's kind of sexy. I know he's a republican and like 60 years old, but I'd be his blue-dressed intern anyday.
CHICAGO - Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is among the candidates that President-elect Barack Obama is considering for secretary of state, two Obama advisors told NBC News.
Clinton was rumored to be a contender for the job last week, but the talk died down as party activists questioned whether she was best-suited to be the top U.S. diplomat in an Obama administration. The talk resumed Thursday, a day after Obama named several former aides to President Bill Clinton to help run his transition effort.
A Democratic official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to release the information, said the two met Thursday afternoon in Obama's Chicago office.
Clinton's motorcade — she receives Secret Service protection as a former first lady — was seen leaving the office complex shortly before Obama left for the day. Clinton's office told NBC News Thursday that any decisions about the presidential transition are up to Obama and his team. Clinton spokesman Philippe Reines, on Friday, would say only "Senator Clinton had no public schedule yesterday," and referred questions to the Obama transition team, which said it had no comment.
Clinton pushed Obama hard during the campaign, and was rumored to be a possible pick for vice-president after she lost the nomination to the young Illinois senator. Obama instead chose veteran Sen. Joe Biden as his running mate, prompting speculation that that, among other reasons, he didn't want to be saddled with Clinton's restless husband, former President Bill Clinton.
Bill Clinton was cool toward Obama following the bruising nomination battle between Obama and his wife. However, any lingering animosity was put aside when both Clintons gave rousing endorsements of Obama at the Democratic National Convention in August, and later campaigned for him.
Since then, Obama has surrounded himself with several former staffers of Bill Clinton's presidency. Some of them are pushing Hillary Clinton as secretary of state. Other senators, including Democrat John Kerry of Massachusetts and Republican Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, also are thought to be under consideration.
The two Democratic officials who spoke Thursday did so on the condition of anonymity to avoid angering Obama and his staff.
In his first two weeks as president-elect, Obama has struck a bipartisan tone. He paired a Republican and a Democrat to meet with foreign leaders this weekend on his behalf in Washington, for example, and on Friday his transition office announced Obama would meet with vanquished Republican rival John McCain on Monday.
The meeting will be the first since Obama, the Democratic Illinois senator, beat McCain, an Arizona senator, by an Electoral College landslide in the Nov. 4 election.
"It's well known that they share an important belief that Americans want and deserve a more effective and efficient government, and will discuss ways to work together to make that a reality," Obama spokesman Stephanie Cutter said in announcing the meeting.
Cutter also said the two will be joined at Obama's Chicago transition office by Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, a McCain confidant, and Rep. Rahm Emanuel, the Illinois Democrat whom Obama has chosen to be his White House chief of staff.
NOOOOOOOOO. I don't like her. I do like Chuck Hagel alot though. He's kind of sexy. I know he's a republican and like 60 years old, but I'd be his blue-dressed intern anyday.
Guess I Ain't Working for Obama...
For a Washington Job, Be Prepared to Tell All
WASHINGTON — Want a top job in the Obama administration? Only pack rats need apply, preferably those not packing controversy.
A seven-page questionnaire being sent by the office of President-elect Barack Obama to those seeking cabinet and other high-ranking posts may be the most extensive — some say invasive — application ever.
The questionnaire includes 63 requests for personal and professional records, some covering applicants’ spouses and grown children as well, that are forcing job-seekers to rummage from basements to attics, in shoe boxes, diaries and computer archives to document both their achievements and missteps.
Only the smallest details are excluded; traffic tickets carrying fines of less than $50 need not be reported, the application says. Applicants are asked whether they or anyone in their family owns a gun. They must include any e-mail that might embarrass the president-elect, along with any blog posts and links to their Facebook pages.
The application also asks applicants to “please list all aliases or ‘handles’ you have used to communicate on the Internet.”
The vetting process for executive branch jobs has been onerous for decades, with each incoming administration erecting new barriers in an effort to avoid the mistakes of the past, or the controversies of the present. It is typically updated to reflect technological change (there was no Facebook the last time a new president came to town).
But Mr. Obama has elevated the vetting even beyond what might have been expected, especially when it comes to applicants’ family members, in a reflection of his campaign rhetoric against lobbying and the back-scratching, self-serving ways of Washington.
“President-elect Obama made a commitment to change the way Washington does business, and the vetting process exemplifies that,” said Stephanie Cutter, chief spokeswoman for the Obama transition office.
Jobs with the mortgage-finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have served as lucrative incubators for Democratic and Republican administration officials. But those affiliations have become potentially toxic since the government seized both companies after years of financial irregularities that have stoked the economic crisis.
Not surprisingly, then, Question 18 of the Obama application asks whether “you, your spouse or any member of your immediate family” have been affiliated with Fannie, Freddie, American International Group, Washington Mutual and any other institution getting a government bailout.
Under “Domestic Help,” the questionnaire asks the immigration status of applicants’ housekeepers, nannies, chauffeurs and yard-workers, and whether applicants have paid the required taxes for household employees. (Those questions reflect controversies that tripped up President Bill Clinton’s first two nominees for attorney general in 1993.)
“Every transition is cumulative,” said Michael Berman, a lawyer and lobbyist who worked in the transitions of both Mr. Clinton and President Jimmy Carter. After reviewing the Obama application, Mr. Berman added, “I am very happy I am not seeking a job in the federal government.”
A former Clinton White House official who insisted on anonymity said in an e-mail message, “I believe it is considerably more detailed than we had to fill out in ’93. Interesting that they want spouse information on everything — means lots of folks are going to have to list the very prominent — and controversial — companies that their spouses work/lobby for.”
The first question asks applicants not just for a résumé, but for every résumé and biographical statement issued by them or others for the past 10 years — a likely safeguard against résumé falsehoods, one Clinton administration veteran said.
Most information must cover at least the past decade, including the names of anyone applicants lived with; a chronological list of activities for which applicants were paid; real estate and loans over $10,000, and their terms, for applicants and spouses; net worth statements submitted for loans, and organization memberships — in particular, memberships in groups that have discriminated on the basis of race, sex, disability, ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation.
There are no time limits for some information, including liens, tax audits, lawsuits, legal charges, bankruptcies or arrests. Applicants must report all businesses with which they and their spouses have been affiliated or in which they have had a financial stake of more than 5 percent. All gifts over $50 that they and their spouses have received from anyone other than close friends or relatives must be identified.
Just in case the previous 62 questions do not ferret out any potential controversy, the 63rd is all-encompassing: “Please provide any other information, including information about other members of your family, that could suggest a conflict of interest or be a possible source of embarrassment to you, your family, or the president-elect.”
The answer could duplicate the response to Question 8: “Briefly describe the most controversial matters you have been involved with during the course of your career.”
For those who clear all the hurdles, the reward could be the job they wanted. But first there will be more forms, for security and ethics clearances from the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Office of Government Ethics.
WASHINGTON — Want a top job in the Obama administration? Only pack rats need apply, preferably those not packing controversy.
A seven-page questionnaire being sent by the office of President-elect Barack Obama to those seeking cabinet and other high-ranking posts may be the most extensive — some say invasive — application ever.
The questionnaire includes 63 requests for personal and professional records, some covering applicants’ spouses and grown children as well, that are forcing job-seekers to rummage from basements to attics, in shoe boxes, diaries and computer archives to document both their achievements and missteps.
