"Among Democrats, 47 percent say Obama should be challenged for the 2012 nomination and 51 percent say he should not be opposed. Those favoring a contest include most who backed Hillary Rodham Clinton's unsuccessful faceoff against Obama for the 2008 nomination. The poll did not ask if Democrats would support particular challengers."
Now AP is the same lying organization that refused to call Super Tuesday for Obama until 4 days later; thus denying the man his victory.
They pushed for Hillary Clinton and are still pushing for Hillary Clinton with this rigged poll.
I wouldn't belive anything these AP dogs print.
http://www.wtop.com/?nid=213&sid=2099680
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Thursday, April 01, 2010
Cokie Roberts speaks out when Sarah Palin is dissed but says nothing when Michelle Obama is portrayed as a monkey!!!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/31/cokie-roberts-assails-chr_n_520741.html
Roberts played this clip from the Don Imus show, in which Wallace and Imus joked about whether or not Sarah Palin would be sitting on Wallace's lap during her "Fox News Sunday" interview. Roberts responded:
"It's appalling. It's just appalling. It really is. You know, it's the last place that men feel that they can just make jokes. They would never make such jokes about a minority, you'd be in terrible trouble. But you can still make sexist jokes about women and get away with it."
Roberts played this clip from the Don Imus show, in which Wallace and Imus joked about whether or not Sarah Palin would be sitting on Wallace's lap during her "Fox News Sunday" interview. Roberts responded:
"It's appalling. It's just appalling. It really is. You know, it's the last place that men feel that they can just make jokes. They would never make such jokes about a minority, you'd be in terrible trouble. But you can still make sexist jokes about women and get away with it."
Sunday, March 28, 2010
The Obama DOW is up 60%-The Obama S&P is up 75%-The Obama NASDAQ is up 90%-yet the lying rightwing says 44 does not know how to run an Economy!!!
"The Dow Jones industrial average is more than 60 percent above its lows a year ago, flirting with 11,000 for the first time since the onset of the financial crisis, though it remains more than 3,000 off its prerecession peak.
The S.& P. 500 is up nearly 75 percent from a year ago, and the Nasdaq is up nearly 90 percent. "
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/29/business/economy/29market.html
The S.& P. 500 is up nearly 75 percent from a year ago, and the Nasdaq is up nearly 90 percent. "
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/29/business/economy/29market.html
Obama- the first President to hold Seders in the Whitehouse-yet lying rightwing says 44 is anti-Israel!!!
"So begins the story of the Obama Seder, now one of the newest, most intimate and least likely of White House traditions. When Passover begins at sunset on Monday evening, Mr. Obama and about 20 others will gather for a ritual that neither the rabbinic sages nor the founding fathers would recognize.
In the Old Family Dining Room, under sparkling chandeliers and portraits of former first ladies, the mostly Jewish and African-American guests will recite prayers and retell the biblical story of slavery and liberation, ending with the traditional declaration “Next year in Jerusalem.” (Never mind the current chill in the administration’s relationship with Israel.)
Top aides like David Axelrod and Valerie Jarrett will attend, but so will assistants like 24-year-old Herbie Ziskend. White House chefs will prepare Jewish participants’ family recipes, even rendering chicken fat — better known as schmaltz — for just the right matzo ball flavor.
If last year is any guide, Malia and Sasha Obama will take on the duties of Jewish children, asking four questions about the night’s purpose — along with a few of their own — and scrambling to find matzo hidden in the gleaming antique furniture. "
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/28/us/politics/28seder.html
In the Old Family Dining Room, under sparkling chandeliers and portraits of former first ladies, the mostly Jewish and African-American guests will recite prayers and retell the biblical story of slavery and liberation, ending with the traditional declaration “Next year in Jerusalem.” (Never mind the current chill in the administration’s relationship with Israel.)
Top aides like David Axelrod and Valerie Jarrett will attend, but so will assistants like 24-year-old Herbie Ziskend. White House chefs will prepare Jewish participants’ family recipes, even rendering chicken fat — better known as schmaltz — for just the right matzo ball flavor.
If last year is any guide, Malia and Sasha Obama will take on the duties of Jewish children, asking four questions about the night’s purpose — along with a few of their own — and scrambling to find matzo hidden in the gleaming antique furniture. "
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/28/us/politics/28seder.html
Healthcare only raises taxes on singles making $200,000 and couples making $250,000 per year, and only a puny 0.9%-hardly onerous!!!-A lousy $450!!
Q: How will the new health care legislation affect the amount I am taxed from each pay check?
A: It depends on how much you earn. In 2013, the Medicare payroll tax, which is now 1.45%, will increase to 2.35% for individuals who earn more than $200,000 and married couples filing jointly who earn more than $250,000. The additional tax is applied only to the amounts above those threshold levels. That means a single taxpayer with an annual income of $250,000 will pay an additional $450 per year in Medicare taxes, while someone earning $500,000 will pay $2,700 more a year.
http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20100325/healthqa25_st.art.htm
A: It depends on how much you earn. In 2013, the Medicare payroll tax, which is now 1.45%, will increase to 2.35% for individuals who earn more than $200,000 and married couples filing jointly who earn more than $250,000. The additional tax is applied only to the amounts above those threshold levels. That means a single taxpayer with an annual income of $250,000 will pay an additional $450 per year in Medicare taxes, while someone earning $500,000 will pay $2,700 more a year.
http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20100325/healthqa25_st.art.htm
Friday, March 12, 2010
Krug sets the record straight!!!
Health Reform Myths
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: March 11, 2010
Health reform is back from the dead. Many Democrats have realized that their electoral prospects will be better if they can point to a real accomplishment. Polling on reform — which was never as negative as portrayed — shows signs of improving. And I’ve been really impressed by the passion and energy of this guy Barack Obama. Where was he last year?
But reform still has to run a gantlet of misinformation and outright lies. So let me address three big myths about the proposed reform, myths that are believed by many people who consider themselves well-informed, but who have actually fallen for deceptive spin.
The first of these myths, which has been all over the airwaves lately, is the claim that President Obama is proposing a government takeover of one-sixth of the economy, the share of G.D.P. currently spent on health.
Well, if having the government regulate and subsidize health insurance is a “takeover,” that takeover happened long ago. Medicare, Medicaid, and other government programs already pay for almost half of American health care, while private insurance pays for barely more than a third (the rest is mostly out-of-pocket expenses). And the great bulk of that private insurance is provided via employee plans, which are both subsidized with tax exemptions and tightly regulated.
The only part of health care in which there isn’t already a lot of federal intervention is the market in which individuals who can’t get employment-based coverage buy their own insurance. And that market, in case you hadn’t noticed, is a disaster — no coverage for people with pre-existing medical conditions, coverage dropped when you get sick, and huge premium increases in the middle of an economic crisis. It’s this sector, plus the plight of Americans with no insurance at all, that reform aims to fix. What’s wrong with that?
The second myth is that the proposed reform does nothing to control costs. To support this claim, critics point to reports by the Medicare actuary, who predicts that total national health spending would be slightly higher in 2019 with reform than without it.
Even if this prediction were correct, it points to a pretty good bargain. The actuary’s assessment of the Senate bill, for example, finds that it would raise total health care spending by less than 1 percent, while extending coverage to 34 million Americans who would otherwise be uninsured. That’s a large expansion in coverage at an essentially trivial cost.
And it gets better as we go further into the future: the Congressional Budget Office has just concluded, in a new report, that the arithmetic of reform will look better in its second decade than it did in its first.
Furthermore, there’s good reason to believe that all such estimates are too pessimistic. There are many cost-saving efforts in the proposed reform, but nobody knows how well any one of these efforts will work. And as a result, official estimates don’t give the plan much credit for any of them. What the actuary and the budget office do is a bit like looking at an oil company’s prospecting efforts, concluding that any individual test hole it drills will probably come up dry, and predicting as a consequence that the company won’t find any oil at all — when the odds are, in fact, that some of the test holes will pan out, and produce big payoffs. Realistically, health reform is likely to do much better at controlling costs than any of the official projections suggest.
Which brings me to the third myth: that health reform is fiscally irresponsible.
How can people say this given Congressional Budget Office predictions — which, as I’ve already argued, are probably too pessimistic — that reform would actually reduce the deficit? Critics argue that we should ignore what’s actually in the legislation; when cost control actually starts to bite on Medicare, they insist, Congress will back down.
But this isn’t an argument against Obamacare, it’s a declaration that we can’t control Medicare costs no matter what. And it also flies in the face of history: contrary to legend, past efforts to limit Medicare spending have in fact “stuck,” rather than being withdrawn in the face of political pressure.
So what’s the reality of the proposed reform? Compared with the Platonic ideal of reform, Obamacare comes up short. If the votes were there, I would much prefer to see Medicare for all.
For a real piece of passable legislation, however, it looks very good. It wouldn’t transform our health care system; in fact, Americans whose jobs come with health coverage would see little effect. But it would make a huge difference to the less fortunate among us, even as it would do more to control costs than anything we’ve done before.
This is a reasonable, responsible plan. Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/12/opinion/12krugman.html
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: March 11, 2010
Health reform is back from the dead. Many Democrats have realized that their electoral prospects will be better if they can point to a real accomplishment. Polling on reform — which was never as negative as portrayed — shows signs of improving. And I’ve been really impressed by the passion and energy of this guy Barack Obama. Where was he last year?
But reform still has to run a gantlet of misinformation and outright lies. So let me address three big myths about the proposed reform, myths that are believed by many people who consider themselves well-informed, but who have actually fallen for deceptive spin.
The first of these myths, which has been all over the airwaves lately, is the claim that President Obama is proposing a government takeover of one-sixth of the economy, the share of G.D.P. currently spent on health.
Well, if having the government regulate and subsidize health insurance is a “takeover,” that takeover happened long ago. Medicare, Medicaid, and other government programs already pay for almost half of American health care, while private insurance pays for barely more than a third (the rest is mostly out-of-pocket expenses). And the great bulk of that private insurance is provided via employee plans, which are both subsidized with tax exemptions and tightly regulated.
The only part of health care in which there isn’t already a lot of federal intervention is the market in which individuals who can’t get employment-based coverage buy their own insurance. And that market, in case you hadn’t noticed, is a disaster — no coverage for people with pre-existing medical conditions, coverage dropped when you get sick, and huge premium increases in the middle of an economic crisis. It’s this sector, plus the plight of Americans with no insurance at all, that reform aims to fix. What’s wrong with that?
