Flora Steele's Blog

Second page of rape mailer is correct

2010-01-16T21:22:00.000-08:00

[ Coakley's campaign didn't make the mailer, but one page of it is correct anyway. ]

The second page is substantially correct (except perhaps for the fine print which I can't read).

"Scott Brown would allow hospitals to ban emergency contraception birth control even after women are raped."

His 2005 amendment did allow a hospital to refer all rape victims wanting emergency contraception 'to another facility'.

"sponsoring a law to let hospitals turn away rape victims in need of emergency contraception"

That is what his 2005 amendment allowed: refer 'to another facility.'

The text in the image may be misleading about the time frame if it is referring only to Brown's failed 2005 amendment. If Brown is currently sponsoring such a law, I haven't heard about it.

The picture is quite appropriate imo. It shows a woman in a hospital gown and wheel chair who would have difficulty and discomfort being transferred 'to another facility.' Actually the picture understates the mailer's case. It might have shown the woman on an x-ray table or in a hospital bed connected to tubes and in traction. No matter the woman's condition, per Brown's amendment the hospital could still insist that if she wanted a morning after pill she would have to be taken 'to another facility.' In fact of course this means she would be confined in the first hospital with no access to the morning after pill till she was well enough to get out, by which time it would be too late.

http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/rapemailer11.JPG

A 'rape' mailer not written by Coakley's campaign (nor by the Dems either?)

2010-01-16T20:34:00.001-08:00

Politico posted about an 'over the top' rape flier at

h/w

politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0110/Over_the_top_in_Mass.html#

One link from Politico leads to Sargent's blog at

h/ no w

theplumline.whorunsgov.com/senate-republicans/saturday-roundup-clinton-robocalls-for-coakley/

which says:

Meanwhile, the state GOP sends over a statement ripping the Coakley campaign (which didn’t author the memo) as “negative,” “flailing,” and “malicious.”

Poltico's earlier source link, "Via Sargent" leads here:

h/ no w

theplumline.whorunsgov.com/senate-republicans/dem-mail-scott-brown-wants-hospitals-to-turn-away-all-rape-victims/

where two pages of the ad are shown. The blog says that the ad was "paid for by the Massachusetts Democratic Party" but I have not seen any admission from the MA Dem Party or any evidence that it really was.

If the GOP sent it to the press, and the GOP benefits from it, then the most likely suspect for printing it is the GOP themselves.

The first page of the mailer is so far out that no one could take it seriously. For the GOP to pretend to take it seriously is ... suspicious. ;-)

ETA: Hm, the second page is more accurate. Maybe it was just some frat kids who are sincere about not wanting rape victims to get pregnant.

Debunking a crazy story

2010-01-15T10:51:00.000-08:00

Here's an answer to a crazy story going around about Coakley and an old case where she had to try several times to get an indictment. I'll put it as a comment to this post.

Coakley against Stupak

2010-01-15T09:23:00.000-08:00

there are important distinctions between what was passed in the House and what was passed in the Senate. [...] the House provision would effectively bar any insurance plan accepting government subsidies from covering elective abortions. The Senate bill, on the other hand, would allow such insurers to sell plans covering abortions, but would require women to pay for that portion of the coverage separately.

This is the key passage from the long letter I posted yesterday from Coakley's campaign.

House version vs Senate version

2010-01-15T00:33:00.000-08:00

Here is a letter from Martha Coakley's campaign explaining the difference between the House bill (which she rejected) and the Senate bill (which she "reluctantly" accepted):

Thank you for being in touch with the campaign, and for sharing your thoughts on health care reform. It is true that Martha would reluctantly support the Senate healthcare bill. As a feminist and a

person committed to true reform with a public option and one that does not compromise women’s rights, she certainly understands your disappointment in this decision. However, she is unwilling to let Republican obstructionism thwart reform altogether. She has long said that she would vote for a reform bill only if it greatly expands coverage, improves quality and contains costs. While far from perfect, Martha believes the Senate bill takes significant steps toward

reaching these goals. She understands that the fight for a better healthcare system will not end with the January vote. Rather, once the bill is passed, Martha will continue fighting for the progressive improvements that we agree would achieve the most affordable and comprehensive coverage for all Americans.

To your comment, Martha finds the abortion language in the Senate bill troubling. As Attorney General, she fought hard to ensure a woman’s right to choose, defending legislation that would create and expand

buffer zones around reproductive healthcare facilities and, earlier this year, filing lawsuit challenging Bush administration provider conscience regulations that jeopardized a woman’s ability to access reproductive healthcare services. That said, there are important

distinctions between what was passed in the House and what was passed in the Senate. As you note, the House provision would effectively bar any insurance plan accepting government subsidies from covering

elective abortions. The Senate bill, on the other hand, would allow such insurers to sell plans covering abortions, but would require women to pay for that portion of the coverage separately. While this

is a disappointing, added administrative burden, the Senate bill will still allow people to buy this coverage, provided that they pay for the portion covering abortions separately.

Martha understands that a much better bill can be imagined, but she is unwilling to block reforms that Democrats and other progressives have sought for decades. We hope this information will change your mind about the upcoming election, and you will decide to vote on January 19th.

2010-01-14T22:59:00.000-08:00

Ken Pittman: Right, if you are a Catholic, and believe what the Pope teaches that any form of birth control is a sin. ah you don't want to do that.

Martha Coakley: No we have a seperation of church and state Ken, lets be clear.

Ken Pittman: In the emergency room you still have your religious freedom.

Martha Coakley: The law says that people are allowed to have that. You can have religious freedom but you probably shouldn't work in the emergency room.

http://www.redmassgroup.com/diary/6604/coakley-you-can-have-religious-freedom-but-you-probably-shouldnt-work-in-the-emergency-room

===================

And Coakley is damn right!

2010-01-14T22:46:00.000-08:00

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/articles/2010/01/13/abortion_takes_stage_in_senate_race/?page=full

Abortion takes stage in Senate race

Coakley’s ad, released Monday night, accuses Brown of resisting tougher Wall Street oversight and favoring Bush-era tax cuts that favored the wealthy. [....]

Coakley, who is trying to become the first female US senator from Massachusetts, has made women’s issues a strong component of her campaign. Yesterday morning, she had five surrogates hold a press conference at the headquarters of the Massachusetts Women’s Political Caucus. Coakley, however, was not at the event.

“He seeks to erode our reproductive rights,’’ said Christina Knowles, state director for the Massachusetts Chapter of the National Organization for Women.

The 2005 amendment that Brown sponsored in the state Senate would have allowed a physician, nurse, or any other employee to deny rape victims an emergency contraceptive if it “conflicts with a sincerely held religious belief.’’ The facility would have had to have someone else who could administer the contraceptive or refer the victim to another facility at no additional cost to the patient.

The amendment, which did not pass, was attached to a bill that he ultimately voted for, which required emergency rooms to provide the contraceptives to rape victims.

In Coakley’s latest ad, a narrator says, “Brown even favors letting hospitals deny emergency contraception to rape victims.’’

