Thursday, October 07, 2010

Dobbs Hired Illegals

Tell me you're surprised. Lou Dobbs made a career out of complaining about "illegal immigrants," even suggested that hiring them should be a felony. Lucky for him it isn't.

The Nation breaks it:
Since he left CNN last November, after Latino groups mounted a protest campaign against his inflammatory rhetoric, Dobbs has continued to advocate an enforcement-first approach to immigration, emphasizing, as he did in a March 2010 interview on Univision, that "the illegal employer is the central issue in this entire mess!"

His scheduled October 9 address at the Virginia Tea Party Convention will mark his second major Tea Party address of the year, reviving questions about whether the former CNN host is gearing up for an electoral campaign. He recently told Fox's Sean Hannity that he has not ruled out a possible Senate or even presidential run in 2012.

But with his relentless diatribes against "illegals" and their employers, Dobbs is casting stones from a house—make that an estate—of glass. Based on a yearlong investigation, including interviews with five immigrants who worked without papers on his properties, The Nation and the Investigative Fund at The Nation Institute have found that Dobbs has relied for years on undocumented labor for the upkeep of his multimillion-dollar estates and the horses he keeps for his 22-year-old daughter, Hillary, a champion show jumper. Lou Dobbs, American Hypocrite

Read the rest. Good reporting.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lou Dobbs and Meg Whitman. These are two GOP candidates who have railed against employers knowingly hiring illegal aliens, but who think it's OK if they hire illegals to save themselves the employer's share of Social Security and Medicare. Apparently that's how you become rich, you leave paying taxes to the little people.

This hypocrisy is not unlike Larry Wide-Stance Craig and Mark I-Like-Interns Foley, who railed against gay rights while hooking up with guys behind closed closet doors.

Apparently some GOP types believe they can do whatever they please while telling US citizens we should "do like I say, not like I do."

Just how "privileged" do these GOP types think they are?

October 07, 2010 1:59 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don't care

and neither does anyone else

but, to address briefly:

I'm sure there's more to the story

btw, Dobbs made a great cameo on the "Good Wife" the other night

even if you don't watch much TV, give the show a try

as for Meg Whitman, she won't make it but it has nothing to do with this dreary illegal employee story

she has the misfortune of running against the most restlessly imaginative politician of our time

but for a momentary mistake of naming Jesse Jackson his running mate before the NY primary in 1992, he'd be an ex-President running for governorship of California now

October 07, 2010 4:36 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"President Obama warned Wednesday that his agenda will be stuck in gridlock for the next two years if Democrats lose control of the House.

“Unless we are able to maintain Democrats in the House and Senate, then we’re going to be stalled,” Obama said in remarks at a Democratic National Committee fundraiser in New Jersey."

oh no

who thought it would come to this?

we were just joking around

hey, everyone in the Tea Party:

stop it right now before Barry's agenda gets stuck

I'd hate to see a stuck agenda

what were we thinking?

October 07, 2010 8:07 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Rolling my eyes, Jim. You seem to be getting desperate if you can't check some basic facts.

Dobbs hired a contractor who apparently hired some illlegal immigrants. How in the world is someone supposed to check the status of workers hired by a contractor? ho ho

Dobbs interviewed the reporter who "broke" the story:

"Dobbs, who called the story a "fairly typical hit piece, a smear piece," interviewed the reporter behind the story, Isabel Macdonald, on the radio show. He repeatedly asked Macdonald if he or his company had ever hired illegal immigrants.

Macdonald eventually allowed that Dobbs and his company had not - but she said that his contractors had done so. She pressed Dobbs on why he had not checked the status of the workers.

Dobbs, who was calm throughout the interview, responded that he does not have the standing to check the status of anyone - and said Macdonald sounded like a "nativist" for asking him to do so.

October 07, 2010 9:58 PM  
Anonymous Derrick said...


You seems to living in a different world. You poor soul.

I am Democrat because make-believe is for the "Republicans".

You are truly a lost individual and I hope that you make peace with yourself someday. For the sake of you and your family--become grounded.

October 07, 2010 10:51 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

yes, a different world

it's call reality

you should visit, Drick

fell free to bring a guest

"Even as Speaker Nancy Pelosi twisted arms for the final votes to pass her climate bill in June 2009, Democrats feared they might be "BTU'd." Many of them recalled how Al Gore had forced the House to vote in 1993 for an energy tax, a vote Democrats later blamed for helping their 1994 defeat.

The politics isn't the same this time around. This time, it's much, much worse.

Ask Rick Boucher, the coal-country Democrat who for nearly 30 years has represented southwest Virginia's ninth district. The 64-year-old is among the most powerful House Democrats, an incumbent who hasn't been seriously challenged since the early 1980s. Mr. Boucher has nonetheless worked himself onto this year's list of vulnerable Democrats. He managed it with one vote: support for cap and trade.

Anger over the BTU tax was spread across the country in 1994; the tax hit everything, even nuclear and hydropower. And the anger was wrapped into general unhappiness with Clinton initiatives. Some Democrats who voted for BTU but otherwise distanced themselves from the White House were spared. Mr. Boucher, for instance.

Cap and trade is different. The bill is designed to crush certain industries, namely coal. As coal-state voters have realized this, the vote has become a jobs issue, and one that is explosive. It is no accident that Democrats face particularly tough terrain in such key electoral states as Ohio and Pennsylvania, as well as Kentucky, West Virginia and Indiana. They are being laser-targeted for their votes to kill home-state industries."

then, there's the moratorium on drilling that's killing jobs in the Gulf states

Earth to Dems: unemployment is a problem

October 08, 2010 5:25 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I know TTF is very concerned about food stamps

did you know that evil teacher unions have been stealing food stamp money to get MORE money for teachers?

the Post has the story today:

"So urgent was the supposed need for Congress to forestall a catastrophic loss of teacher jobs that the House was called back from its summer recess and money looted from the food stamp program. That money is now flowing to the states, but since, for many, the crisis was less dramatic than had been described, local school districts are now looking for creative ways to use the money. Let's hope that they are smarter than those who engineered this boondoggle and that they do not waste taxpayer dollars on programs that can't be sustained or policies that don't work.

Congress, egged on by its Democratic leaders and the Obama administration, approved $10 billion in new education spending, ostensibly to save hundreds of thousands of imperiled teacher jobs. With schools in session, it's even clearer now than it was then that the numbers were exaggerated and that the measure was in no small part intended to motivate the powerful teachers unions for this fall's midterm elections."

October 08, 2010 6:32 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Less than two years ago, the media elite was talking about a major realignment of American politics.

That was always fallacious but, still, the fall from grace of Nancy Pelosi and her assistants, Harry Reid and Barack Obama, has been accomplished in record speed.

How did they do it?

1. ideology

They tried to turn America into a European-style socialist country.

2. ineffectiveness

They weren't able to affect the economy.

3. incompetence

From Skip Gates to the oil spill to the Wall Street mosque, they never knew how to handle anything.

But the last few weeks have been epic incompetence.

For the first time since modern budgeting was introduced with the Budget Act of 1974, the House failed to even write a budget. This in a year of extraordinary deficits, rising uncertainty and jittery financial markets. Gold is going through the roof. Confidence in the dollar and the American economy is falling -- largely because of massive overhanging debt. Yet no budget emerged from Congress to give guidance, let alone reassurance, about future U.S. revenues and spending.

That's not all. Congress has not passed a single appropriations bill. To keep the government going, Congress passed a so-called continuing resolution (CR) before adjourning to campaign. The problem with continuing to spend at the current level is that the last two years have seen a huge 28 percent jump in non-defense discretionary spending. The CR continues this profligacy, aggravating an already serious debt problem.

As if this were not enough, Congress adjourned without even a vote -- nay, without even a Democratic bill -- on the expiring Bush tax cuts. This is the ultimate in incompetence. After 20 months of control of the White House and Congress -- during which they passed an elaborate, 1,000-page micromanagement of every detail of American health care -- the Democrats adjourned without being able to tell the country what its tax rates will be on Jan. 1.

It's not just income taxes. It's capital gains and dividends, too. And the estate tax, which will careen insanely from 0 to 55 percent when the ball drops on Times Square on New Year's Eve.

Nor is this harmless incompetence. To do this at a time when $2 trillion of capital is sitting on the sidelines because of rising uncertainty -- and there is no greater uncertainty than next year's tax rates -- is staggeringly irresponsible.

Near the end, however, they did find time to bring a comedian to testify before Congress and Al Franken (a Senator?!?) began to mock Republicans by making faces behind their backs when they spoke in Congress.

