Posted by: Fred ||
10/30/2012 10:58 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11129 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Until the "Hon." Langford begins trashing the president who was in office at the time of the Hurricane, the analogy is incomplete. Close though.....
See also: http://status.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/30/lorenzo-langford-atlantic-city-mayor-wants-to-confront-chris-c/
#3
Amazing article, the guy actually fought against a tourist enclave that might generate cash and jobs for his community because it was some kind of aparthide? Well at least it is likely the guy will be voted out at the next opportunity.
Good on Christie for being vocal so that blame can't be transfered to him after the fact as Nagin and others managed during Kartina with Bush.
#6
Christie should say to Langford - with me ' without me , -- with me ' without me , -- with me ' without me , -- if you saw the movie you understand --- if you didn't - without me , is your answer.
Posted by: Au Auric ||
10/30/2012 21:43 Comments ||
Top||
[An Nahar] Republican White House candidate Willard Mitt Romney ...former governor of Massachussetts, currently the Publican nominee for president. He is the son of the former governor of Michigan, George Romney, who himself ran for president after saving American Motors from failure, though not permanently. Romney has a record as a successful businessman, heading Bain Capital, and he rescued the 2002 Winter Olympics from the midst of bribery and mismanagement scandals. More to the point, he isn't President B.O... canceled campaign events on Monday and Tuesday as a show of sensitivity as millions of Americans hunker down as Hurricane Sandy approaches.
The decision, announced by his campaign, means that Romney will not appear in Wisconsin later on Monday and he will also postpone events elsewhere on Tuesday, complicating his bid to maintain momentum a week before election day.
Romney communications director Gail Gitcho said that the former Massachusetts governor and his running mate Paul Ryan ...U.S. Representative for Wisconsin's 1st congressional district, serving since 1999. He is a member of the Republican Party. He proposed an alternative to President B.O.'s 2011 budget and made himself the target of both Democrat and Republican verbal pies... would cancel events "out of sensitivity for the millions of Americans in the path of Hurricane Sandy."
"Governor Romney believes this is a time for the nation and its leaders to come together to focus on those Americans who are in harm's way," Gitcho said, as Romney followed through on plans to hold one event in Ohio on Monday.
Romney's move followed President Barack Obama I mean, I do think at a certain point you've made enough money... 's decision to halt campaigning and return to Washington to manage the U.S. government's effort to deal with the storm, expected to roar ashore in northeastern states later Monday.
Obama had been due to campaign in swing states Florida, Ohio and Virginia on Monday and to travel to Colorado and Wisconsin on Tuesday.
Posted by: Fred ||
10/30/2012 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11125 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Stuck in the WH with Mooch, golf out of the question, he's gonna be one cranky SOB
Posted by: Frank G ||
10/30/2012 8:31 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Important not to look like he's trying to make political gain out of a tragedy. At least he's not trying to solve the hurricane as McCaine tried when he threw away his campaign at the last minute.
#3
I'd like to see Romney keep kicking butt up until Tuesday but if he doesn't have it sewn up now a few days probably won't make that big a difference. McCain was McCain's biggest problem. He didn't take the fight to Obama during his campaign. He still got a fair amount of the vote.
#4
Agree on mccain but if you look at polls it was very close until he shut down to fix the economy. Thats when hus numbers dumped. Could be folks finally saw him, or tgey mistook him for an opportunist or whatever. After that it was pin the blame on Palin time as Mccain advisors tried to avoid blame
#6
I'm a fan of Palin. I think she was dragged into the big game before she had been seasoned enough and absorbed the Bush Derangment syndrom of the left with a smile only to find McCain's advisors trying to blame her for their own failure when it was all over. I would love to see Romney put her in charge of the RNC.
resident Obama has declined to answer questions about a report that Americans under attack in Libya on Sept. 11 were denied help, saying the entire incident is still under investigation. And will be forever...
When asked Friday by KUSA-TV of Denver if results of the investigation would be released after the election, Obama said: "The election has nothing to do with four brave Americans getting killed and us wanting to find out exactly what happened. These are folks who served under me who I had sent to some very dangerous places. Nobody wants to find out more what happened than I do." [scoff]
Republicans have accused the Obama administration of trying to cover up details of the attack on a U.S. consulate in Benghazi that killed U.S. ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.
Fox News is reporting that "an urgent request from the CIA annex for military back-up during the attack on the U.S. consulate and subsequent attack several hours later on the annex itself was denied by the CIA chain of command -- who also told the CIA operators twice to "stand down" rather than help the ambassador's team when shots were heard at approximately 9:40 p.m. in Benghazi on Sept. 11."