Brown and his supporters have declined to discuss the underpinnings of his amendment, instead trying to focus on the fact that he supported the overall legislation. He also voted to override a veto by Governor Mitt Romney.

“This is the message: the message is that Scott Brown was behind that legislation and voted for it in 2005,’’ Angela Davis, cochairwoman of Women for Brown, said yesterday.

Brown has also declined to discuss his amendment proposal.

“It’s irrelevant; it’s a red herring,’’ he told reporters after Monday night’s debate, as an aide cut off further questions.

On WCVB-TV last night, he said he could not recall whether he had actually filed that amendment, although Senate records clearly say he did.

More on Coakley's pro-gay record (from Gayberkshires)

2010-01-14T19:04:00.000-08:00

http://gayberkshires.blogspot.com/2009/12/opinion-general-coakley-vs-porky-brown.html

Coakley has received the endorsement of Mass Equality, an organization of more than 200,000 members that works to protect, promote and defend marriage equality and to advance lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights. In the suit she filed in Federal Court seeking to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act, Coakley called it “discriminatory and unconstitutional.” And that is only one action in a multi-pronged effort to level the playing field for lesbians, gays and many others.

She strongly supported the MassHealth Equality bill, which ensured that Massachusetts cover the cost of health care for same-sex couples who would otherwise be eligible for Medicaid; worked to obtain civil rights injunctions in numerous cases involving hate crimes against members of the LGBT community; and supported efforts to address domestic violence in the LGBT community. Her office also conducted trainings for police departments around the Commonwealth on how better to respond to hate crime

Coakley vs Obama

2010-01-13T11:41:00.000-08:00

Coakley has a formidable track record on issues that have been thorns in the side for Obama, who has been accused of being soft on Wall Street and unwisely extending the U.S. mission in Afghanistan. As Attorney General, Coakley forced a huge settlement with mammoth investment bank Goldman Sachs and has called for increased regulation of the financial sector. Like all the candidates in the Democratic primary, opposed President Obama’s plan to escalate the war in Afghanistan.

Coakley also went to court to challenge the Environmental Protection Agency to enforce tougher emissions regulations, and challenged the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act, which imposes federal limitations on same-sex marriage.

http://www.hlrecord.org/news/coakley-cruises-to-victory-in-massachusetts-senate-primary-1.981238

Coakley for Senator Jan 19!

2010-01-12T10:30:00.000-08:00

Martha Coakley stood by Hillary all through 2008 and voted for her on the floor at Denver. Bill Clinton is campaigning for Martha.

Martha is strong pro-choice and pro-gay. Her GOP opponent, Brown, is anti-abortion.

Here is Martha's donation page: https://coakley.zissousecure.com/contribute

And her website: http://www.marthacoakley.com/

Here is some detail:

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/01/04/abortion_stances_of_brown_coakley_not_so_easily_defined/

Coakley, the [MA] attorney general, has used whatever position she is in to advance their cause - and that her work predates her time in politics. Before she joined the Middlesex district attorney’s office in 1986, for example, Coakley was a private lawyer who volunteered her time to help minors get court orders for abortions when they could not get their parents’ consent. [....]
As a district attorney, she called on the Legislature to create a stronger buffer zone between protesters and abortion clinics. As attorney general, she enforced and successfully defended the law against a legal challenge. In 2007, she was also one of seven attorneys general who sued the Bush administration over regulations allowing health care providers to refuse to provide abortion or contraception on moral or religious grounds.
That same year, Coakley spoke out strongly against a ban on so-called “partial birth abortion,’’ a procedure used late in pregnancies now barred unless the mother’s life is at risk. Unlike Roe v. Wade and other Supreme Court rulings, the ban did not allow an exception to protect the mother’s health, Coakley noted in an op-ed published in the Quincy Patriot-Ledger. [....]

In the primary race for the Senate, Coakley, typically a cautious campaigner, took an unusually bold campaign stance by declaring that she would rather vote down a national health care bill than accept new restrictions on abortion. Hailed nationally by abortion rights groups, she was cast as a leading crusader for their cause.
[Coakley's GOP opponent, Brown cosponsored a bill] which would require a woman to wait 24 hours before having an abortion and to review pictures and information detailing the developmental progress of her fetus.
[ Brown got ] the support of the Massachusetts Citizens for Life in this race, based on his position on issues including abortion, stem cells, and federal health legislation. He also opposes federal funding for abortion, supports strong parental consent rules for minors, and supports the ban on what opponents call partial-birth abortion. [....]

Brown sponsored an amendment to a 2005 bill on emergency contraception that would have let emergency room doctors or nurses turn away rape victims if they had religious objections to providing emergency contraception.

Healthcare nonsense -- cui bono?

2009-08-16T16:52:00.000-07:00

Yes, rational debate is being shut down. Cui bono?

Look at some major supporters of 'Obama's reform.' Insurance companies and drug companies are spending and budgeting large amounts for ads (and for astroturfed organizations) supporting it.

Those companies have means and opportunity to do their homework and find out what is likely to actually be in the bill. They have motive to maximize their own profits, protect their own investors.

So -- if they're supporting Obama's bill -- is it likely to be real 'reform'? Or is it more likely a placebo, an opiate for the populists, a cowpox to vaccinate the nation against any REAL reform getting passed?

To keep the Left from looking at the issues, at what the bill is likely to include -- and to keep us from lobbying for things like a strong public option, continuing to allow drug imports from Canada, not cutting Medicare, etc ... we're kept distracted with accounts of the far out fringe of conservatives. If some Bad Rightwing Nuts are against the bill, the implication is, then the bill must be a Good Leftist Bill. Annoy a Wingnut: support Obamacare.

I'd rather annoy an insurance company by QUESTIONING the bill.

Look what's happening. We hear lots of people out shouting that the bill is socialized medicine, is far left, etc. So us Leftists, believing them, are supporting it without factchecking. Do we believe anything else the Right-Wing-Nuts claim? Why believe they are right about this, either?

Could the Reality Based Community please try Reality Basing our reaction, here?

Time: Pelosi is probably right [about CIA]

2009-05-23T16:38:00.000-07:00

Is this an invented the internet thing? The same rightwingers and Obama may be using the same techniques that were used against Gore and the Clintons: misquote to confuse the issue and make it seem their target (in this case Pelosi) has said something terrible.

By this one charge against Pelosi, they take attention away from those who certainly did or commanded torture, and focus it on an opponent of torture [Pelosi], and damage an advocate for SS, family planning etc [Pelosi] -- and humiliate a woman [Pelosi].

h...../
swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/05/20/pelosis-probably-right/
Wednesday, May 20, 2009 at 3:40 pm

Pelosi's Probably Right

[L]ooking at the substance of the accusations, it increasingly looks like [Pelosi} was right.
[....]
Bob Graham, who was theoretically in the room with Shelby, says he has no recollection of the meeting at all – this from a man who famously details his every waking minute. Perhaps the most astonishing response has been from the CIA Director Leon Panetta, who basically said: Don't trust our records. Which begs the question: what other issues have they kept questionable records on?