Only the smallest details are excluded; traffic tickets carrying fines of less than $50 need not be reported, the application says. Applicants are asked whether they or anyone in their family owns a gun. They must include any e-mail that might embarrass the president-elect, along with any blog posts and links to their Facebook pages.
The application also asks applicants to “please list all aliases or ‘handles’ you have used to communicate on the Internet.”
The vetting process for executive branch jobs has been onerous for decades, with each incoming administration erecting new barriers in an effort to avoid the mistakes of the past, or the controversies of the present. It is typically updated to reflect technological change (there was no Facebook the last time a new president came to town).
But Mr. Obama has elevated the vetting even beyond what might have been expected, especially when it comes to applicants’ family members, in a reflection of his campaign rhetoric against lobbying and the back-scratching, self-serving ways of Washington.
“President-elect Obama made a commitment to change the way Washington does business, and the vetting process exemplifies that,” said Stephanie Cutter, chief spokeswoman for the Obama transition office.
Jobs with the mortgage-finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have served as lucrative incubators for Democratic and Republican administration officials. But those affiliations have become potentially toxic since the government seized both companies after years of financial irregularities that have stoked the economic crisis.
Not surprisingly, then, Question 18 of the Obama application asks whether “you, your spouse or any member of your immediate family” have been affiliated with Fannie, Freddie, American International Group, Washington Mutual and any other institution getting a government bailout.
Under “Domestic Help,” the questionnaire asks the immigration status of applicants’ housekeepers, nannies, chauffeurs and yard-workers, and whether applicants have paid the required taxes for household employees. (Those questions reflect controversies that tripped up President Bill Clinton’s first two nominees for attorney general in 1993.)
“Every transition is cumulative,” said Michael Berman, a lawyer and lobbyist who worked in the transitions of both Mr. Clinton and President Jimmy Carter. After reviewing the Obama application, Mr. Berman added, “I am very happy I am not seeking a job in the federal government.”
A former Clinton White House official who insisted on anonymity said in an e-mail message, “I believe it is considerably more detailed than we had to fill out in ’93. Interesting that they want spouse information on everything — means lots of folks are going to have to list the very prominent — and controversial — companies that their spouses work/lobby for.”
The first question asks applicants not just for a résumé, but for every résumé and biographical statement issued by them or others for the past 10 years — a likely safeguard against résumé falsehoods, one Clinton administration veteran said.
Most information must cover at least the past decade, including the names of anyone applicants lived with; a chronological list of activities for which applicants were paid; real estate and loans over $10,000, and their terms, for applicants and spouses; net worth statements submitted for loans, and organization memberships — in particular, memberships in groups that have discriminated on the basis of race, sex, disability, ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation.
There are no time limits for some information, including liens, tax audits, lawsuits, legal charges, bankruptcies or arrests. Applicants must report all businesses with which they and their spouses have been affiliated or in which they have had a financial stake of more than 5 percent. All gifts over $50 that they and their spouses have received from anyone other than close friends or relatives must be identified.
Just in case the previous 62 questions do not ferret out any potential controversy, the 63rd is all-encompassing: “Please provide any other information, including information about other members of your family, that could suggest a conflict of interest or be a possible source of embarrassment to you, your family, or the president-elect.”
The answer could duplicate the response to Question 8: “Briefly describe the most controversial matters you have been involved with during the course of your career.”
For those who clear all the hurdles, the reward could be the job they wanted. But first there will be more forms, for security and ethics clearances from the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Office of Government Ethics.
Michele and Kyle find the best stuff...
http://www.mcsweeneys.net/2008/11/6haynes.html
FIFTY YEARS OF POPULAR SONGS CONDENSED INTO SINGLE SENTENCES.
FIFTY YEARS OF POPULAR SONGS CONDENSED INTO SINGLE SENTENCES.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
From my BFF, the 8th grade science teacher
First of all, David B****n stole Brandon Gar***n's homework and put his name on it. And it was so obvious because he didn't erase it completely. When I asked him what was up, he said he hates science. Ok whatever. Sawl ya. Go to the office.
Then Brent P***e came to class with blood all over his hand and said he cut himself. It was bad...I said WHAT HAPPENED? WHO HAS A KNIFE? It was so nervousing. Then he was all, "It's fake blood."
He got it from Darren B***m. Sweet, you're both getting written up. Morons.
Then Brandon L***r (total retard) was all like,"Why would you get mad about that?" So I had to go off on his butt. Idiot.
I hate these kids today. I want to go home.
Hope you're feeling better.
I should've been a teacher...this is the most amazing day ever.
Then Brent P***e came to class with blood all over his hand and said he cut himself. It was bad...I said WHAT HAPPENED? WHO HAS A KNIFE? It was so nervousing. Then he was all, "It's fake blood."
He got it from Darren B***m. Sweet, you're both getting written up. Morons.
Then Brandon L***r (total retard) was all like,"Why would you get mad about that?" So I had to go off on his butt. Idiot.
I hate these kids today. I want to go home.
Hope you're feeling better.
I should've been a teacher...this is the most amazing day ever.
9021Suck
Yeah, I watched that shit last night. Yeah, it was AWESOME.
It was Annie's sweet 16. and for some reason, when you turn 16 in Bev Hills, you get a pink neon sign saying so above your mantel and have karaoke at your party. You also have about 100 generic looking teens milling around your party even though you just moved there from Kansas like 30 minutes ago and don't talk to anyone but the 10 primary characters on the show.
Annie, annie, annie...you poor, poor fool. I don't know WHY you agreed to keep the you and ethan thing a secret -- oh yeah, to not hurt naomi. then to not hurt your ex-bf. then they hurt you. when will brunette girls from the midwest learn that no matter WHAT, the skinny blonde with the big tits is out to get you. and that your ex boyfriend will fly into town to rekindle the flame but promptly make out with a complete stranger just because she said so.
naveed a virgin!?!?!? oh my god!??!?!? um, hey -- adrianna -- not surprising. he's a total DORK. who in god's name is going to do it with him? especially since he's never had a girlfriend and told you 2 episodes ago he's been in love with YOU since kidnergarten.
** side note. naveed's mom: the foreign exchange hottie from the movie "Summer School" with Mark Harmon. Just a bit of trivia for ya...
adrianna and silver are the same girl. or, should i say, the same skeleton with a brown-haired wig on it. i mean, let's be honest... NOTHING sets these two apart. they both can BARELY act, they both haven't eaten since turning 12 (which by the looks of their hips, was last year) and they both are trying to desperately to make 90210 their jumping point to something better.
i LOVE that brenda slept with kelly's "not boyfriend", just to mix shit up like in the good old days for us fans that watched the original. i know that any 14 year old girls who watch this (if there are any) don't care about kelly and brenda. but i feel a cat fight coming on! bring it! and while you're at it, bring back Noah and Colin too. They were hot.
Priviledged, which airs after 90210, is really the only reason i continue to watch. its amazing. please watch it. i mean, i'm sure it will be canceled after the first season since it appeals to only my demographic -- 30 somethings who pine for their teenage years in which they were thin and popular and dated hot guys from shitty TV shows. I mean, how many of us are there out there?