ABC News reports "President Obama told KUSA-TV's Kyle Clarke large that 'we want to make sure we get it right, particularly because I have made a commitment to the families impacted as well as to the American people, we're going to bring those folks to justice. So, we're going to gather all the facts, find out exactly what happened, and make sure that it doesn't happen again but we're also going to make sure that we bring to justice those who carried out these attacks.'
"Clark pressed again.
"'Were they denied requests for help during the attack?' he asked.
"'Well, we are finding out exactly what happened,' the president again said. 'I can tell you, as I've said over the last couple of months since this happened, the minute I found out what was happening, I gave three very clear directives. Number one, make sure that we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to. Number two, we're going to investigate exactly what happened so that it doesn't happen again. Number three, find out who did this so we can bring them to justice. And I guarantee you that everyone in the state department, our military, the CIA, you name it, had number one priority making sure that people were safe. These were our folks and we're going to find out exactly what happened, but what we're also going to do it make sure that we are identifying those who carried out these terrible attacks.'
"In response (to the Fox report), CIA spokesperson Jennifer Youngblood said, 'We can say with confidence that the Agency reacted quickly to aid our colleagues during that terrible evening in Benghazi. Moreover, no one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate. In fact, it is important to remember how many lives were saved by courageous Americans who put their own safety at risk that night-and that some of those selfless Americans gave their lives in the effort to rescue their comrades.
In a race that both sides expected by-and-large to be about planned events, October has been a month full of unscripted twists and turns. From GOP nominee Mitt Romney's lightning strike of a debate performance at the beginning of the month, which upended the race and sent it careening back toward the challenger, to the failure of preplanned October "surprises" pushed by Donald Trump and Gloria Allred, to the escalating scandal over last month's Benghazi attacks, this month has defied expectations. And now, at the very end, perhaps the ultimate October surprise -- a natural disaster -- has hit the East Coast in the form of Hurricane Sandy.
So naturally enough, one question that's been asked is, how will this impact the election? The answer, thus far, is likely to give supporters of President Barack Obama nervous. More at site... There has been some talk on the networks about the possibility of postponement of the election? Any possibility this could happen? Has there been a precedent. Obama should take this up with Sandy and the heavens above.
#5
Obama can't postpone the election. It is run by the states and individual states and counties, working with the courts can hold injunctions and delay elections if people can't vote (like the power is out).
Congress sets the date of the federal election and can pass a resolution to move the date back, but that is not likely to happen this year.
#6
Sorry about the caps. The caps were as in the original artThe U.S. Constitution sets forth the following criteria for the date of presidential elections in Article 2, Section 1:
Clause 4: Election Day
"Our Founding Fathers specifically set forth a national Election Day not days. In the early days of national elections it was no easy logistical task to vote. People had to plan to cast their ballot. Many citizens had to endure long travel and hardship to cast their ballot on a single day.
Read more on Newsmax.com: Early Voting Violates Constitution
Important: Do You Support Pres. Obama's Re-Election? Vote Here Now!icle. Didn't know there was a policy against this. I will observe it in the future.
Nothing is said about hurricanes, national tragedies, or anything else.
#9
If Bambi were really the "messiah" he claims to be, he would have calmed the oceans hurricane so it wouldn't interfere with his worshippers acclaiming him again.
Too bad, buddy. You snooze, you lose.
Posted by: Barbara ||
10/30/2012 13:43 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Nope, But Hurricane Bernanke drowning the currency in "liquidity" will.
#13
Technically it wasn't a hurricane. Sandy was stripped of her hurricane designation shortly before making landfall. Something to do with temperature and such. Which is why some are calling it a 'Super Storm'. Which, of course, doesn't distract from the damage she caused.
Still, the {n|l}ightbringer should have walked right out there (on the water) and calmed the storm if he was what he's been claiming he is.
#14
This hurricane is a nightmare. Beyond the human and financial cost of the hurricane itself it provides and excuse for Obama's loss when we really want a full repudiation of his policies so that nobody will try anything similar ever.
#17
The 32-oz size cup would have been better for bailing...
Posted by: James ||
10/30/2012 16:23 Comments ||
Top||
#18
So yesterday I learned that Sandy became a superstorm not because it no longer qualified for hurricane status (it still did) but because it had merged with another storm system when it reached land.
Who knew? (Well, I'm sure many people did but it was new info for me ....)
#19
As an incumbent, powerful storms like Sandy occuring at or close to election can be a campaign godsend iff the Bammer plays it right, espec vee FEMA + other Recovery-centric Fed or Fed-Local cooperat public assistance.