The site is thick with substantive quotes and links to sources.

UPDATE: see also http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2009/05/24/the-cias-history-of-bamboozling-the-congress/

Fact-checking an anti-Muslim video

2009-05-18T11:29:00.000-07:00

Pumapac says: The video is scary if we assume the facts presented are true. But how do we know they ARE true? [....] What do they say about anecdotes — that they don’t equal data? Very true. But research and analysis CAN make facts apparent. So,

Today’s ACTION goal is to Fact Check this short documentary

The video is very easy to follow. It presents fact after fact after fact. Here’s a starter list to check. Pick one and Google it. Share links to helpful research sites like the Atlas of the Real World, the International Database of the US Census Bureau [....]

Links are at the Pumapac.org site:

http://pumapac.org/2009/05/18/reckless-propaganda-or-provocative-facts/#comments

The video they're talking about:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-3X5hIFXYU

FOCA - pro-choice: "Freedom of Choice Act"

2009-05-15T02:46:00.000-07:00

The office of Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, has made it known that not only is FOCA is among his priorities, but the bill will be reintroduced ( he introduced FOCA twice before) “sooner rather than later.” Barbara Boxer’s office confirmed that she will introduce the bill in the Senate.

http://jimblazsik.com/2009/03/10/obama’s-push-for-unrestricted-abortion-foca-is-coming/

Obama has said FOCA is not a priority because he wants to 'tamp down' anger or some such nonsense. Like he removed family planning money from the Stimulus to appease the GOP -- who refused to vote for the Stim anyway. See http://edgeoforever.wordpress.com/2009/01/26/obama-asks-congress-to-dump-contraceptives/

Prejean, Obama, Clintons agree. (I disagree!)

2009-05-13T03:47:00.000-07:00

Prejean: ‘The president of the United States, the secretary of state, and many Americans agree with me in this belief.’

Prejean's statement at the Miss USA pageant when asked: ‘I think in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that’s how I was raised.’

Obama: “I’m a Christian, And so . . . I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman.”?

[ Cites at http://pumapac.org/2009/05/12/well-the-balls-in-your-court-now-obama/ ]

Prejean's statement was more qualified than Obama's (and the Clintons' statements were less quaified, sfaik.)

(Personally, I disagree with all four of them; I favor gay marriage and full rights to gays in all respects.)

Dr. Jack Wheeler Regarding Obama

2009-05-03T00:53:00.000-07:00

"The O-man, Barack Hussein Obama, is an eloquently tailored empty suit. "

http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TVHANR2I0F7TN09QJ

In the opening post at this Topix thread, scroll down to an excerpt from Jack Wheeler -- very well written invective against Obama (from early 2008).

Here is Wheeler's website.

http://www.tothepointnews.com/

Unfortunately it is also full of well written invective against the Clintons, liberals, environmentalism, etc.

Also from Wheeler's site, http://www.freewebs.com/drjackwheeler/index.htm

here's Voltaire re Koolaid.

Barney Frank is a good guy...

2009-04-22T15:48:00.000-07:00

... per this evidence 1. Last fall he tried to investigate where the bailout money was going. 2. In previous years defended Bair and iirc Born and perhaps some other women against sexism when they weren't listened to by the male experts 3. Now, with Carolyn Maloney, he is sponsoring a bill to help consumers against the credit card companies. Ref: NY TIMES BIZ SECTION: BANKS HOLD SWAY OVER DEMS nytimes.com/2009/04/22/business/22consumer.html

PUMA project triage

2009-04-16T21:20:00.000-07:00

Say we have our top five issue list. Then we watch current events and look at what different Pumas are interested in. We pick a short term clear cut project that serves all five goals (and if it serves some more goals that’s okay too).

For example, Caroline Kennedy as Hillary’s replacement. Some people who are anti-Kennedy because the Kennedys opposed Hillary did their thing against CK. Some who wanted a woman chosen did their thing for Maloney and Gillibrand. Some who wanted media reform challenged the media bias for CK. Some who saw corruption in the IL appointments agitated for a special election instead of an appointment. Some LGBT supporters promoted Randy whatshername.

It all worked together. Almost every Puma did some kind of dig at CK and the media while they were pushing their own pet issue. And it worked!

Another project might be a recount situation. The focus might be election reform, but some Pumas would be drawn in by sympathy for a particular candidate, or wishing to deny the Dems their veto-proof majority, or caring about some pet issue of one of the candidates. Some might be debunking media inaccuracy. Whatever they are pushing, each statement would probably include some dig at the recount procedure problem. It wouldn’t even matter whether all Pumas supported the same candidate! They would still all be digging at the recount procedure.

Currently we might focus on media treatment of the Tea Parties. Some people would re-cap media treatment of Hillary and Sarah, debunking some of those slanders. Some might find a woman journalist to praise — perhaps Greta or Lynn Sweet. Some might show evidence that the protests against May 31 were bigger than reported, and explain the DNC election procedure issues that caused those protests.

Once we’ve narrowed down to say 5 issues, then it doesn’t matter which issue is the nominal focus on each particular project. We can choose projects by how much interest there is in them already in the general public (eg with CK there was a lot of interest). And by how achievable each particular small project is!

[ trying to post this at RD in "Puma planning", it's in moderation ]

background sources on superdelegates

2009-04-16T19:50:00.001-07:00

Here is some backgruond on superdelegates.

google.com/search?rlz=1C1GGLS_en-USUS299US303&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=Ferraro+superdelegates+1972+McGovern+commission

superdelegates.org

Here is Ferraro's complete op-ed: nytimes.com/2008/02/25/opinion/25ferraro.html

See also by Uppity Woman at NQ: noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/04/02/dispelling-the-obama-moose-poop-about-super-delegates/

Scroll down to the quotes from McGovern. Some comments by RD regulars too. This might be a good place to start for an overview of the whole issue.

LJ: Obama "allowed procedures to operate"

2009-04-13T15:13:00.000-07:00

"He stepped back and let the professionals do what they are supposed to do," Johnson said. "Since the 1980s we've built national security doctrine for how to handle these matters, and Obama allowed these procedures to operate."

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D97HP1180&show_article=1

Summary re rescue orders

2009-04-13T10:41:00.000-07:00

UPDATE: Here's another view:

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-story-of-a-successful-rescue-and-obamas-attempt-to-claim-credit/2/

He needs to update some details (he has Phillips jumping a second time) but he has the important points.

I've seen one entry from a reliable person (wbboei) saying that a Navy Seal went on CNN (anonymously) and shamed Obama into supporting action.

Blackfive.net's take seems very likely: standing orders permitted shooting the captors when the hostage was in 'imminent danger'. This occurred, with a clear shot at all the pirates, on Sunday morning, so the snipers took action. "This was not a rescue attempt ordered by National Command Authority i.e. the President. It was a reaction by the on scene commander under standard authority to safeguard the life of a hostage."

