The Democrats don't need you ... but they fooled you, three times

Look at all the blue donkeys!

Top All-Time Donors

See a trend? Look at the screenshot of top all-time donors (below). The story: the Democrats don't need your money!!

Click on the pic to it it full sized. Issue with the pic? See the actual page link: http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php?order=A

We're going to be entrusting our entire federal government to the Democratic Party if Obama is elected. To put it simply, that sucks. Executive and both ends of Congress run by the Masters of the Lobbyists -- or the Slaves to the Lobbyists, as it were. So, don't expect the lobby controls, the "new kind of politics" rhetoric to result in ANY changes. That would be politically inconvenient for Democrats, most of all.

Fooled you once.

The balance of MONEY is in Dems' favor in more than the prez race of 2008: It is in their favor historically. Yet, they are the party of the common man? Please. The party of BIG CORPORATE and UNION MONEY! The party of -- gag -- the union of state and local employees, for goodness sake. What's that about?!! These guys who work for states and counties and cities can't get fired unless they kill their boss, practically, and they give more money to politicians than ANYONE. So, unlike me, they could buy their job security, and apparently buy the prevention of government shrinkage, it would seem.

Do numbers lie, or is Obama and company feeding us a line? Assuming Obama is our next prez, is government going to expand? Yes that is a question, but WHY IS IT EVEN A QUESTION? It is a dumb question. There is a lack of discussion of this issue of smaller government. WHY? Smaller government is an unpopular idea with Dems -- no wonder!! Look at who sponsors them! So, anyone think government jobs -- expanded government without a crisis motivating it -- won't be the answer to employment woes when Obama gets in?!! Anyone?!!

Seeing as the Dems have generally spent more than GOP whether they won or lost (that's broad stroke, I am not saying every little race everywhere), I am amazed that Bush ever won once, let alone twice. (But then, Clinton's southern aw-shucks rhetoric and Al Gore's true roots, his Beltway roots, were vastly different impressions. Al Gore managed. How'd we do?) Discuss and debate....

It is not for this year, but for the past 20 years...

(Actual page link: http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php?order=A )

Surprise, surprise, surprise!

Goldman Sachs, they of course own the GOP and the Bush Admin, huh? After all, good old Treasury Sec Paulson's their guy! Or not. Yes, definitely not. See for yourself. Look at the screenshot, or go directly to this link: http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000085

Top Barack Obama contributor
Goldman Sachs dropped almost $800,000 on him. I guess that ruins the whole "the GOP ruined our economy by sucking up to their friends at Goldman Sachs" line of propaganda by the Dems, huh?

Fooled you twice.

Republicans are retiring. how bad will that be?

Since so many House seats are up for election, for a variety of reasons, that is going to change the landscape. It is a year for beating up on Republicans, I suppose because our president is ticking a lot of people off. But, retirement isn't helping things, either.

Retirements have put more than two dozen seats (27 or so) at clear risk for GOP to keep them. Maybe the change of faces will be a good thing, no matter what. Maybe there are going to be some more moderate Dems getting in. That's a good thing. That's not far-left liberals, at least.

Add to that this season of electoral blame-gaming, where the GOP is losing despite the economic problems not really being their fault at all. Republicans are expected to be booted (if they do not deserve it, for some demonstrable reason aside from childish spite, it's not a good thing). Why isn't Barney Frank being asked to leave, seeing as he is the biggest liar we have in the House, currently?

Fooled you three times.