"SANDY" read, NOT/ANTI-NOLA = NOT-KATRINA.
And whatever the Bammer doesn't do, Romney can.
KRAUTHAMMER said or inferred it, arguing that it took SANDY, but Not Libya = BENGHAZI-GATE, for the Bammer to finally act "presidential"???
#20
Speaking of Bloomberg, Dennis Miller had a brilliant snark. Something along the lines of "If things get so bad that New YOrkers resort to cannibalism to survive the mayor suggests they avoid salt because it is unhealthy" or something like that.
There is the one map you will see today that does not include rain, flooding or wind figures.
With one week to go, states that were once considered Obama strongholds now look less solid. Republican groups are putting resources into Minnesota and Pennsylvania. Team Obama brushes off these incursions as wishful thinking by Republicans, but noticeably they are putting money and muscle into both states. Minnesota has been added to Bill Clintons schedule. And, Obama campaign officials admitted that they will once again start running ads in Pennsylvania.
Posted by: Au Auric ||
10/30/2012 00:47 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11124 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
But I have to wonder if ABC is being a bit optimistic.
One can't help but notice the many liberal newspapers jumping off the Obama bandwagon. Many are hitching their crumbling credibility to Mitt Romney's wining steed: the Des Moines Register; the Tennessean; the Orlando Sentinel; and the Fort Lauderdale Sun Sentinel to name a few.
But Obama can take comfort that the Big Three remain steadfast in their support: the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Chicago Tribune.
The Tribune executive producer still hasn't answered me about why the Trib isn't running any news about Benghazi...
The Times claims "Mr. Obama prevented another Great Depression" and "prevented unemployment from reaching 12 percent." Tell that to the 23 million unemployed that currently make up the 14.7% of Americans who have run through their unemployment benefits and still cannot find work.
The Post, on the other hand, expressed "disappointments of Mr. Obama's time in office. He did not end, as he promised he would, 'our chronic avoidance of tough decisions' on fiscal matters. But Mr. Obama is committed to the only approach that can succeed: a balance of entitlement reform and revenue increases." In other words, as long as the president calls for higher taxes, he has a friend in the Post.
The Tribune eerily praised Romney while endorsing his Democratic rival, "On questions of economics and limited government, the Chicago Tribune has forged principles that put us closer to the challenger in this race, Republican Mitt Romney. We write with those principles clearly in our minds. Romney advocates less spending, less borrowing -- overall, a less costly and less intrusive role for government in the lives of the governed." However, the Tribune then says, "His [Romney's] proposals to achieve a balanced budget, and to begin reducing taxpayer's huge debts, rest on questionable math and rosy assumptions."
The Tribune conveniently forgets Obama's rosy 2009 "stimulus" assumption to "create three to four million jobs over the next few years ... That's why this is not just a short-term program to boost employment. It's one that will invest in our most important priorities like energy and education; health care and a new infrastructure that are necessary to keep us strong and competitive in the 21st century."
The Trib isn't the Colonel's newspaper anymore...
Four years and nearly six trillion dollars later, America slides into a double-dip recession -- or worse.
In a conference call with reporters, Obama campaign strategist David Axelrod was asked by a Des Moines Register reporter (whose editorial board endorsed Romney) if the Chicago fixer thought newspaper endorsements were worth the paper they are printed on. "I guess we'll find out," said Axelrod, "and we're very comfortable with what the result will be."
Axelrod took the words right out of Romney's mouth.
Posted by: Au Auric ||
10/30/2012 00:42 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11125 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
But Obama can take comfort that the Big Three remain steadfast in their support: the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Chicago Tribune.
Except few others give the big three any credibility and that number is growing daily. Once you forsake the truth for partisanship you are screwed. It is impossible to go back to truth without the legacy of the taint of lies. Maybe they will catch on before they go the way of the dinosaurs but if not so what--no great loss--we are better off without the damned propagandists.
In an effort to cut defense spending, the Obama Administration plans to cut health benefits for active duty and retired military personnel and their families while not touching the benefits enjoyed by unionized civilian defense workers.
The move, congressional aides suggested, is to force those individuals into Obamacare, Bill Gertz reported at the Washington Beacon.
Gertz added: "The proposed increases in health care payments by service members, which must be approved by Congress, are part of the Pentagon's $487 billion cut in spending. It seeks to save $1.8 billion from the Tricare medical system in the fiscal 2013 budget, and $12.9 billion by 2017."
