A preview of White House etiquette

April 10, 2009

White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel at the Inauguration.

TIME Jim Young / Reuters

Emanuel was on Board of Directors of Freddie Mac

April 6, 2009

Bet this is another thing barry was "stunned" to learn. Why isn't anyone going after barry and his Cabinet about the financial crisis and their role in it? What is it going to take?

Rahm Emanuel straight from wiki. I'm not going to bother looking around for more info. This is enough.

After serving as an advisor to Bill Clinton, in 1998 Emanuel resigned from his position in the Clinton administration and became an investment banker at Wasserstein Perella (now Dresdner Kleinwort), where he worked until 2002. In 1999, he became a managing director at the firm’s Chicago office. Emanuel made $16.2 million in his two-and-a-half-year stint as a banker, according to Congressional disclosures. At Wasserstein Perella, he worked on eight deals, including the acquisition by Commonwealth Edison of Peco Energy and the purchase by GTCR Golder Rauner of the SecurityLink home security unit from SBC Communications.

Axelrod is a lobbyist for ComEd but in Illinois he doesn't have to register. barry pal, Bill Ayers' dad was CEO of ComEd. Frank Clark is the present chairman and CEO of ComEd, (part of Chicago-based Exelon Corp) and raised $200K besides a personal donation of $2K. Exelon employees donated $247,413 for presidential race and $270K for his state senate campaign.

Emanuel was named to the Board of Directors for the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation ("Freddie Mac") by then President Bill Clinton in 2000. His position earned him at least $320,000, including later stock sales. He was not assigned to any of the board's working committees, and the Board met no more than six times per year.

Keep this in mind the next time you hear him talking about the economy, foreclosures and Wall Street and bankers' greed.

During his time on the board, Freddie Mac was plagued with scandals involving campaign contributions and accounting irregularities. The Obama Administration rejected a request under the Freedom of Information Act to review Freddie Mac board minutes and correspondence during Emanuel's time as a director.

How convenient. Another example of barry's transparency.

The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) later accused the board of having "failed in its duty to follow up on matters brought to its attention." Emanuel resigned from the board in 2001 when he ran for Congress.

The damage was already done.

In January, 2003 he was named to the Financial Services Committee, and sat on the subcommittee that oversaw Freddie Mac. A few months later, Freddie Mac Chief Executive Officer Leland Brendsel was forced out, and the committee and subcommittee commenced hearings lasting for more than a year. Emanuel skipped every hearing allegedly for reasons of avoiding any appearance of favoritism, impropriety, or conflict of interest.

barry & rahmbo’s “civilian national military force”

April 5, 2009

barry and right hand man’s idea of a civilian national military force. Thing is one is already amassing and it is interested in making barry prove he is not a usurper. both barry and Rahm want Americans to serve their country - watch how Rahmbo skirts the issue of whether it would actually be a “draft” since it would be mandatory - and yet neither of them have done so.

DontBeObamaZombies

I wonder what those 13 milion barry zombies who registered their email and/or phones numbers are thinking now. The government has all their information and they gave it willingly.

DNCC website: “I’m sorry, Rush”

March 4, 2009

The democrats are so crazy they put up a generic website “I’m sorry, Rush” for Republicans to send Rush Limbaugh and “I apologize” form letter. It’s a real group: Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

Why are they bothering? Aren’t they in power? It’s just turning off more people. Any middle-grader can tell you: if you ignore the bully, the bully will ignore you.

barry can’t help himself, though. He can’t stand when folks aren’t obamerized. He rants about FOX, O’Reilly, Hannity, Limbaugh and Lou Dobbs because they dare to speak in non-adoring terms. He said he doesn’t read much press. Right.

His ego and need for feeding of it is bigger than the deficit.

RAHM EMANUEL: “Whenever a Republican criticizes them, they have to run back and apologize to him.”

RUSH LIMBAUGH transcript:

It is on the record — thanks to Politico.com — since last fall, the White House, led by Rahm Emanuel, the chief of staff to Barack Obama, has been targeting me, your host, your harmless, lovable little fuzzball. Their standard operating procedure: they need a demon to distract and divert from what their agenda is. They need a demon about whom they can lie so as to persuade average Americans that they’re the good guys, the benevolent good guys, and the mean SOBs are their enemies trying to stop this great young little president from doing miraculous and wonderful things.

Here is a new ad that this union bunch is running in Washington, DC, ladies and gentlemen. And, of course, it’s been picked up all over the Web. You guys, if you haven’t done so, you gotta go to RushLimbaugh.com. The DNCC, whatever it is, they have a questionnaire up there. It’s hilarious. I have to give ‘em credit. You can see it right now at RushLimbaugh.com. It is a form letter where any Republican can send a note of apology to me. The note is an apology note to me, and you can fill in your name and the reason you’re apologizing. It is funny. I had to laugh when I saw it last night. I instructed Koko, just put it up there, ’cause it’s hilarious. It’s as good as the old Saturday Night Live stuff back when Saturday Night Live was actually funny. But there’s a new ad targeted at your lovable, harmless little fuzzball host from that union bunch. It starts today in Washington, DC, which means it’s going to be all over the cable networks pretty soon.

That’s the union bunch. Can you just see…? (laughing) “Call the Republican leadership and say no to Limbaugh.” (laughing) Now, ladies and gentlemen, the Politico story today. I got an e-mail last night from the writer of the story, Jonathan Martin, who did not tell me the full details of what the story they were working on was. He did not tell me that they have discovered that there is a team inside the White House targeting me and that they’ve been doing this since last fall, when they went out and did some polling data and found out I’ve got very high negatives among certain groups. So they thought, “Well, this is the guy to demonize! Since Bush is leaving, we need somebody,” and so this is being led from the White House. There is an orchestrated attack, daily drumbeat on me from the White House. The participants here are James Carville, Paul Begala and Rahm Emanuel.

But make no mistake about it. Emanuel is the leader of all of this. Carville and Begala are just trying to ride my fame into their fortune and become relevant again. Begala and Carville, don’t confuse them with the power brokers that are managing this. It all Emanuel. Begala and Carville are second-rate talking heads on CNN. CNN has no audience. Rahm Emanuel is the power behind the throne — and don’t let his effeminate nature and his ballerina past mislead you on this. He may look effeminate (he was a ballerina at one time) but he has the feral instincts of a female rat defending its young. Well, take a look. When Emanuel and Carville and Begala are together (and I’ve seen pictures) it looks like a reunion of the Village People. (singing) Y! M! C! A! They are really the official greeters in Roswell, New Mexico, in Area 51 where Carville was born.