It was Annie's sweet 16. and for some reason, when you turn 16 in Bev Hills, you get a pink neon sign saying so above your mantel and have karaoke at your party. You also have about 100 generic looking teens milling around your party even though you just moved there from Kansas like 30 minutes ago and don't talk to anyone but the 10 primary characters on the show.
Annie, annie, annie...you poor, poor fool. I don't know WHY you agreed to keep the you and ethan thing a secret -- oh yeah, to not hurt naomi. then to not hurt your ex-bf. then they hurt you. when will brunette girls from the midwest learn that no matter WHAT, the skinny blonde with the big tits is out to get you. and that your ex boyfriend will fly into town to rekindle the flame but promptly make out with a complete stranger just because she said so.
naveed a virgin!?!?!? oh my god!??!?!? um, hey -- adrianna -- not surprising. he's a total DORK. who in god's name is going to do it with him? especially since he's never had a girlfriend and told you 2 episodes ago he's been in love with YOU since kidnergarten.
** side note. naveed's mom: the foreign exchange hottie from the movie "Summer School" with Mark Harmon. Just a bit of trivia for ya...
adrianna and silver are the same girl. or, should i say, the same skeleton with a brown-haired wig on it. i mean, let's be honest... NOTHING sets these two apart. they both can BARELY act, they both haven't eaten since turning 12 (which by the looks of their hips, was last year) and they both are trying to desperately to make 90210 their jumping point to something better.
i LOVE that brenda slept with kelly's "not boyfriend", just to mix shit up like in the good old days for us fans that watched the original. i know that any 14 year old girls who watch this (if there are any) don't care about kelly and brenda. but i feel a cat fight coming on! bring it! and while you're at it, bring back Noah and Colin too. They were hot.
Priviledged, which airs after 90210, is really the only reason i continue to watch. its amazing. please watch it. i mean, i'm sure it will be canceled after the first season since it appeals to only my demographic -- 30 somethings who pine for their teenage years in which they were thin and popular and dated hot guys from shitty TV shows. I mean, how many of us are there out there?
Macomb County Diversity!
Goodbye, Reagan Democrats
By STANLEY B. GREENBERG
I’m finished with the Reagan Democrats of Macomb County in suburban Detroit after making a career of spotlighting their middle-class anger and frustrations about race and Democratic politicians. Bill Clinton wrote in his autobiography that my “extensive research on the so-called Reagan Democrats and what it would take to bring them home” was the reason he hired me as his pollster for his presidential campaign.
For more than 20 years, the non-college-educated white voters in Macomb County have been considered a “national political barometer,” as Ronald Brownstein of National Journal described them during the Democratic convention in August. After Ronald Reagan won the county by a 2-to-1 margin in 1984, Mr. Brownstein noted, I conducted focus groups that “found that these working-class whites interpreted Democratic calls for economic fairness as code for transfer payments to African-Americans.” So what do we think when Barack Obama, an African-American Democrat, wins Macomb County by eight points?
I conducted a survey of 750 Macomb County residents who voted Tuesday, and their responses put their votes in context. Before the Democratic convention, barely 40 percent of Macomb County voters were “comfortable” with the idea of Mr. Obama as president, far below the number who were comfortable with a nameless Democrat. But on Election Day, nearly 60 percent said they were “comfortable” with Mr. Obama. About the same number said Mr. Obama “shares your values” and “has what it takes to be president.”
Given Macomb’s history, this story helps illustrate America’s evolving relationship with race. These voters, like voters elsewhere, watched Mr. Obama intently and became confident he would work for all Americans and be the steady leader the times required. But focusing on the ways that Macomb County has become normal and uninteresting misses the extraordinary changes taking place next door in Oakland County — a place that played a bigger role in Mr. Obama’s success and perhaps in an emerging national Democratic ascendancy.
While Macomb County is home to the white middle class that America’s auto industry made possible, Oakland County is home to the affluent, business-oriented suburbanites of Birmingham and Bloomfield Hills, some of the richest townships in America. Just a quarter of Macomb County residents have college degrees, but more than 40 percent do in Oakland.
Oakland County has formed part of the Republican heartland in Michigan and the country. From 1972 to 1988, Democratic presidential candidates in their best years lost the county by 20 points. From Bill Clinton to John Kerry, however, Democrats began to settle for a draw. Over the past two decades, Oakland County began to change, as an influx of teachers, lawyers and high-tech professionals began to outnumber the county’s business owners and managers. Macomb has been slow to welcome racial diversity, but almost a quarter of Oakland’s residents are members of various racial minorities.
These changes have produced a more tolerant and culturally liberal population, uncomfortable with today’s Republican Party. When we conducted our poll of 600 voters in Oakland County on election night, they were a lot more open than voters in Macomb to gay marriage and affirmative action. We asked those who voted for Mr. Obama why they made that choice. At the top of the list was his promise to withdraw troops from Iraq, followed by his support for tax cuts for the middle class and affordable health care for all, and the idea that he will bring people together, end the old politics and get things done.
On Tuesday, Oakland County voters gave Mr. Obama a 57 percent to 42 percent victory over John McCain — those 15 points translated into an astonishing 96,000-vote margin. That helped form one of the most important new national changes in the electorate: Mr. Obama built up striking dominance in the country’s growing, more diverse and well-educated suburbs.
So, good riddance, my Macomb barometer. Four years from now, I trust we will see the candidates rush from their conventions to Oakland County, to see the new America.
Stanley B. Greenberg, a Democratic pollster, is the author of the forthcoming “Dispatches From the War Room: In the Trenches With Five Extraordinary Leaders.”
By STANLEY B. GREENBERG
I’m finished with the Reagan Democrats of Macomb County in suburban Detroit after making a career of spotlighting their middle-class anger and frustrations about race and Democratic politicians. Bill Clinton wrote in his autobiography that my “extensive research on the so-called Reagan Democrats and what it would take to bring them home” was the reason he hired me as his pollster for his presidential campaign.
For more than 20 years, the non-college-educated white voters in Macomb County have been considered a “national political barometer,” as Ronald Brownstein of National Journal described them during the Democratic convention in August. After Ronald Reagan won the county by a 2-to-1 margin in 1984, Mr. Brownstein noted, I conducted focus groups that “found that these working-class whites interpreted Democratic calls for economic fairness as code for transfer payments to African-Americans.” So what do we think when Barack Obama, an African-American Democrat, wins Macomb County by eight points?
I conducted a survey of 750 Macomb County residents who voted Tuesday, and their responses put their votes in context. Before the Democratic convention, barely 40 percent of Macomb County voters were “comfortable” with the idea of Mr. Obama as president, far below the number who were comfortable with a nameless Democrat. But on Election Day, nearly 60 percent said they were “comfortable” with Mr. Obama. About the same number said Mr. Obama “shares your values” and “has what it takes to be president.”
Given Macomb’s history, this story helps illustrate America’s evolving relationship with race. These voters, like voters elsewhere, watched Mr. Obama intently and became confident he would work for all Americans and be the steady leader the times required. But focusing on the ways that Macomb County has become normal and uninteresting misses the extraordinary changes taking place next door in Oakland County — a place that played a bigger role in Mr. Obama’s success and perhaps in an emerging national Democratic ascendancy.