Larry Johnson at noquarterusa.net has good info about teh standard operating procedure, what authorizations are required by what agencies, etc. Aiui, there are several stages of SOP and the President has to sign more than one of them. -- Johnson praised Obama for keeping quiet publically and privately signing what the military put in front of him, but sfaik it didn't add up to Obama being really supportive or encouraging on actual action.

Links and details are in my recent posts.

Seal on CNN forced Obama to act

2009-04-13T09:30:00.000-07:00

[Navy] has been ready, willing and able to execute this rescue for three days but for one crucial thing: this is not a military decision but a political one. Translation: the White House has not had the political will to act.

From wbboei

http://www.hillaryis44.org/2009/04/10/marines-hymn/#comment-245960

The pirate boat has been out of gas and drifting with the current for several days. The first Navy ship arrived on station on Thursday and the second Navy ship arrived on Friday. Hostage negotiations were convened and failed. No rescue attempt was made at either time, or by Sunday morning. The White House maintained its position that Obama would not get involved. The problem was that by then the pirate boat was drifting toward shore, and if it moved in closer the Navy ships would be unable to follow because of their deep draft. If the pirate boat reached shore then the pirates and their hostage would disappear into the hinterlands. And the Navy would be blamed for losing them.

Consequently, the Navy had to find a politically acceptable way to force Obama to make a decision. Therefore, a Navy Seal appeared on CNN on Sunday morning at approximately 11:20 a.m. However the Navy wanted CNN to hide his identity so the Obama Administration could not retaliate against him through its newly appointed Secretary of the Navy for speaking out. So they projected a silhouette only and disguised his voice. After establishing the fact that the pirate boat had been drifting for several days and was now moving toward shore where escape would be possible the moderator asked the Seal why we had not attacked the pirate boat?

Whereupon the Seal told the moderator that the Navy practices such rescues on a routine basis and has been ready, willing and able to execute this rescue for three days but for one crucial thing: this is not a military decision but a political one. Translation: the White House has not had the political will to act. Mr. Obama was unable to make a command decision. Suddenly, the captives problem, the company’s problem, and the country’s problem while Obama was too busy shooting hoops was ultimately Barack’s problem. Worse, if the pirates got away everyone would know is was his fault.

Within one (1) hour Navy seals attacked the boat, killed two pirates, apprehended the others and rescued the captain. Thereafter, Obama claimed that he had given an order on Thursday when the first Navy ship arrived to attack the pirate boat if it appeared that the Captains life was in imminent danger. He further claimed that he reissued the same order on Friday when the second ship arrived. Thereafter, he called the family of the captain which he had not done before, promised to rid the area of pirates and basked in the glory of it all.

Captain's rescue NOT ordered by Obama

2009-04-12T21:16:00.000-07:00

"This was not a rescue attempt ordered by National Command Authority i.e. the President. It was a reaction by the on scene commander under standard authority to safeguard the life of a hostage."

See also Larry Johnson's take in my previous post.

blackfive.net/main/2009/04/how-the-rescue-happened.html

I just finished listening to the press conference w/ ADM Gortney about the rescue of Captain Phillips. At the time it happened the USS Bainbridge was towing the lifeboat to calmer waters as the sea state was deteriorating. One of the pirates was on board the Bainbridge as the talks about obtaining Phillip’s release continued. The lifeboat was approx. 25 m behind the Bainbridge when snipers on the fantail observed one of the pirates in the pilot house of the lifeboat pointing an AK-47 at the back of a tied up Phillips and the other two pirates on board were visible (at least shoulders and heads). The standing authority gave them clearance to engage the pirates if the life of the captain was in imminent danger. The on scene commander deemed this to be true and gave the order to fire. All three bad guys were taken out and then a rigid inflatable boat went to the lifeboat to retrieve Phillips. It is unknown at this point whether the shooters were SEALs or Marine Scout Snipers as both would have been available.

This was not a rescue attempt ordered by National Command Authority i.e. the President. It was a reaction by the on scene commander under standard authority to safeguard the life of a hostage.

The AP is reporting that President Obama gave the order to use military force to rescue the hostage, that is misleading.

Why didn't the USN cover Phillips' FIRST escape?

2009-04-12T13:01:00.000-07:00

This was the second time the Captain had jumped out and tried to swim — followed by swimming pirates.

This time he was given cover by the US forces. Why did the US Navy not give him cover the FIRST time?

Had Obama ordered the Navy not to shoot pirates — and finally the Navy disregarded Obama’s order?

Obama in Somali dress

2009-04-12T09:42:00.000-07:00

Not dressed by a pirate....

Somali pirates, hm? Has anyone yet connected this piracy hostage story with the famous picture of Obama being wrapped in white cloth by a 'Somali elder'?

To be fair, here is a BBC story saying the dress has no special or religious meaning and does not need to be applied by an 'elder'.

h..../ no w's

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7265115.stm

But see

http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2009/04/11/obamas-barbary-coast/#comment-1179923

for background on the pirates and the Somali elders backing them.

New twenty-somethings' chant

2009-04-11T09:22:00.000-07:00

ADMIN! Wish you had been here to witness three twenty-somethings on a ferry boat chanting loudly: “Obama cannot be trusted! Obama cannot be trusted by his friends, Obama cannot be trusted by his enemies, Obama cannot be trusted on any issue, Obama cannot be trusted!”

From hillaryis44.org, addressing their wonderful Admin

http://www.hillaryis44.org/2009/04/10/marines-hymn/#comment-245706

Turkish paper: Beautiful American [ Hillary ]

2009-04-02T03:49:00.000-07:00

Davutoglu added that [Hillary] had long been interested in foreign policy and that her power comes not from her name, but her background. A warm temperament and a clear mind obviously signal a better period for Turkish-US relations. [....]

Another very positive side of Clinton’s visit was that it ended the paranoia over ‘moderate Islam.’ The Bush administration didn’t have any policy meant to turn Turkey into a country ‘which applies shariah moderately,’ but terminology mistakes led to paranoia. It’s a good thing that Clinton ended it. She stressed such values as democracy, a secular constitution, freedom of religion, a free market economy, and a sense of responsibility, and said that the US didn’t categorize any country by its religious leanings.

Now we can approach Turkey’s domestic sociological dynamics and Turkish-US relations free of the paranoia over moderate Islam.

Results of the first Clinton administration (1993-2000)

2009-04-02T03:00:00.000-07:00

On August 14, 2000, President Clinton spoke at the Stapleton Center. Clinton could just as easily be describing Obama’s America:

Eight years ago, when our party met in New York, it was a far different time for America. Our economy was in trouble, our society was divided, our political system was paralyzed. Ten million of our fellow citizens were out of work. Interest rates were high. The deficit was $290 billion and rising. After 12 years of Republican rule, the federal debt had quadrupled, imposing a crushing burden on our economy and our children.

Welfare rolls, crime, teen pregnancy, income inequality - all had been skyrocketing. And our government was part of the problem, not part of the solution.