Not everybody is happy with the plan, however.
Military personnel would see their annual Tricare premiums increase anywhere from 30 - 78 percent in the first year, followed by sharply increased premiums "ranging from 94 percent to 345 percent--more than 3 times current levels."
"According to congressional assessments, a retired Army colonel with a family currently paying $460 a year for health care will pay $2,048," Gertz wrote.
Active duty military personnel would also see an increased cost for pharmaceuticals, and the incentive to use less expensive generic drugs would be gone.
Health benefits has long been a prime reason many stay in the military - but some in the Pentagon fear the new rules will hamper recruitment and retention.
"Would you stay with a car insurance company that raised your premiums by 345 percent in five years? Probably not," one aide said.
John Hayward of Human Events adds:
"Veterans will also be hit with a new annual fee for a program called Tricare for Life, on top of the monthly premiums they already pay, while some benefits will become "means-tested" in the manner of a social program -- treating them like welfare instead of benefits for military service. Naturally, this is all timed to begin next year and "avoid upsetting military voters in a presidential election year," according to critics.
There will be congressional hearings on the new military health care policies next month. Opposition is building in Congress, and among veterans' organizations, including the VFW, which has "called on all military personnel and the veterans' community to block the health care increases."
Others are concerned about the double standard being set between uniformed military personnel - who are not unionized - and civilian defense workers who belong to public sector unions.
Gertz wrote: "A second congressional aide said the administration's approach to the cuts shows a double standard that hurts the military.
"We all recognize that we are in a time of austerity," this aide said. "But defense has made up to this point 50 percent of deficit reduction cuts that we agreed to, but is only 20 percent of the budget."
The administration is asking troops to get by without the equipment and force levels needed for global missions. "And now they are going to them again and asking them to pay more for their health care when you've held the civilian workforce at DoD and across the federal government virtually harmless in all of these cuts. And it just doesn't seem fair," the second aide said.
At least one Congressman is standing with the military on this issue.
"We shouldn't ask our military to pay our bills when we aren't willing to impose a similar hardship on the rest of the population," said Rep. Howard "Buck" McKeon (R-CA), who chairs the House Armed Services Committee.
"We can't keep asking those who have given so much to give that much more," he added.
McKeon will be joined by some 5 million members of 32 military service and veterans groups, according to retired Navy Capt. Kathryn M. Beasley of the Military Officers Association of America, who called the plan "a breach of faith."
The Beacon also noted the curious timing of the plan, which is set to begin next year - after the 2012 elections. Critics say this is designed so as not to upset military voters.
It's one more reason Barack Hussein Obama does not deserve to be re-elected in November.
Posted by: Au Auric ||
10/30/2012 00:39 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11125 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
"We shouldn't ask our military to pay our bills when we aren't willing to impose a similar hardship on the rest of the population," said Rep. Howard "Buck" McKeon (R-CA)
It is infuriating to have watched Obama hustle future union votes and pay off his 2008 IOUs to the unions for their vote by giving them sweetheart deals at the expense of everyone else.
#2
They tried increasing Tricare over a decade ago. The usual suspects convened a panel of retired generals to rubber stamp a similar increase in the annual fee, around 300 percent. It died rather quickly in Congress. Now if they had just pushed forth a simple increase of 50 dollars a year for the next 10 years, we'd be at the spot they wanted today rather than no increase to cover the expanding medical costs.
Yep, I was in during the 70s. The officers lived in gentile poverty and the married enlisted on food stamps. The usual suspects played the 'medical care for life' card to induce people to stay in as part of the retention system. It was another game of kicking the can down the road to leave someone else with the problem when it arrived, since they wouldn't have to deal with it later. However, everyone didn't envision the advances in medical care and science from the 70s either.
I suspect that current funding can cover the costs of 70s/80s era medical care. The problem is that most people want 2012 era medical care, protocols, procedures, and pharmaceuticals. I can't hold them to really cover stuff that didn't exist when the 'promises' were made. I, for one, have no problem forking over more to cover an increase in the annual charge. Based on the warning of that aforementioned GO board, I've budgeted annually for such an increase over the years. It's been a nice piece of savings when the old rates continued, but its something that, just like the national debt, has to come due. Both sides of the aisle in Congress have been playing the unfunded commitment game on this issue for decades and it's now eating money from other military functions.
#4
Lovely. I just made the decision to switch from my employers healthcare plan to Tricare for Life. TfL was about half the price Now it doesn't look like such a bargain.
Posted by: Rambler in Virginia ||
10/30/2012 14:51 Comments ||
Top||
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