My point here is that these are really odious, empty, nasty people who are feasting on their own arrogance. They are power hungry. But, you know what? They’ve never had a serious debate over ideas. Their goal is to destroy opponents, which is what they’re trying to do now. They don’t want to engage opponents. Their idea of victory is the destruction of the opponent. They’re not for a level playing field. They want to clear the playing field so that their ideas do not have to undergo any scrutiny. So what do they do? They leak stories to The Politico intended to create impressions about their own importance and their brilliance, when in fact they aren’t even bit players on the nation’s stage. This is Emanuel, and this is Obama.
***

He’s absolutely right - barry cleared the playing field for his first election. Wiped out all his competitors. The only time he had run against the GOP was the general election and that was obvious by their simple use of the race card. How many black folks weren’t already voting for him? What white guilt hadn’t been milked dry?

barry’s goal is to destroy. He wanted to win by destroying and it was born out in during the primaries. They won by destroying because he had nothing to promote. Same thing the barrybots did. In ours hundreds of interactions with bots here and the other site - not one - NOT ONE - could tell us why he should be president without attacking his opponents or us. 99% couldn’t name a single policy. Nonbarry folks know more about barry then the bots.

What does that tell you?

He’s up there taking about Change! and ethics and hope! and whatever else, while his minions - the DNC, the proobamedia and the bots - attack like filthy demons. Hillary Clitnon was one thing - what they did and said about Sarah Palin and her family was beyond evil.

Jonjon Alter: “DISABLED INFANT”.

And Al Franken came up with the incest “sketch” for SNL.

If he said the same thing about Malia and Sasha would he be on his way to the senate?

Give me Burris any day.

I don’t know what this man believes in and I really do not care. What he says here - right here - about barry is the absolute truth. Absolute 100% truth. And the more barry pouts and postures, the more glaringly obvious it will become.

What was done to Hillary Clinton? Mr Bill? Suddenly they’re both racists and “Hillary” is talking about barry’s assassination. That is still something they haven’t apologized for. Anyone ever hear barry apologize for anything? Ever? It took three denials before he admitted he was playing the race card with those dollar bills he indeed looks like. Hillary Clinton is other one who doesn’t look like the dollar bills. It took him four tries to say he screwed up with Daschle.

Stellar judgment, eh?

And Clinton’s teas sipping didn’t qualify her to be president - just qualified her as the top diplomat in the world. That should have clued y’all into who barry really is. She has to be happy she is actually out doing something. And he assembles these expert panels to come up with something so a) he knows what to do and b) so he has someone to blame it on. He puts together team after team and then says his top people won’t be getting raises. He neglects to mention that one team’s salary far exceeds any raise his people could get.

Hello.

And what about what he allowed to happen to Sen McCain? He was called a racist and likened to George Wallace and had ads made about how his rage was a “national security concern“. All things barry has never apologized for, including the allegation that McCain supporters were yelling “kill him” which was a complete myth as per barry’s own Secret Service. And I certainly don’t have to mention what was done to Gov Palin and her family. And after his hacks did it he said families are off limit- just like he said when his US Senate Rep opponent’s sealed divorce records became public and barry said they shouldn’t be used.

You folks are seeing who the real barry is now - who he has been all along. He cares about himself - not the people - else he wouldn’t even be responding to this crap. This is all barry’s people know how to do - campaign. All barry knows how to do is give teleprompter speeches and Mr Bill had to tell him to stop saying how bad things. He was trying to lower expectations at a time when all that hope! teleprompterspeak was needed. That’s why there was a complete change in tone in that latest speech.

They have no idea how to govern and it is becoming clearer every hour.

I’ll have to put that stock market graphic in a post. Another thing the fuzzball is right about.

Face the Nation: Rahm Emanuel (video + transcript)

Face the Nation: Rahm Emanuel (video + transcript)

By mattie14

March 1, 2009

barry’s Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel on “Face the Nation” goes off on Rush Limbaugh.

Why is the White House wasting time on a radio host when they are in power? Would someone please tell barry he won and that he is no longer campaigning?

barry and his buds are playing let’s lay the groundwork for 2012 when the ground is burning.

CQ Politics Transcript: Face the Nation

Bob Schieffer & Rahm Emanuel

[emphasis added - CAPS mine]

SCHIEFFER: And good morning again. Rahm Emanuel is with us in the studio this morning.

Good morning, Mr. Emmanuel.

It was a big week last week. It’s going to be another big one this week. When the president told the joint session of Congress on Tuesday there was nothing more important than bringing the deficit down, House Democrats, led by Speaker Pelosi, jumped to their feet with applause.

Yet on Wednesday, those same Democrats passed a spending bill to keep the government running for the rest of this fiscal year that contained 9,000 — count ‘em — 9,000 earmarks, costing nearly $8 billion.

The Senate is going to act on that bill this week, will send it to the president for his signature. It looks like most of those earmarks are going to stay in.

Is the president going to sign this bill?

EMANUEL: As you noted, that’s last year’s business. Second is when President Obama came to office, two major bills were passed without earmarks. The major economic recovery act — earmark-free; the children’s health care bill — earmark-free.

He has said clearly his policies about earmarks, which is you’ve got to be — more accountability, more transparency, and a reduction.

This bill has some of those, but he has enunciated his view and given an indication, when he was a senator, he, like I, when I was a member of Congress, put his own individual request on his own Web page.

That policy has now been adopted because the most important thing is to be transparent and accountable for what you ask.

Because what the American people want to know is, do these individual congressional earmarks meet a worthy public objective, or are they just an individual desire of a member of Congress?

And that’s why transparency and accountability are so important.

[SAY IT ENOUGH TIMES AND PEOPLE BELIEVE IT - IT WORKED TO GET HIM THERE.]

SCHIEFFER: Well, I understand that. But why didn’t he just tell the Senate, look, take these things out of here; I’ve told people we were not going to have these earmarks; then send it back to me?

EMANUEL: What he has always said is — and what he’s clear is, again, the economic recovery act, earmark-free, a major bill.

Second, this is last year’s business.

And third most importantly, we’re going to have to make some other changes, going forward, to reduce and bring more — reduce the ultimate number and bring the transparency. And that’s the policy that he enunciated in his campaign.

SCHIEFFER: But it sounds to me like what you’re — what he’s about to do, here, is say, well I don’t like this but I’m going to go ahead and sign it, but I’m going to warn you, don’t ever do it again. Is that what’s about to happen here?

EMANUEL: In not so many words, yes.

SCHIEFFER: All right. Well, let’s talk about this budget, because it was a whopper, that was outlined this week.

Republicans say it’s going to increase the size of government by one-third, just next year alone. It produces a deficit of $1.75 trillion. That’s the largest since World War II, probably larger than the last five combined.

On our Web cast, “Washington Unplugged,” I asked former Republican Speaker Newt Gingrich on Friday about it. Here’s what he said about it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NEWT GINGRICH, FORMER SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: I think that what President Obama has done is outlined the boldest effort to remake America since Lyndon Johnson’s great society in 1965.

I think he has courageously laid down the challenge to the whole country. He said, I want to become a more left-wing country with a bigger government, with higher taxes. Now, do you want to go that way or not?

And I think the challenge will be, for those of us who don’t want to go that way, to articulate an alternative vision. But I think this budget sets the stage for the biggest fight over the future of America since 1965.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHIEFFER: The biggest fight since 1965?

EMANUEL: Three quick points, Bob. First, this is a $1.7 trillion deficit he inherited. Let’s be clear about that. We inherited this deficit and we inherited $4 trillion of new debt.

EMANUEL: That is the facts.