Below Clinton touts his economic achievements:

Today, we are in the midst of the longest economic expansion in our history. More than 22 million new jobs, the lowest unemployment in 30 years, the lowest female unemployment in 40 years, the lowest Hispanic and African American unemployment on record, the highest home ownership rate in our history. In 1995, we turned back the largest cuts in history in Medicare, Medicaid, education, and the environment; and proved two years later that we could find the way to balance the budget and protect our values. Today, we have gone from the largest deficits in history to the largest surpluses in history - and if we stay on course, we can make America debt-free for the first time since 1835.

For the first time in decades, wages are rising at all income levels. We have the lowest child poverty rate in 20 years, the lowest poverty rate for single mothers on record. The average family’s income has gone up more than $5,000 and, for African American families, even more.

Obama Recovering After Closed Captioning ‘Mishap’

2009-04-01T08:14:00.000-07:00

Obama Recovering After Closed Captioning ‘Mishap’

by Mac Johnson

04/01/2009

Bethesda, Md. — Doctors were said to be treating President Barack Obama at Bethesda Naval Hospital today for exhaustion and possible vocal cord injuries after a freak television accident occurred at the White House Tuesday evening.

According to a statement read by White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, President Obama, noted for his near total dependence on the teleprompter when speaking, was leaving a practice session for an upcoming press conference when he happened upon a muted television set near the White House Briefing Room on which someone had activated the “closed captioning” function. “Apparently, Mr. Obama mistook the captioning for his new flat screen teleprompter and began reading the text aloud,” Gibbs said. Gibbs stated that “what followed was a tragic marathon speaking session that lasted for nearly 14 hours before staff discovered Obama and disconnected the device.”

The President’s accidental filibuster was said to have included a 2-hour episode of “The Biggest Loser,” a much anticipated “Law and Order: Special Victim’s Unit,” the local evening news, and a late night paid infomercial for “natural male enhancement.” The press later described Obama’s reading of the captioning as “eloquent” (New York Times), “historic” (CNN), and “emotionally moving” (Newsweek).

This event comes on the heels of several embarrassing teleprompter gaffes by Obama, including one in which he thanked himself for being invited to the United States [....]

humanevents.com/article.php?id=31285

[ The date says it all. ]

WP looks at Obama's 'town hall' questioners

2009-03-29T15:10:00.000-07:00

President Obama [stocked] his town hall Thursday with supporters whose soft — though far from planted — questions provided openings to discuss his preferred message of the day. [....]

[The] five fully identified questioners called on randomly by the president in the East Room were anything but a diverse lot.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/03/27/obama_town_hall_questioners_we.html

[ The WP story goes on to look up those five in their mybarackobama blogs and finds them long-time supporters. ]

"Al Qaeda -- the Database" ?????

2009-03-28T10:50:00.000-07:00

This is funny and makes more sense than some other theories. I'd wondered how Bush's top-down international conspiracy of Muslims was getting the money to finance all the 'Al Qaeda' actions all over the world, and why. This says they were really bottom up local actions giving the credit to a fictitious ... database?

I wonder if Bin Laden will turn out to be a hoax?

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=BUN20051120&articleId=1291

[ Skip the tinfoil about the CIA. ]

“Al Qaida was neither a terrorist group nor Osama bin Laden’s personal property . . . The terrorist actions in Turkey in 2003 were carried out by Turks and the motives were local and not international, unified, or joint. [....]

” Some Islamic economic lobbies are ... claiming to act on behalf of Al Qaida. "

Gillibrand has 100% anti-tobacco voting record

2009-03-27T16:42:00.000-07:00

An NYT 'hit piece' talks about how, as a young lawyer, Gillibrand worked hard and effectively for her firm’s tobacco client. So, what we have is the portrait of a hard working lawyer who earned the respect of her colleagues and clients. In short, she did her job and seems to have done it well.

The only way this might be an issue would be if there were no voting record to look at to see if there was some conflict between her early client’s private interest and the public good….but in this case, there is a voting record. The short analysis is that Gillibrand has a 100% anti-tobacco voting record in Congress and the Senate, and as Bill Corr, executive director of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, said “What’s important to us is how she votes.” [Albany Times Union, 10/16/08]

Here’s a more detailed account of that record:

- Gillibrand Co-Sponsored and Voted For a Bill to Regulate Tobacco Through the Food and Drug Administration. In 2008, Gillibrand voted in favor of the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act. This bill seeks to remove the exemption that tobacco products have from basic health regulations that apply to other consumer products such as food and medicines. The bill would crack down on tobacco marketing and sales to kids, require larger, more effective health warnings on tobacco products, require tobacco companies to disclose the contents of tobacco products, changes to their products and research about the health effects of the products, ban candy-flavored cigarettes and prohibit terms that mislead consumers into believing that certain cigarettes are safer. [HR 1108, Vote #542, 7/30/08]

- Gillibrand Voted to Raise Taxes on Cigarettes. In 2007, Gillibrand voted for bill that would increase the tax on cigarettes by 61 cents to $1 per pack and raise taxes on other tobacco products to offset a $35 billion expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program. The bill would reauthorize the State Children’s Health Insurance Program at nearly $60 billion over five years. The bill passed 265-142. [HR 3963, Vote #1009, 10/25/07]

- Gillibrand Voted to Override President’s Veto and Raise Taxes on Cigarettes and Tobacco Products. In 2007, Gillibrand voted for an attempt to override President Bush’s veto of the bill that would reauthorize the State Children’s Health Insurance Program at nearly $60 billion over five years, expanding the program by $35 billion. The bill failed 273-156. A two-thirds majority was required to override the veto. [HR 976, Vote #982, 10/18/07]

- In 2008, Gillibrand Voted to Override Bush SCHIP Veto. In January 2008, Gillibrand voted again to override the Bush veto of legislation to renew and expand the State Children’s Health Insurance Program. The bill would have overridden Bush’s Dec. 12, 2007, veto, of the bill that would reauthorize the program at nearly $60 billion over five years, expanding the program by $35 billion. To offset the cost of the expansion, it would increase the tax on cigarettes by 61 cents, to $1 per pack, and raise taxes on other tobacco products. [Vote #22, 1/23/08]

- In the U.S. Senate, Gillibrand Voted to Raise Taxes on Cigarettes to Expand Children’s Health Care. In 2009, Gillibrand voted for bill that would increase the tax on cigarettes by 61 cents to $1 per pack and raise taxes on other tobacco products to offset an expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program. [Vote # 31, HR 2. Public Law 111-3]

Brian Keeler is the author of the above comments in an article entitled; Guillbrand Hit Piece By Times: A Classic Study.

From Wbboei at

http://www.hillaryis44.org/2009/03/27/boob-guns-butter-disaster/#comment-243350

Bill Clinton vs drug companies

2009-03-26T09:54:00.000-07:00

The following has been attributed to Bill Clinton as from his recent interview by Gupta.

(I say, Hillary/Palin 2012, and sic Palin on them! She tamed the oil companies.)