The second myth is that the proposed reform does nothing to control costs. To support this claim, critics point to reports by the Medicare actuary, who predicts that total national health spending would be slightly higher in 2019 with reform than without it.
Even if this prediction were correct, it points to a pretty good bargain. The actuary’s assessment of the Senate bill, for example, finds that it would raise total health care spending by less than 1 percent, while extending coverage to 34 million Americans who would otherwise be uninsured. That’s a large expansion in coverage at an essentially trivial cost.
And it gets better as we go further into the future: the Congressional Budget Office has just concluded, in a new report, that the arithmetic of reform will look better in its second decade than it did in its first.
Furthermore, there’s good reason to believe that all such estimates are too pessimistic. There are many cost-saving efforts in the proposed reform, but nobody knows how well any one of these efforts will work. And as a result, official estimates don’t give the plan much credit for any of them. What the actuary and the budget office do is a bit like looking at an oil company’s prospecting efforts, concluding that any individual test hole it drills will probably come up dry, and predicting as a consequence that the company won’t find any oil at all — when the odds are, in fact, that some of the test holes will pan out, and produce big payoffs. Realistically, health reform is likely to do much better at controlling costs than any of the official projections suggest.
Which brings me to the third myth: that health reform is fiscally irresponsible.
How can people say this given Congressional Budget Office predictions — which, as I’ve already argued, are probably too pessimistic — that reform would actually reduce the deficit? Critics argue that we should ignore what’s actually in the legislation; when cost control actually starts to bite on Medicare, they insist, Congress will back down.
But this isn’t an argument against Obamacare, it’s a declaration that we can’t control Medicare costs no matter what. And it also flies in the face of history: contrary to legend, past efforts to limit Medicare spending have in fact “stuck,” rather than being withdrawn in the face of political pressure.
So what’s the reality of the proposed reform? Compared with the Platonic ideal of reform, Obamacare comes up short. If the votes were there, I would much prefer to see Medicare for all.
For a real piece of passable legislation, however, it looks very good. It wouldn’t transform our health care system; in fact, Americans whose jobs come with health coverage would see little effect. But it would make a huge difference to the less fortunate among us, even as it would do more to control costs than anything we’ve done before.
This is a reasonable, responsible plan. Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/12/opinion/12krugman.html
Ryan plan pure Fantasy!!!
Experts: Ryan Roadmap Balloons Deficits While Taxing Middle Class, Slashing Entitlements
Brian Beutler March 11, 2010, 10:00AM
571Share
-
Ever since Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), the GOP's top budget guy, unveiled a proposal to slash and privatize entitlements in order to reduce long-term deficits, the media--and even some Democratic politicians--have praised the plan as a serious way to save money. The plan may be conservative, they say, but at least it takes a serious, honest stab at averting fiscal catastrophe.
Ryan even had the Congressional Budget Office score the package, and they found that, by mid-century, it would eliminate federal deficits.
But it turns out that's not even close to true.
As we reported a month ago, the CBO's analysis of the Ryan plan was drawn up based upon revenue projections Ryan himself provided. The CBO doesn't analyze the impact of tax policy on revenue, so they were unable to estimate how Ryan's policy prescriptions would actually impact revenues--and just took Ryan's numbers at face value. Turns out, those numbers were pure fantasy.
The Tax Policy Center--a non-partisan think tank--did a thorough analysis on the impact of the tax changes Ryan proposes--a massive tax cut for the wealthy, paired with substantial tax increases on 90 percent of the country--and found that the so-called "Roadmap" would actually leave the federal government desperately starved for funds.
According to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, "the Ryan plan would result in very large revenue losses relative to current policies."
[The Tax Policy Center] estimates that even with its middle-class tax increases, the plan would reduce federal revenues to 16 percent of GDP in 2014. Because the tax cuts for the wealthy would dwarf the tax increases for the middle class, the Ryan plan would allow the federal debt to continue growing for a number of decades to come, despite its steep cuts in Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.
The result, they conclude, is ballooning, unsustainable deficits--a quirky feature for a plan touted far and wide for its potential to right the country's fiscal course. And yet, Ryan's star is on the rise in the GOP and in Washington.
By contrast to the Ryan Roadmap, President Obama's budget would increase revenues as a share of GDP from 14.5 percent in 2010 to 19.6 percent in 2020. There would still be deficits at that point--but at a much more sustainable level than under the GOP alternative.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/03/experts-ryan-roadmap-balloons-deficits-while-taxing-middle-class-slashing-entitlements.php?ref=fpb
Brian Beutler March 11, 2010, 10:00AM
571Share
-
Ever since Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), the GOP's top budget guy, unveiled a proposal to slash and privatize entitlements in order to reduce long-term deficits, the media--and even some Democratic politicians--have praised the plan as a serious way to save money. The plan may be conservative, they say, but at least it takes a serious, honest stab at averting fiscal catastrophe.
Ryan even had the Congressional Budget Office score the package, and they found that, by mid-century, it would eliminate federal deficits.
But it turns out that's not even close to true.
As we reported a month ago, the CBO's analysis of the Ryan plan was drawn up based upon revenue projections Ryan himself provided. The CBO doesn't analyze the impact of tax policy on revenue, so they were unable to estimate how Ryan's policy prescriptions would actually impact revenues--and just took Ryan's numbers at face value. Turns out, those numbers were pure fantasy.
The Tax Policy Center--a non-partisan think tank--did a thorough analysis on the impact of the tax changes Ryan proposes--a massive tax cut for the wealthy, paired with substantial tax increases on 90 percent of the country--and found that the so-called "Roadmap" would actually leave the federal government desperately starved for funds.
According to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, "the Ryan plan would result in very large revenue losses relative to current policies."
[The Tax Policy Center] estimates that even with its middle-class tax increases, the plan would reduce federal revenues to 16 percent of GDP in 2014. Because the tax cuts for the wealthy would dwarf the tax increases for the middle class, the Ryan plan would allow the federal debt to continue growing for a number of decades to come, despite its steep cuts in Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.
The result, they conclude, is ballooning, unsustainable deficits--a quirky feature for a plan touted far and wide for its potential to right the country's fiscal course. And yet, Ryan's star is on the rise in the GOP and in Washington.
By contrast to the Ryan Roadmap, President Obama's budget would increase revenues as a share of GDP from 14.5 percent in 2010 to 19.6 percent in 2020. There would still be deficits at that point--but at a much more sustainable level than under the GOP alternative.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/03/experts-ryan-roadmap-balloons-deficits-while-taxing-middle-class-slashing-entitlements.php?ref=fpb
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Obama donates $1.4 million to charities
Obama Donates $1.4 Million Nobel Prize
AP
WASHINGTON (March 11) — President Barack Obama plans to donate the $1.4 milllion from his Nobel Peace Prize to helping students, veterans' families and survivors of Haiti's earthquake, among others, drawing attention to organizations he said "do extraordinary work."
Obama is giving a total of $750,000 to six groups that help kids go to college. Fisher's House, which provides housing for families with loved ones at Veterans Affairs hospitals, will receive $250,000, the White House said Thursday. And the Bush-Clinton Haiti Fund, for which two former presidents are raising money to rebuild earthquake-ravaged Haiti, will receive $200,000.
Skip over this content
ple Doing Good
Nobel Peace Prize laureate President Barack Obama announced on March 11, 2010, which charities will receive his $1.4 million award. The bulk of the prize -- $750,000 -- will go to six nonprofits that help U.S. kids achieve their dreams of attending college. Here he poses with his diploma and gold medal during the Nobel ceremony in Oslo on Dec. 10, 2009.
Nobel Peace Prize laureate President Barack Obama announced on March 11, 2010, which charities will receive his $1.4 million award. The bulk of the prize -- $750,000 -- will go to six nonprofits that help U.S. kids achieve their dreams of attending college. Here he poses with his diploma and gold medal during the Nobel ceremony in Oslo on Dec. 10, 2009.
The rest of the money will go to an array of other groups.
"These organizations do extraordinary work in the United States and abroad helping students, veterans and countless others in need," Obama said in a statement. "I'm proud to support their work."
Obama was chosen for the Nobel award more for his aspirations and approach than his accomplishments thus far. The Nobel committee honored him for changing the tenor of international politics and for pursuing goals Obama says will require worldwide effort, such as nuclear disarmament and reversing global warming.
Obama himself was surprised by the award, and aides said at the time he would donate the cash prize to charity.
He plans to give $125,000 apiece to groups that help kids go to college: College Summit, a national nonprofit that works with elementary and middle school students to boost college enrollment rates; the Posse Foundation, which gives full college scholarships to public school students who might be overlooked by traditional scholarship programs; United Negro College Fund; the Hispanic Scholarship Fund; the Appalachian Leadership and Education Foundation; and the American Indian College Fund.
And Obama is donating $100,000 to AfriCare, which funds HIV/AIDS programs, public health programs, water resource development and agriculture in 25 countries in sub-Saharan Africa. He will give $100,000 to the Central Asia Institute, which promotes education for girls in Pakistan and Afghanistan.
http://www.aolnews.com/philanthropy/nc/article/obama-gives-away-14-million-nobel-prize/948102?icid=mainhtmlws-main-ndl1link4http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aolnews.com%2Fphilanthropy%2Fnc%2Farticle%2Fobama-gives-away-14-million-nobel-prize%2F948102
AP
WASHINGTON (March 11) — President Barack Obama plans to donate the $1.4 milllion from his Nobel Peace Prize to helping students, veterans' families and survivors of Haiti's earthquake, among others, drawing attention to organizations he said "do extraordinary work."
Obama is giving a total of $750,000 to six groups that help kids go to college. Fisher's House, which provides housing for families with loved ones at Veterans Affairs hospitals, will receive $250,000, the White House said Thursday. And the Bush-Clinton Haiti Fund, for which two former presidents are raising money to rebuild earthquake-ravaged Haiti, will receive $200,000.
Skip over this content
ple Doing Good
Nobel Peace Prize laureate President Barack Obama announced on March 11, 2010, which charities will receive his $1.4 million award. The bulk of the prize -- $750,000 -- will go to six nonprofits that help U.S. kids achieve their dreams of attending college. Here he poses with his diploma and gold medal during the Nobel ceremony in Oslo on Dec. 10, 2009.
Nobel Peace Prize laureate President Barack Obama announced on March 11, 2010, which charities will receive his $1.4 million award. The bulk of the prize -- $750,000 -- will go to six nonprofits that help U.S. kids achieve their dreams of attending college. Here he poses with his diploma and gold medal during the Nobel ceremony in Oslo on Dec. 10, 2009.
The rest of the money will go to an array of other groups.