Retiring at end of this session:

Wayne Allard (R) (Colorado Senate)
Larry Craig (R) (Idaho Senate)
Bud Cramer (D) (Alabama District 5)
Barbara Cubin (R) (Wyoming District 1)
Tom Davis (R) (Virginia District 11)
Pete V. Domenici (R) (New Mexico Senate)
John T. Doolittle (R) (California District 4)
Terry Everett (R) (Alabama District 2)
Mike Ferguson (R) (New Jersey District 7)
Vito Fossella (R) (New York District 13)
Chuck Hagel (R) (Nebraska Senate)
Dave Hobson (R) (Ohio District 7)
Darlene Hooley (D) (Oregon District 5)
Ray LaHood (R) (Illinois District 18)
Ron Lewis (R) (Kentucky District 2)
Jim McCrery (R) (Louisiana District 4)
Michael R. McNulty (D) (New York District 21)
John E. Peterson (R) (Pennsylvania District 5)
"Chip" Pickering Jr. (R) (Mississippi District 3)
Deborah Pryce (R) (Ohio District 15)
Jim Ramstad (R) (Minnesota District 3)
Ralph Regula (R) Ohio District 16)
Rick Renzi (R) (Arizona District 1)
Tom Reynolds (R) (New York District 26)
Jim Saxton (R) (New Jersey District 3)
James T. Walsh (R) (New York District 25)
John W. Warner (R) (Virginia Senate)
Dave Weldon (R) (Florida District 15)
Jerry Weller (R) (Illinois District 11)

See the full list online on the "Casualty" list (http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/casualties.php)

I won't even bother pointing out that, based on their way of doing campaigns, the Dems in particular are not exactly cost-effectiveness heroes.

To TIME: If Joe Klein grilled Obama, readers got salmonella

The TIME cover and the relevant coverage inside the mag, dated Nov. 3, 2008, is a fine example of why I think U.S. media is falling on its face. It has little to do with ad sales, and more to do with disingenuous and propagandist coverage.

Or, look at this as a good laugh at the expense of the People magazine of news magazines, TIME.

"Joe Klein Grills Obama" was the headline. It was on the COVER of the issue, a

bove the flag (see images) and got a photo on page 6, with the editor's comments (always an interesting read, for a mackerel).

But I digress. Look at the pics (click then to view a bit larger).

You cannot find that article online. Why? The headline doesn't exist online. Have a look at the contents page (if the link works): http://www.time.com/time/magazine/0,9263,7601081103,00.html

I might guess, being a wise ass, that the headline was supposed to be a joke, perhaps a Halloween bit of foolery -- ON THE FRONT COVER OF THE MAGAZINE. Such things have happened, like in newspapers kids create at colleges with no budget and volunteer staffs. But then, only maybe, and even then there would be outrage among SOME staffers for the gaff. But not here! Not for TIME magazine. Nothing noted in the next issue.

The designers and editors forgot to change it to something less engaging (and thus to something realistic). But I think it is the finest example yet this year of promoting soft-paw coverage as engaging journalism, even from this Obamadoring publication. The interview was a grilling? Hmmm ...

If cooks grilled steak, chicken or hamburgers like Joe Klein "grilled" Obama in the Nov. 3, 2008 issue of TIME, then there would be a long line of violently ill, even dead, people trailing from restaurants, backyards and parks all over the country to the nearest hospital!

A thought: 'Booby traps' are not limited to the Bush legacy

Upon reading the "Booby traps" piece by Rosa Brooks, one favoring left-wing ideology (read the whole thing here), I pondered thusly:

Were there any bothers by this well-educated (that is to say, learned so as not to accidentally write in a biased manner) author regarding the actual booby traps left by Clinton, the political John the Baptist to the Obama-Jesus? I don't have the time to waste, but maybe this is something worth looking at.

What was the viewpoint after 9/11 from her? That GW Bush asked for it? That GW Bush's policies in their infancy invited this inordinately bold move? Was it was his dad's fault, GHW Bush, for keeping Kuwait Saddam Hussein-free? Or was Clinton's lack of interest in the overall values to a solid military - for the country nut-job Islamic terrorists love to hate the most, the U.S. - the thing that most certainly hurt us and
practically invited 9/11? What is her view on that end of the Afghanistan-Iraq issues?

Was there a reflection on the, umm, REAL tripwires that Clinton left for Bush, and the U.S.? Like a smaller, softer and otherwise less-prepared military, and such welcome signs for the 9/11 terrorists? "According to the latest national intelligence estimate" might have fit as an introduction to some lop-sided opinion pieces back then, and immediately after we took Hussein out of control. What did you say in those instances? It was Bush's fault then, too? He intentionally got the NIE's to favor what he wanted, did he?