Then, three days before the election, a couple of comedians will host a rally in Washington, making light of our situation.

Then, on Election Day, we'll find out if America is amused.

October 08, 2010 8:22 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

Lou Dobbs and The Nation's Isabel Macdonald discussed her reporting about the interviews she conducted with 5 illegal aliens who had worked either on Lou Dobbs' Florida mansion's grounds or with his daughter's jumping horses on Lawrence O'Donnell's show, The Last Word last night. Click the link to watch the show.

And here's an interesting new development in the Nevada Senate race.

Top Nevada GOP lawmaker endorses Reid, brands Angle as 'totally ineffective' lawmaker

RENO, Nev. (AP) — Veteran state Sen. Bill Raggio, one of Nevada's most influential Republicans over the last four decades, says he's reluctantly endorsing Democratic U.S. Sen. Harry Reid's re-election campaign.

Raggio issued a statement Thursday sharply criticizing GOP candidate Sharron Angle, branding her as a "totally ineffective" four-term state lawmaker.

Raggio also cited what he called Angle's inability and unwillingness to work with others even within her own party, and her extreme positions on Social Security and other issues.

Raggio also criticized Angle for badmouthing GOP leaders in a recent secretly taped conversation.

The Angle campaign did not immediately respond to Raggio's comments.

Raggio defeated Angle two years ago in a bitter GOP primary.

October 08, 2010 8:41 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

Trying the link again:

Lou Dobbs and The Nation's Isabel Macdonald discuss the illegal aliens who did work on Lou Dobbs' Florida estate grounds and his daughters jumping horses, exclusively on The Last Word.

"The only person who would have been an illegal in any context would have been a landscaper who was working for the contractor working on my house in Florida. That may have happened," admits the former CNN anchor and fierce anti-illegal immigration crusader. Dobbs is a frequent critic of companies that hire illegal workers.

October 08, 2010 8:58 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Dobbs' story is not one. You filling out I-9s for the employees of every company you purchase services from, Bea?

Wow! Sharron Angle is not being endorsed by an old-style Republican because she "bad-mouthed" Republican "leaders"?

The leaders that are more unpopular than the Democratic Congress?

What was she thinking?

She must be worried!

newsflash, Bea:

The Tea Party is not applying for certification by the old Republican Party.

Rrom Alaska to Delaware and all places in-between, it's a takeover.

A hostile takeover.

more evidence of Democrat incompetency:

The government is reporting this morning that Obama sent 89,000 dead people stimulus checks in 2009.

Some have been dead for 30 years and would be as old as 136.

October 08, 2010 9:11 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think it's time for you to admit you made a mistake about Lou Dobbs on this one, Jim. Or are you going to be the kind of journalist who lets your incorrect statements stand?

October 08, 2010 9:31 AM  
Anonymous vamos said...

finishing strong:

"The economy lost 95,000 jobs in September, and the national unemployment rate remained steady at 9.6 percent, according to numbers released by the U.S. Department of Labor on Friday, presenting Democrats with another challenge in making their case to voters that they should remain in control of Congress. Though the unemployment rate held at 9.6 percent, the job losses were much worse than expected.

Friday's unemployment report is the last that will be released before voters go to the polls on November 2 in midterm elections that will widely be perceived as a referendum on President Obama's first two years in office.

Economists have noted that employers are still not hiring at a rate fast enough to bring down the national unemployment rate.

The monthly unemployment report is widely regarded by voters as the most significant mark of the nation's economic health -- a reality that President Obama recently acknowledged presented a difficult challenge for Democrats nationwide.

At a briefing with reporters on Thursday, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs was asked about a new CBS News poll that showed only 38 percent of Americans approved of Obama-- his lowest mark yet.

"You've spent a lot of money to find out that we're in a very tough economy," Gibbs said. "We are in the midst of, as I've said in here, dealing with 8 million jobs that have been lost, a financial calamity, a mortgage crisis that's going to take some time to dig out of."

In a separate report released by Gallup on Thursday, which was measured without seasonal adjustment, the national unemployment rate rose to 10.1 percent in September in a steep increase from the 9.3 percent rate that Gallup found in August.

Gallup found that younger workers faced particularly challenging job prospects, as 15.8 percent of Americans aged 18 to 29 were unemployed.

CNN reported on Thursday that Obama is planning a trip through western states later this month, including stops in Nevada, California, and Washington."

October 08, 2010 9:34 AM  
Anonymous watching the river run said...

good news

RealClearPolitics's tally of no-toss-up races, essentially awarding a winner in all states even if the poll shows only a small margin, for the first time projects a Republican majority in the Senate to go along with the House majority, that is a foregone conclusion

October 08, 2010 10:28 AM  
Anonymous just the facts, ma'am said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

October 08, 2010 11:12 AM  
Anonymous Eye Concur said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

October 08, 2010 11:16 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jim, those comments would have been an encouragement to discourse, which is in the best interest of the blog.

October 08, 2010 11:30 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Want to know the difference between this blog and conservative blogs that I read?

On this blog, all of the people who hold Jim's viewpoint all agree all of the time. When one says it, the rest fall in lockstep. Very occasionally, someone will dissent on a small point.

On conservative blogs, the conversation is robust and alive! While a group of people may have the same idea (let's lower taxes), they have spirited discussions on how this should take place, and how to best implement it, etc. Nuances are important, detail is important, and ideas flow like wine.

On this's a "them or us" mentality. Either you fall into lockstep or you don't. All dissent is seen as hostile.

What a dreary world it is when I come here. And why do I come here? Because I know that this is the group that wants to destroy Montgomery County!

October 08, 2010 12:01 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"WASHINGTON (Oct. 8) -- Gen. James Jones, President Barack Obama's national security adviser, is stepping down, two senior administration officials told The Associated Press on Friday."

I can understand why everyone's leaving.

Obama's team is a national disaster.

But, why is no one suggesting that Obama quit?

Maybe we can get that conversation going after the tidal wave sweeps away all his buddies in Congress.

Do you see those dark clouds gatherin' up ahead?

They're gonna wash this planet clean

just like the Bible said

you can hold on steady

try to get ready

but everybody's gonna get wet

don't think it can't happen

just because it hasn't happened yet

October 08, 2010 12:16 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

OMG, "Anonymous"...your ego surpasses even your bloviating and your paranoia: "What a dreary world it is when I come here. And why do I come here? Because I know that this is the group that wants to destroy Montgomery County!"

No doubt, you think you can "save us" by your negativism, contrariness, rudness, whining, lies, and persistent attacks on the humanity and integrity of those who visit this blog site. If there's anything "dreary" about this site it's your constant, unending attempts to pirate it.

My suggestion: If you don't like this site, don't visit this site.

There are many "right wing", "neofascist", and "Christian Taliban" sites on line which exist to feed the paranoia of readers like yourself. It's a choice. Why self-deceive yourself with any idea that you can convert anybody who visits this site to your, shall we say, odd ramblings?

"destroy Montgomery County"? Now that is a statement worthy of a professional psychoanalyst's treatment of your problem.

October 08, 2010 12:50 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You've made my point. I call this site "dreary," which is a relatively bland statement. On a conservative website, someone would have come back and had some wit and humor about them.

Of course, on this site, I'm attacked with "neofacist" and "Taliban."

Rolling my eyes.

October 08, 2010 1:07 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

there are two different anons today but I would agree with the other about the humorless of liberalism, as manifested by most of the TTFers here

why don't you guys just put on your gray Mao jackets and get it over with?

lighten up and stop taking yourself so seriously

having said that, I will say Jim does allow the conversation to go wherever it will, which is to his credit

just be nice if some of his followers could broaden their horizons

"the world is still a wonderful place

magical and more

to anyone who will simply pay attention"

October 08, 2010 2:28 PM  
Anonymous watch out, here comes da truth said...

To hear Democrats tell the story, they cower with a few paltry dollar bills in their hands as a tsunami of campaign spending by independent conservative groups threatens to sweep them away over the next three weeks.

“It is estimated that Democratic groups are being outspent seven to one,” President Obama told a rally in Bowie, Maryland Thursday. “We’re going to need to work even harder in this election. We’re going to need to fight their millions of dollars with millions of voices.”

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi this week told the Huffington Post that Democrats were being outspent eight to one, in an article that said liberal groups were set to spend a mere $7 million, in comparison to $200 million from conservative groups.

But unions and liberal groups have said for months that they are spending what amounts to more than $200 million in this election cycle, and an updated count — including a verification with major labor groups that their commitments still stand — shows that amount to be more than $250 million now.

So while it is true that the rise of the Republican rainmakers has markedly altered the political campaign landscape, the Democrats’ cries of helplessness are a significant exaggeration.