Americans Pay More for Less: The McKenzie Study done a couple of years ago said that Americans pay $66 billion a year more for medicine and our older population consumes relatively less per capita than other wealthy countries.

Our Government Is Subsidising Big Pharma: We have made a bargain with our pharmaceutical companies. We’ve said to them for decades now, we love having you in America. We’re proud of you. We know you have to spend a lot of money on research and then you market the drugs and all. So we will support your research and development costs in American prices so that you can sell exactly the same drugs you sell to us for less money in Canada and Europe … Keep in mind, Europe has a lot of very successful drug companies and they don’t do this.

This Subsidization Does Not Help Americans: So how can we reach a different arrangement so that we keep the drug companies healthy enough and we keep them developing new medicines? The system we’ve got is not working very well. They don’t have a lot of new medicines in the pipeline … Meanwhile, we keep subsidising all these costs and countries just as wealthy as we are, are getting the same drugs made by the same people for less money, which is why there was so much opposition to allowing re-importation from Canada. The one good place to start is what President Obama has proposed, letting the federal government bargain (with pharmaceutical companies).

Big Pharma’s Profits Have Been 3x Greater Than Wal-Mart’s: For most of the 1990s and the early part of this decade, they earned 18 per cent, which is a huge return. You know, Wal-Mart’s return is 5 or 6 per cent. And it is fascinating to see that at the same time … the number of new drugs in the pipeline seems to be slowing down. So we need to examine both how we can get the benefits of medical advances and how we can lower the cost to the consumers.

Obama put LARRY SUMMMERS on his 'Council on Women'

2009-03-22T15:22:00.000-07:00

Critics of Summers might want to criticize Obama's decision to put Summers on the 'Council of Women.'

I'm slowly filling in names and genders of the other 'Council' members at http://florasteele.blogspot.com/2009/03/obamas-council-on-women-has-mostly-male.html

So far it looks VERY heavily male, consisting mainly of all existing Cabinet members and many department heads.

Obama's 'Council on Women' has mostly male members

2009-03-20T16:52:00.000-07:00

Here's a place to add more info on Obama's 'Council on Women,' particularly its membership (60-75% male)? What is a more exact number?

The White House said "the Council will be comprised of the heads (or their senior-level designees) of: the Cabinet agencies, certain other non-Cabinet agencies, and other Executive branch departments, agencies."

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2009/03/obama_to_create_white_house_wo.html

At last report, the Cabinet itself was about 75% male. TNA has a page on this called 'Cabinet Watch' iirc, which includes the Cabinet plus some other high level people.

Ah, here's the official press release:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/President-Obama-Announces-White-House-Council-on-Women-and-Girls/

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary
________________________________________________________________
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE March 11, 2009

President Obama Announces White House Council on Women and Girls

President Obama today signed an Executive Order creating the White House Council on Women and Girls. The mission of the Council will be to provide a coordinated federal response to the challenges confronted by women and girls and to ensure that all Cabinet and Cabinet-level agencies consider how their policies and programs impact women and families. The Council will be chaired by Valerie Jarrett, Assistant to the President and Senior Advisor, and will include as members cabinet-level federal agencies. The Executive Director of the Council will be Tina Tchen, Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of the Office of Public Liaison at the White House.

"The purpose of this Council is to ensure that American women and girls are treated fairly in all matters of public policy," said President Obama. "My Administration has already made important progress toward that goal. I am proud that the first bill I signed into law was the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act. But I want to be clear that issues like equal pay, family leave, child care and others are not just women’s issues, they are family issues and economic issues. Our progress in these areas is an important measure of whether we are truly fulfilling the promise of our democracy for all our people. I am confident that Valerie Jarrett and Tina Tchen will guide the Council wisely as its members address these important issues."

The White House Council on Women and Girls will ensure that agencies across the federal government, not just a few offices, take into account the particular needs and concerns of women and girls. The Council will begin its work by asking each agency to analyze their current status and ensure that they are focused internally and externally on women.

In particular, the Council will work to enhance, support and coordinate the efforts of existing programs for women and girls. The Council will also work as a resource for each agency and the White House so that there is a comprehensive approach to the federal government's policy on women and girls. The priorities will be carried out by working closely with the President’s Cabinet Secretaries and relevant agency offices that focus on women and families.

During its first year, the Council will also focus on the following areas:

Improving women’s economic security by ensuring that each of the agencies is working to directly improve the economic status of women.
Working with each agency to ensure that the administration evaluates and develops policies that establish a balance between work and family.
Working hand-in-hand with the Vice President, the Justice Department’s Office of Violence Against Women and other government officials to find new ways to prevent violence against women, at home and abroad.
Finally, the critical work of the Council will be to help build healthy families and improve women’s health care.

The White House Council on Women and Girls will meet regularly, and will serve as a forum for all involved agencies to focus on women.

Initial members of the Council include:

The Secretary of State;
The Secretary of the Treasury;
The Secretary of Defense;
The Attorney General;
The Secretary of Interior;
The Secretary of Agriculture;
The Secretary of Commerce;
The Secretary of Labor;
The Secretary of Health and Human Services;
The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development;
The Secretary of Transportation;
The Secretary of Energy;
The Secretary of Education;
The Secretary of Veterans Affairs;
The Secretary of Homeland Security;
The United States Ambassador to the United Nations;
The United States Trade Representative;
The Director of the Office of Management and Budget;
The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency;
The Administrator of the Small Business Administration;
The Director of the Office of Personnel Management;
The Chair of the Council of Economic Advisors - Romer, FEMALE, academic bot, no govt experience;
The Director of the National Economic Council - SUMMERS* -MALE

and The Director of the Domestic Policy Council.

In addition to the initial list of members, the President may designate additional heads of other Executive Branch departments, agencies, and offices.

* Lawrence H. Summers is the Director of the National Economic Council and was appointed by President Barack H. Obama on November 24, 2008. ... www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/nec/chair/

Hillary-McCain crossover polls are consistent with earlier polls

2009-03-19T22:20:00.000-07:00

According to Wikipedia, McCain's popular vote was 59,934,814, call it 60 million. 16% of that, the Hillary crossovers, is ... 9.6 million.

In the primaries, 18 million voted for Hillary. 35% of them, ie 6.3 million, said in primary exit polls that they would not support Obama. Phone polls that counted both Hillary-to-McCain voters and stay homes in May, June, and August iirc were pretty close to the primary exit polls. Breakdowns showed about 3 million planning to vote for McCain, 4 million planning to stay home.

43% of these voters who supported McCain but would have backed Clinton if she were in the race described themselves as Independents. 31% were Republicans; while 26% were Democrats. [CBS story cited previously]

26% of 9.6 million is 2.5 million. Add a few from the Independents who got polled as Hillary supporters during the summer and there's the same 3 million Hill's voting for McCain. So here's three different kinds of pollings that come up with figures all in the same ball park. That suggests that these three pollings were pretty reliable. The Republicans who preferred Hillary were unexpected gravy.