"These organizations do extraordinary work in the United States and abroad helping students, veterans and countless others in need," Obama said in a statement. "I'm proud to support their work."
Obama was chosen for the Nobel award more for his aspirations and approach than his accomplishments thus far. The Nobel committee honored him for changing the tenor of international politics and for pursuing goals Obama says will require worldwide effort, such as nuclear disarmament and reversing global warming.
Obama himself was surprised by the award, and aides said at the time he would donate the cash prize to charity.
He plans to give $125,000 apiece to groups that help kids go to college: College Summit, a national nonprofit that works with elementary and middle school students to boost college enrollment rates; the Posse Foundation, which gives full college scholarships to public school students who might be overlooked by traditional scholarship programs; United Negro College Fund; the Hispanic Scholarship Fund; the Appalachian Leadership and Education Foundation; and the American Indian College Fund.
And Obama is donating $100,000 to AfriCare, which funds HIV/AIDS programs, public health programs, water resource development and agriculture in 25 countries in sub-Saharan Africa. He will give $100,000 to the Central Asia Institute, which promotes education for girls in Pakistan and Afghanistan.
http://www.aolnews.com/philanthropy/nc/article/obama-gives-away-14-million-nobel-prize/948102?icid=mainhtmlws-main-ndl1link4http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aolnews.com%2Fphilanthropy%2Fnc%2Farticle%2Fobama-gives-away-14-million-nobel-prize%2F948102
Tuesday, March 09, 2010
Obama DOW up 62% since March 2009!!!
One year ago, Wall Street hit a more than 12-year low in the wake of the financial crisis. The Dow has since rallied about 62 percent.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE61718520100309
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE61718520100309
Sunday, March 07, 2010
This is the garbage the right wing breeds!!!
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=244896&o=all&op=1&view=all&subj=210590404029&aid=-1&id=100000147227337&oid=210590404029#!/photo.php?pid=3211908&o=all&op=1&view=all&subj=210590404029&aid=-1&id=606279254&oid=210590404029&fbid=273954749254
http://www.facebook.com/pages/OBAMA-One-Big-Ass-Mistake-America/210590404029
http://www.facebook.com/pages/OBAMA-One-Big-Ass-Mistake-America/210590404029
Friday, March 05, 2010
Rightwing smear!!!! Lies!!!
Right-wing baselessly accuses Obama of "selling judgeships" for health care vote
March 04, 2010 11:03 am ET — 31 Comments
Right-wing media figures have run with The Weekly Standard's John McCormack's completely baseless accusation that President Obama is buying Rep. Jim Matheson's (D-UT) vote on health care reform by appointing his brother, Scott Matheson, to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. McCormack provided no evidence to support the allegation -- which both Rep. Matheson and the White House have called "absurd" -- and even those pushing the charge acknowledge that Scott Matheson is "plenty qualified for the job."
Weekly Standard's McCormack pushes baseless smear that Obama is "selling judgeships for health care votes"
McCormack: Was Scott Matheson's nomination "used to buy off his brother's vote?" In a March 3 post, McCormack wrote, "Obama Now Selling Judgeships for Health Care Votes? Obama names brother of undecided House Dem to Appeals Court." Without providing any evidence to support his allegation, McCormack asked if Scott Matheson's judicial nomination was "used to buy off his brother's vote":
Tonight, Barack Obama will host ten House Democrats who voted against the health care bill in November at the White House; he's obviously trying to persuade them to switch their votes to yes. One of the ten is Jim Matheson of Utah. The White House just sent out a press release announcing that today President Obama nominated Matheson's brother Scott M. Matheson, Jr. to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
[...]
So, Scott Matheson appears to have the credentials to be a judge, but was his nomination used to buy off his brother's vote?
Consider Congressman Matheson's record on the health care bill. He voted against the bill in the Energy and Commerce Committee back in July and again when it passed the House in November. But now he's "undecided" on ramming the bill through Congress.
Right-wing media immediately adopt McCormack's smear; Bachmann calls for an "investigation"
Barnes brings smear to Fox News: "I think the timing is very, very interesting." Weekly Standard editor and Fox News contributor Fred Barnes stated on the March 3 edition of Fox News' Special Report that Obama is "seeing 10 of the no votes from the last time at the White House tonight, one of whose brother, Jim Matheson of Utah, his brother just got an appeals court judgeship out in the 10th Circuit -- just named for that. But I'm not implying anything, just an interesting factoid today that I thought I'd throw out there." Barnes added, "I think the timing is very, very interesting." From the March 3 edition of Special Report:
BARNES: This was Obama's 35th speech on health care. The more he gives, the less popular it becomes. And I don't think this one helped him at all. He's seeing 10 of the no votes from the last time at the White House tonight, one of whose brother, Jim Matheson of Utah, his brother just got an appeals court judgeship out in the 10th Circuit -- just named for that.
CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER (Fox News contributor): You're not implying anything?
BARNES: But I'm not implying anything --
KRAUTHAMMER: No, not at all.
BARNES: -- just an interesting factoid today that I thought I'd throw out there.
KRAUTHAMMER: It's a coincidence - the coincidences [inaudible].
BARNES: I think the timing is very, very interesting.
Look, there is nothing in it for people to vote for this. It's unpopular. And if they can get out of it, they will.
And think of this -- this, if I were a House member, what would I worry about the most, and that is voting for the Senate bill and then expecting the Senate to make changes in it through reconciliation.
Hot Air: Obama said he "will do everything in his power," "and so he will, so he will." In a March 3 post, Hot Air blogger Allahpundit stated, "Brother of Democrat who's undecided on ObamaCare nominated for federal judgeship." The post further stated, "His exact words this afternoon: 'I will do everything in my power to make the case for reform.' And so he will, so he will." Quoting from McCormack's post, Allahpundit continued:
Scott Matheson's plenty qualified for the job (follow the link for his resume), but it shows you how desperate The One is to win votes in the House at this point that he wouldn't even care about the optics here. Dropping this announcement on the very day that he's hosting Matheson's brother to twist his arm on O-Care? What's next? Televising the bribes he's been making to inconvenient Democratic primary challengers? Put the graft on C-SPAN, Barry!
RedState: "Chicago-style politics once again coming home to roost." In a March 3 post titled, "If you can't beat 'em, bribe 'em: Obama now trading judgeships for votes," RedState's Lori Ziganto wrote, "Chicago-style politics once again coming home to roost. The Weekly Standard is reporting that Obama is now selling judgeships for health care votes." Ziganto further stated:
Perhaps they learned from the bribes of Senators "you don't even have to get us drunk first" Landrieu and Nelson that outright cash money bribery back-fires a bit and are trying different tactics for Congressman. Scratch my back and I'll scratch -- your brother's!
Michelle Malkin: "It's the Chicago Way. It's the Demcare way. And it stinks to high heaven." After tweeting about McCormack's post, Michelle Malkin quoted McCormack in a March 3 blog post titled, "The Chicago Way: Judgeships for Demcare votes?" and stated, "There are no coincidences in Obama world, I've joked many times on this blog. This one looks like a quid pro quo, smells like a quid pro quo, and quacks like a quid pro quo." Malkin added:
Let us consider the possibility, for a brief moment, that it is merely coincidence.
Is the White House so fantastically blind and tone-deaf that it failed to detect the blood-red flags and blaring alarm bells that Scott Matheson's judicial nomination would raise coming on the very day President Obama is wooing his brother, Jim?
Incorrigibly corrupt or incorrigibly stupid. Take your pick.
***
Allahpundit reminds us of Obama's words this afternoon: "I will do everything in my power to make the case for reform."
Whatever it takes: Borrow, bully, bribe.
It's the Chicago Way. It's the Demcare way. And it stinks to high heaven.
Drudge Report: "TONIGHT: Selling Judgeships for Health Care Votes?" On March 3, the Drudge Report linked to McCormack's post along with a link to a Reuters article reporting that Obama "began a final push for healthcare reform on Wednesday, urging Congress to vote on the plan in the next few weeks":
On March 4, the Drudge Report featured the following headlines, linking to McCormack's post and a Washington Post report on the administration's efforts to pass health care reform:
Bachmann calls for "an independent investigation." Republican lawmakers have also seized on McCormack's baseless allegation to demand an investigation into Matheson's appointment. On the March 3 edition of CNN's Larry King Live, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) stated, "[T]oday, the president offered a judgeship to the brother of a member of Congress. Tonight, the president has that same member of Congress at the White House, pressuring him to change his vote on health care. We really need to have an -- an independent investigation into this matter":
KING: Michele, why can't you come together on this?
BACHMANN: I think that we can come together. But I think a big question that has to be addressed right now, Larry, is what in the world is going on in the White House?
Because today, the president offered a judgeship to the brother of a member of Congress. Tonight, the president has that same member of Congress at the White House, pressuring him to change his vote on health care.
We really need to have an -- an independent investigation into this matter, because we've seen the Cornhusker Kickback, the Louisiana Purchase, the union loophole.
And now, the big question is, is the White House trading health care votes for judgeships?
This is a pretty serious issue, Larry.
Fox Nation: "Obama Now Selling Judgeships for Health Care Votes?" Fox Nation linked to McCormack's Weekly Standard post under the headline, "Obama Now Selling Judgeships for Health Care Votes?" From Fox Nation:
Beck: "What a coincidence." During the March 4 edition of his radio show, Glenn Beck stated, "Let's go to the brother of an undecided House Democrat, somebody who says I'm not really sure. Now, remember, Robert Gates [sic] has just said anything, do whatever it takes to get health care passed. Anything." He later added, "Now we have Jim Matheson -- White House has just sent out a press release announcing that President Obama has nominated his brother to the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit. Well, that's fantastic. ... What a coincidence."
Rep. Matheson's office and White House have called the smear "ridiculous" and "absurd"
Politico: "Matheson knocks down vote trading questions." Noting that McCormack's "report raises the question but doesn't answer it," Politico's Chris Frates reported that Rep. Matheson's spokeswoman "called the question 'patently ridiculous,' saying there was no deal made between her boss and the president that guranteed [sic] Scott Matheson's nomination in exchange for Rep. Matheson's vote." Frates later noted that a "White House official calls the charge 'absurd.' 'Scott Matheson is a leading law scholar and has served as a law school dean and U.S. Attorney. He's respected across Utah and eminently qualified to serve on the federal bench,' the official said."
Right-wingers spread baseless allegation despite acknowledging that Scott Matheson is "plenty qualified for the job." McCormack's post noted that "Matheson appears to have the credentials to be a judge," and Hot Air's Allahpundit stated that "Scott Matheson's plenty qualified for the job." Nevertheless, they advanced the baseless speculation that Obama is "selling" judgeships for votes on health care reform.