You will indeed deserve the candidate-in-Chief should he get what the media expects. You will deserve him, you and all Pelosi-type liberals who believe in do-nothing, blame politics above all else. You will so sorely deserve him. Of course, who knows? Obama may be an entirely different person come one year from now. Being a puppet for far-left faction of the Democratic Party might only have been the pass he used; he might run things altogether differently. Unlike Pelosi, Dodd, Biden, Frank, Reid ... he might actually DO SOMETHING aside from awaiting the explosion of poorly drawn mortgages by his buddies in Fannie Mae and elsewhere.

If I were to dream a little dream, an Obama presidency might involve not simply denying responsibility then pushing nearly socialist fixes to serious financial issues.


Sadly, one thing Ms. Brooks nailed accurately was the Bush Admin's lack of thorough, truly forward-looking proactive leadership in the wars:

We know from Iraq that countering insurgencies requires a long, hard slog -- success not guaranteed -- and that the presence of foreign troops can help fuel nationalist insurgencies. More troops in Afghanistan might have turned things around if those troops -- and a less stingy reconstruction package -- had arrived five years ago, when Afghan hopes were high. After years of Bush administration malfeasance, increasing U.S. troop levels without an accompanying dramatic shift in regional strategy risks turning Afghanistan into another Iraq.

However, since I think she uses her brains too little for solid argument or logic and too much for bias, I react as such: It is all too convenient to point these failings out, and be a Monday morning quarterback. She ought to know better. Policy, public opinion, and a need to dangle the carrot of self-reliance in front of these long-oppressed countries makes it quite hard to try to dress this up as an abject failure of leadership. It is not what I would have preferred, but are truly reliable experts saying this is indeed what is occurring, or is this simply one talking head firing yet again at an easy target?

One thing that is clear to me: Ms. Rosa Brooks is opinionated, but a thorough, and I would dare to say baseless, nay-sayer regarding U.S. chances in our current military actions and generally in the so-called war on terror. She is, without question, a liberal commentator. Why she is not billed as such by the L.A. Times, I do not understand. Perhaps, like was made evident in the finance crisis, denying your ideals and your role in anything is a common trait among liberal commentators and politicians. Hmm. I guess we'll just have to see about that, just like if those "booby traps" go off in Obama's, or McCain's face.

Booby traps, indeed. Placed by boobs, protected by boobs, and now blamed on some other boobs by the initial booby-trap-causing boobs. Excellent work, Congress. Excellent.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Rosa Brooks: 'Bush's booby traps for Obama'

This is regarding an opinion written by Ms. Rosa Brooks, a well-educated woman in the thick of Washington D.C. and its university
community.

Bush's booby traps for Obama - L.A. Times
The Bush administration is leaving behind foreign policy tripwires that could blow up on the next president.

... every new president is "tested" by national security crises, some predictable, some not. And I'm a lot less worried about the tests "the world" may offer Obama than about the national security booby traps the Bush administration is leaving behind for him.

On Iraq: We can't leave behind a stable Iraq without the cooperation of Iraq's neighbors, but this week's cross-border raid by Iraq-based U.S. troops into Syrian territory led Syria to break off high-level diplomatic contacts with U.S. officials -- contacts that had only recently been resumed. Heated negotiations over the future status of U.S. forces in Iraq have further increased tensions with Syria, Iran and the Iraqi government, which fear permanent U.S. military activities in the region. The current impasse in status-of-forces negotiations also threatens to leave U.S. troops in Iraq with no legal basis for their presence when their United Nations mandate expires Dec. 31. Happy New Year, Barack!

On Afghanistan: The Bush administration... mostly ignored Afghanistan for... six years. Meanwhile, the Taliban reconstituted itself, Al Qaeda leaders slipped away into Pakistan's ungoverned tribal regions. According to the latest national intelligence estimate, Afghanistan is now in a possibly irreversible "downward spiral."