Second, this budget is very honest with the American people. It’s honest about the cost of the war, which we have never been honest for seven years. It’s honest about the alternative minimum tax, which we’ve never been honest with the American people about. And that, in this deficit, reflects what we inherited at this point.

Second, I happen to think that Newt is right about one thing. There’s a challenge now to the Republicans. Because the president is very clear. We can subsidize the HMO industry on 114 cents on the dollar rather than pay 100 cents on the dollar for health care. Will the Republican budget continue down the path of subsidizing the health care industry and the insurance industry in particular, while in fact coverage and premiums — lack of coverage for the uninsured continues to go up? The fact is that premiums go up for the rest of America, and also America’s life expectancy goes down. Will they continue to subsidize the big oil industry, while we send — but while we send over, Bob, $700 billion of our wealth overseas. They have a challenge. Will they subsidize the banking industry rather than helping kids go to college?

We’ve laid out a vision — start to invest in America, invest in your middle class, make the tough choices, be honest with the American people. The challenge will be, as he said there, which is will the Republicans meet the challenge of the future or keep us on the path that they have set for the last seven years that got us to this point of reckoning.

SCHIEFFER: You cannot say, though, can you, that this is all something he inherited, this deficit. I mean, there are things in this budget that were not in George Bush’s budget, talking about health care and all of these other things.

EMANUEL: No, no, but what we are doing — as we did in the Economic Recovery Act — and it’s fundamental to our goal — first of all, we bring the deficit down. That’s different.

Second is, we and the president– the president was very clear in the Economic Recovery Act as he is in this economic program — it is time to invest in our energy independence, which is why in the Economic Recovery Act we doubled the size of alternative energy. It’s time to invest in our kids’ ability to go to college, which is why we don’t subsidize banks but we subsidize kids’ ability to go to college. It is time we start insuring and bring the costs down, the premiums, as well as expand coverage. Those are the type of investments that are key for America’s economic growth and competitiveness going forward. The health care system is a particular example where America’s economic competitiveness, its strength around the world is sapped because we have a health care system that doesn’t allow American workers and business to compete. And it is the key to our long-term putting our fiscal house in order.

And the Republicans will have an opportunity not just to criticize, but to propose. And the question is, will they continue the path of the seven years that have got us to the point of basically a culture of rising deficits and more and more consumer spending? This budget deficit, this budget, an economic program fundamentally changes the culture in this way. It rejects the past and says we are going to be a culture and a society that invests and saves.

SCHIEFFER: What the Republicans also say, it raises taxes on everybody. I think everybody expected that taxes on upper-income people were going to go up. Barack Obama said during the campaign that that’s what he planned to do. But Newt Gingrich and some of the other Republicans say when people find out that when you’re talking about these things you’re talking about on the energy front, it’s going to be a new tax on everybody that uses electricity, who drives a car, and there’s going to be tax increases in myriad other ways.

EMANUEL: Well, first of all, let’s be very clear. Because I’ve seen these scare tactic before. You’ve seen it too, Bob. 95 percent of Americans, working Americans, will have a tax cut. As the president said Tuesday night, 95 percent of Americans will have a tax cut. And starting April 1st, they’ll see it, which the Republicans voted against in large measure in the House and in the Senate.

Second, nobody will see a tax increase for two years, when we get out of this recession. And he ran on, as you noted, the fact that the wealthy 2 percent will have their marginal rates go back to where they were under Bill Clinton, when we produced 22 million jobs, and their deductions will go back to where they were under Ronald Reagan. We’re going really just back to that point, that starting point.

[ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL EVERYTHING BILL CLINTON DID SUCKED - NOW THEY'RE TAKING CREDIT FOR THE GOOD THINGS - EXACTLY WHAT HE SAID ABOUT HILLARY CLINTON AS FIRST LADY.]

So there will be these scare tactics of trying to talk about the fact that everybody is going to see increases. And the president couldn’t have been clearer Tuesday night that working, middle-class families will get a tax cut.

In addition to that, more and more will get assistance so they can go to college in a society and a time economically where you earn what you learn, we’re going to help more people go to college and have the most educated workforce.

We’re also fundamentally — the most important thing economically is getting an energy policy and a health care policy that ensures that the economy and members of our society and our country can get a health care system that works for them, rather than them working for that health care system, and an energy policy that weans us off dependence on foreign oil and towards an independent policy on energy.

SCHIEFFER: Aren’t there more tax increases in this plan than Barack Obama talked about during the campaign? For example, on upper- income people, talking about reducing the deductions they can take on charitable giving. Aren’t you going to get a lot of opposition from places like where Barack Obama used to work, charitable enterprises, when he was a community organizer?

EMANUEL: There will be, you know, voices of criticism. But I want everybody to be reassured by the fact, these are the rates that were — the deductions that Ronald Reagan had, and the marginal rate is where Bill Clinton and the time in the ’90s, we had. That’s what they are. There’s not like just something totally radically new. We’re going back to those points.

And making sure — but what do we do? We reduce the deficit and we make critical investments that are essential to the economic strength of this country. And what has not happened over the years when we were subsidizing these powerful interests is, in fact, we went farther and slid farther and farther behind while we were piling up record amount of debt and deficits.

And the question is and the challenge is, that day of reckoning can no longer be put off. And the president is very clear. He ran on this. And one of the big news here in Washington is not only did he run on it, he then proposed it, which is always a surprise, and I think one of the gaffes that you hear here in Washington. People expect you to run on one — say one thing in the campaign and then govern different. I think what’s woken up Washington is he’s been consistent from the campaign all the way through to his economic programs, and he’s said these are the challenges we have, and the day of running away from those challenges and not meeting them while America slid behind economically is no longer feasible or is no longer smart.

SCHIEFFER: All right. Do you think you’re going to get more Republican support than you had, for example, on passing those stimulus packages? I noticed you said in an article in the New Yorker when somebody asked, “is bipartisanship dead?”

You were quoted as saying, “the public wants bipartisanship. We just have to try. We don’t have to succeed in getting it.”

What does that mean?

EMANUEL: Well, there’s slightly — a little more about that.

First of all, we did succeed, number one, in bipartisanship.

[SUCCEED? WHEN? AND NOW?]

SCHIEFFER: You got three Republicans.

EMANUEL: No, well, let’s do the entire scorecard. On the Ledbetter legislation, a number of Republicans in both the House and the Senate voted for it. On the children’s health care bill, a number of Republicans voted for that.

[HOW MANY EXACTLY? AND HOW WERE THEY GOING TO VOTE AGAINST LEDBETTER AND GET REELECTED WHEN THE MAJORITY IF THE ELECTORATE ARE WOMEN?]

You are right on the Economic Recovery Act, because of its boldness, we had three. But we had governors throughout the country who support it. Republican mayors throughout the country support it, and Republican voters who supported it.

[THAT IS NOT BIPARTISANSHIP.]

Going forward, the president has been very clear. He called on the national service bill that Senator Kennedy and Senator Hatch, Republican for Utah, had proposed. He has been clear about wanting a stem cell legislation that a number — like Senator Specter, a Republican from Pennsylvania, as well as Senator Harkin, a Democrat from Iowa. So we will continue to reach out, as we did in the fiscal summit earlier this week, as we will in the health care summit on Thursday.

