The NY Times editors continue to work on their five minutes. Their latest draft includes some great material about leadership and Obama's Muslimosity. The mini-howler is here:
This Just In ...
But the speaker of the House, John Boehner, made it clear on the NBC program “Meet the Press” last Sunday that he had no interest in quashing these fantasies or stopping his fellow Republicans from accusing Mr. Obama of lying about his citizenship and his faith.
Pressed by the show’s host, David Gregory, Mr. Boehner said — grudgingly — that an assurance from the government of Hawaii that Mr. Obama was born an American citizen was “good enough for me.” And that when Mr. Obama says he is a Christian, “I’ll take him at his word.” But he said it was “not my job” to try to do anything about it. “The American people have the right to think what they think,” he said.
Well, the President could request his full birth file from the State of Hawaii any time he wants to, yet he has chosen not to, as careful readers of the Times learned a while back.
Rather than wonder why it is John Boehner's job to clear the air, the Times might ponder the possibility that a notable portion of the public seems to think that a man who is hiding something might have something to hide. When will the Times exhort Obama to request and release his file? (My guess is "Never". Does "Never" work for you?)
But let's press on to their comic climax:
If Mr. Boehner really wanted to lead, he could make this obvious but important point: Being a Muslim is not a disqualification for being president of the United States.
If Mr. Boehner made this point, the Times editors that survived their ensuing aneurysms would fulminate that he was engaging in back-handed promotion of the notion that Obama was a Muslim.
This sort of racism stained American politics in earlier centuries. It has no place in this one.
Being Muslim is a race, not a religion? Hmm, maybe anti-Catholicism was also racist? I try to learn something new every day.
For my money, I lean towards Bill Maher's view that Obama is a Christian by convenience rather than conviction. But if, while Obama was sauntering towards Air Force One for a weekend away, his bag popped open and a Koran and a prayer rug fell out, well, I would not object to his being a Muslim; I would object to his being a liar.
The very astute Karl Rove would take me to task on these topics, arguing that Republicans have plenty of real, winning issues to air against Obama. My extrapolation of his view is that Times' editors see enormous political advantage in writing drivel about Boehner and birthers rather than tackling something more topical such as Obama's dubious backing of the public sector unions in Wisconsin.
the very astute Karl Rove. 'those words you're using, don't mean what you think they mean' TM, who let his candidate be ambushed at the last minute, during the first
election, about the DUI. who let all the lies about the Iraq War go unanswered, who was so inept in his communicating with the likes of Cooper and co,(I know one has to condescend considerably to get down to their level)that he was almost indicted. Lets revisit that premise shall we.
Posted by: narciso | February 20, 2011 at 10:46 AM
TomM-- with high snark on the Lord's Day-- well the Christian Lord anyway. No worries about a Koran falling out of Obamaniac's travel bag, he's a devoted follower of high secularism. As for the lying business, a man who lies about his religious convictions, or lack thereof, is far less qualified to be POTUS, than the metaphysics of "naturl born". No offense Threadkiller, that's just my take.
Posted by: NK | February 20, 2011 at 11:00 AM
Rove won 2 Presidential elections ... who else can make that claim ? Morris ? nope he wasn't involved in the first Clinton win ...
best record in the game so Yes, he's astute ...
Posted by: Jeff | February 20, 2011 at 11:15 AM
Obama needs to but the F out of Wisconsin's public budget issues.
Like the Gulf oil spill. Like Arizona....he only makes things worse.
Posted by: Army of Davids | February 20, 2011 at 11:16 AM
Obama needs to butt the F out of the Wisconsin public budget.
It is none of his damn business.
Posted by: Army of Davids | February 20, 2011 at 11:18 AM
Here's a little backstory to this weeks events in the LUN,
Posted by: narciso | February 20, 2011 at 11:19 AM
More likely it would be a pack of cigarettes and a copy of Sports Illustrated to fall from that bag. The NYT and the MSM will ride this until "Little Blackie" drops. (I just saw "True Grit.")
Posted by: Frau Steingehirn | February 20, 2011 at 11:23 AM
Why are we so consistently asked to feel sorry for the president about this matter? For 4 years now, people other than him have been asked to defend him on matters not related to his job.