On Pakistan-Afghanistan: Increasingly, U.S. forces have sought to reduce violence inside Afghanistan by staging cross-border counterattacks against suspected Taliban and Al Qaeda targets based inside Pakistan. Tactically, there's some logic to this. Strategically, not so much.

Pakistan has never been a paragon of stability, and years of unconditional Bush administration military aid for Pervez Musharraf's repressive government made things worse. Now, with the Bush administration increasingly violating Pakistani sovereignty with cross-border strikes, relations between the United States and the new government of Asif Ali Zardari are more tense than ever.

Aside from the L.A. Times (again) giving the election to Obama a full five days prior to Election Day, this piece is full of one-eyed (that is, decidedly biased) commentary. Rosa Brooks is not impressing me with her intellegence. She disappoints me with it. She is terribly biased. And by terribly, I mean she's "called in" her opinion in this piece. Someone with her edu and credentials could actually write solid journalistically appealing pieces, but instead she wrote this. Gag.

Amazingly, this was written five days before Election Day (early voting exists, but it won't truly count until after Election
Day). She's among those getting their coronation gowns ready. As if there's a landslide afoot. Not sure a roughly 48-43% race is a
landslide. Not in this country, yet. (And the liberals wonder why the conservatives throw around terms like Socialist, when a fairly tight
race is still afoot and they are pretty much impatiently waiting to go to the parties. This couldn't be much closer to a Venezuelan election
unless the state controlled the media.)

Interesting that, seeing the NIE isn't even released yet, she can see it and even exaggerate from it: saying something is in an "irreversible 'downward spiral'" is apparently a favorite saying among those who live in cushy houses in very safe 'hoods with excellent health coverage (dental, eye, catastrophic, ...). Glass houses, those are not. Well protected, from reality and risk, it would appear.


Powered by ScribeFire.

following the money

Following the Money in the Hot House Races

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/10/hot-race-samples.html

McCAIN V OBAMA

Expenditures Breakdown - McCain

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/expend.php?id=N00006424&cycle2=2008&goButt2.x=9&goButt2.y=7&goButt2=Submit

McCain has been stressing media (as one would expect) and travel costs. Media is not even half his costs. It is about 33%, around 1/3.

Since that's not a big deal, the media has found something else to make fun of.

Somehow, the fact that Palin and her family needed $150,000 in suitable clothes to be in front of the media makes the top end of news for three days, when $1500 suits by man-of-the-people Obama does not take that non-story out of the mix? Gag. We are such patsies. Of course, trying to suggest Obama is an outright Socialist won't work, either. (However, the Socialists do back Obama. Go figure. That's a bit creepy to me -- socialism works in very few circumstances, and beyond those it becomes the USSR, Venezuela or North Korea.)

Expenditures Breakdown - Obama

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/expend.php?id=N00009638&cycle2=2008&goButt2.x=14&goButt2.y=4&goButt2=Submit

Obama, with the gobs of bucks from chiefly Hollywood and overseas, has spent virtually HALF, as a percentage and as a dollar amount more than McCain needless to say, on media. Just short of HALF his money goes to MEDIA! Yikes! Talk about buying opinions. This is around 220% of what McCain is putting into media, and it is even far more of a percentage than McCain is using.

A bit ironic, or creepy, that Obama is these days even more of a darling of mainstream, money-hungry media -- he's handed them a hefty $$$ amount in the past quarter alone! $187 million total, which I assume is across 20-22 months.

Obama also stresses salaries -- exceeding McCain's salaries, in dollars but also as a percentage, again. Obama-Biden obviously have a much larger organization, but oddly, while percentage is so high, the overall administrative is not even close to being twice McCain's. How? You won't hear this on the news, but there's talk on the street that Obama supporters are being paid to do what volunteers used to do. And no, this is not the same talk as that from which were borne the weird "Obama is a terrorist" or "Obama is a Muslim" chattering.

Strangely, TRAVEL costs for Obama are more than double McCain's dollar amount. I guess that personal logo-emblazoned jet gets expensive.

Open Secrets is always an interesting read.