SCHIEFFER: Let me ask you this question…

EMANUEL: But our goal, our goal, Bob, is to continue to reach out.

[HOW DID THEY REACH OUT? THEY JAMMED IT DOWN THEIR THROATS AND NO ONE READ IT. HURRY AND GET IT THROUGH AND THEN GO HOME TO THE HYDE PARK RANCH FOR VACATION AND THEN GO TO A SWING STATE TO SIGN IT.]

And it’s our desire that the Republicans would work with us and try to be constructive, rather than adopt the philosophy of somebody like Rush Limbaugh, who is praying for failure.

SCHIEFFER: Rush Limbaugh. We’ve talked about Newt Gingrich a lot this morning and now you bring up Rush Limbaugh. Who do you think now speaks for the Republican Party?

EMANUEL: You just named them. It was Rush Limbaugh. I mean, he has laid out his vision, in my view, and he said it clearly, and I compliment him for that. He’s been very upfront and I compliment him for that. He’s not hiding.

He’s asked for President Obama and called for President Obama to fail. That’s his view. And that’s what he has enunciated. And whenever a Republican criticize him, they have to run back and apologize to him, and say they were misunderstood.

He is the voice and the intellectual force and energy behind the Republican Party. And he has been upfront about what he views, and hasn’t stepped back from that, which is he hopes for failure. He said it. And I compliment him for his honesty, but that’s their philosophy that is enunciated by Rush Limbaugh. And I think that’s the wrong philosophy for America, because what Americans want us to do and what President Obama has been very clear about is work together, setting our goals. We may take different roads to get to that goal, but be clear on what we have to do to build this country, by investing in our people, changing the health care system, having an energy independence policy that clearly weans America off its dependence on foreign oil…

SCHIEFFER: Do you really think he is that important, that other Republicans are paying that much attention to him?

EMANUEL: Well, he was given the keynote, basically, at the Conservative Caucus to speak. When a Republican did attack him, he was — clearly had to turn around and come back and basically said that he’s apologizing and was wrong. And I do think he’s an intellectual force, which is why the Republicans pay such attention to him.

[WHY IS THE WHITE HOUSE PAYING ATTENTION TO HIM?]

SCHIEFFER: All right. We’re going to take a break here and we’ll come back to talk about this, about drawing down the troops in Iraq and a whole lot more when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCHIEFFER: Back now with the White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel .

Mr. Emanuel, General Motors is now losing $100 millions a day. They have already spent, we are told, two-thirds of what they have already received from the government. And we’re hearing they want some more. They’re now asking for another $16 billion.

Is the president going to do that?

Because the question I have is, how long does this go on?

EMANUEL: As you know, the panel of experts we’ve assembled on the auto industry is working with GM and the others on their plan. The president has been very clear, though, what his priorities are. They have to have a viable business plan, on a going-forward basis, and it’s going to require a sacrifice from all the parties involved to do that.

But here’s the other thing I think that people should see, in both GM as well as the others. They never invested in both alternative energy cars. They got dependent on big gas guzzlers. They didn’t do — they have a health care cost structure that’s outdated.

And as, sort of, an example, we talked earlier, Bob, about the fact that their health care system is affecting their business and their employers — and their employees, rather.

And it’s an example, in my view, of what the president’s saying for this country. The day of reckoning, of making sure that we had a policy on energy independence, a policy that ensures that our health care costs were under control and our ability to make sure that coverage was expanded to those who are uninsured, as one way to also bring costs under control — that is the challenge we face as a country.

Is it GM specific? The president wants to see a business model that, on a going-forward basis, is cognizant of the market and that all the parties made the sacrifices necessary for that independence. The panel of experts are now meeting to go over those plans and help them develop something — or review what they’re doing before any other decision is made.

SCHIEFFER: So you’re saying, unless they change their ways drastically, unless they come up with a new model, no more money.

EMANUEL: Basically, over the last 20 to 30 years, they had a strategy that has gotten them to, I think, a very unfortunate position both on health care costs, new types of cars, weaning themselves off of basically gas guzzlers to energy-efficient cars.

And they’re making those changes now, when everybody said, for the last 20 years — but it’s a wake-up call which is clear — what the president said on Tuesday night. It’s a wake-up call to America. Do we want to have an energy policy…

SCHIEFFER: So they have to do something different?

EMANUEL: They have to…

(CROSSTALK)

EMANUEL: Wait a second. The plan is in front of the panel of experts, which is where it should be (inaudible) basically making sure that the restructuring is a viable restructuring plan.

SCHIEFFER: Let’s talk about the president’s announcement that he is going to draw down the troops in Iraq, that he’s going to leave 50,000 there in support roles.

Before he made that talk, Nancy Pelosi , the Democratic leader in the House, said that 50,000 sounded like too much. Let’s listen to just what she said. This was just before he spoke.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. NANCY PELOSI, D-CALIF., SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: I don’t know what the justification is for 50,000, the presence of 50,000 troops in Iraq. I do think that there’s a need for some. And I don’t know that all of them have to be in-country.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHIEFFER: So there you have it. And that seems to be most of the criticism now coming from Democrats, not from Republicans. John McCain likes the way the president’s doing this. The Republicans — I mean, the Democrats seem to be saying no, we need to get more troops out of there quicker.

EMANUEL: Well, first of all, as you noted earlier in the question, the president ran on this policy. He told the American people what he wanted to see.

[HE TOLD THEM WHAT THEY WANTED TO HEAR...AND THEY BELIEVED HIM.]

He said, on day one, I’m going to have a meeting with my national security staff to begin the process to evaluate how we can come out in 16 months. That’s what he did on day one.

[HE DID NOT SAY THAT UNTIL THE END.]

EMANUEL: And about a month later, he, as you saw on Friday, he enunciated that policy, because they came back, the entire apparatus of the national security apparatus for the president, on how to responsibly draw down our troops.

By August of 2010, the combat mission will be over.

We will have a residual force of somewhere between 35,000 and 50,000 troops, mainly dealing with training, protecting our diplomatic and civilians in Iraq, and some counterinsurgency. The president has been very clear that on a going-forward basis, as we draw down, that the Iraqis must politically and on a security basis take ownership of their country. So there will be an intensified effort on the diplomatic and political side, which is why we sent Ambassador Hill there, to work with our general and our entire…

[TROOPS PROTECTING ARE COMBAT TROOPS. EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM WILL BE CALLED INTO COMBAT IF NEEDED. THUS THEY ARE ALL COMBAT TROOPS. NO ONE IS BUYING IT.]

SCHIEFFER: Do you think the Democrats are going to go — in the end are going to go along with it?

EMANUEL: I think — well, first of all, the speaker spoke to her concern about 50,000. There have been other Democrats also including who have been supportive and understand where we are. The speaker has a right to question that size. The president said this is what I think is a responsible plan for withdrawal and a responsible residual force, and has worked it through both with the commanders, the diplomatic corps and the political apparatus to make sure we had a comprehensive view.