And in fact, Democrats have spent more on TV ads for House races than Republicans have, according to the Campaign Media Analysis Group, which combined spending by candidates, party campaign committees, and outside groups. Over the last 60 days, Democrats have spent $47.3 million, and Republicans have spent $40.8 million.

October 08, 2010 2:34 PM  
Anonymous The whole truth and nothing but the truth said...

In the Senate races, Republicans have spent $80 million to Democrats’ $61 million over the last 60
days, according to CMAG.

High-end estimates have been for months that outside conservatives groups could spend as much as $300 million in this midterm cycle, enabled by a Supreme Court decision in January and fueled by business sector dissatisfaction with President Obama’s policies.

The big difference between conservative and liberal outside group spending so far has been on TV. GOP-aligned groups like Crossroads GPS and Americans for Prosperity have been at the fore of a five to one edge – $24.8 million to $4.9 million – in TV ads by conservative groups from Aug. 1 to Sept. 20, according to CMAG.

Peter Stone, a campaign finance expert at the Center for Public Integrity, said in an interview that outside Republican groups have a three-to-two edge in money that could grow even larger.

H/T Jon Ward

October 08, 2010 5:30 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Dobbs hired a contractor who apparently hired some illlegal immigrants. How in the world is someone supposed to check the status of workers hired by a contractor? ho ho"

That's easy. Before you hire the contractor you ask them if they only hire documented aliens and citizens. This is a simple thing to do, and as Mr. Dobbs is finding out, it is an important question each of us can ask before we hire contractors to work for us.

Asking this simple question is important, but it's really important for those like Meg Whitman and Lou Dobbs who rail against employers who directly or indirectly hire illegal aliens. The least such anti-illegal immigrant people can do to ensure that they too are not part of the problem is to ask contractors they are interviewing for a job about their own hiring practices. Then it's easy, don't hire any contractors who hire illegal aliens.

If the contractor lies about their hiring practices, then you could not be held accountable or labeled a "hypocrite" like Lou and Meg are now.

If you want to know something, you ask. do do

October 08, 2010 6:04 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

personally, I think it's not necessary to ask

and, for all we know, Dobbs did

really, I couldn't care less, nor does anyone else

TTF sees scandal everywhere

finding one is really the only hope for the liberal agenda

and, so far, voters are so desperate to rid us of the socialists that they've been willing to overlook quite a bit

it's no use, guys

give it up and start working on what you're going to do in 2012

October 08, 2010 9:20 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

ho ho -- Should we also ask contractors whether they pay their taxes?

I am against tax cheats, but wouldn't ask my contractors if they hire tax cheats.

I am against drunk driving but wouldn't ask my lawn service if they have employees who drink or drive.

I am against allowing men who perceive themselves to be women to use the women's showers, but I wouldn't ask my contractor if hires men who perceive themselves to be women, and I don't question my contractors about which shower facilities their employees use.

I am against people who beat dogs, but I wouldn't ask my contractor if he hires people who beat dogs.

I am against cigarette smoking, but I wouldn't ask my contractor if he hires people who smoke when they get home at night.

Etc., etc., etc.

October 08, 2010 9:41 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Keep going Anon, you're really making your point

October 08, 2010 10:03 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

October 08, 2010 11:08 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Anonymous" (oh ye of so many different names and faces)

To answer your question: "Want to know the difference between this blog and conservative blogs that I read?" NO

"On conservative blogs, the conversation is robust and alive!" On a conservative website, someone would have come back and had some wit and humor about them." Now that's really a funny comment! Conservatives with wit and humor?

Too bad you don't exhibit some of those attributes here. Superciliousness doesn't become you.

To repeat: If you don't like this site, don't visit this site!

October 09, 2010 12:34 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

what's the point of a blog where no one disagrees?

too bad TTFers don't see the value of discourse

I know when things are going bad for mistaken positions, it's hard to see but listen hard enough and you might actually learn something

and, in the words of George McGovern, you guys can always remain the "loyal opposition"

tiny, but loyal

that's not so bad

"West Virginia Gov. Joe Manchin (D), who trails in recent polls in his Senate race, said Friday that President Obama is “dead wrong” for supporting cap-and-trade plans to curb greenhouse gas emissions."

good try, Joe, but it's too late

maybe if you could start calling on Obama to resign, you could get some traction

btw, in Washington state, which only a couple of weeks ago seemed the safest of Dem Senate seats, polls now show the Republican candidate, Rossi, in the lead

America is determined to overturn socialism and Obama has united us all on that

even the coasts are coming onboard the train to freedom

cheer up, Dems, you've still got Mikulski

of course, with all our extra money, perhaps the Tea Party should buy a few ads right below the Mason-Dixon line...

nothing to lose

it's food stamps v. paychecks and America has made its decision

let's hope Maryland doesn't get left behind with Barry's "stuck" agenda

October 09, 2010 9:00 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

And quit lying if you want to post here. This site is about teaching FACTS.

it's call reality

you should visit...

...then, there's the moratorium on drilling that's killing jobs in the Gulf states

You need to visit reality, Anon.

One more time, Anon. The fact is President Obama got BP to put up $100 million dollars to pay the salaries of any laid off oil rig workers as a result of the deep water rig moratorium, which shut down a grand total of 33 rigs out of the thousands of rigs pumping oil in the Gulf. Nine thousand applicants were expected and fewer than 400 people applied for these funds.

Because so few claims were made -- thanks to the fact most oil companies with their outrageous profits were able to keep the bulk of their idled workers on payroll anyway -- now the leftover BP funds for moratorium-laid off workers will be offered to workers who support the deepwater rigs, such as people on supply boats and pilots who provide helicopter transportation to rigs.

It's not like unemployment isn't bad enough, yet you still feel the need to lie about the few jobs the moratorium might have cost one of the most profitable industries in the US but were actually covered in one of the fair settlements President Obama worked out with the BP criminals, the very people YOU think deserved an apology after our President got them to step up and be accountable for the crisis they created.

Then you hacked a section out of Jon Ward's piece, only mentioning campaign spending on TV ads for candidates for office in the House of Representatives, where Democrats are slightly ahead of the GOP in that spending. But the FACT is that in overall campaign spending including for US Senate and in the states, those GOP secret corporate contributors who are enjoying the Dow being back up over 11,000 again (thanks to Obama's reforms and leadership), are spending seven times more money on Election 2010 than unions and other Democratic leaning groups are, according to Andrea Mitchell last night on ABC news.

October 09, 2010 9:26 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

Facts about the latest job figures:

"This morning, we learned that in the month of September, our economy gained 64,000 jobs in the private sector. July and August private sector job numbers were revised upwards. So we’ve now seen nine straight months of private sector job growth –- in all, more than 850,000 private sector jobs gained this year, which is in sharp contrast to the almost 800,000 jobs that we were losing when I first took office. But that news is tempered by a net job loss in September, which was fueled in large measure by the end of temporary Census jobs and by layoffs in state and local governments.

I should point out that these continuing layoffs by state and local governments -- of teachers and police officers and firefighters and the like -- would have been even worse without the federal help that we’ve provided to states over the last 20 months –- help that the Republicans in Congress have consistently opposed. I think the Republican position doesn’t make much sense, especially since the weakness in public sector employment is a drag on the private sector as well. So we need to continue to explore ways that we can help states and local governments maintain workers who provide vital services....

Last week, for example, I signed into law the Small Business Jobs Act -- a small business bill that does some big things. And I want to mention three of them today.

Within the 11 days since it took effect, more than 2,000 small business owners have already received more than a billion dollars’ worth of new loans -– with more to come. And beginning today, the Small Business Administration is offering larger loans for folks who need them.

Second, it expands the tax cut for all the equipment investment small businesses make this year -– something that Brendan is planning to take advantage of here at Maier Block. And we were just talking about his belief that the more we can accelerate depreciation, the more likely we’re going to see businesses like his make these investments.

It’s going to help small business owners upgrade their plants and equipment, it will encourage large corporations to get off the sidelines and start putting their profits back into the economy, and it will accelerate $55 billion in tax cuts for businesses that make job-creating investments over the next year.

Third, it creates a new initiative to strengthen state programs that spur private sector lending to small businesses -– a step that will support $15 billion in new small business loans across the country. Maryland, for example, will be able to support $250 million in new lending for businesses that are expanding and creating jobs in communities like this one.

Thousands of small business owners across America had been waiting for months for this bill to pass -– for the loans and tax cuts they have badly needed to grow their businesses and hire new employees. Unfortunately, it was held up all summer by a partisan minority until a few courageous Republican senators put politics aside. Just imagine the difference it could have made for small businesses and our economy had it happened months before.