Why?
I don't remember people being asked to defend another president like this, nor do I understand why the whole nation is supposed to get involved in thinking US muslims are some kind of victim.
Posted by: MayBee | February 20, 2011 at 11:23 AM
The mysteriously concealed private papers of leader of the free world will only become a pressing national issue when he finally does something so dangerously outrageous (not that he hasn't already committed stunning constitutional damage), that all American eyes--left and right, will be upon him, and the easily mesmerized among the populace will finally admit they never really knew the Man from Nowhere, and why has he brought them such misery and grief. For the mesmerized, learning their messiah represents no one but himself and cares not a whit for them, will be painful.
Until that time, half our population will wander about, blithely ignorant of the gathering storm, believing whatever the Man from Nowhere whispers in their ears.
Posted by: OldTimer | February 20, 2011 at 11:25 AM
Given the choice, I'd rather see his SAT and LSAT scores and his transcripts than his birth certificate. But I don't expect to see any of it.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | February 20, 2011 at 11:38 AM
Thanks, narciso--an important back story.
TM, another right on the money post, but of course it's the NYT and fish and barrels come to mind.
Posted by: clarice feldman | February 20, 2011 at 11:40 AM
I don't need to see his birth certificate, but if the media isn't going to ask to see the long form, I prefer they just stop talking about it all together. I don't understand what purpose it serves, except to drum up pity for our poor poor president.
Posted by: MayBee | February 20, 2011 at 11:40 AM
That is of course, the point of the story, or at least what they think it is.
Posted by: narciso | February 20, 2011 at 11:45 AM
DOT,
I think Obama took the LSAT's when 50 was the highest score. (That's when I took them). So if his scores come out and he got a 37 don't get all that excited.
Posted by: Jane | February 20, 2011 at 12:05 PM
When was the last time the MSM went out of its way to refudiate some false narrative damaging to consevatives, Christians, or Republicans? TANG anyone? How 'bout Kerry vs the Swiftboaters?
This is more than for sympathy, it is directed inference that John Boehner is exploiting a false narrative he supports but is too crafty to admit.
Just like the idea that Saddam Hussein was involved right after 911 was GWB's fault and that he exploited it to monger war.
Posted by: boris | February 20, 2011 at 12:05 PM
Is it an official coordinated meme yet? Who sent out the memo that the MFM must hound Republicans about Obama's faith & birth? Where is the new Journolist set up & who is running it?
We can ask the NYT editors, Gregory, Stephanopoulos, & Mathews....they should know.
Posted by: Janet | February 20, 2011 at 12:09 PM
MayBee,
I don't believe the tactic will work in the manner which the NYT hopes. Even the Muddle knows that the President has it within his power to put speculation concerning his base origins to rest and to reveal his stunning lack of measurable qualifications for entry to Columbia and Harvard. They have also seen his nose tilted up for two years (to hide the fact that his head comes to a fine point, providing a symmetrical axis for those Dumbo ears) as he projects a haughty professorial manner which is totally at odds with his Alfred E. Neuman inspired speech patterns. ISTM that the Muddle has reached a decision that Dumb would have been the better choice over Dumber in '08 and this issue just ain't gonna change their feelings.
Narciso,
Thanks for that link. I'm still waiting to see national reporting which actually puts some numbers behind the decisions in these opening OPM War battles. It really isn't about current deficits, it's about irreversible deficit trends. The Cloward-Piven moment is at hand and the community organizers of the Tea Party are responding just as Frances Fox Piven had dreamed, forcing a substantial change in the views of the electorate and effecting structural changes in the manner in which legislatures deal with financial threats.
She must be so proud.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | February 20, 2011 at 12:09 PM
The only thing missing, in the LUN, was the stroking of a cat, who established the links
to the dissident again,
Posted by: narciso | February 20, 2011 at 12:11 PM
Jane--when did the max change from 800 to 50? What is it now?
Posted by: Danube of Thought | February 20, 2011 at 12:11 PM
DoT, I believe the highest score is now 180. When I took it, the highest score on the regular portion was 800, and the highest score on the writing portion was 80. I think the writing portion is now part of the overall score.