While Macomb County is home to the white middle class that America’s auto industry made possible, Oakland County is home to the affluent, business-oriented suburbanites of Birmingham and Bloomfield Hills, some of the richest townships in America. Just a quarter of Macomb County residents have college degrees, but more than 40 percent do in Oakland.
Oakland County has formed part of the Republican heartland in Michigan and the country. From 1972 to 1988, Democratic presidential candidates in their best years lost the county by 20 points. From Bill Clinton to John Kerry, however, Democrats began to settle for a draw. Over the past two decades, Oakland County began to change, as an influx of teachers, lawyers and high-tech professionals began to outnumber the county’s business owners and managers. Macomb has been slow to welcome racial diversity, but almost a quarter of Oakland’s residents are members of various racial minorities.
These changes have produced a more tolerant and culturally liberal population, uncomfortable with today’s Republican Party. When we conducted our poll of 600 voters in Oakland County on election night, they were a lot more open than voters in Macomb to gay marriage and affirmative action. We asked those who voted for Mr. Obama why they made that choice. At the top of the list was his promise to withdraw troops from Iraq, followed by his support for tax cuts for the middle class and affordable health care for all, and the idea that he will bring people together, end the old politics and get things done.
On Tuesday, Oakland County voters gave Mr. Obama a 57 percent to 42 percent victory over John McCain — those 15 points translated into an astonishing 96,000-vote margin. That helped form one of the most important new national changes in the electorate: Mr. Obama built up striking dominance in the country’s growing, more diverse and well-educated suburbs.
So, good riddance, my Macomb barometer. Four years from now, I trust we will see the candidates rush from their conventions to Oakland County, to see the new America.
Stanley B. Greenberg, a Democratic pollster, is the author of the forthcoming “Dispatches From the War Room: In the Trenches With Five Extraordinary Leaders.”
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
I Am Proud
To those -- to those who would tear the world down: We will defeat you. To those who seek peace and security: We support you. And to all those who have wondered if America's beacon still burns as bright: Tonight we proved once more that the true strength of our nation comes not from the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals: democracy, liberty, opportunity and unyielding hope. That's the true genius of America: that America can change. Our union can be perfected. What we've already achieved gives us hope for what we can and must achieve tomorrow.
Monday, November 3, 2008
I told you the show sucks!
'Heroes' loses two of its own heroes
A major development to report from the set of NBC's Heroes: EW.com has learned that co-executive producers Jeph Loeb (left) and Jesse Alexander, two of the show's most instrumental writer/producers, are leaving the three-year-old series. Their departure comes at a watershed moment for Heroes, which has taken a serious hit in the ratings amid complaints by critics and fans alike that the show has lost its zeitgeist-tapping appeal. The drama is averaging 9 million-plus viewers this season, down from last year's 11.6 million average.
Loeb and Alexander are celebrities in their own right among the fanboys. Loeb is an author of many comic books, including Batman, The Hulk, and Superman For All Seasons, which inspired the creation of Smallville. Loeb joined the then-WB drama in its second season. Alexander was previously a co-exeutive producer on Lost and Alias. It's unclear whether Heroes creator/executive producer Tim Kring will replace the two writer/producers.
A major development to report from the set of NBC's Heroes: EW.com has learned that co-executive producers Jeph Loeb (left) and Jesse Alexander, two of the show's most instrumental writer/producers, are leaving the three-year-old series. Their departure comes at a watershed moment for Heroes, which has taken a serious hit in the ratings amid complaints by critics and fans alike that the show has lost its zeitgeist-tapping appeal. The drama is averaging 9 million-plus viewers this season, down from last year's 11.6 million average.
Loeb and Alexander are celebrities in their own right among the fanboys. Loeb is an author of many comic books, including Batman, The Hulk, and Superman For All Seasons, which inspired the creation of Smallville. Loeb joined the then-WB drama in its second season. Alexander was previously a co-exeutive producer on Lost and Alias. It's unclear whether Heroes creator/executive producer Tim Kring will replace the two writer/producers.
PSoftheD
(CNN) — Joe Biden held a campaign rally in Lee's summit Missouri earlier Monday, the first of the Democratic VP candidate's last four rallies.
Introducing Biden, Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill took a shot at Republican VP candidate Sarah Palin.
"Barack Obama chose the very best person in the country that could be president of the United States. And well, let's just say John McCain didn't," she said.
Biden also has stops in Ohio and Pennsylvania Monday.
Introducing Biden, Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill took a shot at Republican VP candidate Sarah Palin.
"Barack Obama chose the very best person in the country that could be president of the United States. And well, let's just say John McCain didn't," she said.
Biden also has stops in Ohio and Pennsylvania Monday.
How to Avoid Your Civic Duty...
Stevens juror: I lied about dad, went to horse race
WASHINGTON (AP) -- A juror who vanished during Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens' corruption trial told the judge Monday she lied about her father dying and flew to California for a horse race.
Marian Hinnant was identified as juror No. 4 during the trial.
She disappeared while the jury was trying to decide whether Stevens was guilty on seven felony counts.
U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan delayed deliberations because Hinnant told officials her father had died and she had to fly to California. Sullivan replaced her a few days later when she wouldn't return telephone calls.
The jury convicted Stevens.
Hinnant admitted Monday that her father hadn't died and she was at the Breeders' Cup in Arcadia, California.
She started a long rambling story about horse breeding, the Breeders' Cup, drugs, President Ford's son Steven and her condo in Florida being bugged.
Sullivan interrupted her and said it was obvious that she would not have been able to continue deliberating.
He excused her from his court.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- A juror who vanished during Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens' corruption trial told the judge Monday she lied about her father dying and flew to California for a horse race.
Marian Hinnant was identified as juror No. 4 during the trial.
She disappeared while the jury was trying to decide whether Stevens was guilty on seven felony counts.
U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan delayed deliberations because Hinnant told officials her father had died and she had to fly to California. Sullivan replaced her a few days later when she wouldn't return telephone calls.
The jury convicted Stevens.
Hinnant admitted Monday that her father hadn't died and she was at the Breeders' Cup in Arcadia, California.
She started a long rambling story about horse breeding, the Breeders' Cup, drugs, President Ford's son Steven and her condo in Florida being bugged.
Sullivan interrupted her and said it was obvious that she would not have been able to continue deliberating.
He excused her from his court.
Like concrete shoes.
Palin costing McCain, poll suggests
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A new national poll suggests Sarah Palin may be hurting Republican presidential nominee John McCain more than she's helping him.
A CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Sunday indicates McCain's running mate is growing less popular among voters and may be costing him a few crucial percentage points in the race for the White House.
Fifty-seven percent of likely voters questioned in the poll said Palin does not have the personal qualities a president should have. That's up 8 points since September.
Fifty-three percent say she does not agree with them on important issues. That's also higher than September.
"Just after the GOP convention in early September, 53 percent said they would vote for Palin over Joe Biden if there were a separate vote for vice president. Now, Biden would beat Palin by 12 points if the running mates were chosen in a separate vote," said CNN Polling Director Keating Holland.
And what if voters were allowed to vote for president separately?
"It would be a 4-point edge for Barack Obama, 52 percent to 48 percent. Since the McCain-Palin ticket is currently getting 46 percent in a match-up against the Obama-Biden ticket, it looks like Palin's presence on the GOP ballot is taking 2 percentage points away from McCain. In a close race, that might represent the margin of victory," Holland said.