But no, there is a "crisis" the GOP needs to maintain so right wingers can exploit it for political gain.

October 09, 2010 10:02 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

This need to maintain the economic crisis for political gain is the reason the GOP has said NO to nearly every job creating bill the Democrats have proposed. Kill it, delay it, they don't care, just make sure lots of Americans are suffering so the GOP money bags can tell them on TV to vote for us GOPers even though we're the reason you're still unemployed.

Huh? How's that? Well the proud members of the GOP wanted to cut off unemployment benefits with the unemployment rate over 7.5 % for the first time ever. Why? Because they didn't want to add $35 billion to the deficit to extend unemployment benefits to long-term laid off workers. What are they still willing to add to the deficit? Nearly $700 billion to continue the Bush tax cuts for the already rich.

Disdainful of the unemployed, Republicans have refused to vote to extend the lifeline unless Congress ends its historical practice of classifying unemployment compensation as emergency funding, which is added to the deficit. The GOP is demanding that the $35 billion cost of extending compensation be offset by cutting federal programs or by reducing the stimulus – the very program designed to create jobs for the unemployed. In the six weeks since extended unemployment compensation expired and Republicans have blocked renewal, weekly checks averaging $300 ended for 2 million Americans.

Republicans try to sound fiscally responsible as they explain their votes disregarding the plight of the unemployed. But Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl’s words wreck the GOP’s deliberate disinformation campaign. While insisting that unemployment compensation extension be offset, Kyl says that’s entirely unnecessary for extension of Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthy. When Republicans give rich people tax breaks, the GOP thinks it’s fine for the $678 billion cost to be added to the deficit.

Minority whip Kyl’s stance is held by the majority in his party. Most Republicans agree Congress need not pay for tax cuts benefitting the wealthy. “That’s been the majority Republican view for some time,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said, “So I think what Senator Kyl was expressing was the view of virtually every Republican on that subject.”

October 09, 2010 10:05 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Right now, by any rational calculation, would be an especially good time to improve the nation’s infrastructure. We have the need: our roads, our rail lines, our water and sewer systems are antiquated and increasingly inadequate. We have the resources: a million-and-a-half construction workers are sitting idle, and putting them to work would help the economy as a whole recover from its slump. And the price is right: with interest rates on federal debt at near-record lows, there has never been a better time to borrow for long-term investment.

But American politics these days is anything but rational. Republicans bitterly opposed even the modest infrastructure spending contained in the Obama stimulus plan. And, on Thursday, Chris Christie, the governor of New Jersey, canceled America’s most important current public works project, the long-planned and much-needed second rail tunnel under the Hudson River.

It was a destructive and incredibly foolish decision on multiple levels. But it shouldn’t have been all that surprising. We are no longer the nation that used to amaze the world with its visionary projects. We have become, instead, a nation whose politicians seem to compete over who can show the least vision, the least concern about the future and the greatest willingness to pander to short-term, narrow-minded selfishness.

So, about that tunnel: with almost 1,200 people per square mile, New Jersey is the most densely populated state in America, more densely populated than any major European nation. Add in the fact that many residents work in New York, and you have a state that can’t function without adequate public transportation. There just isn’t enough space for everyone to drive to work.

But right now there’s just one century-old rail tunnel linking New Jersey and New York — and it’s running close to capacity. The need for another tunnel couldn’t be more obvious.

So last year the project began. Of the $8.7 billion in planned funding, less than a third was to come from the State of New Jersey; the rest would come, in roughly equal amounts, from the independent Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and from the federal government. Even if costs were to rise substantially, as they often do on big projects, it was a very good deal for the state.

But Mr. Christie killed it anyway.

October 09, 2010 10:48 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

News reports suggest that his immediate goal was to shift funds to local road projects and existing rail repairs. There were, however, much better ways to raise those funds, such as an increase in the state’s relatively low gasoline taxes — and bear in mind that whatever motorists gain from low gas taxes will be at least partly undone by pain from the canceled project in the form of growing congestion and traffic delays. But, no, in modern America, no tax increase can ever be justified, for any reason.

So this was a terrible, shortsighted move from New Jersey’s point of view. But that’s not the whole cost. Canceling the tunnel was also a blow to national hopes of recovery, part of a pattern of penny-pinching that has played a large role in our continuing economic stagnation.

When people ask why the Obama stimulus didn’t accomplish more, one good response is to ask, what stimulus? Leaving aside the cost of financial rescues and safety-net programs like unemployment insurance, federal spending has risen only modestly — and this rise has been largely offset by cutbacks at the state and local level. Many of these cuts were forced by Congress, which has refused to approve adequate aid to the states. But as Mr. Christie is demonstrating, local politicians are also doing their part.

And the ideology that has led Mr. Christie to undermine his state’s future is, of course, the same ideology that has led almost all Republicans and some Democrats to stand in the way of any meaningful action to revive the nation’s economy. Worse yet, next month’s election seems likely to reward Republicans for their obstructionism.

So here’s how you should think about the decision to kill the tunnel: It’s a terrible thing in itself, but, beyond that, it’s a perfect symbol of how America has lost its way. By refusing to pay for essential investment, politicians are both perpetuating unemployment and sacrificing long-run growth. And why not? After all, this seems to be a winning electoral strategy.

October 09, 2010 10:48 AM  
Anonymous pick a pumpkin said...

the hyper Bea has demonstrated, in her multiple posts, how sadly desperate the Dems have become

it reminds me of the desperate try at a fake field goal by the Crimson Tide today

Bea should learn to be succinct

more people might actually read her crap then

I'll just take her first and last remarks, for the sake of brevity:

her response to my pointing out that Obama killed jobs with his mindless moratorium on drilling is to say that Obama intimidated private companies into giving money to workers

earth to Bea:

we want paychecks not food stamps

then, she ends with this stunning admission:

"When people ask why the Obama stimulus didn’t accomplish more, one good response is to ask, what stimulus?"

uh, Bea, we're talking about the trillion dollars that Obama and Pelosi assured would keep unemployment below 8%

then, in late Spring, they said it would finally come through and bring a Summer of Recovery

that's the stimulus everyone's talking about

it was poorly designed and conceived and it failed

socialism always does

ramble on but the voters' view has set like cement

the socialist era in America, short-lived, is over

October 10, 2010 4:06 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

Oh brother, Anon. Vigilance readers can easily see who's so desperate he has to make up lies about some supposed job losses that BP caused but Obama guarded against.

Go back and check the comments on Vigilance and you will see that I have been pointing out the truth all along, that Obama said since his FIRST stimulus was passed, that it was a start and additional stimulus spending would be needed. Obama was right then and he's still right today. We need more stimulus spending, not less.

In the meantime, the GOP continues to block almost every jobs bill, even ones that have been wildly successful and praised. Maddow presented this well the other night.

Watch along with the video here. Below is MSNBC rushed transcript with some (not all) corrections made by me.

Senator Merkley: Here we have a program the CBO has scored as making the Treasury a billion dollars over the next ten years and yet it could create credit equal to $300 billion of credit to small businesses, but the Republicans are opposing, and why is that? There's no rational reason unless the goal is to drive the American economy into a double dip recession.

Maddow:: You feel like honestly that the Republicans are opposing the policies they're opposing and promoting policies they're promoting because they want a bad economic outcome?

Merkley: Well, you know, i didn't come to DC as cynical as i feel here a year and a half later as a Senator. What i have seen is everything politicized by the primary elections and the general election plan for this year and it certainly appears that all sense has lost all sorts of partnership to make American economy work for working Americans is gone.

Maddow: That was Senator Jeff Merkley speaking on this show back in July. That case that he made, you can almost see that it pained him to make it, has stuck with me now for months. i think about what he said there in that segment back in July a lot. The prospect that some of what Congress is doing, that is blowing it on the economy, is happening on purpose. I think about that a lot.

Case in point. there's a program that is part of a stimulus that is credited with creating almost 250,000 American jobs. One program (TANF Emergency Fund, Welfare-To-Work Program). That many jobs. The overall stimulus in total on track to create 3.5 million jobs. this one five billion dollar program alone is responsible for a quarter million of those jobs.

What do you get when you demonstrably create a lot of jobs in an otherwise horrendous economy for little spending? A totally not at all controversial program. When CNN did a report on this program, they called it the stimulus program even a Republican could love. Republican governors who saw this program working in their states became the most vocal advocates. Haley Barbour of Mississippi, former head of the Republican Party, current head of the Republican Governor's Association. He is The arguably the most partisan governor in the country talked about how much he loves this program. He credits it with creating 5,300 jobs in his state alone.