Posted by: Thomas Collins | February 20, 2011 at 12:22 PM
Mr. Boehner said — grudgingly — that an assurance from the government of Hawaii that Mr. Obama was born an American citizen was “good enough for me.” And that when Mr. Obama says he is a Christian, “I’ll take him at his word.”
That miserable son of a bitch.
Posted by: bgates | February 20, 2011 at 12:23 PM
boris- good point. Howard Kurtz brought this up today, and declared it was perfectly reasonable to ask the speaker about this...just as it would have been to ask a Democrat about some weird conspiracy about President Bush.
That Howard did not use an example of that happening proved his point in the opposite.
Posted by: MayBee | February 20, 2011 at 12:24 PM
Rick- I agree it won't work. I don't think people in the middle are all that interested in the president's faith or birth place. It just becomes frustrating to have to listen to people talk about it.
Posted by: MayBee | February 20, 2011 at 12:25 PM
'Despicably, Mr Boehner went on to hedge that President Obama "might be the finest human being who has ever lived". The admission that he would take a bullet for the President came only in response to a direct question from Mr Gregory, and took the form of a brusque four words, "yes, of course, absolutely". At no point during the interview did Mr Boehner offer to amputate so much as a finger to demonstrate his total and passionate fealty to President Obama. We deplore this shocking lack of civility, and demand the disgraceful traitorous so-called "citizens" of his home district bring healing to our nation by setting Mr Boehner's house on fire while his family is home and asleep."
Posted by: bgates | February 20, 2011 at 12:34 PM
As Patton said to Rommel, Rick, 'I read your book' there is nothing that can sustain these
popularity ratings, even then they have 'torture' the data, to make it appear the way they want it to,
Posted by: narciso | February 20, 2011 at 12:36 PM
re: bgates 12:34PM
OK, I'm off the floor from laughing too hard...
Posted by: glasater | February 20, 2011 at 12:40 PM
If I were a Democrat, I wouldn't be concerned with why Scott Walker or Chris Christie or John Kasich or JOMers are opposed to collective bargaining by government workers. I'd be concerned about why FDR was opposed to it in 1937, and Joe Klein and Roland Martin are opposed to it today.
The arguments against it are concise and compelling, and are easily understood. If there is an argument in favor of it I have not heard it; I have heard only slogans.
They had better come up with one in a hurry.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | February 20, 2011 at 12:47 PM
The arguments against it are concise and compelling, and are easily understood. If there is an argument in favor of it I have not heard it; I have heard only slogans.
Exactly, DoT. The pro-union argument I keep hearing is that unions brought us the weekends.
Posted by: MayBee | February 20, 2011 at 12:51 PM
In the Beginning, the Unions created the Heaven and the Earth and divided the week into days and weekend. Amen
Posted by: MarkO | February 20, 2011 at 12:54 PM
Are Martin, Klein or even Christie opposed to actual collective bargaining, or only to the unionists not contributing fair share into their cushy benefits plans?
The reason the buses have swooped into Madison is that Walker in WI is aiming at the disease, not the symptoms.
Posted by: Chubby | February 20, 2011 at 12:54 PM
(My guess is "Never". Does "Never" work for you?)
Yes in terms of that being an accurate prediction; agreeing with it otherwise, not so much.
Rove won 2 Presidential elections ... who else can make that claim ?
BFD; he beat Weird Al and Lurch, two disgustingly unlikeable spoiled-brats whose combined IQs might hit double digits. That they were even close enough for the commiecrats to whine about speaks volumes about the Architect's acumen. 2006 and 2008 worked out well, no? Compassionate conservatism FTL. The Tea Party is as much about the mutts who spend like drunken sailors that Fat Boy is happy with as the donks.
Posted by: Captain Hate | February 20, 2011 at 12:57 PM
WI citizens who want a change in govt/union policies better find their sea legs and get out in force. I don't think the tea party can do it alone. If they don't put the renegade Dems as a front and center issue, then they are basically acquiescing to the status quo.
Posted by: sammy small | February 20, 2011 at 01:06 PM
I think Rove is a good numbers crunchers, not actually a political theorist.
Posted by: clarice feldman | February 20, 2011 at 01:10 PM
I think Rove is a good numbers cruncher, not actually a political theorist.