The unfavorable numbers for Palin, Alaska's governor, also have been growing. They are 8 points higher in the current poll than in early October, and they're twice as high as they were when McCain announced his running mate in late August.
"John McCain has also been suspect with conservatives, the base of the Republican Party, and they were never enthusiastic about his candidacy. Palin was a unusual pick. She was well known with conservative insiders but unknown outside. When she was named, there was a rush of enthusiasm among conservatives and everyone was impressed by McCain's unusual and unexpected choice," said Bill Schneider, CNN's senior political analyst .
"The more many Americans have found out about Palin, the less they like her."
Meanwhile, the poll also suggests Americans may not be as concerned as McCain about one-party rule if Obama is elected president.
One of McCain's closing arguments has been that the Democrats are poised to increase their majorities in Congress, and that Obama -- the Democratic presidential nominee -- is "working out the details" with Democratic leaders to raise taxes, increase spending and "concede defeat in Iraq."
But in the poll, 50 percent of likely voters said if Obama wins the White House, Congress should be controlled by Democrats, with 48 percent saying it should be controlled by Republicans.
Fifty-nine percent said if McCain wins the presidential election, Congress should be controlled by Democrats, with 39 percent saying Republicans should control it.
Democrats currently have a 235 to 199 majority in the House of Representatives and a 51 to 49 majority in the Senate -- the chamber's two independent senators are allied with the Democrats.
One of Obama's closing points is that McCain would carry out George Bush's policies if elected, saying the Arizona senator has "ridden shotgun" with the president on economic policy.
The poll suggests that 53 percent think McCain would mostly carry out Bush's policies, with 45 percent saying he would not.
Only 28 percent approve of the way Bush is handling his job as president.
Likely voters questioned in the poll were also asked whether Obama will win the election. Watch more on the final days of campaigning »
"Nine in 10 think it's likely; nearly half say it is very likely. Only 1 in 10 say it is very likely that McCain will win, while half say a McCain victory is unlikely," Holland said.
How will Obama supporters react if he does not win on Tuesday? According to the poll, one in five will be angry; one in four will be upset but not angry. Most Obama supporters, however, say they will be disappointed but not angry or upset if McCain wins.
The poll also suggests the Democrats are much more excited about this election than Republicans. Forty-five percent of Democrats questioned said they are extremely enthusiastic about voting this year, compared to 28 percent of Republicans.
"The economy remains the No. 1 issue to most voters. But although 8 in 10 say that economic conditions are poor now, 62 percent say that the economy will be in good shape a year from now," Holland said. "The economy, which is already a strong issue, jumped even further in importance after the financial crisis hit in September.
"And since the public tends to blame the Republicans more than the Democrats for that crisis, that event provided a boost not just to Barack Obama but to Democratic candidates across the country. Democratic congressional candidates have a 9-point lead in the 'generic ballot' question."
The generic ballot asks voters their preference for U.S. House without naming the candidates running in each district.
The CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll was conducted Thursday through Saturday, with 1,017 adult Americans, including 950 registered voters and 716 likely voters, questioned by telephone. The survey's sampling error ranges from plus or minus 3 percentage points to plus or minus 4.5 percentage points, depending on the question.
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A new national poll suggests Sarah Palin may be hurting Republican presidential nominee John McCain more than she's helping him.
A CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Sunday indicates McCain's running mate is growing less popular among voters and may be costing him a few crucial percentage points in the race for the White House.
Fifty-seven percent of likely voters questioned in the poll said Palin does not have the personal qualities a president should have. That's up 8 points since September.
Fifty-three percent say she does not agree with them on important issues. That's also higher than September.
"Just after the GOP convention in early September, 53 percent said they would vote for Palin over Joe Biden if there were a separate vote for vice president. Now, Biden would beat Palin by 12 points if the running mates were chosen in a separate vote," said CNN Polling Director Keating Holland.
And what if voters were allowed to vote for president separately?
"It would be a 4-point edge for Barack Obama, 52 percent to 48 percent. Since the McCain-Palin ticket is currently getting 46 percent in a match-up against the Obama-Biden ticket, it looks like Palin's presence on the GOP ballot is taking 2 percentage points away from McCain. In a close race, that might represent the margin of victory," Holland said.
The unfavorable numbers for Palin, Alaska's governor, also have been growing. They are 8 points higher in the current poll than in early October, and they're twice as high as they were when McCain announced his running mate in late August.
"John McCain has also been suspect with conservatives, the base of the Republican Party, and they were never enthusiastic about his candidacy. Palin was a unusual pick. She was well known with conservative insiders but unknown outside. When she was named, there was a rush of enthusiasm among conservatives and everyone was impressed by McCain's unusual and unexpected choice," said Bill Schneider, CNN's senior political analyst .
"The more many Americans have found out about Palin, the less they like her."
Meanwhile, the poll also suggests Americans may not be as concerned as McCain about one-party rule if Obama is elected president.
One of McCain's closing arguments has been that the Democrats are poised to increase their majorities in Congress, and that Obama -- the Democratic presidential nominee -- is "working out the details" with Democratic leaders to raise taxes, increase spending and "concede defeat in Iraq."
But in the poll, 50 percent of likely voters said if Obama wins the White House, Congress should be controlled by Democrats, with 48 percent saying it should be controlled by Republicans.
Fifty-nine percent said if McCain wins the presidential election, Congress should be controlled by Democrats, with 39 percent saying Republicans should control it.
Democrats currently have a 235 to 199 majority in the House of Representatives and a 51 to 49 majority in the Senate -- the chamber's two independent senators are allied with the Democrats.
One of Obama's closing points is that McCain would carry out George Bush's policies if elected, saying the Arizona senator has "ridden shotgun" with the president on economic policy.
The poll suggests that 53 percent think McCain would mostly carry out Bush's policies, with 45 percent saying he would not.
Only 28 percent approve of the way Bush is handling his job as president.
Likely voters questioned in the poll were also asked whether Obama will win the election. Watch more on the final days of campaigning »
"Nine in 10 think it's likely; nearly half say it is very likely. Only 1 in 10 say it is very likely that McCain will win, while half say a McCain victory is unlikely," Holland said.
How will Obama supporters react if he does not win on Tuesday? According to the poll, one in five will be angry; one in four will be upset but not angry. Most Obama supporters, however, say they will be disappointed but not angry or upset if McCain wins.
The poll also suggests the Democrats are much more excited about this election than Republicans. Forty-five percent of Democrats questioned said they are extremely enthusiastic about voting this year, compared to 28 percent of Republicans.
"The economy remains the No. 1 issue to most voters. But although 8 in 10 say that economic conditions are poor now, 62 percent say that the economy will be in good shape a year from now," Holland said. "The economy, which is already a strong issue, jumped even further in importance after the financial crisis hit in September.
"And since the public tends to blame the Republicans more than the Democrats for that crisis, that event provided a boost not just to Barack Obama but to Democratic candidates across the country. Democratic congressional candidates have a 9-point lead in the 'generic ballot' question."
The generic ballot asks voters their preference for U.S. House without naming the candidates running in each district.
The CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll was conducted Thursday through Saturday, with 1,017 adult Americans, including 950 registered voters and 716 likely voters, questioned by telephone. The survey's sampling error ranges from plus or minus 3 percentage points to plus or minus 4.5 percentage points, depending on the question.
Friday, October 31, 2008
PSoftheD
Former Reagan chief of staff Ken Duberstein told CNN's Fareed Zakaria Friday he intends to vote for Democrat Barack Obama this Tuesday.
Duberstein said he was influenced by another prominent Reagan official - Colin Powell - in his decision.
"Well let's put it this way - I think Colin Powell's decision is in fact the good housekeeping seal of approval on Barack Obama."
Powell served as national security advisor to Reagan during Duberstein's tenure as chief of staff.
Duberstein said he was influenced by another prominent Reagan official - Colin Powell - in his decision.
"Well let's put it this way - I think Colin Powell's decision is in fact the good housekeeping seal of approval on Barack Obama."
Powell served as national security advisor to Reagan during Duberstein's tenure as chief of staff.
Top 10 Scary Movies
This is my list. CNN's: http://www.cnn.com/2008/SHOWBIZ/Movies/10/30/creature.features/index.html, was lame.
10. The Strangers -- I just watched this. Its pretty good. If you haven't seen it, watch it in the dark after a cup of coffee -- there's lots of down time.
9. Pan's Labrynth -- I think the creepy characters are what make this one a winner. I mean, sure the storyline is dark and disturbing, but that weird half horse thing gives me goosebumps.
8. Rosemary's Baby -- My mom first saw this when she was pregnant with my sister. She almost didn't have any more kids.
7. The Thing -- This is one of those movies I can watch over and over again...and still get freaked out everytime that guy is half-alien and half-man and gets blasted by Kurt Russel. Ick.
6. Texas Chainsaw Massacre (Original) -- I'm putting this on the list not because its ultra weird, not because its scary. I mean, the whole thing gives me the willies, so I guess mission accomplished.
5. The Shining -- I saw this the first time with my cousin and we were entrenched throughout. Then, at the end, with Jack frozen in the snow I said to her: Wow. That image will stick with me the rest of my life. She looked at me and said: Great. Me too NOW.
4. The Blair Witch Project -- I don't care what anyone says, if you bought into the hype of this movie (like I did), it would FREAK you out. Especially if you got home from the movies late at night and you live near huge, dark trees and no one's home. I'm just saying...
3. Night of the Living Dead -- I know it seems a bit campy now, because of all the ripping off on other movies that's gone on, but honestly...its still fucking scary. I mean, what the hell would you do if zombies were real? Or are they...???
2. The Orphanage -- If you haven't seen this (subtitled, but you barely notice), SEE IT. Not only is it eerie, its downright depressing. All the while keeping you hooked.
1. The Exorcist -- This one is still scary, I don't care who you are. The music, the plot, the imagination...you'll pee your pants. And if you don't, you're doing it wrong.
10. The Strangers -- I just watched this. Its pretty good. If you haven't seen it, watch it in the dark after a cup of coffee -- there's lots of down time.
9. Pan's Labrynth -- I think the creepy characters are what make this one a winner. I mean, sure the storyline is dark and disturbing, but that weird half horse thing gives me goosebumps.
8. Rosemary's Baby -- My mom first saw this when she was pregnant with my sister. She almost didn't have any more kids.
7. The Thing -- This is one of those movies I can watch over and over again...and still get freaked out everytime that guy is half-alien and half-man and gets blasted by Kurt Russel. Ick.
6. Texas Chainsaw Massacre (Original) -- I'm putting this on the list not because its ultra weird, not because its scary. I mean, the whole thing gives me the willies, so I guess mission accomplished.
5. The Shining -- I saw this the first time with my cousin and we were entrenched throughout. Then, at the end, with Jack frozen in the snow I said to her: Wow. That image will stick with me the rest of my life. She looked at me and said: Great. Me too NOW.
4. The Blair Witch Project -- I don't care what anyone says, if you bought into the hype of this movie (like I did), it would FREAK you out. Especially if you got home from the movies late at night and you live near huge, dark trees and no one's home. I'm just saying...
3. Night of the Living Dead -- I know it seems a bit campy now, because of all the ripping off on other movies that's gone on, but honestly...its still fucking scary. I mean, what the hell would you do if zombies were real? Or are they...???
2. The Orphanage -- If you haven't seen this (subtitled, but you barely notice), SEE IT. Not only is it eerie, its downright depressing. All the while keeping you hooked.
1. The Exorcist -- This one is still scary, I don't care who you are. The music, the plot, the imagination...you'll pee your pants. And if you don't, you're doing it wrong.
I think the negative attacks are working...
I really do. I think, as a country, we are still so divided and so angry that when someone like McCain tries to tap into our frustration, he has little trouble doing it.
We're also very skeptical, with good reason. Mark Foley, Coingate, Ted Stevens, Tom Delay, Nixon...the list is endless. At every turn, we expect our politicans and leaders to disappoint us and when they do, we throw up our hands and say: forget it! it doesn't matter anyway!
I think it does matter. I watched the 2004 Keynote Address Obama made with my mom. We sat in her kitchen, watching on the small 13 inch screen TV and we both cried. We were so overcome with emotion, thinking: wow. THIS is possible.
We both were convinced by Obama that it doesn't have to be about egos and favors, that politics can be about doing things that are fair and just. We don't have to accept the status quo and say: well, they have more money. they have more power. they will win anyway.
Instead, we can make a REAL decision this year with our heads and our hearts.
I heard someone on Fox News say that Obama supporters are like cultists -- that they just believe whatever he tells us.
Guess what? McCain supporters do the same thing. You believe what he says about his committment to keep us safe, to not give up in Iraq, that Obama will restribute the wealth.
Here's the thing...I WANT to believe more what Obama says. Its not that I think either one is telling more or less truths than the other. Its that what Obama says is what I want. Elections shouldn't be about what people have done or what they will do -- but what they make YOU do.
I'm not naive. I don't think that politicans can do everything and to claim that they can is setting yourself up for failure.
But what I do think they can do is make me believe in something greater than myself. To help me to understand why the world is the way it is. And to inspire me to want a better life for myself and my family.
That's what Obama does. McCain doesn't tap into that fundamental urge I have to get my life on track and put some good out into the world.
McCain doesn't speak to the desire in me to see others around me succeed while I succeed. He doesn't convince me that he will work hard for my rights...because he already has his.
My life isn't awful. Neither is anyone else's who gets to live in the country with the most freedom and prosperity of any other on the planet.
But I think that now is the time to believe that everyone deserves more.
For the child who has HIV -- that they can get their medications and treatment and live a long and healthy life.
For the senior citizen who is living on a fixed income -- that they will see their social security payments increase with inflation and know that they can get their medications without breaking the bank.
For the young person of color who struggles to overcome the shadows of the past -- that they will go to college and get a job and not be thought of as "affirmative action", but as just one of the team.
For the young woman who knows she cannot bring a baby into this world and protect it, feed it, nuture it and give it a good life -- that she has the choice to do what she believes is best and that we put the faith in her to do that.
For the young immigrant who comes here with hope -- that he can keep his culture and learn American culture without the oppression and hate that exists in other places in the world.