This is not a controversial program. it works. It essentially subsidizes companies and organizations to hire people or to keep jobs they would otherwise eliminate. it's simple, has little overhead. it's efficient. it does exactly what it is designed to do. Republicans and Democrats alike when they've seen how many people it's kept employed in the private sector, they like it very much...

October 10, 2010 9:32 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

...Nobody is arguing against it on its merits either in the states or in Washington. and yet, and yet the Republicans blocked it. in the House where there is no filibuster and the Democrats have a large majority, extension of this thing was passed twice. In the Senate, well, in March, New Hampshire Republican Senator Judd Gregg blocked it. Last month, again, Democrats tried to reboot the program. keep funding it. Utah Republican Senator Orrin Hatch blocked it. Two weeks, before the program was set to expire, it got blocked again. Thank Wyoming Republican Senator Mike Enzi for it this time.

Enzi: The majority has known this program is going to expire at the end of this month all year and have taken no steps to reauthorize this important social safety net program.

Maddow: Not true! Democrats tried to reauthorize it in March. You blocked it. Democrats tried to reauthorize it in September. you blocked it. You, sir, personally blocked it, as you called it an important safety net, that you were blocking. Republicans have never made a substantive argument against this program, but they have blocked it not once, not twice but three times. So a totally successful bipartisan endorsed noncontroversial program credited with putting a quarter million americans back to work in 37 states, that program is now dead.

So all the people employed in that program are now going to join the ranks of the unemployed which is going to be horrendous for the economy. it is not only a bad situation and an individual tragedy for each of those Americans, now out of the workforce again. It's also bad for the economy as a whole because these people are no longer earning money which means they're no longer going to be spending money which means we are all dragged down as a nation.

But that personal and collective economic disaster does have a silver lining. As the jobs numbers get pushed into even worse territory than they're already in, that might be great news for Republicans in the elections. the last major jobs report before the election came out today. some private sector job gains, but otherwise not good for the unemployed, not good for the employed but still struggling in a lousy economy, not good for the economy, itself, not good for the country.

if only we had some sort of noncontroversial effective efficient bipartisan endorsed jobs program. of course that wouldn't be good for the Republicans.

They'd probably block it.

So go ahead with your desperate attempt to lie about fewer than 400 oil rig workers suffering when they had a fund of over $100 million to cover their salaries provided by the BP when our President insisted PB stand up and be accountable now, not decades later in a court of law (where by the way some Exxon Valdez claims are finally being paid).
In fact the GOP Senators vote regularly to keep Americans out of work and angry about it. Why? Because that's their reelection campaign strategy.

You must have a job still, huh Anon? Let me tell you, when you don't have a job and when successful bipartisan jobs programs are cut by GOP Senators for bogus reasons, food stamps start looking pretty good. At least food stamps keep unemployed people spending at grocery stores and keep the children of our out of work fellow American citizens fed.

October 10, 2010 9:33 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Validation for President Obama's faith outreach

Saturday, October 9, 2010

Michael Gerson's critique of President Obama's religious outreach ["Believers' remorse," op-ed, Oct. 5] unfairly maligned a White House vigorously engaged with diverse faith communities.

In my experiences with the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, I have seen a sincere commitment to address such urgent moral challenges as poverty reduction, health-care reform and finding common ground for reducing abortions and supporting pregnant women.

Mr. Gerson described the president's recent encouragement to faith leaders who support health-care reform as "political manipulation." That is absurd. Along with other Catholic sisters and clergy who worked hard to support life-affirming health-care reform, I validate what Mr. Obama has done on this issue not because of any partisan loyalty. I do so because my faith teaches that government has a responsibility to serve the common good and help the most vulnerable.

Regardless of which party holds the White House, religious leaders will advocate for public policies that help create the conditions for a just society. We've been doing this for a long time, and we can tell the difference between authentic engagement and partisan manipulation.

Sister Simone Campbell, Washington

The writer is executive director of Network, a National Catholic Social Justice Lobby.

October 10, 2010 9:46 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Oh brother, Anon. Vigilance readers can easily see who's so desperate"

think about it, Bea

why would I be desperate?

the voters of America are about to validate my views

"Below is MSNBC rushed transcript with all corrections made by me."

Bea, MSNBC is a well-known liberal biased outlet. Most Americans seek out objective reporting on a channel like FOX.

Maddow is part of the gay agenda.

"The writer is executive director of Network, a National Catholic Social Justice Lobby"

in other words, like the socialist Obama, a devotee of liberation theology

"WASHINGTON (Oct. 10) - As if voters don't have enough to be angry about this election year, the government is expected to announce this week that more than 58 million Social Security recipients will go through another year without an increase in their monthly benefits.

It would mark only the second year without an increase since automatic adjustments for inflation were adopted in 1975. The first year was this year.

"If you're the ruling party, this is not the sort of thing you want to have happening two weeks before an election," said Andrew Biggs, a former deputy commissioner at the Social Security Administration"

October 10, 2010 10:34 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is one of the most hysterically funny comments by "Anonymous" ever posted here: "MSNBC is a well-known liberal biased outlet. Most Americans seek out objective reporting on a channel like FOX."

Perhaps he meant to say: "Most UNTHINKING Americans..."!! The propaganda organ of the extreme right-wing GOP is hardly objective.

October 10, 2010 12:29 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

OK, so we'll all wait until after the election when the GOP will finally explain just exactly where their pledge to trim a trillion dollars from the debt will come from. We've seen their Pledge and it is sorely lacking in specifics.

So far the "most substantive deficit-cutting proposal in the entire document vows to cut government spending to pre-stimulus, pre-bailout levels, saving $100 billion a year.

One hundred billion dollars down, only $900 billion a year to go!!"

And don't forget, they want to extend the nearly $700 billion deficit inducing tax cuts for the already rich!

Why won't the GOP or its "Pledge" tell seniors where the rest of their cuts will be until after the election?


WALLACE: Congressman Boehner, as Willie Sutton said about banks, entitlements are where the money is, more than 40 percent of the budget. And yet I've looked through this pledge. There is not one single proposal to cut Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid.

BOEHNER: Chris, we make it clear in there that ***we're going to lay out a plan to get -- to work toward a balanced budget and to deal with the entitlement crisis.***

Chris, ***it's time for us as Americans to have an adult conversation with each other about the serious challenges our country faces.*** And we can't have that serious conversation until we lay out the size of the problem.

Now, ***once Americans understand how big the problem is, then we can begin to talk about potential solutions.*** But I am committed to having that adult conversation with the American people because it is important for the future of our kids and our grandkids.

WALLACE: But forgive me, sir. I mean, ***isn't the right time to have the adult conversation now before the election*** when you have this document? Why not make a single proposal to cut Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid?

BOEHNER: Chris, this is what happens here in Washington. ***When you start down that path, you just invite all kinds of problems. I know. I've been there.***

I think we need to do this in a more systemic way and have this conversation first. ***Let's not get to the potential solutions.*** Let's make sure Americans understand how big the problem is. Then we can begin to talk about possible solutions and then work ourselves into those solutions that are doable.

Lookout seniors! Mr. Boehner says he'll tell us what "entitlements" like Social Security and Medicare the GOP plans to cut to "balance the budget" to pay for extending the $700 trillion deficit-building tax cuts for the already rich AFTER you vote them into office.

October 10, 2010 12:38 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"IRVINE, Calif. (Oct. 10) -- Attorney Steven Eggleston was suspicious when his boss pressed him to attend a weekend male retreat, but refused to tell him what would be happening there, saying participants were sworn to secrecy.

So he did a Google search and found out why.

Men would be holding hands and walking naked, blindfolded, through a forest. Then they would sit nude in groups of 30 to 50, passing around a wooden dildo and giving lurid details of their sexual history. Eggleston said he found out that the men will grab each other's penises if they wish.

Eggleston didn't like what he read and refused the invitation. Now he's suing the firm and his bosses, saying he was badgered, yelled at and ultimately had his pay slashed to zero for not attending the retreat, held at a Santa Barbara, Calif., mountain campground and sponsored by the ManKind Project, according to a lawsuit filed in Orange County Superior Court.

"I talked to other attorneys who went on the retreat, so it's the real thing," Eggleston, now with a new firm, told AOL News. "After everything I read about this, I didn't want to go."

Eggleston said he was approached by his supervisor, attorney John Bisnar, shortly after he started his job in July 2009. Bisnar asked if Eggleston would go to an upcoming retreat, saying, "I can't tell you that you have to go as a requirement of your employment, but Steve, you really need to go to this," according to the complaint.