[ALWAYS LAYING IT OFF ON SOMEONE ELSE - EXPERTS, PANELS, COMMANDERS.]

SCHIEFFER: Let me go back to the budget for just one kind of cleanup question. You set a kind of a deadline for sometime in April to get most of this done. Am I correct?

EMANUEL: The Congress is working on that…

SCHIEFFER: Is that realistic?

EMANUEL: Well, yes. In this sense, Bob — I mean, there’s a lot to complement what this Congress has just pulled off. They passed the Ledbetter legislation on pay equity for women. They passed a children’s health care bill that 11 million children of working parents are going to now finally get health care, who because of no fault of their own did not have health care. Passed in a bipartisan way. And then two weeks later, they passed an impressive Economic Recovery Act that begins to invest in our country once again. And they did that in a month.

The president laid out his budget, and this Congress is already beginning to work. And you’ll see the president’s OMB director, Peter Orszag, up this week testifying. And the activity will go forward in both the House and the Senate, and we are confident, because this Congress is here understanding the extraordinary time we find ourselves in, to meet that challenge and meet the president’s objective of sending through an economic program.

SCHIEFFER: Let me also ask you quickly. We hear these horror stories coming out of Mexico. Nearly 7,000 people killed in these wars between these drug cartels. They forced the police chief of Juarez, just across the street from El Paso — across the river — out by threatening to kill a police officer a day until he left. And he left, after they killed four or five people. It just seems worse and worse. Does the administration consider Mexico a national security problem for the United States?

EMANUEL: As you know, the first foreign leader that the president met with was the president of Mexico. Attended that meeting. And both committed to working to stabilize the border, which is exactly what Janet Napolitano , the head of Homeland Security, said this week in congressional testimony. They want to clearly stop the guns from the United States going south. We want to stop the drugs coming north. And we have a mutual interest in working to secure that border, and that’s why the president of the United States had a meeting with President Calderon, his first meeting with a foreign leader, because that border is important to us and Mexico is a key ally of ours.

SCHIEFFER: All right. We have to stop there. Thank you very much, Rahm Emanuel …

EMANUEL: Thank you.

SCHIEFFER: … White House chief of staff.

EMANUEL: I actually enjoyed it.

SCHIEFFER: We’ll be back with the final thought in just a minute.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCHIEFFER: Finally today, we have just come through one of those who would have thought it weeks. As in, who would have thought that way back, when Barack Obama began his campaign for president, that his first State of the Union speech would hardly mention Iraq.

[BECAUSE HE WOULD HAVE HAD TO ADMIT THAT WHAT GOT HIM THE WHITE HOUSE HE ALREADY LIED ABOUT. THE PROMISES HE MADE ON IRAQ WAS WHY HE WAS "NOMINATED".]

Who would have thought back then that the state of the nation’s economy would be so bad, the president wouldn’t even call it a State of the Union speech, just so he wouldn’t have to finish the sentence that begins “the state of the union is…”

Who would have thought the Republican Party would be laying some of the blame for the bad economy off on their recently departed leader? I guess that’s what GOP stalwart Newt Gingrich was doing when he talked to me and others this week about what he labeled the failed Bush-Obama big-spending strategy. Who would have thought that when President Obama, who campaigned to bring the troops home from Iraq announced his withdrawal plan, that it would be the Republicans who liked it and the Democrats who didn’t?

[BECAUSE THE SURGE WORKED AND BARRY'S END PLANS TO GET OUT ARE THE SAME BUSH AGREED TO.]

And who, for that matter, would have thought that when the withdrawal was announced, that it would not be the lead story on the evening news?

[BECAUSE HE BROKE HIS NUMBER ONE PROMISE AND THE PRESS COULDN'T BEAR TO LOOK FOOLISH JUST 35 DAYS IN. THEY ARE ANGRY BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT BARRY TO FAIL. HE FAILS THEIR BIAS IS EXPOSED FOR WHAT IT WAS. A HUGE ASSIST TO AN UNKNOWN MAN WHO HAD NEVER MADE A SINGLE DECISION OF CONSEQUENCE. HIS FIRST WAS BURRIS AND IT'S CLEAR HOW THAT ENDED UP NOT TO MENTION GIRD YOUR LOINS BIDEN.]

Not only was it not the lead, two or three stories about the bad economy came ahead of it, nor did it get above the fold in many newspapers.

[AGAIN, THE SAME.]

Yes, Barack Obama campaigned on change, but I doubt he expected a lot of that. Who would have thought?

SCHIEFFER: That’s our broadcast. And we’ll be back right here next Sunday on “Face the Nation.”

END

Radio Rush vs teleprompter barry

March 4, 2009

Why not? What does Rush Limbaugh have to lose? His party is itching for a fight and General McCain is leading the way. Rightfully so, with 9,000 = 8 BILLION worth of earmarks packed away in documents only the interns are reading.

Who is going to critique the dems for not reading it like they didn’t read the documents on Iraq?

Who is going to use as their own rallying cry in 2012?

RUSH LIMBAUGH:

But I have an idea. If these guys are so impressed with themselves, and if they are so sure of their correctness, why doesn’t President Obama come on my show? We will do a one-on-one debate of ideas and policies. Now, his people in this Politico story, it’s on the record. They’re claiming they wanted me all along. They wanted me to be the focus of attention. So let’s have the debate! I am offering President Obama to come on this program — without staffers, without a teleprompter, without note cards — to debate me on the issues. Let’s talk about free markets versus government control. Let’s talk about nationalizing health care and raising taxes on small business.

Let’s talk about the New Deal versus Reaganomics. Let’s talk about closing Guantanamo Bay, and let’s talk about sending $900 million to Hamas. Let’s talk about illegal immigration and the lawlessness on the borders. Let’s talk about massive deficits and the destroying of opportunities of future generations. Let’s talk about ACORN, community agitators, and the unions that represent the government employees which pour millions of dollars into your campaign, President Obama. Let’s talk about your elimination of school choice for minority students in the District of Columbia. Let’s talk about your efforts to further reduce domestic drilling and refining of oil. Let’s talk about your stock market.

By the way, Mr. President, I want to help. Yesterday you said you looked at the stock market as no different than a tracking poll that goes up and down.

There’s no “up and down” here. We have a plunge.

The president yesterday suggested “we’re getting to the point where profits and earnings ratios are approaching that point where you want to invest.”

Uh, Mr. President? There is no “profits and earnings” ratio. It’s “price and earnings” ratio.

He’s the president of the United States. He doesn’t know anything about the stock market. He’s admitted it before. Let’s talk about it anyway. You want to maintain it’s a tracking poll? I’d love to talk to you about that. Let’s talk about all of these things, Mr. President. Let’s go ahead and have a debate on this show. No limits. Now that your handlers are praising themselves for promoting me as the head of a political party — they think that’s a great thing — then it should be a no-brainer for you to further advance this strategy by debating me on the issues and on the merits, and wipe me out once and for all!