Hatch praised Matheson nomination and said Matheson "is a capable, bright attorney whose experience has prepared him for judicial service." The Associated Press reported on March 3 that "[t]he nomination was also praised by Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, who reiterated that Matheson's experience has prepared him well for the position":
The nomination was also praised by Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, who reiterated that Matheson's experience has prepared him well for the position.
"I'm pleased President Obama has nominated Scott Matheson to fill the vacancy on the 10th Circuit," Hatch said. "I've known Scott a long time, and he is a capable, bright attorney whose experience has prepared him for judicial service. The Matheson family has had a significant impact on Utah and can rightly be proud of Scott's nomination."
Matheson has reportedly been in the running for the appointment since June 2009. The Salt Lake Tribune reported on June 9, 2009, that "Matheson already has let the White House and Utah's senators know he would like to be considered" for the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals:
A slot -- expected to be filled by a Utahn -- will be available at the end of August, when Judge Michael McConnell, who teaches law at the University of Utah, officially will resign.
Naming a replacement won't happen fast. It may take President Barack Obama months to nominate someone. But Matheson already has let the White House and Utah's senators know he would like to be considered.
McCormack falsely suggested Rep. Matheson is only "now" undecided on health care reform
Noting that Rep. Matheson voted against the House bill last year, McCormack suggested that Matheson has been consistently opposed to health care reform and "now" has changed his mind to be "undecided" about health care reform legislation. In fact, while Matheson voted against the House's health care bill, he has long made more favorable comments about the Senate's version of health care reform, of which Obama's proposal largely mirrors.
From McCormack's March 3 post:
Consider Congressman Matheson's record on the health care bill. He voted against the bill in the Energy and Commerce Committee back in July and again when it passed the House in November. But now he's "undecided" on ramming the bill through Congress. "The Congressman is looking for development of bipartisan consensus," Matheson's press secretary Alyson Heyrend wrote to THE WEEKLY STANDARD on February 22. "It's too early to know if that will occur."
Asked if one could infer that if no Republican votes in favor of the bill (i.e. if a bipartisan consensus is not reached) then Rep. Matheson would vote no, Heyrend replied: "I would not infer anything. I'd wait to see what develops, starting with the health care summit on Thursday."
But Matheson long preferred Senate proposals to House bill, which he voted against. On July 21, 2009, Matheson outlined "some of the substantial changes required before he could vote for" the House health care reform bill and "said the suggested changes represent what will be a common-sense, bipartisan proposal that shares many of the features under review by the U.S. Senate in their committee negotiations."
In a November 6, 2009, press release, Matheson "said he will vote against HR 3962" because it does not ensure "that the health care system is secure, stable and affordable." The press release further noted that "Matheson said he is encouraged that a bipartisan, budget-deficit-neutral, cost-lowering bill is on the table in the Senate." After Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid introduced health care reform legislation to the Senate on November 18, Matheson reportedly stated that he was "unsure whether he would vote for Senate Democrats' current health-care reform bill," but that the Senate bill "at least on the top line basis will reduce costs over time, so it is going in the right direction."
Matheson supports Senate plan's "tax on so-called 'Cadillac plans.' " The Salt Lake Tribune reported on December 22, 2009, that Matheson "backs the tax on so-called 'Cadillac plans,' especially after analysts with the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office said it is one of the most powerful ways to slow health care inflation." Obama's proposal includes a version of the tax. From The Salt Lake Tribune report:
Senate Democrats want to tax expensive insurance plans, saying it is a key way to lower the astronomical rise in medical costs, but doing so would hit many union workers and that has House Democrats more than a little squeamish. So instead the House wants to tax millionaires.
This backburner issue is likely to get much hotter if the Senate manages to pass a health reform bill soon, as expected. That would force House and Senate leaders to decide whether to support a cost-containing tax despite union opposition, or protect their power base at the expense of a desired reform.
Despite his ties to labor groups, Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah, backs the tax on so-called "Cadillac plans," especially after analysts with the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office said it is one of the most powerful ways to slow health care inflation.
"That makes the idea attractive to me," said Matheson, who opposed the House's health reform bill in part because it didn't do enough to control costs.
Obama's recently released health care plan "largely follows Senate version." As The New York Times reported on February 22, Obama's "blueprint" for health care reform "sticks largely to the version passed by the Senate in December, but offers some concessions to House leaders who have demanded more help for middle-class people."
Senate bill, Obama proposal lack public option Matheson opposed. The New York Times reported on October 28, 2009, that Matheson "prefers nonprofit member-run cooperatives, rather than a government plan." The Associated Press noted on February 22 that "Obama did not include the government-run insurance plan sought by some Democrats. He kept the Senate approach, which gives Americans purchasing coverage through new insurance exchanges the option of signing up for national plans overseen by the federal office that manages the government health plan available to members of Congress. Those plans would be private, but one would have to be nonprofit."
Senate bill, Obama proposal include state-based exchanges Matheson favored. The Salt Lake Tribune reported on November 5, 2009, that Matheson proposed "drop[ping] the nationwide health insurance exchange called for in the [House] bill in favor of state-based exchanges." As the AP noted on February 22, "Liberals hoped Obama would go with a national exchange like the House bill did, but he stuck with the Senate's state-based approach."
Weekly Standard previously pushed dubious claim that White House threatened Nelson with Air Force base
Weekly Standard's Goldfarb claimed the White House is "threatening to close" Nebraska's Offutt Air Force Base "to extort" Sen. Ben Nelson's vote on health care reform. On December 15, 2009, Michael Goldfarb wrote, "According to a Senate aide, the White House is now threatening to put Nebraska's Offutt Air Force Base on the BRAC list if Nelson doesn't fall into line" on health care reform." Nelson's office and the White House said Goldfarb's report was "not true" and "completely baseless and false."
Goldfarb later stated that "as I understand it, Rahm Emanuel delivered a message to the Senate leadership that if Nelson did not get behind this, Offutt Air Force base would find itself on the next round of BRAC closures." But Goldfarb later changed his story, retracting the claim that Emanuel made the alleged threat. The Omaha World-Herald reported that Sen. Mike Johanns, Nelson's fellow Nebraska senator, "said he doesn't believe the rumors."
Beck, Hannity, Limbaugh ran with Goldfarb's smear. Despite denials from Nelson's office and the White House, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, and Rush Limbaugh seized on Goldfarb's blog post and advanced the dubious allegation.
http://mediamatters.org/research/201003040009
March 04, 2010 11:03 am ET — 31 Comments
Right-wing media figures have run with The Weekly Standard's John McCormack's completely baseless accusation that President Obama is buying Rep. Jim Matheson's (D-UT) vote on health care reform by appointing his brother, Scott Matheson, to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. McCormack provided no evidence to support the allegation -- which both Rep. Matheson and the White House have called "absurd" -- and even those pushing the charge acknowledge that Scott Matheson is "plenty qualified for the job."
Weekly Standard's McCormack pushes baseless smear that Obama is "selling judgeships for health care votes"
McCormack: Was Scott Matheson's nomination "used to buy off his brother's vote?" In a March 3 post, McCormack wrote, "Obama Now Selling Judgeships for Health Care Votes? Obama names brother of undecided House Dem to Appeals Court." Without providing any evidence to support his allegation, McCormack asked if Scott Matheson's judicial nomination was "used to buy off his brother's vote":
Tonight, Barack Obama will host ten House Democrats who voted against the health care bill in November at the White House; he's obviously trying to persuade them to switch their votes to yes. One of the ten is Jim Matheson of Utah. The White House just sent out a press release announcing that today President Obama nominated Matheson's brother Scott M. Matheson, Jr. to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
[...]
So, Scott Matheson appears to have the credentials to be a judge, but was his nomination used to buy off his brother's vote?
Consider Congressman Matheson's record on the health care bill. He voted against the bill in the Energy and Commerce Committee back in July and again when it passed the House in November. But now he's "undecided" on ramming the bill through Congress.
Right-wing media immediately adopt McCormack's smear; Bachmann calls for an "investigation"
Barnes brings smear to Fox News: "I think the timing is very, very interesting." Weekly Standard editor and Fox News contributor Fred Barnes stated on the March 3 edition of Fox News' Special Report that Obama is "seeing 10 of the no votes from the last time at the White House tonight, one of whose brother, Jim Matheson of Utah, his brother just got an appeals court judgeship out in the 10th Circuit -- just named for that. But I'm not implying anything, just an interesting factoid today that I thought I'd throw out there." Barnes added, "I think the timing is very, very interesting." From the March 3 edition of Special Report:
BARNES: This was Obama's 35th speech on health care. The more he gives, the less popular it becomes. And I don't think this one helped him at all. He's seeing 10 of the no votes from the last time at the White House tonight, one of whose brother, Jim Matheson of Utah, his brother just got an appeals court judgeship out in the 10th Circuit -- just named for that.
CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER (Fox News contributor): You're not implying anything?
BARNES: But I'm not implying anything --
KRAUTHAMMER: No, not at all.
BARNES: -- just an interesting factoid today that I thought I'd throw out there.
KRAUTHAMMER: It's a coincidence - the coincidences [inaudible].
BARNES: I think the timing is very, very interesting.
Look, there is nothing in it for people to vote for this. It's unpopular. And if they can get out of it, they will.
And think of this -- this, if I were a House member, what would I worry about the most, and that is voting for the Senate bill and then expecting the Senate to make changes in it through reconciliation.
Hot Air: Obama said he "will do everything in his power," "and so he will, so he will." In a March 3 post, Hot Air blogger Allahpundit stated, "Brother of Democrat who's undecided on ObamaCare nominated for federal judgeship." The post further stated, "His exact words this afternoon: 'I will do everything in my power to make the case for reform.' And so he will, so he will." Quoting from McCormack's post, Allahpundit continued:
Scott Matheson's plenty qualified for the job (follow the link for his resume), but it shows you how desperate The One is to win votes in the House at this point that he wouldn't even care about the optics here. Dropping this announcement on the very day that he's hosting Matheson's brother to twist his arm on O-Care? What's next? Televising the bribes he's been making to inconvenient Democratic primary challengers? Put the graft on C-SPAN, Barry!