Posted by: clarice feldman | February 20, 2011 at 01:10 PM
When will the MFM ask Obama about his entire sketchy life? Birth, schooling, religion, name change, grades, girlfriends, friends, trips to Bali,....
Posted by: Janet | February 20, 2011 at 01:14 PM
Klein seems pretty clearly opposed to public unions bargaining over anything but wages--same as Walker.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | February 20, 2011 at 01:15 PM
Things we never read in the Times:
But the speaker of the House,
John BoehnerNancy Pelosi, made it clear on the NBC program “Meet the Press” last Sunday that she had no interest in quashing these fantasies or stoppinghis fellow Republicansher comrade Democrats from accusing Mr.ObamaBush of lying about hiscitizenship and his faithservice in the National Guard, involvement in 9/11, ad infinitum, ad nauseum.Posted by: Ignatz | February 20, 2011 at 01:16 PM
I think we can discern Obama's faith from the fact he was carrying a book with a title like "The End of America". He's a liberty-hating fascist who longs for the power of a Stalin.
Posted by: Rob Crawford | February 20, 2011 at 01:27 PM
Clarice, per JMH I'm sure he's a good fund raiser as well.
Posted by: Captain Hate | February 20, 2011 at 01:27 PM
Amen, Ignatz.
Posted by: MayBee | February 20, 2011 at 01:29 PM
DoT- it makes perfect sense. Taxpayers need to have more say about the expenses we are committed to paying in the future. Negotiating for salary is much more immediate and easier to control/budget.
Posted by: MayBee | February 20, 2011 at 01:32 PM
As I read it, the Time article (quoted below) indicates that Klein is actually in favor of unionized public employees and blames all the problems on the state for negotiating bad contracts. FDR's hardline was that government employees should not be unionized at all. Walker's plan, which demands that the unions be certified by their membership, threatens the actual existence of unions altogether.
Klein: ((Despite their questionable provenance, public unions can serve an important social justice role, guaranteeing that a great many underpaid workers--school bus drivers, janitors (outside of New York City), home health care workers--won't be too severely underpaid. That role will be kept intact in Wisconsin...))
Posted by: Chubby | February 20, 2011 at 01:34 PM
DoT, per your link Klein engages in his usual habit of sloppy thinking: In any given negotiation, I'm rooting for the union to win the highest base rates of pay possible. What does that mean? There's no ceiling on how high numbers can rise so I guess we have to engage in some Clintonian word-play on "possible". Does that mean so that there won't be any layoffs? Or that taxpayers aren't overly burdened? He doesn't mention other forms of compensation, which are huge.
Even though he comes to the correct conclusion, I wouldn't give a college student a passing grade on that essay.
Posted by: Captain Hate | February 20, 2011 at 01:37 PM
When we heard Republicans asked about Bush's TANG records, it was always with the implication that it proved there were questions Bush should answer.
Many on the left hated Bush's religion. I don't recall the press asking Dems to defend him from those who called him a Christianist.
As it should be. Let people say what they will.
Posted by: MayBee | February 20, 2011 at 01:38 PM
What the hell's a "stute"?
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | February 20, 2011 at 01:38 PM
What the hell's a "stute"?
A mare in German
Posted by: Captain Hate | February 20, 2011 at 01:43 PM
Captain Hate - IMHO, most Dems have confusing thinking when it comes to unions negotiating for higher pay vs. taxpayers negotiating for lower taxes.
If a private employer wants to lower union pay, that is very bad.
If the government wants to collect more taxes, that is good.
If someone complains about paying more in taxes, that is selfish.
If the government wants people to pay more into Social Security for all, that is wise.
If the government wants an employee to pay more toward his own pension, that is confiscatory.
If the government wants to fine insurance companies for "Cadillac" plans, that is good.
If the government wants its own employees to pay more toward their own Cadillac plans, that is an assault.
Posted by: MayBee | February 20, 2011 at 01:43 PM
Jane--when did the max change from 800 to 50? What is it now?
I think I took the LSAT's in 82, and that may have been the first year. They changed back by the end of the decade. It was a bit of a joke.