This is evidence for Hillary being in fact the more electable candidate than Obama -- and for 9.6 million people, the more credible leader.

Nov 4 exit polls: Hillary would have won bigger

2009-03-19T20:07:00.000-07:00

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/11/12/politics/horserace/entry4596620.shtml?source=search_story

CBS News’ Election and Survey Unit’s survey analyst extraordinaire Jennifer De Pinto [....]

As voters left the polls on Election Day, many were asked how they would have voted if the election match-up were between Hillary Clinton and John McCain rather than Barack Obama and McCain. 52 percent said they would have backed the former Democratic candidate; 41 percent would have voted for McCain, wider than Obama’s 7-point margin over McCain.

Interestingly, 16 percent of McCain voters said they would have voted for Clinton, the Democrat, if she had been her party’s nominee.

I don't know which exit polls you consider not reliable and how you would compare their methodology with this. Iirc exit polls from the later primaries showed about 35% of HIllary supporters were planning to not support Obama in November (those did not break down the number who would actually vote for McCain from those who would stay home). Pls note that the Nov 4 story calculated in the factor of Obama supporters who would have stayed home, but could not calculate in the Hillary supporters who DID stay home. Telephone polls in June and near the convention found more HIllary supporters planning to stay home than planning to vote for McCain.

Pls distinguish between Obama's decision to reject the Clinton/Obama ticket -- and Obama supporters' choice to support him in that decision. That would have been a good time for Obama supporters who also cared about feminism, to speak out and urge him to accept Hillary's win/win offer (a feminine solution).

Obama's friends get the money; Hillary's friend Geithner gets the blame

2009-03-19T10:50:00.000-07:00

I read that IHT article (link below) in Feb (well, I read it at the NYT site) and thought it clearly a set up for Geithner as a bad guy and Axelrod (!) as a good guy. Very puffy, all anon sources from inside the Obama camp.

Geithner, whatever his faults, is an ally of Hillary. They were planning to work together on the international economy crisis. (Hillary to tell Geithner what the US policy should be.)

In Feb Axelrod sets up Geithner as a bad guy ... now they use him as a scapegoat.

Typical Obama tactic: Obama's fat cat friends get the money, Hillary's friends get the blame.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/02/10/america/bailout.2-426869.php

GOP discrediting Palin? She still leads for 2012

2009-03-19T10:09:00.000-07:00

Even during the campaign some anonymous McCain 'staffers' were discrediting Palin. She was called a 'diva'; and who leaked the info about the wardrobe the RNC had supplied? If she had refused to wear those clothes, they would have called her a 'diva' for the refusal!

But it's not working. In a poll this month iirc, she was still the choice of all GOP for 2012 (though narrowly, a 3-way split) -- and 10 points ahead with GOP women.

I know some Hillary supporters had a bad reaction to Palin's manner, conservatism, etc and of course they are the ones who got the publcity. But a poll showed that about an equal number of Hillary supporters liked her, so it balanced out.

I'd like more detail, but I get the impression that Palin is very ... WISE ... about deciding what to focus on, and managing her career by getting real things done for the real voters in Alaska. Obviously she has wonk brilliance with numbers and high-powered negotation (gas companies, pipeline). But sfaik her strategy with building on real accomplishments shows a good balance of judgment. (See USA Today's "Palin governed from the center.")

And when in doubt, she focuses on practical and ethical. Instead of fighting for a bill that would have denied state employees' same-sex partners benefits, she vetoed it, saying that it was unconstitutional and not many partners were applying anyway, so it was cheaper to pay the benefits!

Same with her appointment of Judge Christen. Instead of going with ideology, she chose the candidate clearly most qualified.

For Madeline, continuing: Clinton/Obama 2008

2009-03-18T20:00:00.000-07:00

Another factor on the older woman being by-passsed for a younger man.

Background: In fact Hillary was the more electable candidate. Exit polls showed that she would have beaten McCain by 12% -- Obama only won by 7%

The key is that Obama was young enough to run again in 2016 or later, but because of the Clintons' age and Bill's health, 2008 was probably Hillary's last chance. But there was a win-win solution, which Hillary proposed: a Clinton/Obama ticket.

That would have been an easy GE victory, and given Obama 16 years in the White House. He could fly around giving speeches and not having to deal with any of these problems. After 8 years of the Clintons cleaning things up, Obama would be the obvious nominee, have another easy GE, and a really easy transition.

Instead, Obama went to a lot of trouble to destroythe first woman president's only chance. Hillary could have run for president in 2004 or even 2000, but she had chosen to do her homework, learn the job, work her way up. This left her only the one chance, 2008.

Obama destroyed this, using very nasty tactics and smears, split the Dem voters driving several million to vote for McCain in protest.

Hillary's feminine solution was to promote Obama's future by giving him the VP position. His response was to destroy her future.

*Bill had multiple-bypass heart surgery in 2004 and will be due for it again around 2019

For Madeline (posted at TNA)

2009-03-18T19:50:00.000-07:00

If the candidates had been exactly equal in age, experience, ability, issues, character — I would probably have voted for the Black, as there are fewer Blacks in the pipeline.

Otherwise, I’d have voted for the older candidate, especially if the younger were young enough to run several more times, but for the older, this might be the last chance.

There’s a pattern that older feminists notice: an experienced, qualified middle aged woman is passed over for promotion in favor of a younger, less experienced man — and she is often made his secretary and required to teach him the job! (Or perform it herself in secret, letting him get the credit.)

For informed older women like Sebelius, Pelosi, etc to cheat in the primaries to make this pattern play out on the national scale, ignoring HIllary’s better experience and qualifications, was … shall we say … not quite “supporting the woman.”

'Council on Women' will be over 60% men

2009-03-17T17:56:00.000-07:00

Re the ‘Council on Women’, here’s more info (as of January) as to its apparent gender ratio.

Men: 15
Women: 7 (including Jarrett and Tchen)

See http://thenewagenda.net/obama-cabinet-watch/ as to Obama’s cabinet members and ‘cabinet level posts.’ His ‘Council on Women’ is defined as automatically including all those office holders. (Sorry I lack the stomach to read the Executive Order to see if it includes anyone else.)

A male dominated placebo wrapped in a fig leaf, I calls it.

Kevin -- evidence for charges against Palin?

2009-03-17T17:15:00.000-07:00

Kevin, you said elsewhere:

Many people felt Palin words led audiences to yell, “kill Obama” and bring monkey dolls to campaign rallies.

First we would need evidence that those alleged actions even happened. Where are photos of monkey dolls in a crowd shot at a rally? Where are recordings of audiences yelling "kill Obama"? Where are reputable media stories of those alleged incidents?

One journalist ran a story claiming he heard one person shout "Kill him" when Ayers was being talked about. The Secret Service investigated and found no one supported the journalist at all. No one else had heard anything like this. Several SS agents were in the crowd and would have heard it if it had really happened. I have a cite for this, will look it up if you like.