During Eggleston's Google search, he found out that the family of a Texas man sued ManKind Project after the man committed suicide following a similar retreat, the complaint said.

Eggleston said he was under the impression that Bisnar would be attending the event, and he didn't want to sit naked discussing his sex life with his boss or have any inappropriate touching

Eggleston said in the complaint that he was contacted several times by ManKind Project officials who tried to convince him to attend the event. Part of his research revealed that attendees are told to carpool so they would not be able to leave the event once they got there.

After he refused to attend the first retreat, Eggleston said, his pay was cut. Months later, he refused to attend a second retreat, and his pay was slashed to zero. He quit after eight months, leaving behind cases that should have resulted in commissions, the complaint said.

Instead, commissions have been withheld, essentially giving him zero net pay for his entire tenure, said his lawyer, Kathleen Hartman. The lawsuit, filed Aug. 31, alleges 13 causes of action, including sexual harassment, retaliation, fraudulent concealment and infliction of emotional distress.

"I don't want to see naked guys, I don't want to see naked guys looking at naked me, I don't want to share my sexual experiences, I don't want to hold the naked dildo!""

October 10, 2010 9:32 PM  
Anonymous anon-deluxe said...

smart anon:

"MSNBC is a well-known liberal biased outlet. Most Americans seek out objective reporting on a channel like FOX."

dim anon:

"Perhaps he meant to say: "Most UNTHINKING Americans..."!! The propaganda organ of the extreme right-wing GOP is hardly objective."

the Dems don't get it

Fox's ratings dwarf MSNBC by a country mile

do you think you can ever win an election by calling most Americans "unthinking"?

if you want to argue your case, fine

but your case can't be argued logically, so you resort to ubsubstantiated characterizations

try thinking and discussion

maybe you'll come up with something

you haven't yet

October 10, 2010 9:43 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

the Tea Party takes on the gay agenda:

"(Oct. 10) -- The Republican gubernatorial hopeful in New York told a meeting of Orthodox Jewish leaders in Brooklyn on Sunday that being gay is "not the example that we should be showing our children."

Tea Party-backed Carl Paladino discussed with the group why he is opposed to gay marriage. "I just think my children and your children would be much better off and much more successful getting married and raising a family, and I don't want them brainwashed into thinking that homosexuality is an equally valid and successful option -- it isn't," he said.

"There is nothing to be proud of in being a dysfunctional homosexual." Paladino continued.

Paladino also slammed his Democratic rival, Andrew Cuomo, for marching in New York's gay pride parade. "That's not the example that we should be showing our children," he said.

Paladino's remarks came on the same day that eight suspects were arraigned in a Bronx courtroom on charges they gruesomely attacked and sexually assaulted three men they believed to be gay.

Paladino's campaign manager, Michael R. Caputo, told the Times that Paladino is not anti-gay.

"Carl Paladino is simply expressing the views that he holds in his heart as a Catholic," Caputo said. "Carl Paladino is not homophobic, and neither is the Catholic Church."

"The majority of New Yorkers agree with him," he added."

And, let's add, most Americans.

October 11, 2010 12:03 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"And don't forget, they want to extend the nearly $700 billion deficit inducing tax cuts for the already rich!"

in the warped liberal world, if you decide not to raise someone's taxes, that's a tax cut

the rich are taxed plenty already

we're not a socialist country

"Why won't the GOP or its "Pledge" tell seniors where the rest of their cuts will be until after the election?"

because it will be a matter of discussion once their is a mandate that, above all, it must be done

"Lookout seniors! Mr. Boehner says he'll tell us what "entitlements" like Social Security and Medicare the GOP plans to cut to "balance the budget" to pay for extending the $700 trillion deficit-building tax cuts for the already rich AFTER you vote them into office."

the seniors who are having their Medicare cut and see healthcare rationing coming, don't trust the lying Democrats

that's not going to change in the next couple of weeks

October 11, 2010 12:11 AM  
Anonymous Barack McCarthy said...

A new ad from the Democratic National Committee is totally unsubstatiated. I am sure we are nowhere near touching bottom on the level to which these Democrat attack ads will sink by Nov.2, but this is a new low so far into the midterm battle.

The ad makes the totally unsubstantiated charge that the Chamber of Commerce is taking money from foreign interests and using it to "steal our democracy." And worse, President Obama is out on the campaign trail, creating an echo chamber by making the same reckless claims just as the ad hits the airwaves. And when CBS newsman Bob Schieffer Sunday asks David Axelrod if there is any proof for the claim, the senior Obama aide says they don't need proof -- it's up to the Chamber of Commerce to prove it isn't true.

The Democratic National Commitee is using the same sort of tactic and logic that Sen. Joe McCarthy used in the 1950s: Level a headline-grabbing and unsubstantiated charge, like the State Department is filled with communists, and then say it is up to the State Department and the employees so charged to prove it is not true.

So much for hope and change; this is the politics of fear, slander and divisiveness on the eve of an election that looks as if it could deliver a damning verdict on the first two years of the Obama administration.

October 11, 2010 3:09 AM  
Anonymous coast-to-coast tea party said...

Dems are demoralized nationwide:

"Republican challengers are suddenly threatening once-safe Democrats in New England and the Northwest, expanding the terrain for GOP gains and raising the party's hopes for a significant victory in next month's elections.

Republican advances in traditionally Democratic states, including Connecticut, Oregon and Washington, have rattled local campaigns and forced the Democrats to shift attention and money to races they didn't expect to be defending.

Rising sentiment against the party in power has washed ashore even in coastal Oregon, where Democratic Rep. Peter DeFazio won his 10th re-election two years ago with 82% of the vote.

"I am having the same problem that Democrats are having across the country," he said, noting that his opponent's yard signs "are thick" across much of the district.

The expanded battlefield map has prompted a shift in tone. Oregon Rep. Greg Walden, vice chairman of the National Republican Campaign Committee, bluntly predicted his party is heading toward a big win. "The Democrats are standing on a beach with the water going out and there is a tsunami coming their way," he said.

Some Democrats are signaling the potential for a rout, particularly in the House. A new survey by Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg gives Republicans a six-point edge, 49% to 43%, when likely voters are asked which party they support in House races. That's a margin pollsters generally believe foreshadows large gains. "If the election were held today, it would produce a very unhappy night" for the Democrats, he said.

Democrats are buying advertising in places they hadn't previously reserved it, a strong indication the battlefield is expanding. That includes New England, which hasn't a single Republican House member. A new ad by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee began airing this week in the Massachusetts district covering Cape Cod, where Democratic Rep. Bill Delahunt is retiring and ex-police sergeant Jeff Perry is posting a strong GOP challenge.

In Connecticut, polls published this week show Democratic Reps. Chris Murphy and Jim Himes in dead heats with their GOP rivals. The non-partisan Cook Political Report on Friday moved Mr. Murphy's race into a more competitive category.

"It's obviously a sign of the times that these are competitive races," said Democratic Rep. Chris Van Hollen from Maryland, chairman of the House Democrats' campaign committee.

Pollsters and analysts say the pressure building in liberal corners of the country points to the potential for a so-called wave election, similar to the drubbing Democrats took in 1994.

Democratic voters remain less interested in the race, a big factor behind the party's woes.

"What we know in a wave election is, the losing side is discouraged and fails to show up at the polling places," said Democratic pollster Peter Hart, co-director of the Journal poll. In recent weeks, "the crest appears to be going higher and higher with few signs that it will abate."

In Connecticut, a new survey by the Democratic firm Merriman River Group found Mr. Himes in a statistical tie with his GOP challenger, state Sen. Dan Debicella.

In the Northwest, freshman Oregon Rep. Kurt Schrader is in a tight race with state Rep. Scott Bruun. To the north, in a district that includes Portland suburbs, six-term Democratic Rep. David Wu is under pressure from GOP sports consultant Rob Cornilles.

Washington State GOP Senate challenger Dino Rossi has pulled ahead of Democratic Sen. Patty Murray. Republicans view Washington state as a breaking point in the battle for control of the Senate.

Many Democrats are stunned that Mr. DeFazio has a race on his hands in a district that includes the liberal bastion of Eugene."

October 11, 2010 3:43 AM  
Anonymous cackling conservative said...

can the Tea Party ignore the kind of issues Aunt Bea brings up and still win control of Congress?

why, yes we can!

October 11, 2010 7:32 AM  
Anonymous uncle un-hopey-changey said...

dear barry,

we'll keep our freedom, our guns, our money, our religion and you can keep "the change"


your friends at the tea party

October 11, 2010 8:30 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anon wrote:

"Paladino's remarks came on the same day that eight suspects were arraigned in a Bronx courtroom on charges they gruesomely attacked and sexually assaulted three men they believed to be gay."