Posted by: Jane | February 20, 2011 at 01:48 PM
He's a fairly good theorist, he just isn't cynical enough, despite everything that has happened, they will not abide by the rules ever, yet the expect us to a follow Rule #5
Posted by: narciso | February 20, 2011 at 01:50 PM
A mare in German
Ah, Tom's horsing around again.
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | February 20, 2011 at 01:51 PM
unions brought us the weekends.
That idiot woman who kept screaming that should be fired.
I don't recall a "reading" portion on the LSAT's TC. When was that?
Posted by: Jane | February 20, 2011 at 01:52 PM
Way OT.
Back in China. Gave up watching BBC and CNN and instead turned on CCTV (Communist China TV).
They are doing a story on supposedly industrially poisoned employees of Apple in China. Don't know anything about it, but the American they brought on to damn Apple as the guilty party and liable for the recompense, as opposed to the local factory boss or the Chinese Govt etc, is a Duke Professor. Just for interest, after they mentioned his name---http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/Articles/List%20of%20Gang%20of%2088%20Duke%20Professors3.html "> Ralph Litzinger, Cultural Anthropologist I googled his name to see if he was a Duke member of the gang of 88. Bingo!
So Prof Litzinger has again determined who is guilty, just like with the Duke LaCrosse players. He also says, "Apple has deep pockets".
Anyhow, I personally don't know who is guilty but thought you'd like to know that at least 1 member of the Duke 88 is still well respected in Communist China.
Posted by: daddy | February 20, 2011 at 01:52 PM
I wonder how long this Wisconsin thing will last when school boards begin cutting AWOL teachers' pay. I think it is unlikely that teachers' union locals have much in the way of strike funds.
Posted by: Jim Rhoads a/k/a vjnjagvet | February 20, 2011 at 01:54 PM
Maybee, there's a disconnect for sure.
Posted by: Captain Hate | February 20, 2011 at 01:56 PM
Anyhow, I personally don't know who is guilty but thought you'd like to know that at least 1 member of the Duke 88 is still well respected in Communist China.
All the more reason the good professor should stay there, daddy.
Posted by: Jim Rhoads a/k/a vjnjagvet | February 20, 2011 at 01:57 PM
--"As for the lying business, a man who lies about his religious convictions, or lack thereof, is far less qualified to be POTUS, than the metaphysics of "naturl born". No offense Threadkiller, that's just my take."--
None taken. I look at this as progress. While not at the top, at least natural born is on your list. :-)
Posted by: Threadkiller | February 20, 2011 at 02:00 PM
Like Harry Mudd's androids, they would a paradox breakdown if they pondered it too deeply.
Posted by: narciso | February 20, 2011 at 02:00 PM
Now unlike bgates, humor this sounds more serious, in the LUN
Posted by: narciso | February 20, 2011 at 02:03 PM
Klein's stance on public union bargaining seems to me identical to Walker's: wages yes; everything else no.
I personally would like to see Walker call for their outright abolition, but politics is the art of the possible. In any event, his provision for annual certification based on a majority of the membership (not merely of those voting), together with the state ceasing to be the dues-collector, is the functional equivalent of getting rid of them.
I don't care one whit for Klein or what he says, but to the extent his words can be used in Walker's favor I am hot for it.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | February 20, 2011 at 02:04 PM
Jim-
Since it is an illegal work stoppage, would the strike fund cover it?
daddy-
Drudge has flagged up protests in China. Have you seen anything?
Posted by: RichatUF | February 20, 2011 at 02:12 PM
I agree DoT on the value of what Klein is saying in this skirmish. I think he's trying to give the unions and their members helpful information and they're turning a deaf ear to it. If I were a union official and interested in my long-term future, I wouldn't be doing anything remotely close to what they've done.
Posted by: Captain Hate | February 20, 2011 at 02:12 PM
That's certainly the way they are interpreting
it, one wonders though, would the NRLB intervene, that they should, but will they?
Posted by: narciso | February 20, 2011 at 02:31 PM
I wonder how Beyonce feels about performing for the Quaddafys now.