Accomplishments of Clinton/Gore administration

2009-03-15T23:41:00.000-07:00

From hillaryis44.org, here are a lot of posts giving cites for accomplishments of the Clinton/Gore administration.

http://www.hillaryis44.org/2009/03/14/glimmers-of-hope-part-ii/#comment-240948

Obama kept his 'Council' project quiet -- to get a quiet 'Council'

2009-03-15T22:51:00.000-07:00

Look at the opportunity for milking publicity which Obama has deliberately precluded.

You’d expect a president to announce that he is going to create such a council, invite public input, announce or leak some possible names … have some public meetings with organizations in his pocket (NOW etc) — the whole suspense build-up over perhaps several weeks. To give up all that media coverage of fawning by NOW etc, he must have some good reason. Like needing to keep the configuration and chairing under very tight control, so the resulting ‘Council’ will be under his tight control. Giving up this big publicity series carrot, imo means Obama has a bigger fear of a future big stick, ie accidentally creating a Council he could NOT control.

Jarrett's real task at Obama's 'Council on Women'

2009-03-15T22:43:00.000-07:00

I expect Jarrett will be quite effective — at her real task which is keeping the women from embarrassing Obama. The ‘Council’ is like the Human Resources job: the purpose is not to help the employees/women, but to keep them quiet, under control, treat them as troublemakers whom the management/Obama must be protected from.

I’m sure that Obama will instruct Jarrett to do some good things for some key supporters — if it does not in any way inconvenience his money backers, and if he cannot try to win votes from the GOP by using it as a bargaining chip instead, as he omitted the family planning money from the Stimulus

He will also instruct her to do some things that look and sound good but in fact hamper the sort of women who voted against him. And some things that look good but don’t cost him anything, or that function as a panacea, causing some women to slack off because they think some issue is now settled.

Jarrett’s help would likely go to where it would get the most bang for its buck for 2012. That’s not likely to be serious money for people who already give their milk for free. It would be token money aimed to impress white guilt liberals who might otherwise start voting their own economic interests or their common sense. Or money to ACORN and other organizations that directly worked for Obama. Etc.

Any judgment of whether the ‘Council fails’ or is ’successful’ will be filtered through his smoke machine and Big Media. He will make Jarrett look good and she will make him look good. That’s her real job. If he had wanted someone who would really work for women, or even take a balanced position — he would have chosen someone familiar with the field and NOT a trusted crony.

Madeline....

2009-03-15T15:42:00.001-07:00

Madeline,

I copied some of our old Palin discussion to this blog a few entries below at

http://florasteele.blogspot.com/2009/03/for-madeline-re-palins-intelligence.html

but I'd rather continue our current conversation from TNA.

'Council' established by Alinsky 'organized event' method

2009-03-15T11:00:00.000-07:00

I've posted this elsewhere as

‘Council on Women’ a male-dominated sock puppet with a rubber stamp.

For more evidence that Obama fears women's power, look at how he rammed this package-deal ‘Council’ through, and how it is configured.

There’s an article (I’ll look for the cite) quoting Alinsky’s son as complimenting Obama on setting up the Democratic Convention in August as an ‘organized’ event — meaning that there was no opportunity, ever, for other views to be heard. The establishment of this ‘Council’ has a similar pattern (though spread out longer).

This ‘Council’ was set up with o chance ever for public input on its configuration or its leadership. Membership and leaders names were all in the Executive Order that established the ‘Council.’ The first that most of us heard of it was as a fait accompli with a big media event. (It was also set up such that those leaders did not have to go through Senate Confirmation Hearings.)

Now look at who are already, package deal, defined as members. Obama’s own Cabinet Secretaries ( c. 75% males) plus some department heads (dunno that parity). I’m waiting for some good number cruncher (where are Anglachel and Riverdaughter when we need them?) to research this and compute a head count.

Look at the firewalls Obama has built in here, against this ‘Council’ ever coming out with any recommendation or statement that could embarrass or incovenience him, or hamper his re-election.

Supervised by two trusted cronies who helped him defeat Hillary and Palin. If by any chance they let something come up for a vote, the voters will be his own Cabinet appointees who owe their high paying day jobs to him.

Even if Jarrett and Tchen were to suddenly reveal feminist T-shirts, the 75% male members are there to vote it down.

Imo our best strategy would be to come out now, while the issue is current, strong and loud against this travesty. Use the current pro-Council publicity to get ourselves establishsed as the ‘go to’ opposition voice. Then we might have a little pressure as time goes on, to push the ‘Council’ to actually throw us a few crumbs instead of rubber stamping whatever Obama wants.

Who can draw a cartoon of a sock puppet with a rubber stamp?

For Madeline re Palin's intelligence

2009-03-14T22:26:00.000-07:00

I'm moving some of our old discussion here so we can get more deeply into it if you like. I'm really interested in these different views of, perhaps, different kinds of intelligence.

So as not to monopolize the front page, the long stuff is in a Comment to this post.

Bah humbug "Council" summary Sat noon

2009-03-14T13:21:00.000-07:00

Here's the official original:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Executive-Order-Creating-the-White-House-Council-on-Women-and-Girls/

Must go soon, but I just wanted to add this fact about the actual make-up of the 'Council.' So if the 'Council' ever has a meeting and anything that matters comes up for a vote, look who will have the most votes. "While the new council does not have Cabinet rank, the whole Cabinet, from the Secretary of Defense to the US Ambassador to the United Nations, is required to serve on it." "The members are all Cabinet Secretaries and the heads of numerous federal agencies." http://www.fem2pt0.com/?p=855 So is it now about 75% men in Obama's cabinet? They will be automatically on the Council and able to outvote anything the women might come up wtth. (Is the gender parity any better among the "heads of numerous federal agencies"? -- Of course as he needs in future, Obama could make a new executive order defining just which of those heads are on the Council from one meeting to the next. Headed by two cronies, peopled by a large percentage of male appointees.... Very safe design....

Bah, probably humbug: - Jarrett and Obama's 'Council on Women and Girls'

2009-03-14T12:37:00.000-07:00

Reasons for scepticism, in no particular order:

Created all of a piece with Jarrett and Tchen (both Chicago cronies of Obama) already installed, no chance for public input.
Jarrett has no known prior feminist credits; Tchen's none mentioned since college.
'Council' has no staff, no meetings; both Jarrett and Tchen already have full time jobs with the Administration, and Jarrett already has other impressive titles.
'Councll makeup: "While the new council does not have Cabinet rank, the whole Cabinet, from the Secretary of Defense to the US Ambassador to the United Nations, is required to serve on it." "The members are all Cabinet Secretaries and the heads of numerous federal agencies." http://www.fem2pt0.com/?p=855
"It will be headed by Valerie Jarrett, assistant to the president and one of his closest friends and advisors, and will include every Cabinet secretary and the head of every Cabinet-level agency. The Executive Director of the Council will be Tina Tchen, deputy assistant to the president and a long-time advocate of women's rights. We asked for a Cabinet-level office to work on women's issues, and we got the entire Cabinet." Kim Gandy, NOW

more later....