RedState: "Chicago-style politics once again coming home to roost." In a March 3 post titled, "If you can't beat 'em, bribe 'em: Obama now trading judgeships for votes," RedState's Lori Ziganto wrote, "Chicago-style politics once again coming home to roost. The Weekly Standard is reporting that Obama is now selling judgeships for health care votes." Ziganto further stated:
Perhaps they learned from the bribes of Senators "you don't even have to get us drunk first" Landrieu and Nelson that outright cash money bribery back-fires a bit and are trying different tactics for Congressman. Scratch my back and I'll scratch -- your brother's!
Michelle Malkin: "It's the Chicago Way. It's the Demcare way. And it stinks to high heaven." After tweeting about McCormack's post, Michelle Malkin quoted McCormack in a March 3 blog post titled, "The Chicago Way: Judgeships for Demcare votes?" and stated, "There are no coincidences in Obama world, I've joked many times on this blog. This one looks like a quid pro quo, smells like a quid pro quo, and quacks like a quid pro quo." Malkin added:
Let us consider the possibility, for a brief moment, that it is merely coincidence.
Is the White House so fantastically blind and tone-deaf that it failed to detect the blood-red flags and blaring alarm bells that Scott Matheson's judicial nomination would raise coming on the very day President Obama is wooing his brother, Jim?
Incorrigibly corrupt or incorrigibly stupid. Take your pick.
***
Allahpundit reminds us of Obama's words this afternoon: "I will do everything in my power to make the case for reform."
Whatever it takes: Borrow, bully, bribe.
It's the Chicago Way. It's the Demcare way. And it stinks to high heaven.
Drudge Report: "TONIGHT: Selling Judgeships for Health Care Votes?" On March 3, the Drudge Report linked to McCormack's post along with a link to a Reuters article reporting that Obama "began a final push for healthcare reform on Wednesday, urging Congress to vote on the plan in the next few weeks":
On March 4, the Drudge Report featured the following headlines, linking to McCormack's post and a Washington Post report on the administration's efforts to pass health care reform:
Bachmann calls for "an independent investigation." Republican lawmakers have also seized on McCormack's baseless allegation to demand an investigation into Matheson's appointment. On the March 3 edition of CNN's Larry King Live, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) stated, "[T]oday, the president offered a judgeship to the brother of a member of Congress. Tonight, the president has that same member of Congress at the White House, pressuring him to change his vote on health care. We really need to have an -- an independent investigation into this matter":
KING: Michele, why can't you come together on this?
BACHMANN: I think that we can come together. But I think a big question that has to be addressed right now, Larry, is what in the world is going on in the White House?
Because today, the president offered a judgeship to the brother of a member of Congress. Tonight, the president has that same member of Congress at the White House, pressuring him to change his vote on health care.
We really need to have an -- an independent investigation into this matter, because we've seen the Cornhusker Kickback, the Louisiana Purchase, the union loophole.
And now, the big question is, is the White House trading health care votes for judgeships?
This is a pretty serious issue, Larry.
Fox Nation: "Obama Now Selling Judgeships for Health Care Votes?" Fox Nation linked to McCormack's Weekly Standard post under the headline, "Obama Now Selling Judgeships for Health Care Votes?" From Fox Nation:
Beck: "What a coincidence." During the March 4 edition of his radio show, Glenn Beck stated, "Let's go to the brother of an undecided House Democrat, somebody who says I'm not really sure. Now, remember, Robert Gates [sic] has just said anything, do whatever it takes to get health care passed. Anything." He later added, "Now we have Jim Matheson -- White House has just sent out a press release announcing that President Obama has nominated his brother to the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit. Well, that's fantastic. ... What a coincidence."
Rep. Matheson's office and White House have called the smear "ridiculous" and "absurd"
Politico: "Matheson knocks down vote trading questions." Noting that McCormack's "report raises the question but doesn't answer it," Politico's Chris Frates reported that Rep. Matheson's spokeswoman "called the question 'patently ridiculous,' saying there was no deal made between her boss and the president that guranteed [sic] Scott Matheson's nomination in exchange for Rep. Matheson's vote." Frates later noted that a "White House official calls the charge 'absurd.' 'Scott Matheson is a leading law scholar and has served as a law school dean and U.S. Attorney. He's respected across Utah and eminently qualified to serve on the federal bench,' the official said."
Right-wingers spread baseless allegation despite acknowledging that Scott Matheson is "plenty qualified for the job." McCormack's post noted that "Matheson appears to have the credentials to be a judge," and Hot Air's Allahpundit stated that "Scott Matheson's plenty qualified for the job." Nevertheless, they advanced the baseless speculation that Obama is "selling" judgeships for votes on health care reform.
Hatch praised Matheson nomination and said Matheson "is a capable, bright attorney whose experience has prepared him for judicial service." The Associated Press reported on March 3 that "[t]he nomination was also praised by Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, who reiterated that Matheson's experience has prepared him well for the position":
The nomination was also praised by Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, who reiterated that Matheson's experience has prepared him well for the position.
"I'm pleased President Obama has nominated Scott Matheson to fill the vacancy on the 10th Circuit," Hatch said. "I've known Scott a long time, and he is a capable, bright attorney whose experience has prepared him for judicial service. The Matheson family has had a significant impact on Utah and can rightly be proud of Scott's nomination."
Matheson has reportedly been in the running for the appointment since June 2009. The Salt Lake Tribune reported on June 9, 2009, that "Matheson already has let the White House and Utah's senators know he would like to be considered" for the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals:
A slot -- expected to be filled by a Utahn -- will be available at the end of August, when Judge Michael McConnell, who teaches law at the University of Utah, officially will resign.
Naming a replacement won't happen fast. It may take President Barack Obama months to nominate someone. But Matheson already has let the White House and Utah's senators know he would like to be considered.
McCormack falsely suggested Rep. Matheson is only "now" undecided on health care reform
Noting that Rep. Matheson voted against the House bill last year, McCormack suggested that Matheson has been consistently opposed to health care reform and "now" has changed his mind to be "undecided" about health care reform legislation. In fact, while Matheson voted against the House's health care bill, he has long made more favorable comments about the Senate's version of health care reform, of which Obama's proposal largely mirrors.
From McCormack's March 3 post:
Consider Congressman Matheson's record on the health care bill. He voted against the bill in the Energy and Commerce Committee back in July and again when it passed the House in November. But now he's "undecided" on ramming the bill through Congress. "The Congressman is looking for development of bipartisan consensus," Matheson's press secretary Alyson Heyrend wrote to THE WEEKLY STANDARD on February 22. "It's too early to know if that will occur."
Asked if one could infer that if no Republican votes in favor of the bill (i.e. if a bipartisan consensus is not reached) then Rep. Matheson would vote no, Heyrend replied: "I would not infer anything. I'd wait to see what develops, starting with the health care summit on Thursday."
But Matheson long preferred Senate proposals to House bill, which he voted against. On July 21, 2009, Matheson outlined "some of the substantial changes required before he could vote for" the House health care reform bill and "said the suggested changes represent what will be a common-sense, bipartisan proposal that shares many of the features under review by the U.S. Senate in their committee negotiations."
In a November 6, 2009, press release, Matheson "said he will vote against HR 3962" because it does not ensure "that the health care system is secure, stable and affordable." The press release further noted that "Matheson said he is encouraged that a bipartisan, budget-deficit-neutral, cost-lowering bill is on the table in the Senate." After Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid introduced health care reform legislation to the Senate on November 18, Matheson reportedly stated that he was "unsure whether he would vote for Senate Democrats' current health-care reform bill," but that the Senate bill "at least on the top line basis will reduce costs over time, so it is going in the right direction."
Matheson supports Senate plan's "tax on so-called 'Cadillac plans.' " The Salt Lake Tribune reported on December 22, 2009, that Matheson "backs the tax on so-called 'Cadillac plans,' especially after analysts with the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office said it is one of the most powerful ways to slow health care inflation." Obama's proposal includes a version of the tax. From The Salt Lake Tribune report:
Senate Democrats want to tax expensive insurance plans, saying it is a key way to lower the astronomical rise in medical costs, but doing so would hit many union workers and that has House Democrats more than a little squeamish. So instead the House wants to tax millionaires.
This backburner issue is likely to get much hotter if the Senate manages to pass a health reform bill soon, as expected. That would force House and Senate leaders to decide whether to support a cost-containing tax despite union opposition, or protect their power base at the expense of a desired reform.
Despite his ties to labor groups, Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah, backs the tax on so-called "Cadillac plans," especially after analysts with the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office said it is one of the most powerful ways to slow health care inflation.
"That makes the idea attractive to me," said Matheson, who opposed the House's health reform bill in part because it didn't do enough to control costs.
Obama's recently released health care plan "largely follows Senate version." As The New York Times reported on February 22, Obama's "blueprint" for health care reform "sticks largely to the version passed by the Senate in December, but offers some concessions to House leaders who have demanded more help for middle-class people."
Senate bill, Obama proposal lack public option Matheson opposed. The New York Times reported on October 28, 2009, that Matheson "prefers nonprofit member-run cooperatives, rather than a government plan." The Associated Press noted on February 22 that "Obama did not include the government-run insurance plan sought by some Democrats. He kept the Senate approach, which gives Americans purchasing coverage through new insurance exchanges the option of signing up for national plans overseen by the federal office that manages the government health plan available to members of Congress. Those plans would be private, but one would have to be nonprofit."
Senate bill, Obama proposal include state-based exchanges Matheson favored. The Salt Lake Tribune reported on November 5, 2009, that Matheson proposed "drop[ping] the nationwide health insurance exchange called for in the [House] bill in favor of state-based exchanges." As the AP noted on February 22, "Liberals hoped Obama would go with a national exchange like the House bill did, but he stuck with the Senate's state-based approach."
Weekly Standard previously pushed dubious claim that White House threatened Nelson with Air Force base
Weekly Standard's Goldfarb claimed the White House is "threatening to close" Nebraska's Offutt Air Force Base "to extort" Sen. Ben Nelson's vote on health care reform. On December 15, 2009, Michael Goldfarb wrote, "According to a Senate aide, the White House is now threatening to put Nebraska's Offutt Air Force Base on the BRAC list if Nelson doesn't fall into line" on health care reform." Nelson's office and the White House said Goldfarb's report was "not true" and "completely baseless and false."
Goldfarb later stated that "as I understand it, Rahm Emanuel delivered a message to the Senate leadership that if Nelson did not get behind this, Offutt Air Force base would find itself on the next round of BRAC closures." But Goldfarb later changed his story, retracting the claim that Emanuel made the alleged threat. The Omaha World-Herald reported that Sen. Mike Johanns, Nelson's fellow Nebraska senator, "said he doesn't believe the rumors."