Posted by: MayBee | February 20, 2011 at 02:32 PM
Actually, RichatUF, if I recall correctly the union successfully argued earlier that it was not an illegal work stoppage, but that the individual teachers were exercising their first amendment rights and were also individually subject to discipline for their actions. I am not a labor lawyer, but it seems that if the local schol districts suspend teachers who falsely claimed they were sick, the union cannot support them with strike funds without conceding that it is an illegal work stoppage.
I think the districts should start suspending the truant teachers without pay, and tell them that the unions sold them out. It will be interesting to see how far "solidarity" extends when and if that occurs.
Posted by: Boatbuilder | February 20, 2011 at 02:35 PM
Boatbuilder's right. Their legal counsel argued that it wasn't a work stoppage. They couldn't use "work stoppage" funds without sabotaging their case.
Posted by: PD | February 20, 2011 at 02:39 PM
MayBee, looks to me like your examples illustrate a single unifying principle:
Collectivist wants to extract from the individual: good
Individual wants not to be pillaged by the collectivist: bad
Posted by: PD | February 20, 2011 at 02:40 PM
Rich. I have never had the occasion to research the legal niceties of union strike funds. As far as I know, the funds are essentially unregulated and can be disbursed at the discretion of union leadership unless contrary to the union's by-laws. I doubt that employers have any standing to interfere with a union's use of its strike funds.
Posted by: Jim Rhoads a/k/a vjnjagvet | February 20, 2011 at 02:40 PM
narciso,
Interesting that the SEIU and OFA are putting ads on Craigslist to "bloody" the T-Party and then brag about how they did the same thing in Egypt. IIRC, it was Google, Facebook and Twitter that was used in Egypt and I don't think the SEIU or OFA goons could even muster the brain cells to understand what was going on in Egypt.
One other thing, when you are dealing with trouble in only one of two states without a CCW law, you can incite all the violence you want without being concerned about some guy with a Glock or Sig Sauer in his pocket keeping you honest. Hard to believe that a hunting state like Wisconsin does not allow CCW. That should be next on Walker's agenda.
Posted by: Jack is Back! | February 20, 2011 at 02:42 PM
Why doesn't the NYT question why Gregory, who asked the question, failed to point out that being a Muslim is in no way a disqualification for the presidency?
Hmmm--I'm thinking that the appropriate response to the current meme should be: "Not that there's anything wrong with that, because being a Muslim is in no way a disqualification, but when Obama says he's a Christian I take him at his word. Do you think there's something wrong with a Muslim being president?"
Posted by: Boatbuilder | February 20, 2011 at 02:42 PM
You might have missed that edition, but, the NY Times published Obama's birth certificate....right alongside John Kerry's military record...(sarcasm, aye)
Posted by: Tom Hazlewood | February 20, 2011 at 02:43 PM
They are the Camel ridding Auxiliaries, right
out of an out take from the original Stargate
Posted by: narciso | February 20, 2011 at 02:45 PM
The unions that offered the concessions that Walker refused can say, "Look at how reasonable we are being, we gave up something and Walker is not willing to give up anything." Problem is, the things they want Walker to concede, and the reason the buses are in Madison, are the items that threaten, however slightly, the continuing existence of the unions.
I see Klein and Martin as more or less bolstering the teachers' argument "Reasonable 'R Us" and Walker is reasonable NOT.
Posted by: Chubby | February 20, 2011 at 02:46 PM
Unfortunately, Narciso, of the five members of the NLRB, four are democrats. I believe it unlikely that any pro-management activity will come from the Board until control shifts back to the republicans.
Posted by: Jim Rhoads a/k/a vjnjagvet | February 20, 2011 at 02:49 PM
Reading that NYT quote about the Gregory/Boehner exchange: "...when Obama says he's a Christian, 'I'll take him at his word.'"
Was the future tense intentional? If so, a nice Sarah Palin wink to Speaker Boehner.
Posted by: Boatbuilder | February 20, 2011 at 02:50 PM
Why can't Boenher and the rest of the Repub leadership just say those questions and discussions are a diversion from solving the number one problem in America - a runaway deficit, spending, debt and federal government. All other non-issues are for others who think our national priorities are 1) who should replace Simon on American Idol, 2) George Bush as boogie man, and 3) Obama's religion and birthplace.
Hope this works.