I have to comment that, obviously, those eight suspects must be gay too. Can't sexually assault someone of your own sex without being gay.

October 11, 2010 8:34 AM  
Anonymous the walrus said...

this weekend marked the seventieth birthday of John Lennon

in his memory, the tea party will now use a quote from him for the closing weeks of the campaign:


October 11, 2010 8:38 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Can't sexually assault someone of your own sex without being gay."

tell that to our inmate population

just don't get too excited

October 11, 2010 8:40 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anon, it's been a long night, I know, but don't worry, the liquor stores open again in twenty minutes. Hang in there.

October 11, 2010 8:43 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If the inmates willingly have sex with someone of their own sex, then they are gay.

These male gang members willingly sexually assaulted other men so they are, therefore and logically, gay.

The crime was hideous and they should get the electric chair tomorrow, but this doesn't take away from the fact that they're gay. Gay men attacked some gay men. It just seems strange to leave that fact out of the story. You either have to simply say "gang members attacked some men" OR, if you're going to name the sexual orientation of one group, then you have to name the sexual orientation of another and say, "gay gang members attacked a gay man and other straight men, including the gay man's brother and two teenaged boys."

October 11, 2010 8:46 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Correction to the should be "gay gang members attacked a gay man AND some other, straight men."

As far as we know, only one victim was gay.

October 11, 2010 8:48 AM  
Anonymous ain't it the truth? said...

"If the inmates willingly have sex with someone of their own sex, then they are gay."

and since most of them never did anything like that before prison, it goes to show that homosexuality is a choice

thanks for that insight

a lot of TTFers don't know that

October 11, 2010 10:29 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Of all of the cockamamie ideas propounded by the stupid "Anonymous, this one wins the prize ("These male gang members willingly sexually assaulted other men so they are, therefore and logically (sic), gay.")

Men who sexually assault other men are gay? Please cite the facts and statistics that support that mendacious fantasy.

That must mean that all of those manly men...the marines and soldiers, sailors and airmen who serve in our Armed Forces...who assault perceived and known Gay men (and Lesbians, too) are, therefore, gay. And just think about the huge numbers of priests and ministers and primarily Republican politicians who "willingly sexually assaulted other men"...all are gay, huh? Of course not...those are just "confused" heterosexuals!!

How do you describe a "straight" man who willingly sexually assaults women? A sexually confused male?

The gang members who raped their victims in New York are themselves the victims of the rabid homophobia and hetero-superiority endorsed and perpetuated by people such as our dearly-beloved "Anonymous"...nothing more.

Sexual assault, whether committed against a male or a female, is an act that forces a person to join in unwanted sexual contact or attention, committed by a perpetrator who has deep psychological problems.

Studies show that anyone who is as obsessed with gays as you are, are most likely gay themselves.

Fess up...come out of your hellish closet.

October 11, 2010 10:41 AM  
Anonymous svelte_brunette said...

Anon asserted:

“These male gang members willingly sexually assaulted other men so they are, therefore and logically, gay.”

This is simply, utterly, completely, and logically wrong. You need to study up on logic.

“The crime was hideous and they should get the electric chair tomorrow, but this doesn't take away from the fact that they're gay. Gay men attacked some gay men. It just seems strange to leave that fact out of the story.”

Completely wrong again. Here’s the story, try reading it again:

“The nine men, members of the Latin King Goonies gang, had heard a rumor one of their teenage recruits was gay and on the night of Oct. 3, found him, stripped and beat him and sodomized him with a plunger handle until he confessed to having had sex with a man, police say. The gang members then found a second teen they suspected was gay and tortured him, police say.

They also invited the man the first teen had admitted having sex with to a house, telling him they were having a party, police say. When he arrived, five of them burned, beat and tortured him for hours, police say.”

One doesn’t have to be gay to torture and sodomize someone (male or female) with a stick – just brutally sick.

“During the proceeding Sunday, Assistant District Attorney Theresa Gottlieb said that each victim was asked prior to being beaten in the Oct. 3 attacks: "Is it true that you're a fag?"”

The victims were slowly tortured, sodomized and then killed to try and enforce strict hetero-normative values. The behavior of this gang is clear. They simply did not allow gay people in their midst. The perpetrators are violently heterosexual, and wanted to make sure everyone else adhered to strict heterosexual behavior patterns as well.

Conservatives are slowly loosing this battle because the more anti-gay animus they stir up, the more brutal crimes like this occur, and most “normal” people find this an unacceptable outcome, even if they don’t agree with the mythical “gay lifestyle.”


October 11, 2010 10:45 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

Looks who showing how "hyper" he is with multiple posts again, and without a single word of substantive argument about anything I said,

Well, so much for Anon's supposed interest in "robust discussion" of real issues.

can the Tea Party ignore the kind of issues Aunt Bea brings up and still win control of Congress

The radical fringe of the GOP base, that is the tea party, ignores the reality of issues all the time, just like Anon has since my last post yesterday. If tea baggers want to "take this country back" to the Constitution for our laws, why do eight of them want to change the Constitution they supposedly revere?

Before the 17th Amendment was ratified in 1913, state legislatures, not the voters, appointed the senators from a given state.

Who wants to repeal this right to voting residents of states enumerated in the US Constitution? Tea baggers Mike Lee in Utah, Joe Miller in Alaska, Ken Buck in Colorado who has already tied himself in knots flip-flopping on this issue, and Steve Southerland in Florida, another supporter who flip flopper on this issue when his Democratic opponent demonstrated Southerland's position in a campaign ad.

Ratified by Congress in 1913, the 16th Amendment allows the federal government to tax the income of American citizens directly.

Who wants to repeal this portion of the US Constitution and totally starve government out of existence? Jeff Landry in Louisiana, Sharron Angle in Nevada, and Paul Brown from Georgia who wants to repeal both the 17th and 16th amendments.

Passed in 1866, the portion of the 14th Amendment that has drawn conservative ire is the Citizenship Clause, which defines citizenship as extending to all those who are born in the United States, regardless of the immigration status of the parents.

Who wants to repeal this part of the US Constitution? Paul Rand in Kentucky, and Utah's Mike Lee, again.

October 11, 2010 10:48 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

Back to the GOP Pledge:

The GOP has actively ensured that "solutions" to the economic crisis they caused under the Bush Adminstration, like bills that create jobs with additional stimulus spending, are not approved by Congress. Now they tell us to just vote them into office and THEN they'll tell us what their solutions are.

Except we already know that the GOPs economic guru, Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, who will chair the House's budget committee if the GOP wins the House, has issued a long-range budget plan that envisions privatization of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, reforms which would have caused these programs to tank at the end of the Bush second term in office had they already been enacted.

And now Vigilance readers can see who's avoiding a "robust discussion" of these disastrous and unpopular GOP not-so-secret plans.

Pretending your party's plan is not to privatize these programs our seniors depend on and tie them to the gambler's risk that is the stock market is no way to have a "robust discussion" about those plans.

Good news!

Let's hear it for Obama's pick for an economist to sit on the Federal Reserve Board who was just awarded the 2010 Nobel prize in Economics :

(AP) – Americans Peter Diamond and Dale Mortensen and British-Cypriot citizen Christopher Pissarides won the 2010 Nobel economics prize today for developing theories that help explain how economic policies can affect unemployment. The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences says the trio won the prestigious award "for their analysis of markets with search frictions."

"The laureates' models help us understand the ways in which unemployment, job vacancies, and wages are affected by regulation and economic policy," the citation said. Diamond, 70, an economist at MIT and authority on Social Security, pensions, and taxation, has been nominated by President Obama to become a member of the Federal Reserve. However, the Senate failed to approve his nomination before lawmakers left to campaign for the midterm congressional elections. Mortensen, 71, is an economics professor at Northwestern University; Pissarides, 62, is a professor at the London School of Economics.

October 11, 2010 10:48 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh boy, and if the GOP takes over again, maybe we can have more great nominees like Harriet Mills for Supreme Court Justice!!!

October 11, 2010 10:55 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Studies show that anyone who is as obsessed with gays as you are, are most likely gay themselves."


go ahead and post a few

Bea, you're pathetic attempt to stir up fear among the elderly won't work

you can't ignore the fact that we spend so much more than we have

all the Tea Party is saying is we need to deal with it

there are several ways to do it but, first, we must agree that it be done

but, Democrats and the Republicans that have been replaced by Tea Party candidates have engaged in the same kind of demogoguery you have

they will be replaced and a serious conversation will take place

you got your shot

time's up, Dems

back to the sidelines

October 11, 2010 11:10 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Men who sexually attack the men or women who sexually attack the women are...GAY! Maybe they're self-hating gays, but gays nonetheless.