Just come on this program. Let’s have a little debate. You tell me how wrong I am and you can convince the rest of the Americans that don’t agree with you how wrong we all are. You’re a smart guy, Mr. President. You don’t need these hacks to front for you. You’ve debated the best! You’ve debated Hillary Clinton. You’ve debated John Edwards. You’ve debated Joe Biden. You’ve debated Dennis Kucinich. You’ve debated the best out there. You are one of the most gifted public speakers of our age. I would think, Mr. President, you would jump at this opportunity. Don’t send lightweights like Begala and Carville to do your bidding — and forget about the ballerina, Emanuel. He’s got things to do in his office. These people, compared to you, Mr. President, are rhetorical chum.

I would rather have an intelligent, open discussion with you where you lay out your philosophy and policies and I lay out mine — and we can question each other, in a real debate.

[EXACTLY WHAT HILLARY CLINTON AND JOHN MCCAIN WANTED.]

Any time here at the EIB Network studios. If you’re too busy partying or flying around giving speeches and so forth, then send Vice President Biden. I’m sure he would be very capable of articulating your vision for America — and if he won’t work, send Geithner, and we can talk about the tax code. And if that won’t work, go get Bob Rubin. I don’t care. Send whoever you want if you can’t make it. You don’t need to be leaking stories to Politico like this thing that’s published today. You don’t need to have your allies writing op-eds and all the rest.

If you can win at this, then come here and beat me at my own game, and get rid of me once and for all, and show all the people of America that I am wrong.

***

And in the spirit of bipartisanship, uniting the country and that team of rivals crap?

Emanuel: “[Limbaugh] is the voice and intellectual force and energy behind the Republican party”

March 1, 2009

Why are the Democrats giving Rush Limbaugh so much acknowledgment? Aren’t they in power? Isn’t the next election in four years? I’ve never listened to him before the other day. I only heard a little but he is entertaining. He’s a natural speaker and the crowd loved him. I didn’t hear anything objectionable. And he explained his comment about wanting barry to fail.

LIMBAUGH: What is so strange about being honest and saying I want Barack Obama to fail if his mission is to restructure and reform this country so that capitalism and individual liberty are not its foundation?

Like barry didn’t say on a daily basis how much of a failure Bush was? What’s wrong with the crowd going wild? The robamabots chanted like mindless fools and went wild when barry talked about how wrong Iraq was.

And why are people so quick to come to barry’s aid? Sure makes you wonder if they don’t think he can handle the job and the criticism that comes with it.

Why was Gov Palin not in attendance?

Rahm Emanuel was on CBS’ Face the Nation. Don’t see much of him on the fly just these sit down prepared interviews with his pals in the press. barry must have him on a tighter leash than Biden. Though it could have something to do with the subpoena he got from Patrick Fitzgerald.

EMANUEL: He is the voice and the intellectual force and energy behind the Republican party, and he has been up front about what he views, and hasn’t stepped back from that, which is he hopes for failure.

He said it, and I compliment him on his honesty. But that’s their philosophy that’s enunciated by Rush Limbaugh and I think that’s the wrong philosophy for America.

DL Hughley told RNC Chairman Michael Steele, who is the actual head of the GOP, that “Rush Limbaugh is the de facto leader of the Republican Party.”

And barry wasn’t hoping the Surge would fail?

Source: CNN

Another defector: Sen Judd Gregg says no thanks

February 13, 2009

Sen Judd Gregg decides he can't work with barry anymore because he has "irresolvable conflicts" over the stimulus package.

barry's initial glowing words:

...And we know the only way to solve the great challenges of our time is to put aside stale ideology and petty partisanship and embrace what works.

As one of the Republican Party's most respected voices and skillful negotiators, Judd is a master of reaching across the aisle to get things done. He'll be an outstanding addition to the depth and experience of my economic team, a trusted voice in my Cabinet, and an able and persuasive ambassador for industry who makes it known to the world that America is open for business.

His team was caught off guard with Gregg's decision. From Politico:

In a statement, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Gregg had “reached out to the president and offered his name for secretary of commerce” — and that he’d promised that, “despite past disagreements about policies, he would support, embrace and move forward with the president’s agenda.”

Obama himself told an Illinois newspaper that Gregg’s withdrawal was “something of a surprise” because the senator had “approached us with interest and seemed enthusiastic.”

Gregg was pulling a fast one and they finally figured it out.

GIBBS: Once it became clear after his nomination that Sen. Gregg was not going to be supporting some of President Obama’s key economic priorities, it became necessary for Sen. Gregg and the Obama administration to part ways.

EMANUEL: There is not hard feelings. It is better that it happened now than after the fact. if I said it wasn’t a disappointment, that would lack any credibility.

GREGG:

I’ve been my own person, and I began to wonder if I could be an effective team player. The president deserves someone who can block for his policies. As a practical matter, I can contribute to his agenda better — where we agree — as a senator, and I hope to do that. The fault lies with me. I may have embarrassed myself, but hopefully not him.

However, it has become apparent during this process that this will not work for me, as I have found that on issues such as the stimulus package and the census, there are irresolvable conflicts for me. Prior to accepting this post, we had discussed these and other potential differences, but unfortunately we did not adequately focus on these concerns. We are functioning from a different set of views on many critical items of policy.

yo barry - that effing blago is gonna talk

February 1, 2009

EMANUEL: I'm telling you barry that GD MFing blago is ready to talk and your pal rezko wants out of solitary. That happens - we're all going down. effing rezko's gonna tell those MFs about all that foreign cash coming out of Gaza and Syria. The GD Feds don't get me - my own GD people will. I'm telling ya - he's ready to talk. He's gonna spell out your effing connections to that GD Bridgeview Mosque and some MFing serious shit is gonna happen. No effing way I'm going down, too, MF.

BARRY: I don't wanna hear about it. Ain't my problem no more.

EMANUEL: Uh-huh MF. It sure the hell is. Fitzgerald got rid of what he could but that MFing blago says he's got his own GD tapes. GD MF was out there saying you should fire me because I gave him the MFing idea.

BARRY: You did.

EMANUEL: No effing way they can prove that.

BARRY: Are you sure?

EMANUEL: Eff no. And what's MF Jesse Jr gonna say? That stupid MF knows every GD thing. He was one pist off MF when he heard he wasn't even one of your effing picks. He sold out his own GD pops to save your scrawny ass. He's looking for something.

BARRY: I had nothing to do with that, Rahm - got it? I went back on FISA so Fitzgerald was covered with those tapes. He owes me. My name is never gonna come up.

EMANUEL: Effer's gonna do what he has to save his MFing ass. He's going down no matter what. And the effing Rev's been waiting to fry your ass.

BARRY: Take care of it.

EMANUEL: FU barry. I ain't going down for this shit alone. No effing way.

BARRY: Shut your ass up and stop the damn whining. I'm the president. I'm the king of the GD world. I don't have to take your shit no more - got it? I got Secret Service watching my ass. You don't. You don't like it - quit. They ain't never gonna throw my ass out of office. Never. You're one shove away from being gone. That's why I picked you.

EMANUEL: FU.

BARRY: Take care of it.

EMANUEL: I'm gonna need some cash...

BARRY: You know where to get. Now leave me alone. I need my adoration.