I believe that Barack Obama wants this too. And maybe I'm wrong. Maybe all these months have gone by and I wasn't paying close enough attention or I just blindly believed what I wanted to because Obama is so well spoken and tugs at my heart strings.
But if he spends the next four years tugging at those heart strings, and inspring me to be better, to want more and do everything I can for my fellow man, then he really is the "Commander in Chief" we need.
Mandy for Obama
We're also very skeptical, with good reason. Mark Foley, Coingate, Ted Stevens, Tom Delay, Nixon...the list is endless. At every turn, we expect our politicans and leaders to disappoint us and when they do, we throw up our hands and say: forget it! it doesn't matter anyway!
I think it does matter. I watched the 2004 Keynote Address Obama made with my mom. We sat in her kitchen, watching on the small 13 inch screen TV and we both cried. We were so overcome with emotion, thinking: wow. THIS is possible.
We both were convinced by Obama that it doesn't have to be about egos and favors, that politics can be about doing things that are fair and just. We don't have to accept the status quo and say: well, they have more money. they have more power. they will win anyway.
Instead, we can make a REAL decision this year with our heads and our hearts.
I heard someone on Fox News say that Obama supporters are like cultists -- that they just believe whatever he tells us.
Guess what? McCain supporters do the same thing. You believe what he says about his committment to keep us safe, to not give up in Iraq, that Obama will restribute the wealth.
Here's the thing...I WANT to believe more what Obama says. Its not that I think either one is telling more or less truths than the other. Its that what Obama says is what I want. Elections shouldn't be about what people have done or what they will do -- but what they make YOU do.
I'm not naive. I don't think that politicans can do everything and to claim that they can is setting yourself up for failure.
But what I do think they can do is make me believe in something greater than myself. To help me to understand why the world is the way it is. And to inspire me to want a better life for myself and my family.
That's what Obama does. McCain doesn't tap into that fundamental urge I have to get my life on track and put some good out into the world.
McCain doesn't speak to the desire in me to see others around me succeed while I succeed. He doesn't convince me that he will work hard for my rights...because he already has his.
My life isn't awful. Neither is anyone else's who gets to live in the country with the most freedom and prosperity of any other on the planet.
But I think that now is the time to believe that everyone deserves more.
For the child who has HIV -- that they can get their medications and treatment and live a long and healthy life.
For the senior citizen who is living on a fixed income -- that they will see their social security payments increase with inflation and know that they can get their medications without breaking the bank.
For the young person of color who struggles to overcome the shadows of the past -- that they will go to college and get a job and not be thought of as "affirmative action", but as just one of the team.
For the young woman who knows she cannot bring a baby into this world and protect it, feed it, nuture it and give it a good life -- that she has the choice to do what she believes is best and that we put the faith in her to do that.
For the young immigrant who comes here with hope -- that he can keep his culture and learn American culture without the oppression and hate that exists in other places in the world.
I believe that Barack Obama wants this too. And maybe I'm wrong. Maybe all these months have gone by and I wasn't paying close enough attention or I just blindly believed what I wanted to because Obama is so well spoken and tugs at my heart strings.
But if he spends the next four years tugging at those heart strings, and inspring me to be better, to want more and do everything I can for my fellow man, then he really is the "Commander in Chief" we need.
Mandy for Obama
I thought this was good...
Georgia State junior Justin Godbey said he considers Obama and McCain as "exactly the same." He created both backgrounds with the words, "Their system doesn't work for you."
NOOOOOOOOO...
McCain to appear on SNL this weekend
YOUNGSTOWN, Ohio (CNN) — Mandatory stops on the GOP campaign trail this year: Pennsylvania. Florida. Saturday Night Live.
Two weeks after running mate Sarah Palin made an appearance on the late-night comedy show, a McCain campaign aide tells CNN that the Republican presidential nominee will appear on the NBC program tomorrow night.
The Arizona senator has appeared on the show several times over the years.
McCain's most memorable appearance on the long running show was in October 2002, when he hosted the program for a night: In a spoof commercial hawking an album called "McCain Sings Streisand," sang several of the Democratic loyalist's songs.
YOUNGSTOWN, Ohio (CNN) — Mandatory stops on the GOP campaign trail this year: Pennsylvania. Florida. Saturday Night Live.
Two weeks after running mate Sarah Palin made an appearance on the late-night comedy show, a McCain campaign aide tells CNN that the Republican presidential nominee will appear on the NBC program tomorrow night.
The Arizona senator has appeared on the show several times over the years.
McCain's most memorable appearance on the long running show was in October 2002, when he hosted the program for a night: In a spoof commercial hawking an album called "McCain Sings Streisand," sang several of the Democratic loyalist's songs.
No Wonder They Still <3 GWB
A new poll finds that 23 percent of registered voters in Texas believe that Barack Obama is a Muslim, even though the Democratic candidate has repeatedly explained that he is a church-going Christian.
The poll, conducted by the Texas Politics Project and Department of Government at The University of Texas in Austin, showed Obama trailing John McCain by 11 points in the Lone Star State.
Forty-five percent of those polled accurately described Obama as a Protestant. But the 23 percent who identified his religion as Islam is about twice as high as in typical national polls.
Throughout his presidential campaign, Obama has been fighting false rumors, largely hatched on the Internet, that he is secretly a Muslim.
On Obama's Fight the Smears Web site, which his campaign set up to battle harmful claims, it says that Obama is a "committed Christian" who regularly attends church with his family.
The Texas poll interviewed 550 registered voters in Texas from Oct. 15-22, and had a margin of error of 4.2 percent.
The poll, conducted by the Texas Politics Project and Department of Government at The University of Texas in Austin, showed Obama trailing John McCain by 11 points in the Lone Star State.
Forty-five percent of those polled accurately described Obama as a Protestant. But the 23 percent who identified his religion as Islam is about twice as high as in typical national polls.
Throughout his presidential campaign, Obama has been fighting false rumors, largely hatched on the Internet, that he is secretly a Muslim.
On Obama's Fight the Smears Web site, which his campaign set up to battle harmful claims, it says that Obama is a "committed Christian" who regularly attends church with his family.
The Texas poll interviewed 550 registered voters in Texas from Oct. 15-22, and had a margin of error of 4.2 percent.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Say its so, Joe.
Joe the no show
(CNN) — Joe Wurzelbacher, aka Joe the Plumber, has become an integral part of John McCain's presidential bid, but it appears the Arizona senator's campaign and the now-famous Toledo plumber need to work on their communication skills.
McCain aides told CNN's Dana Bash Wurzelbacher would appear with the Republican presidential candidate at his first campaign event in Defiance, Ohio. But in what was a slightly awkward moment for McCain, Wurzelbacher was nowhere to be seen when the Arizona senator called out for him.
A campaign aide later said Wurzelbacher had "decided not to come" and may join McCain later in the day.
But reached at his home by CNN's Mary Snow, Wurzelbacher said it was "news to him" that he was supposed to be at the McCain rally. Wurzelbacher said nobody from the McCain campaign confirmed he was attending the event and called the incident a "miscommunication."
Wurzelbacher also said he is headed to Philadelphia for a charity event unrelated to the campaign and has no plans to meet up with McCain today.
UPDATE: Contacted by CNN a second time, Wurzelbacher said the campaign only called him to confirm after the event in question already took place. He will now try to meet up with McCain later in the day.