Beck, Hannity, Limbaugh ran with Goldfarb's smear. Despite denials from Nelson's office and the White House, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, and Rush Limbaugh seized on Goldfarb's blog post and advanced the dubious allegation.
http://mediamatters.org/research/201003040009
Liz Cheney is called out by the ABA!!
In response to the Liz Cheney Web ad that questions the loyalty of lawyers who have represented Guantanamo detainees, the president of the American Bar Association said it is "a divisive and diversionary tactic" to impugn "the character of lawyers who have sought to protect the fundamental rights of unpopular clients."
In a statement to TPMmuckraker, ABA President Carolyn Lamm said that lawyers have an ethical obligation to "provide representation to people who otherwise would stand alone against the power and resources of the government--even to those accused of heinous crimes against this nation in the name of causes that evoke our contempt."
Lamm added: "The American people understand this obligation, and the corollary principle that representing a client is a commitment to a legal system that requires justice, not to any one client's political, economic, social or moral views or activities."
The ad by Keep America Safe, Liz Cheney's organization, goes after Justice Department lawyers who previously represented detainees at Guantanamo. It dubbed the lawyers "the Al Qaeda Seven" and asked "Whose values do they share?" while showing a picture of Osama bin Laden.
Here is Lamm's full statement:
"A fundamental tenet of our justice system is that any one who faces loss of liberty has a right to legal counsel. Lawyers have an ethical obligation to uphold that principle and provide representation to people who otherwise would stand alone against the power and resources of the government--even to those accused of heinous crimes against this nation in the name of causes that evoke our contempt. The American people understand this obligation, and the corollary principle that representing a client is a commitment to a legal system that requires justice, not to any one client's political, economic, social or moral views or activities. Impugning the character of lawyers who have sought to protect the fundamental rights of unpopular clients is a divisive and diversionary tactic."
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/03/aba_blasts_liz_cheney_ad_as_divisive_and_diversion.php?ref=fpb
In a statement to TPMmuckraker, ABA President Carolyn Lamm said that lawyers have an ethical obligation to "provide representation to people who otherwise would stand alone against the power and resources of the government--even to those accused of heinous crimes against this nation in the name of causes that evoke our contempt."
Lamm added: "The American people understand this obligation, and the corollary principle that representing a client is a commitment to a legal system that requires justice, not to any one client's political, economic, social or moral views or activities."
The ad by Keep America Safe, Liz Cheney's organization, goes after Justice Department lawyers who previously represented detainees at Guantanamo. It dubbed the lawyers "the Al Qaeda Seven" and asked "Whose values do they share?" while showing a picture of Osama bin Laden.
Here is Lamm's full statement:
"A fundamental tenet of our justice system is that any one who faces loss of liberty has a right to legal counsel. Lawyers have an ethical obligation to uphold that principle and provide representation to people who otherwise would stand alone against the power and resources of the government--even to those accused of heinous crimes against this nation in the name of causes that evoke our contempt. The American people understand this obligation, and the corollary principle that representing a client is a commitment to a legal system that requires justice, not to any one client's political, economic, social or moral views or activities. Impugning the character of lawyers who have sought to protect the fundamental rights of unpopular clients is a divisive and diversionary tactic."
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/03/aba_blasts_liz_cheney_ad_as_divisive_and_diversion.php?ref=fpb
Retail sales highest in 3 years!!!
Retail sales post strongest gains since late 2007
Going shopping: Retail sales post strongest gains since before recession started
ANNE D'INNOCENZIOAP News
Mar 04, 2010 17:28 EST
Shoppers returned to the nation's malls last month, buying a surprising amount of spring clothing and other items and helping stores post the strongest retail sales since November 2007, a month before the recession began.
The better-than-expected 3.7 percent gain reported Thursday showed that Americans are still thrifty, but they are letting go of some of the frugality brought on by the economic downturn. And many are willing to spend for certain higher-end goods.
Consumers "are now starting to go back to where they had typically shopped" before the recession, said Michael Niemira, chief economist at the International Council of Shopping Centers, who expected a 2 percent gain. "I'm surprised by the broad strength."
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2010/03/retail_sales_post_strongest_gains_since_late_2007.php?ref=fpc
Going shopping: Retail sales post strongest gains since before recession started
ANNE D'INNOCENZIOAP News
Mar 04, 2010 17:28 EST
Shoppers returned to the nation's malls last month, buying a surprising amount of spring clothing and other items and helping stores post the strongest retail sales since November 2007, a month before the recession began.
The better-than-expected 3.7 percent gain reported Thursday showed that Americans are still thrifty, but they are letting go of some of the frugality brought on by the economic downturn. And many are willing to spend for certain higher-end goods.
Consumers "are now starting to go back to where they had typically shopped" before the recession, said Michael Niemira, chief economist at the International Council of Shopping Centers, who expected a 2 percent gain. "I'm surprised by the broad strength."
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2010/03/retail_sales_post_strongest_gains_since_late_2007.php?ref=fpc
The Republican lies!!!
The Republicans' big lie about reconciliation
By E.J. Dionne Jr.Thursday, March 4, 2010; A21
For those who feared that Barack Obama did not have any Lyndon Johnson in him, the president's determination to press ahead and get health-care reform done in the face of Republican intransigence came as something of a relief.
Obama's critics have regularly accused him of not being as tough or wily or forceful as LBJ was in pushing through civil rights and the social programs of his Great Society. Obama seemed willing to let Congress go its own way and was so anxious to look bipartisan that he wouldn't even take his own side in arguments with Republicans.
Those days are over. On Wednesday, the president made clear what he wants in a health-care bill, and he urged Congress to pass it by the most expeditious means available.
He was also clear on what bipartisanship should mean -- and what it can't mean. Democrats, who happen to be in the majority, have already added Republican ideas to their proposals. Obama said he was open to four more that came up during the health-care summit. What he's (rightly) unwilling to do is give the minority veto power over a bill that has deliberately and painfully worked its way through the regular legislative process.
Republicans, however, don't want to talk much about the substance of health care. They want to discuss process, turn "reconciliation" into a four-letter word and maintain that Democrats are "ramming through" a health bill.
It is all, I am sorry to say, one big lie -- or, if you're sensitive, an astonishing exercise in hypocrisy.
In an op-ed in Tuesday's Post, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) offered an excellent example of this hypocrisy. Right off, the piece was wrong on a core fact. Hatch accused the Democrats of trying to, yes, "ram through the Senate a multitrillion-dollar health-care bill."
No. The health-care bill passed the Senate in December with 60 votes under the normal process. The only thing that would pass under a simple majority vote would be a series of amendments that fit comfortably under the "reconciliation" rules established to deal with money issues. Near the end of his column, Hatch conceded that reconciliation would be used for "only parts" of the bill. But why didn't he say that in the first place?
Hatch grandly cited "America's Founders" as wanting the Senate to be about "deliberation." But the Founders said nothing in the Constitution about the filibuster, let alone "reconciliation." Judging from what they put in the actual document, the Founders would be appalled at the idea that every major bill should need the votes of three-fifths of the Senate to pass.
Hatch quoted Sens. Robert Byrd and Kent Conrad, both Democrats, as opposing the use of reconciliation on health care. What he didn't say is that Byrd's comment from a year ago was about passing the entire bill under reconciliation, which no one is proposing. As for Conrad, he made clear to The Post's Ezra Klein this week that it's perfectly appropriate to use reconciliation "to improve or perfect the package," which is the only thing that Democrats have proposed doing through reconciliation.
Hatch said that reconciliation should not be used for "substantive legislation" unless the legislation has "significant bipartisan support." But surely the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts, which were passed under reconciliation and increased the deficit by $1.7 trillion during his presidency, were "substantive legislation."
The 2003 dividends tax cut could muster only 50 votes. Vice President Dick Cheney had to break the tie. Talk about "ramming through."
The underlying "principle" here seems to be that it's fine to pass tax cuts for the wealthy on narrow votes but an outrage to use reconciliation to help middle-income and poor people get health insurance.
I'm disappointed in Hatch, co-sponsor of two of my favorite bills in recent years. One created the State Children's Health Insurance Program. The other, signed last year by Obama, broadly expanded service opportunities. Hatch worked on both with his dear friend, the late Edward M. Kennedy, after whom the service bill was named.
It was Kennedy, you'll recall, who insisted that health care was "a fundamental right and not a privilege." That's why it's not just legitimate to use reconciliation to complete the work on health reform. It would be immoral to do otherwise and thereby let a phony argument about process get in the way of health coverage for 30 million Americans.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/03/AR2010030303097.html#
By E.J. Dionne Jr.Thursday, March 4, 2010; A21
For those who feared that Barack Obama did not have any Lyndon Johnson in him, the president's determination to press ahead and get health-care reform done in the face of Republican intransigence came as something of a relief.
Obama's critics have regularly accused him of not being as tough or wily or forceful as LBJ was in pushing through civil rights and the social programs of his Great Society. Obama seemed willing to let Congress go its own way and was so anxious to look bipartisan that he wouldn't even take his own side in arguments with Republicans.
Those days are over. On Wednesday, the president made clear what he wants in a health-care bill, and he urged Congress to pass it by the most expeditious means available.
He was also clear on what bipartisanship should mean -- and what it can't mean. Democrats, who happen to be in the majority, have already added Republican ideas to their proposals. Obama said he was open to four more that came up during the health-care summit. What he's (rightly) unwilling to do is give the minority veto power over a bill that has deliberately and painfully worked its way through the regular legislative process.
Republicans, however, don't want to talk much about the substance of health care. They want to discuss process, turn "reconciliation" into a four-letter word and maintain that Democrats are "ramming through" a health bill.
It is all, I am sorry to say, one big lie -- or, if you're sensitive, an astonishing exercise in hypocrisy.
In an op-ed in Tuesday's Post, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) offered an excellent example of this hypocrisy. Right off, the piece was wrong on a core fact. Hatch accused the Democrats of trying to, yes, "ram through the Senate a multitrillion-dollar health-care bill."
No. The health-care bill passed the Senate in December with 60 votes under the normal process. The only thing that would pass under a simple majority vote would be a series of amendments that fit comfortably under the "reconciliation" rules established to deal with money issues. Near the end of his column, Hatch conceded that reconciliation would be used for "only parts" of the bill. But why didn't he say that in the first place?
Hatch grandly cited "America's Founders" as wanting the Senate to be about "deliberation." But the Founders said nothing in the Constitution about the filibuster, let alone "reconciliation." Judging from what they put in the actual document, the Founders would be appalled at the idea that every major bill should need the votes of three-fifths of the Senate to pass.