Posted by: Jack is Back! | February 20, 2011 at 02:50 PM
I had a longer bit of response, along those lines, JiB, last Sunday
Posted by: narciso | February 20, 2011 at 02:53 PM
Hey bgates -- would you email me? I have a question.
jomhitandrun at gmail dot com
Posted by: hit and run | February 20, 2011 at 02:56 PM
This was my comment, from last week;
"David, what is the point of this inquiry, I told you what I believe, now unemployment is at 10.3% despite trillions of dollars spent,the entire regional stability, of most regimes friendly to us, are under threat, and our security and intelligence services, we can't let CNN be the standard by which competency is judged. From Ft. Hood to Detroit to Times Square to the events in North Africa, they have prove not up to the challenge. Lets discuss
that shall we, lets discuss ways of stabilizing our economy. While we're at it, we have seen that skyrocketing food prices
have been a trigger to some of this unrest.
Part of this is do to all the excess funds
floating around due to QE 2, part is the diversion of food staples to ethanol production, lets consider phasing this out.
In addition, the wallets of Americans have b
become thinner, as gas prices rise to four
dollars a gallon, maybe it's time to consider that a spill like that which happened thirty years, is no reason to close
the Gulf to domestic production. Judge Feldman has pointed out how fraudulent this whole moratorium has been, lets discuss that David. You embarass the fine name of Lawrence Spivak who founded this program, with the folderall that you pretend matters,
while Americans are poorer, more anxious,
and justifiably angrier because of the failure of the President's policies. The results last November, should have shown
you these facts, but you seem unable or unwilling to comprehend them. When you do
find the time, I'll be willing to discuss
them, till then, Good day"
Posted by: narciso | February 20, 2011 at 03:06 PM
"Drudge has flagged up protests in China. Have you seen anything?"
Rich,
I have seen nothing about it at all.
Am currently back in Shanghai for 2 days and will keep my eyes open but honestly I doubt I'll see anything. Will ask my Irish ex-pat friends tomorrow night for their perspective. There are 7 different CCTV Channels, besides the Arabic, Russian, French and Spanish versions of CCTV. So far nothing on flip throughs.
There has been a CNN report of some reporter being stopped from reporting something in China by the police, but I have never sat and paid it much attention as I was so exasperated with their lack of coverage with Wisconsin, and this seemed like just another story spotlighting the reporter as hero. Will advise if anything pops up.
Posted by: daddy | February 20, 2011 at 03:09 PM
In response to that question, Mr. Gregory, I would just like to say that I agree 100 percent with the New York Times on this issue. In accordance with their advice and recommendation, I will take the lead in supporting Mr. Obama with regard to his personal religious preference. Being a Muslim is not a disqualification for being President of the United States."
Posted by: Boatbuilder | February 20, 2011 at 03:13 PM
Let's throw Rahm into the mix of Democrats who http://www.publicsectorinc.com/psi_articles/2011/02/rahmbo-takes-on-public-worker-unions.html>don't toe the public sector union line:
Posted by: hit and run | February 20, 2011 at 03:18 PM
"Mr Gregory,
Since you obviously believe it is important for a Republican House Speaker to publicly condemn citizens who believe in supposed false accusations against Democratic President Obama, why didn't you similarly ask Democratic Speaker Pelosi to publicly condemn citizens who believed in false accusations against Republican President Bush?
Posted by: daddy | February 20, 2011 at 03:26 PM
Did everyone see that Rocco identified the doctor toward the end of this phony sick note video as Douglas L. Smith, a partner of James H. Shropshire, whose signature we've already seen on a fraudulent note? Anyone disagree that he's the guy?
I took a stab at searching for the wise-ass at the very end of the video, and came up with Kari P. Cataldo. Anyone agree?
Posted by: Extraneus | February 20, 2011 at 03:27 PM
Hit,
When do you think the specter of one Bill Ayers and spouse will rise up among the Chicago masses as the election proceeds as those issues are debated? Will Obama back Rahm or the unions? Time for a Griesedick beer summit:)
Posted by: Jack is Back! | February 20, 2011 at 03:28 PM
I wonder how Beyonce feels about performing for the Quaddafys now.
Probably as numb as always, MayBee.