Wurzelbacher also said he had gotten an initial call about coming to the morning rally, "but no one called back to confirm," and was "not happy" that McCain had called out his name and he wasn't there.
(CNN) — Joe Wurzelbacher, aka Joe the Plumber, has become an integral part of John McCain's presidential bid, but it appears the Arizona senator's campaign and the now-famous Toledo plumber need to work on their communication skills.
McCain aides told CNN's Dana Bash Wurzelbacher would appear with the Republican presidential candidate at his first campaign event in Defiance, Ohio. But in what was a slightly awkward moment for McCain, Wurzelbacher was nowhere to be seen when the Arizona senator called out for him.
A campaign aide later said Wurzelbacher had "decided not to come" and may join McCain later in the day.
But reached at his home by CNN's Mary Snow, Wurzelbacher said it was "news to him" that he was supposed to be at the McCain rally. Wurzelbacher said nobody from the McCain campaign confirmed he was attending the event and called the incident a "miscommunication."
Wurzelbacher also said he is headed to Philadelphia for a charity event unrelated to the campaign and has no plans to meet up with McCain today.
UPDATE: Contacted by CNN a second time, Wurzelbacher said the campaign only called him to confirm after the event in question already took place. He will now try to meet up with McCain later in the day.
Wurzelbacher also said he had gotten an initial call about coming to the morning rally, "but no one called back to confirm," and was "not happy" that McCain had called out his name and he wasn't there.
I'm not doing my blog for naught either, Sarah.
(From Guardian UK) Sarah Palin yesterday increased speculation over her intentions to remain in the presidential hunt for 2012, remarking pointedly that "I'm not doing this for naught," when asked about her political future.
Palin's prospects as a presidential nominee in four years' time have sparked heated debate inside the Republican party, while angering some in the McCain camp who privately fret that their number two is "going rogue".
Her remarks to ABC news are unlikely to quiet that internal tension. When asked about mounting a campaign in 2012, if McCain loses on Tuesday, Palin said she is "thinking that it's going to go our way" but declared she would not return to Alaska if she failed.
"Absolutely not," Palin told ABC. "I think that if I were to give up and wave a white flag of surrender against some of the political shots that we've taken ... I'm not doing this for naught."
ABC news issued an initial press release interpreting the phrase as a promise to be a "player in 2012".
That drew fire from Republicans last night. Palin adviser Tucker Eskew told reporters travelling with the candidate that ABC had apologised for "a terrifically misleading headline" on the interview, according to the New York Times.
Eskew said: "I think it's a time for us, as this campaign builds an occasionally acknowledged but real momentum towards a very fast-approaching Election Day, that this record get corrected … [Palin] felt there was an error."
ABC later sent out a second transcript of the Palin interview without a 2012-related headline, but the early coverage ensured questions over the Alaska governor's political ambitions would continue for another day.
Palin was asked during the ABC interview about her suggestions during campaign rallies that Barack Obama is less American than McCain, particularly her quip that the Democrat was "palling around with terrorists" – a reference to Obama's past link to 1960s radical Bill Ayers. Challenged on that issue, the vice-presidential nominee notably softened her rhetoric.
"I am sure that Senator Obama cares as much for this country as McCain does," Palin said.
Meanwhile, McCain defended his running mate during a separate interview last night with CNN, telling chat-show host Larry King that he has "total" confidence in Palin's ability to assume the presidency, should circumstances necessitate it.
"She not only would take over, she would inspire Americans," McCain said, calling Palin the "most popular governor in America".
Although Palin's popularity rating in Alaska had neared 90% before she joined the Republican ticket, her current 63% approval means that she no longer holds the title of the most popular US governor.
Palin's prospects as a presidential nominee in four years' time have sparked heated debate inside the Republican party, while angering some in the McCain camp who privately fret that their number two is "going rogue".
Her remarks to ABC news are unlikely to quiet that internal tension. When asked about mounting a campaign in 2012, if McCain loses on Tuesday, Palin said she is "thinking that it's going to go our way" but declared she would not return to Alaska if she failed.
"Absolutely not," Palin told ABC. "I think that if I were to give up and wave a white flag of surrender against some of the political shots that we've taken ... I'm not doing this for naught."
ABC news issued an initial press release interpreting the phrase as a promise to be a "player in 2012".
That drew fire from Republicans last night. Palin adviser Tucker Eskew told reporters travelling with the candidate that ABC had apologised for "a terrifically misleading headline" on the interview, according to the New York Times.
Eskew said: "I think it's a time for us, as this campaign builds an occasionally acknowledged but real momentum towards a very fast-approaching Election Day, that this record get corrected … [Palin] felt there was an error."
ABC later sent out a second transcript of the Palin interview without a 2012-related headline, but the early coverage ensured questions over the Alaska governor's political ambitions would continue for another day.
Palin was asked during the ABC interview about her suggestions during campaign rallies that Barack Obama is less American than McCain, particularly her quip that the Democrat was "palling around with terrorists" – a reference to Obama's past link to 1960s radical Bill Ayers. Challenged on that issue, the vice-presidential nominee notably softened her rhetoric.
"I am sure that Senator Obama cares as much for this country as McCain does," Palin said.
Meanwhile, McCain defended his running mate during a separate interview last night with CNN, telling chat-show host Larry King that he has "total" confidence in Palin's ability to assume the presidency, should circumstances necessitate it.
"She not only would take over, she would inspire Americans," McCain said, calling Palin the "most popular governor in America".
Although Palin's popularity rating in Alaska had neared 90% before she joined the Republican ticket, her current 63% approval means that she no longer holds the title of the most popular US governor.
First Read from Chuck Todd
MSNBC...
The Barack-umentary: Last night’s Obama infomercial seemed to pull out all the stops. Details for his plans? Check. Profiles of families from key battleground states? Check. Testimonials from popular politicians from battleground states? Check. Climax at the end with a jam-packed rally? Check. Still, it was pretty clear the Obama camp took to heart the potential criticism of the infomercial being over-the-top. Large parts of it were pretty subdued. It was interesting how it was focused on voters -- and not himself. One might have expected a little more biography. Then again, if he felt the need to fix his bio with voters at this late date, he'd be in trouble. The end was impressive. Not since Reagan have we seen a candidate so adept at hitting his time cues. Even if you didn’t like the 30-minute spot -- and even if it didn't win over a single undecided voter -- this much is true: It gobbled up a day’s worth of attention. And we now have just five days left…
The Barack-umentary: Last night’s Obama infomercial seemed to pull out all the stops. Details for his plans? Check. Profiles of families from key battleground states? Check. Testimonials from popular politicians from battleground states? Check. Climax at the end with a jam-packed rally? Check. Still, it was pretty clear the Obama camp took to heart the potential criticism of the infomercial being over-the-top. Large parts of it were pretty subdued. It was interesting how it was focused on voters -- and not himself. One might have expected a little more biography. Then again, if he felt the need to fix his bio with voters at this late date, he'd be in trouble. The end was impressive. Not since Reagan have we seen a candidate so adept at hitting his time cues. Even if you didn’t like the 30-minute spot -- and even if it didn't win over a single undecided voter -- this much is true: It gobbled up a day’s worth of attention. And we now have just five days left…
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