Hatch quoted Sens. Robert Byrd and Kent Conrad, both Democrats, as opposing the use of reconciliation on health care. What he didn't say is that Byrd's comment from a year ago was about passing the entire bill under reconciliation, which no one is proposing. As for Conrad, he made clear to The Post's Ezra Klein this week that it's perfectly appropriate to use reconciliation "to improve or perfect the package," which is the only thing that Democrats have proposed doing through reconciliation.
Hatch said that reconciliation should not be used for "substantive legislation" unless the legislation has "significant bipartisan support." But surely the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts, which were passed under reconciliation and increased the deficit by $1.7 trillion during his presidency, were "substantive legislation."
The 2003 dividends tax cut could muster only 50 votes. Vice President Dick Cheney had to break the tie. Talk about "ramming through."
The underlying "principle" here seems to be that it's fine to pass tax cuts for the wealthy on narrow votes but an outrage to use reconciliation to help middle-income and poor people get health insurance.
I'm disappointed in Hatch, co-sponsor of two of my favorite bills in recent years. One created the State Children's Health Insurance Program. The other, signed last year by Obama, broadly expanded service opportunities. Hatch worked on both with his dear friend, the late Edward M. Kennedy, after whom the service bill was named.
It was Kennedy, you'll recall, who insisted that health care was "a fundamental right and not a privilege." That's why it's not just legitimate to use reconciliation to complete the work on health reform. It would be immoral to do otherwise and thereby let a phony argument about process get in the way of health coverage for 30 million Americans.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/03/AR2010030303097.html#
Monday, March 01, 2010
GOP Filibuster Record: Republicans Using Obstruction Tool With Astonishing Frequency
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/01/gop-filibuster-record-rep_n_480722.html
In the 110th Congress of 2007-2008, with Republicans in the minority, there were a record 112 cloture votes. In the current session of Congress – the 111th – for all of 2009 and the first two months of 2010 the number already exceeds 40. The most the filibuster has been used when Democrats were in the minority was 58 times in the 106th Congress of 1999-2000.
In the 110th Congress of 2007-2008, with Republicans in the minority, there were a record 112 cloture votes. In the current session of Congress – the 111th – for all of 2009 and the first two months of 2010 the number already exceeds 40. The most the filibuster has been used when Democrats were in the minority was 58 times in the 106th Congress of 1999-2000.
Wednesday, December 02, 2009
Drudge-The most notorious liar on earth-The Cadet was reading before Obama's speech, not during!!!
Cadet read ''Kill Bin Laden' book during Obama speech...
A U.S. Army cadet reads a book entitled "Kill Bin Laden" ...
Reuters
Tue Dec 1, 6:35 PM ET
Previous 423 of 578 Next
A U.S. Army cadet reads a book entitled "Kill Bin Laden" as he waits with other cadets for U.S. President Barack Obama to deliver an address on U.S. policy and the war in Afghanistan at the U.S. Military Academy in West Point, New York December 1, 2009. Obama is expected to announce a plan to send 30,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan over six months in a bid to beat back the Taliban and bring a quicker end to a costly and unpopular eight-year war.
REUTERS/Shannon Stapleton (UNITED STATES POLITICS CONFLICT)
http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/US-President-Barack-Obama-war-in-Afghanistan/photo//091201/ids_photos_ts/r3812647092.jpg/;_ylt=AhI7ufHGgttRsTk6R2MnvAnDr7sF
Tuesday, December 01, 2009
I knew long ago that they had to get Tiger-I knew they would corrupt his wife or his caddy!!!
Just as they let drugs flow to Michael Jackson over a period of years, they have been working on destroying Tiger for years.
I was never worried about Tiger's first caddy Fluff Cowan, because Fluff was older and would tend not to run the streets and get Tiger in trouble.
I was always worried about Steve, because Steve is young and corruptible.
Steve has already tried to kill Tiger once-had Tiger bungy jumping. Give me a flying break!!! The bungy cord could have snapped at anytime plunging Tiger to his death.
Tiger is responsible for his own actions and I will not excuse his wrong-doing if any; but I'll bet your last money, that people are out to destroy Tiger Woods to prevent him from breaking Nicklaus' records.
I was never worried about Tiger's first caddy Fluff Cowan, because Fluff was older and would tend not to run the streets and get Tiger in trouble.
I was always worried about Steve, because Steve is young and corruptible.
Steve has already tried to kill Tiger once-had Tiger bungy jumping. Give me a flying break!!! The bungy cord could have snapped at anytime plunging Tiger to his death.
Tiger is responsible for his own actions and I will not excuse his wrong-doing if any; but I'll bet your last money, that people are out to destroy Tiger Woods to prevent him from breaking Nicklaus' records.
The Black Million-Mega Wattage Triumvirunt-Tiger-Michael Jackson- Obama-had to be broken up-because white people cannot stand to lose to black people!
They killed Michael Jackson because he broke all of Elvis' records.
They killed Tiger Woods (character) because he was unbeatable and was on the verge of breaking all of Nicklaus' records.
Only Obama remains.
They killed Tiger Woods (character) because he was unbeatable and was on the verge of breaking all of Nicklaus' records.
Only Obama remains.
Tiger-they had to get you-MJ too!!! MJ broke Elvis-MJ dead-Tiger broke Nicklaus records-Tiger had to go!!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/27/tiger-woods-injured-in-ca_n_372324.html
UPDATE, 6:54 PM: RadarOnline.com has obtained what it says are sexual text messages that Tiger Woods sent to one of his alleged mistresses, cocktail waitress Jaimee Grubbs.
"I will wear you out...when was the last time you got (bleeped)?" one message read.
Another one from Tiger read, "Send me something very naughty...Go to the bathroom and take (a picture)."
The RadarOnline.com post is here.
UPDATE, 3:13 PM: The AP has more on the Tiger Woods citation:
The Florida Highway Patrol says it will issue Tiger Woods a careless driving citation for a car crash outside his Orlando-area mansion last week.
Maj. Cindy Williams said Tuesday that will close the investigation and no criminal charges are being pursued. Woods faces a $164 fine.According to a patrol accident report, Woods crashed his SUV into a fire hydrant and a tree at 2:25 a.m. Friday. The airbags did not deploy and Woods' wife told Windermere police she used a golf club to smash the back windows to help him out.
UPDATE, 3:02 PM: Tiger Woods has been issued a traffic citation, but no subpoena will be sought. More coming...
UPDATE, 2:45 PM: UsMagazine.com says that tomorrow they will post a voicemail Woods left alleged mistress Jaimee Grubbs. According to UsMagazine.com, Woods suggests in the voicemail that his wife knows about the alleged affair. Click here for a photo of Jaimee Grubbs.
Story continues below 
UPDATE, 2:19 PM: TMZ reports that the Florida Highway Patrol will attempt to have charges filed against Tiger Woods.
We are told the FHP will announce the case is against Tiger -- not his wife. We do not know if the FHP will arrest Tiger or refer the case to prosecutors.
We know FHP was investigating whether Tiger was driving his SUV under the influence.
Click here for the rest of TMZ's post.
UPDATE, 2:02 PM: Fox 411 has written a post alleging that Tiger Woods was seen leaving a hotel room with a woman -- not his wife -- in 2008:
"A little over a year ago Tiger was in a room at a hotel in Miami, about 90 minutes from his home," the source said. "The room was guarded by two guards with earpieces looking very professional in suits. Tiger exited the room with a dark-haired woman, not his wife, giving his security guards the evil eye when he realized someone else was in the hall seeing him."
Click here for the rest.
UPDATE, 1:54 PM: TMZ is reporting that Us Weekly has learned that a woman named Jaimee Grubbs claims to have had a 31-month affair with Tiger Woods. Grubbs allegedly has text messages and voicemails to corroborate her story. Click here to see a photo of Jaimee Grubbs.
UPDATE, 1:53 PM: Click here for pictures of Tiger Woods' ex-girlfriend Joanna Jagoda.
UPDATE, 12:54 PM: RadarOnline.com is reporting that several other women claim to have had affairs with Tiger Woods. One of the women allegedly has voicemails from Woods that prove her claim.
UPDATE, 12:13 PM: Bill Sharpe, the attorney for Tiger Woods' neighbors, has addressed the media. According to Sharpe, Woods' wife asked the neighbors to call 911. Sharpe also added that the neighbors did not see any sign that Woods had been beaten or was driving under the influence, nor was his wife holding a golf club. Click here for more.
UPDATE, 11:05 AM: According to TMZ, authorities are examining whether Woods was driving under the influence when he crashed his car. However, the web site does not believe it will be an easy case to make:
But in Florida, it's almost impossible to charge someone with DUI unless someone actually sees the suspect behind the wheel, driving the vehicle. No one has come forward saying they saw Tiger driving.
UPDATE, 9:32 AM: The attorney for Tiger Woods' neighbor will speak to the media today, reports the AP:
Attorney Bill Sharpe is representing the family of Linda Adams, including her son Jarius, who is believed to be the 911 caller. The family are neighors of Tiger Woods in a luxury gated community near Orlando.
Sharpe said the family wants its privacy respected. The attorney said his partner will answer any media questions Tuesday morning at their law office in Orlando.
UPDATE, 3:37 AM: The web site Bookmaker.com is now accepting bets on various possible outcomes of the ongoing Tiger Woods situation. Here are the opening lines:
TIGER WOODS ADMITS ON HAVING AN AFFAIR +250
HE WILL STAY WITH HIS WIFE +150
TIGER WOODS GETS A DIVORCE +225
HE WILL BUY HER AN EXPENSIVE RING ALA KOBE BRYANT +400
TIGER WOODS WAS UNDER THE INFLUENCE +200
It appears the lines have shifted since then. In particular, HE WILL STAY WITH WIFE has moved from +150 to a favored -150. All of the other lines have moved somewhat, but not as drastically:
UPDATE, 12/1 3:33 AM: Here are pictures of what appears to be a new fire hydrant at the Woods residence:
 | |  |
UPDATE, 7:14 PM: The AP now notes that Woods' next golf event is most likely at Torrey Pines in San Diego, which is not until the last week of January. But even if he plans to lay low until then, SportsByBrooks observes that his alleged mistress, Rachel Uchitel, could force him to address the issue sooner:
One thing that is beyond Woods' control is Uchitel, who has hired Glorida Allred and will likely be all over the electronic media in coming days as she considers whether to pursue a defamation lawsuit against the Enquirer. A constant reminder of Woods' alleged affair, whether Uchitel denies it or not.