EMANUEL: Yes, boss.

(Photo)

Day 2: blago impeachment trial

January 27, 2009

At Gov Blagojevich's impeachment trial today the famous wiretap tapes were played. Why I don't know - because he is not being impeached because of his alleged attempts to sell barry's vacated senate seat. Fitzgerald isn't even ready to charge blago on anything - so why are they playing? To prejudice the proceedings and entertain the media?

blago's absolutely right. The trial is a joke. Most of the media thinks the trial is based on the tapes and they're laughing at his making the rounds. But under that helmet of hair he is as wily as ever. He reached a huge audience, proclaimed his innocence, and explained that he is not being allowed to defend himself against the tapes, which have not even been proven to be undoctored or even testified to that that is his voice on the tape.

Anyway the tapes have him discussing how he wants to grant legislative favors in return for campaign cash. What politician does not do this? The ones not in office. He wanted to exchange barry's senate seat for a job for himself and his wife to secure a future for his family post-impeachment. Reasonable. He wasn't doing anything any other politician has done or will do. He just had the misfortune of being taped. But his biggest problem was bringing a "taint" to barry that barry, his minions and the proobamedia could hide. That was why the rush for judgment and the smearing of blago in the media and the ridiculous morning arrest - replete with handcuffs - staged for the national media.

That in itself was criminal. They arrested him because he was out doing his job standing up for the workers who had without warning lost their jobs. And he was successful. He got them money - not what they deserved but he got them something. That seems to have gotten lost in all this. But if one of those workers or one of their relatives get on that jury, Fitzgerald is going to have an acquittal or mistrial.

blago had done nothing but talk...and swear. Alot. And of course they were bleeped out today. Why censor now when everyone had already read or heard them? This way they can say it wasn't prejudicial. It's a joke. Pretend it was barry they were trying to impeach. Mayor Daley. Wouldn't fly.

blago did not act on anything and should have been given some respect as the state's governor until he was actually indicted on something. The legislators had been waiting for a moment like this and they seized it. Pat Quinn wants to be governor so bad he can't shout loud enough that blago will be impeached! He's been waiting years for this moment. He wants it over so he can get started on his campaign fundraising.

Why was there an end date to the trial before it began and before they knew whether or not blago was going to present a case?

He should have been allowed to surrender himself like most other politicians would have been. Can you imagine them doing that to barry or Dick Durbin or Harry Reid no matter what they were accused of? Get one juror who was arrested like that unnecessarily shaming and again it's over. And why the rush? For what? Three to six more months of investigation by Patrick Fitzgerald?

blago's being railroaded and by the time his trial comes around barry will be a blip on the radar and will have pist off a lot of people - he already has and it's only been one week. Blago - if he behaves - will get that juror just for standing up and appointing Mr Burris. That was political genius. The Illinois legislature are the shame-faced ones because they did not see it coming.

Fitzgerald blew his own case and he knows it. Why didn't he wait till he had the deal on tape and on video?

Because it was barry's minions making it. That is why blago was taken down in dramatic fashion. Lest you forget - senate candidate #5 is Jesse Jackson, Jr - barry's campaign co-chair - and he was still acting in official capacity.

Rahm Emanuel, barry's incoming Chief of Staff and good buddy of blago (he took blago's old post as state representative) was on those tapes discussing who knows what. Why weren't those released? Emanuel campaigned for blago- with barry . He even bragged he won it for blago.

Valerie Jarrett - seen her lately? She was barry's number one pick and she suddenly drops out? When she really wanted it? Why?

No coincidences. barry himself had to be interviewed by Fitzgerald. The President-elect was interviewed by the US Attorney. Just think about that. barry has all these innocent mistakes and that was not the fill in the blank he knew. He was also named in Rezko's indictment while he was running for president.

What is it going to take folks?

It was wrong to make a joke of blago. He may be a tad off, and he may have allegedly done some crazy things, but he is smart as hell as evidenced by his pick of Burris - and he is likable in a charming grandiose way. Audiences love him.

Back to the tapes where he describes what he and his wife need.

Prosecutor's exhibit: Rod Blagojevich stated that his decision about the open Senate seat will be based on three criteria, in the following order of importance: our legal situation, our personal situation, my political situation. This decision, like every other one, needs to be based upon that. Legal. Personal. Political.

Name one politician who doesn't operate the same.

The smoothest transition ever!!!

January 19, 2009

Everything barry does is the best ever! He is getting rave reviews for the smoothest transition in history:

Despite his two top aides Valerie Jarrett (talked with SEIU) and Rahm Emanuel (talked with blago multiple times) and barry himself having to be interviewed by the Feds because of their involvement with Blagojevich.

Despite his pick to head the National Economic Council, Larry Summers, who thinks women's minds are innately defective and not geared to mathematics and the sciences and that it's ok for pollution to be exported to undeveloped countries because it's cheaper to treat their potential health hazards.

Despite his pick for Commerce Secretary, Bill Richardson being involved in a federal investigation with more proof at present than blago's own alleged pay-to-play scheme.

Despite his appointee for National Intelligence Admiral Blair's questionable involvement in Indonesia.

Despite his Treasury Secretary (who will head the IRS) Tim Geitner - not paying his taxes ("an innocent mistake") even after he was audited and oh by the way didn't know that his housekeeper was an illegal alien.

Despite his pick for Attorney General, Eric Holder "forgot" to mention his involvement with blagojevich.

Despite his pick to head the CIA Leon Panetta has no intelligence experience .

Despite his first choice for CIA John Brennan had to bow out because of his - however nebulous - involvement with Bush's policy on harsh interrogation.

I'm sure there are more. And then there are the lobbyists barry was going to root out! How blind are folks? And barry's famed reaching across the aisle that he has no personal history of doing? He's laying the load on Sen McCain should something fall through and of course he needs McCain in the Senate, since McCain has a proven track record of acting and making a deciding vote.

Everything barry does is politically expedient. The only way the proobamedia is going to see that is when he actually has to act. So far he has been consistently "redefining" his view on almost everything. Does anyone know his views on illegal immigration? What's his latest on Iraq? Taxes? Guantanamo Bay? And many many more.

Yes, he has sought McCain's counsel - but has he publicly apologized for his comment in the debate--the last thing the electorate heard--that McCain's supporters were yelling "kill him"? It was a complete falsehood. But how are people to know that when the MSM is ignorant of the facts - still. And did barry ever make a stand on Rep Lewis' comments comparing McCain to George Wallace? No.

Uniter?

Transcender of Race?

Mr Transparency?

Right. Who still is buying that? And the release of his birth certificate? A list of his donors? His school and medical records?

How is that anything but a typical barry obamanation?

What is it going to take folks?

Barry's first unilateral decision with consequences will be as Commander in Chief and may very well be at 3am on 1/21.

You ok with that?

Blagojevich's impeachment not a witch hunt?

January 14, 2009

You don't think the Blagojevich's discrediting and subsequent vote for impeachment was not politically motivated?

That it wasn't rushed through to save face for barry?

Of course it was.