It seems to me that the gay lobby wants to identify ONLY with gay victims, and doesn't wish to lay claim to the gay perpetrators.

Can't have it both ways. No indeedy!

October 11, 2010 11:13 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anon, you are conflating behavior with identity. You better think this through. I know a couple ex-cons who might not like to hear what you're saying.

October 11, 2010 11:24 AM  
Anonymous chili smoke gourmet said...

that's similar to the priest situation

a bunch of gays infiltrate the Catholic Church and gay advocates blame the Church for what they do

"Let's hear it for Obama's pick for an economist to sit on the Federal Reserve Board who was just awarded the 2010 Nobel prize in Economics"

oh yeah, those Swedish guys know brilliance when they see it

don't forget Obama, who got a Nobel for his brilliant work on world peace

it'll look great in a glass case in the lobby of the restaurant he opens after this gig plays out

October 11, 2010 11:28 AM  
Anonymous that's right!: brilliant said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

October 11, 2010 11:34 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"You better think this through. I know a couple ex-cons who might not like to hear what you're saying."

Jim -- Is this considered a threat? Should I notify the police?

October 11, 2010 11:56 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Here’s the narrative you hear everywhere: President Obama has presided over a huge expansion of government, but unemployment has remained high. And this proves that government spending can’t create jobs.

Here’s what you need to know: The whole story is a myth. There never was a big expansion of government spending. In fact, that has been the key problem with economic policy in the Obama years: we never had the kind of fiscal expansion that might have created the millions of jobs we need.

Ask yourself: What major new federal programs have started up since Mr. Obama took office? Health care reform, for the most part, hasn’t kicked in yet, so that can’t be it. So are there giant infrastructure projects under way? No. Are there huge new benefits for low-income workers or the poor? No. Where’s all that spending we keep hearing about? It never happened.

To be fair, spending on safety-net programs, mainly unemployment insurance and Medicaid, has risen — because, in case you haven’t noticed, there has been a surge in the number of Americans without jobs and badly in need of help. And there were also substantial outlays to rescue troubled financial institutions, although it appears that the government will get most of its money back. But when people denounce big government, they usually have in mind the creation of big bureaucracies and major new programs. And that just hasn’t taken place.

Consider, in particular, one fact that might surprise you: The total number of government workers in America has been falling, not rising, under Mr. Obama. A small increase in federal employment was swamped by sharp declines at the state and local level — most notably, by layoffs of schoolteachers. Total government payrolls have fallen by more than 350,000 since January 2009.

Now, direct employment isn’t a perfect measure of the government’s size, since the government also employs workers indirectly when it buys goods and services from the private sector. And government purchases of goods and services have gone up. But adjusted for inflation, they rose only 3 percent over the last two years — a pace slower than that of the previous two years, and slower than the economy’s normal rate of growth.

So as I said, the big government expansion everyone talks about never happened. This fact, however, raises two questions. First, we know that Congress enacted a stimulus bill in early 2009; why didn’t that translate into a big rise in government spending? Second, if the expansion never happened, why does everyone think it did?

Part of the answer to the first question is that the stimulus wasn’t actually all that big compared with the size of the economy. Furthermore, it wasn’t mainly focused on increasing government spending. Of the roughly $600 billion cost of the Recovery Act in 2009 and 2010, more than 40 percent came from tax cuts, while another large chunk consisted of aid to state and local governments. Only the remainder involved direct federal spending.

And federal aid to state and local governments wasn’t enough to make up for plunging tax receipts in the face of the economic slump. So states and cities, which can’t run large deficits, were forced into drastic spending cuts, more than offsetting the modest increase at the federal level.

The answer to the second question — why there’s a widespread perception that government spending has surged, when it hasn’t — is that there has been a disinformation campaign from the right, based on the usual combination of fact-free assertions and cooked numbers."

October 11, 2010 4:11 PM  
Anonymous simplicity said...

argue and analyze

dissect and discuss

still comes down to this:

the recession ended in June 2009

Obama-Pelosi-Reid had a filibuster proof control of our government for most of that time

and they couldn't keep momentum going because they were focused on other matters

it's that simple

the voters will repudiate them in a couple of weeks

October 11, 2010 5:10 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"a bunch of gays infiltrate the Catholic Church and gay advocates blame the Church for what they do"

oh, we are into conspiracy theories. How bizarre!

Perhaps "Anonymous" would feel more at ease if he were to relocate to Uganda, where the Christo-fascists have been hard at work, spreading hatred and ignorance. I'm sure he would be welcomed there with open arms.

October 11, 2010 11:39 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


not saying the purpose was to destroy

they were using it as sanctuary

still, they were gays who used the Catholic Church for their own purposes

any disagreemnt?

October 12, 2010 12:21 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


October 12, 2010 9:38 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

laugh all you want

it just shows how demented you are

gays joined the catholic priesthood by lying about their beliefs in order to hide their inclinations and then caused great harm to the Catholic church

the whole situation says more about homosexuality than the Catholic church

October 12, 2010 9:58 AM  
Anonymous svelte_brunette said...

Anon asserted:

“gays joined the catholic priesthood by lying about their beliefs in order to hide their inclinations and then caused great harm to the Catholic church”

It’s amazing how blind you are to all of the heterosexual abuse in the church – both physical and sexual.

Some of the pedophiles don’t appear to discriminate between boys and girls – they’re equal opportunity rapists:

The people who sexually abuse children are pedophiles. The Catholic Church has been harboring pedophiles for decades. It’s only now that the victims are adults that some of them have worked up enough strength to confront their tormentors. Moving these felons around the country (and even the world we now know) to avoid prosecution took a major orchestrated effort at multiple levels of the Church hierarchy. The Church could have avoided all of this scandal by turning over their pedophile priests and nuns at the first sign of abuse. Instead, they chose to protect them for decades and keep them in their midst where they could do even more harm.

Catholic priests don’t just confine their sexual assaults to children though. If they rape adult women in a prison of course, they’re just rapists:

If you do a little searching on the web, it’s hard not to come to the conclusion that the Catholic Church is a festering cesspool of sexual abusers of all persuasions. One has to wonder if word of their protective nature toward pedophiles didn’t spread and act like a magnet to attract more abusers.

Have a nice day,


October 12, 2010 10:27 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

the pedophile priests that abuse boys are homosexuals

they should never have been in that office and they lied to get there

they greatly outnumber the heterosexual incidents

homosexuals already have rejected the sexual mores of the Church so they shouldn't have been in that position

the scandal in the Catholic Church is a gay scandal

October 12, 2010 10:49 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Have a nice day,"

go give a hornets' nest a bear hug

October 12, 2010 12:48 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The scandal of the Catholic Church is forced celibacy.

Get back to work, Anon, and count your blessings your boss hasn't fired your obsessive internet trolling self yet.

October 12, 2010 2:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

We are in absolute awe of your sanctimoniousness, Anon.!

"the whole situation says more about homosexuality than the Catholic church"...but you got it all wrong.
It's the attractiveness of the gorgeous, golden-thread, hand-crafted robes and the fabuous hats and, of of course, the unspeakable beauty of the Prada shoes, not to mention those munificient offerings gathered from the poor unsaved and unwashed parishoners from the collection plates, that are the most enticing!

"they [pedophiles] should never have been in that office and they lied to get there"
Rumor has it that the Supreme Pontiff himself has something about his background that he wishes to hide...that, after all, is what attracted him to a complicit Church in the first place.

October 12, 2010 3:21 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


I think we all know why you haven't put up any facts

October 12, 2010 4:06 PM  
Anonymous Must be a Catholic Leaf said...

MYFOXNY.COM - Fox 5 reporter Charles Leaf remained in the Bergen County Jail in Hackensack on Friday evening after an arrest on sexual assault charges.

Leaf, who lives in Wyckoff, N.J., was arrested Thursday after county prosecutors said he sexually abused a four year old girl at his home.

The girl was described as an acquaintance.

The arrest followed an investigation by the Bergen County Sex Crimes and Child Abuse Unit.

Prosecutors said Leaf, 40, will be charged with aggravated sexual assault, sexual assault, and endangering the welfare of a child.

He's being held in lieu of $250,000 bail and will be arraigned on Nov. 4, 2010 in Wyckoff Municipal Court.

A station spokesperson says FOX 5 management is aware of the matter and that Leaf has been suspended pending further investigation.

October 12, 2010 5:03 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home