Posted by: Rob Crawford | February 20, 2011 at 03:29 PM
Hard to believe that a hunting state like Wisconsin does not allow CCW. That should be next on Walker's agenda.
ISTR a story from a few weeks ago saying a bill was already submitted and due to be voted on.
Posted by: Rob Crawford | February 20, 2011 at 03:35 PM
Waiting for Superman
The teacher's who took the day off "sick" to go to the capital should be fired.
The work for the taxpayer. The taxpayer does not work for them.
Posted by: Army of Davids | February 20, 2011 at 03:36 PM
Ext, must be a coincidence that all three of those docs are from the U of W Family Clinic. It makes me feel much better that they are teaching ethics to Wisconsin's future doctors. How about you?
Posted by: Jim Rhoads a/k/a vjnjagvet | February 20, 2011 at 03:47 PM
I'd like to see them pay a harsh penalty for defrauding the taxpayers, Jim. Surrendering their licenses to practice medicine wouldn't be too strong a measure for me.
Then, if the teachers get fired, the students will have learned a valuable ethics lesson from this golden opportunity of a teaching moment. Otherwise, if they all get away with it, the lesson isn't quite what I would hope the young tykes take away from watching their elders and authority figures involved in such shenanigans.
Posted by: Extraneus | February 20, 2011 at 03:56 PM
Insty just linked to this which outlines some of the ramifications including with the malpractice carrier.
Bring it on.
Posted by: Jane | February 20, 2011 at 04:07 PM
How the times have changed, used to be that every spring the guys had "pantie" raids on the Collage campuses, an occasional streaking indecent, or other wise harmless fun. Now look at the mess we are in..
Posted by: Agent J. (formally known as "J".. | February 20, 2011 at 04:08 PM
I wonder how Beyonce feels
Soft. Warm. Firm.
I gotta go.
Posted by: bgates | February 20, 2011 at 04:14 PM
Just fired off a helpful note to the Wisconsin Journal Sentinel tip email, [email protected]:
Posted by: Extraneus | February 20, 2011 at 04:15 PM
The core of the problem w/ public sector unions is the asymmetric negotating advantages they enjoy.
When you own both sides of the table in a negotiation there is a problem.
Tea Party types should not back down one iota from the call to eliminate public sector unions.
In fact we should aggressively pursue the discussion of their relevance to the countries fiscal problems.
Posted by: Army of Davids | February 20, 2011 at 04:18 PM
As a lawyer, many if not all of my clients could be helped out in tricky legal situations by my swearing out a phony affidavit, and/or encouraging the client to do so. To do so would be a gross violation of the code of ethics, my own conscience, several statutes and at least one commandment. I would be disbarred (or at least suspended for several years, the legal profession not being particularly effective at self-discipline). I would be expelled from my partnership. This would be true even if, or especially if, I was personally sympathetic to whatever it was that my clients were trying to accomplish, advance or protect themselves from.
How is the conduct of these doctors any different?
Posted by: Boatbuilder | February 20, 2011 at 04:21 PM
O knows ther is something wrong,but when it gets out in future he s going to say he didn t mislead when he did.Hawaii has a not born there born there peiod like 2yrs or something.Id like to see if Plame's NSA non spy dad helped put this deal together for informants.Problem with this is he is relying on the law to lie for him,which will inevitably bring up his past:........
Posted by: icesave | February 20, 2011 at 04:23 PM
Ext--I think that's a good letter, but it also should be sent to the Unve of WIS as all three are apparently employed by the Unviersity..Certainly the head of the U if Wis Family Clinic should get the same letter.
Posted by: clarice feldman | February 20, 2011 at 04:28 PM
((How is the conduct of these doctors any different? ))
imv, not one bit
the community needs to be protected from medical practitioners who put their politics, and lying for thier politics, above medical ethics
Posted by: Chubby | February 20, 2011 at 04:30 PM
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaah, poor Barack and Michelle, they got left off the list of 2000 invited guests to the Royal Wedding.
Guess the Queen wasn't so impressed with her iPod of Obama speeches he gave her.
Posted by: Sara (Pal2Pal) | February 20, 2011 at 04:34 PM
Done.
Posted by: Extraneus | February 20, 2011 at 04:34 PM