Blagojevich has been under investigation for years - even before his reelection in 2006. The Democrats voted him into power, so how corrupt was he then and why didn't they care? blago has always been blago - just as governor he got more power and was dealing in more cash.

But when Fitzgerald has blago on the cusp of actually committing an offense - something he could have gotten on tape and on video - he abruptly pulls the plug.

Why?

Because it involved barry. Only logical explanation.

Why wait years and not catch blago in the act? He didn't actually DO anything on those tapes and the conspiracy rests on senate candidate #5 - Jesse Jackson, Jr. Heard about him lately?

blagojevich talked and swore and stuck it to his impeachers by appointing Burris, but he is innocent of any wrongdoing in the eyes of the law. Not so in the court of public opinion, the proobamedia, and most definitely not in Illinois.

Patrick Fitzgerald comes out with this eye-popping press conference and releases documents with f--- this and f--- that and dramatically states that "Lincoln would be rolling over in his grave!" and then what happens? He covers for barry by saying he doesn't want information released when he really wanted to interview barry and his top aides: Valerie Jarrett and Rahm Emanuel. And of course it was convenient for both of them to wait till right before the holidays to release it because barry would be out of commenting range and Fitzgerald wouldn't have to admit he wasn't ready to charge Blago.

When was the last time you saw Emanuel or Jarrett?

Who should be speaking for barry - axelrod or Emanuel? It is the transition not the campaign - even if barry is still giving speeches instead of press conferences.

Instead, they focus on Mr Burris - probably the least corrupt politician in the state - as being tainted because blago did his constitutional duty as a governor. It was legal appointment that pist everyone off because they didn't think blago would do it and they were positive he couldn't find someone who would accept it. But he called their bluff. That is what is driving all this frenetic urgency. Not the appointment itself or his choice of appointee. They're pist because he said f- you one last time. And not on tape, but in front of the whole world.

But his biggest sin was taking the press from barry. That's what finally made barry act.

Senator-elect Burris, if one is honest, is more qualified on every front to be senator than Caroline Kennedy. And what will Gov Patterson's appointment be based on? Is the pressure on him to pick Kennedy any less "tainted"? Who knows what has been offered behind the scenes that has not (as far as I know) been documented?

Lost in the blago rush to judgment farce is the fact that Fitzgerald has asked for at least three more months to indict or do whatever with Blagojevich. So why the rush in the first place? Why show his hand when blago the day before his arrest was telling people to go ahead and tape him. He clearly wasn't aware he was under surveillance and he clearly hadn't DONE anything and the appointment was clearly not yet made.

And after spending The People of Illinois' taxes out of one-sided spite, they all agreed that Burris was a legal appointment - as he always was. And today, Governor Blagojevich will swear in the members of the Illinois legislature as the legal governor. He will swear in the very people who will impeach him. That's legal. The Bills he has signed since his premature arrest are legal. And yet his appointment of Burris wasn't?

How can he be tainted in one regard, but not when it suits the Illinois legislators?

And why is anyone listening to Pat Quinn who will be taking over the job?

It was a circus manufactured to take the heat off barry's people. Blagojevich was arrested because barry's people were involved in his scheme. Jesse Jackson Jr was co-chair of barry's presidential campaign and still acting in official capacity. Valerie Jarret was barry's main choice for senator and was appointed White House advisor after she abruptly "decided" she didn't want to be senator. Who gave her a heads up? Rahm Emanuel was/is barry's White House Chief of Staff. And lest we forget - Harry Reid made his own phone calls to the tainted, crooked and corrupt governor to broker a deal or at the very least impact Blagojevich's appointment.

So if Burris is tainted - why isn't Reid, who is the head of the Senate?

Where is the mention of the (at least) three month delay in charging Blagojevich?

Where is the investigation and demanding of information from Jarrett, Emanuel, Reid, barry and Fitzgerald?

Instead, it's on Mr Burris whose appointment was always legal. And on blagojevich, who is still acting as governor, who is still signing bills, who is swearing in the members if Illinois legislature, and whose appointee will indeed be seated in the US senate. And incidental to all this, he is still innocent of any wrongdoing. He has not been indicted anywhere except in the court of public opinion and he now has absolutely no chance of getting a fair trial.

But he has served as a wonderful distraction for barry and his top aides Jarrett and Emanuel and barry's ex campaign co-chair, Jesse Jackson Jr. And then there's Reid, who was hoping Blago would go peacefully into the night by resigning.

Not a witch hunt?

where are they now?

Where are they now?

blago blitzkrieg: "I have nothing to fear but the truth."

January 2, 2009

A blitz attack on blago in July 2008 about whether he is under investigation among other things. Not sure if he realizes what he said. Mentions barry and talks about his pocket enforcer Rahm Emanuel.

drxblog

REPORTER (0:38): Are you a target of investigation?

BLAGO: That's absurd. it's a ridiculous. It's an absurd question.

REPORTER (0:45): You promised to come back and talk about Tony Rezko.

BLAGO: No - you guys sandbagged me.

BLAGO (0:55): Let me tell you something - I know the truth of things. And I have nothing to fear but the truth.

If you're asking me about those bank robbers, and if they were making contributions to my account, (laughs) as I said, you know, we'll give the money to charity...like barry does.

What?? Bankrobbers? Creative way to raise campaign funds....even for Chicago. I have to check this out.

More questions about investigation. And then he rants at Micheal Madigan (they hate each other as does Madigan's daughter Lisa who has made no effort to conceal it.)

BLAGO: I'm not a target of any of those cases - you know that. I'm not gonna get into that.

REPORTER: Your name's come up.

BLAGO (1:48): Senator Obama's name and a lot of other political figures

REPORTER (2:00): What's it like to be under such pressure? What's life like for you.

BLAGO: Life's good...mentions his accomplishments.

I feel great. I know what the truth is and we do things right and I'm not worried about anything.

It's aways we do things right - not we didn't do anything wrong. Political to the end. Then he talks about reporters and sensationalized reporting.

It's difficult to answer questions when people are not honest.

Then they talk about getting the bill passed to create more jobs and the pressure on folks and the worry they'll lose their city jobs.

(6:50) I even called Congressman Rahm Emanuel and asked him to call a couple of those Chicago Democratic Reps, who have a city job in addition to their state Rep jobs, and tell them no one's going to fire them from their city job if they vote for to create 600,000 jobs.

That's sound like a pretty chummy relationship. And it goes along with "Rahmbo" getting things done. Why he's chief of staff. To be that go between so barry's hands never get dirty. Wonder what perks or cash has gone Emanuel's family way?

You working hard for Rod? Barry: You betcha!

December 17, 2008

You working hard for Rod? Barry: You betcha!

RNC Ad: "Questions Remain"

December 17, 2008

RNC Ad: "Questions Remain"

barry obamanates on special election

December 16, 2008

barry obamanates on special election

press conference - Arne Duncan Secretary of Education

Rahm Emanuel caught on tape 21 times?

December 16, 2008

Rahm Emanuel caught on tape 21 times?

Rahm Emanuel

Rahm Emanuel

EMANUEL: "I'm getting regular death threats!"

12-13-08
EMANUEL: "I'm getting regular death threats!"