If that does happen, you would think at some point Woods would address the story publicly. Woods no doubt has weighed his legal options regarding the Enquirer story and perhaps has concluded that it wouldn't be worth risking his privacy to go to trial over the report.
UPDATE, 3:15 PM: Tiger Woods has withdrawn from his own golf tournament:
"I am extremely disappointed that I will not be at my tournament this week," Woods said. "I am certain it will be an outstanding event and I'm very sorry that I can't be there."
UPDATE, 1:30 PM: Click here for more on Rachel Uchitel, Tiger Woods' alleged mistress, who may have previously been involved with Derek Jeter and Alex Rodriguez.
UPDATE, 1:28 PM: SportsByBrooks highlights a Steve Lewis piece at Blackbook Magazine, which relates the following about Woods:
I was told that over the last three to five years, many a jet was occupied by Mr. Woods and his entourage, with an ex-working girl tasked to provide beauties for the beasts. Come back tomorrow for more on the working girl in question—a lady based out of Chicago who is a regular “pal” of one of Tiger’s inner circle. “The jets would touch down in L.A. or Vegas or wherever the party was,” said my source. I asked if Mr. Woods was partaking in the girlie action? She responded with “duh.”
UPDATE, 1:17 PM: RadarOnline.com reports that Tiger Woods told his wife that she had ruined their Thanksgiving just before leaving the house and crashing his car.
UPDATE, 12:49 PM: John Daly weighs in:
"I don't really care what happened between Tiger and ... whatever happened. I'm just glad he's OK," said Daly, who will play in the Australian Open starting Thursday. "We need him, probably more than anybody on the tour, to keep things going, the way the economy is." ...
"Tiger's the biggest asset the tour's had in a long, long time," Daly said. "Whatever happened, as long as he's OK that's all that matters. Golf needs him badly ... no doubt."
UPDATE, 12:46 PM: Another interesting Accenture ad:
UPDATE, 12:26 PM: TMZ reports that earlier today a pair of Florida Highway Patrol troopers stopped by the hospital Tiger Woods visited following his car accident. TMZ also counters the Fox News report that claimed the FHP was not seeking a search warrant:
An FHP spokesperson has just said the department has not sought a search warrant for Tiger's medical records associated with his treatment. However, as TMZ first reported, the department is pursuing a warrant -- though it has not formally sought one out -- after being shut down by Tiger's lawyer.
UPDATE, 11:32 AM: Fox News reports that the Florida Highway Patrol is not pursuing a search warrant.
"We don't need a warrant to get records, that is incorrect," said Florida Highway Patrol Chief of Public Affairs Capt. Mark Welch.
More here.
UPDATE, 11:31 AM: TMZ reports that the Florida Highway Patrol is interested in obtaining surveillance video from the Woods residence. But as the post notes, "The question, even if the FHP gets a warrant for the video ... what, if any, footage exists at this point?"
UPDATE, 10:22 AM: Sponsors continue to back Woods. Darren Rovell tweets a statement from Gatorade: "We wish Tiger well as he recovers and look forward to seeing him back on the course soon. Our partnership with Tiger continues."
UPDATE, 4:42 AM: SportsByBrooks challenges the logic of TMZ's report that the Florida Highway Patrol could obtain a search warrant due to contradictory statements from Woods' wife, Elin Nordegren Woods:
TMZ reports that Nordegren’s supposed contradictory statement about a golf cart she used that night during the incident could provide the evidence the FHP needs to obtain a warrant. The website notes that in its crash scene photos, there’s no golf cart present: “TMZ has reviewed 21 photos from the scene — no sign of any golf cart.”But in a WFTV.com crash scene photo, there is a golf cart.
Check out SportsByBrooks for more.
UPDATE, 12:38 AM: TMZ reports that the Florida Highway Patrol is pursuing a search warrant.
Sources tell TMZ the Florida Highway Patrol is now focusing on obtaining a search warrant -- allowing them to seize medical records from the hospital that treated Tiger Woods -- in an attempt to determine if the wounds Woods sustained are consistent with a car accident or domestic violence.
Read the rest at TMZ.
UPDATE, 11/30 12:02: SportsByBrooks argues that Nike's support of Woods gives him "cover to blow off [the] media [and] public." More:
The apparel and shoe company has already lined up behind Woods in support. That’s a huge shot of credibility for the golfer with his other sponsors. Without Nike’s support, perhaps other lower-profile sponsors might be apt to pull the plug on endorsement deals with Woods if the golfer didn’t show up to his tournament next week - and continued to refuse to publicly address the accident and the Enquirer story.It also occurred to me that perhaps Nike is helping to advise Woods in his current situation.
Nike’s move may have given Woods cover to remain out of public sight indefinitely, and help ensure that his hundreds of millions in other endorsement agreements remain intact.
Click here for the full post.
Below is a screenshot of Accenture's web site:
UPDATE, 7:22: Tiger Woods' alleged mistress, Rachel Uchitel, has landed in Los Angeles. Click here to see pictures of Uchitel with her lawyer, Gloria Allred.
UPDATE, 5:12 PM: Rovell's report includes a new statement from Nike: "Tiger and his family have Nike's full support. We respect Tiger's request for privacy and our thoughts are with Tiger and his family at this time."
UPDATE, 4:59 PM: Woods' agent, Mark Steinberg, tells CNBC's Darren Rovell that "it has been conveyed to [Florida Highway Patrol] that [Woods] simply has nothing more to add."
UPDATE, 2:59 PM: The 911 call reporting Woods' accident has been released. Click here for the audio.
UPDATE, 2:40 PM: Woods canceled his scheduled meeting with the police again. This is the third such cancelation in as many days.
UPDATE, 2:34 PM: Tiger Woods has released a statement, saying the accident is "my fault" and commending his wife for acting "courageously. Click here for more.
The statement:
As you all know, I had a single-car accident earlier this week, and sustained some injuries. I have some cuts, bruising and right now I'm pretty sore. This situation is my fault, and it's obviously embarrassing to my family and me. I'm human and I'm not perfect. I will certainly make sure this doesn't happen again.This is a private matter and I want to keep it that way. Although I understand there is curiosity, the many false, unfounded and malicious rumors that are currently circulating about my family and me are irresponsible.
The only person responsible for the accident is me. My wife, Elin, acted courageously when she saw I was hurt and in trouble. She was the first person to help me. Any other assertion is absolutely false.
This incident has been stressful and very difficult for Elin, our family and me. I appreciate all the concern and well wishes that we have received. But, I would also ask for some understanding that my family and I deserve some privacy no matter how intrusive some people can be.
UPDATE, 2:28 PM: Click HERE for photos of Tiger Woods' alleged mistress, Rachel Uchitel.
UPDATE, 1:04 PM: TMZ has obtained photos of Woods' SUV right after the crash. See them here.
UPDATE, 10:59 AM: Woods and his wife are expected to talk with the police today:
Tiger Woods and his wife, Elin, are expected to talk to police for the first time Sunday, breaking a two-day silence that has only fueled speculation about his early morning accident, why he left the house at that hour, where he was going and whether an argument preceded the crash.
Sunday could deliver two bits of information -- what the world's No. 1 golfer has to say about the accident or perhaps the 911 tapes that the Florida Highway Patrol said it would release once authorities have reviewed the call.Sgt. Kim Montes, the patrol spokeswoman, said she expected troopers to return to Woods' house when they report for duty around 3 p.m. Sunday. She said FHP investigations into minor collisions don't normally drag on for days, but this isn't the first time that one has stretched on.
"It's unusual, but I will say it's happened before," Montes said Sunday. "This is not the first time that we've gone back to get a statement from a driver. ... We try and give the driver every opportunity to tell us their side of the story before we complete our investigation."
Montes has said Woods is not required to give a statement, only his driver's license, insurance and registration of the SUV, which was towed to a private yard with damage to the front and both back-seat windows broken.
She declined to speculate what charges or penalties Woods might be facing.
UPDATE, 4:44 AM: Kim Montes of the Florida Highway Patrol says: "It is unusual that we haven't gotten a statement." Click here for more.
UPDATE, 2:09 AM: Brooks of SportsByBrooks asks 20 questions about the Woods accident:
1. Tiger's official Web site characterized the incident as a "minor car accident," yet his wife told police she needed to smash out the back window of his 2009 Escalade in order to rescue him. Does that sound like a "minor car accident"?2. Why did the Florida Highway Patrol wait 11 1/2 hours to report anything about the incident to the public? The report came, perhaps not coincidentally, after Woods had received treatment and exited an Orlando hospital.
Read the rest of the questions here.
UPDATE, 11/29 12:43 AM: TMZ reports that Tiger Woods told a friend his wife had "gone ghetto" on him. More:
During the phone conversation on Friday, Tiger told his friend, "I have to run to Zales to get a 'Kobe Special.'" The person on the other end of the phone asked Tiger what a "Kobe Special" was. The reply -- "A house on a finger."
Click here for additional details from TMZ.
UPDATE, 7:23 PM: A source familiar with the situation tells the Huffington Post that Woods and his wife were arguing about his alleged affair prior to the accident.
UPDATE, 7:18 PM: SportsByBrooks has posted additional photos of Rachel Uchitel, Tiger Woods' alleged mistress.
UPDATE, 5:59 PM: Although Woods was scheduled to speak with the police today, his agent told authorities that he and his wife are not available after all. Click here for more.
UPDATE, 3:59 PM: Woods' alleged mistress, Rachel Uchitel, is considering suing the National Enquirer for defamation, according to TMZ. Click here for quotes from Uchitel, including her strong denial that she had an affair with Woods. "We have never had an affair, and the claims we did are completely false."
UPDATE, 2:59 PM: The AP reports that the Police will release the 911 tapes on Sunday.
UPDATE, 2:53 PM: Click here for photos of Woods' wife, Elin Nordegren Woods, driving a Cadillac SUV today.
UPDATE, 1:57 PM: WFTV has obtained photographs of Woods' damaged vehicle. See them here.
UPDATE, 1:19 PM: TMZ reports that Woods' wife, Elin Nordegren Woods, has already changed her story from what was said yesterday about using a golf club to remove Woods from his vehicle.
But we've learned Nordegren told a very different story to the Florida Highway Patrol, and it does not involve going back in the house for a club. Our sources will not allow us to be more specific.
Check TMZ for additional details. Click here for photos of the former model.
UPDATE, 9:39 AM: 911 tapes will not be released until Monday at the earliest, the AP reports.
*** SCROLL DOWN FOR PHOTOS ***
UPDATE, 11/28 12:43 AM: TMZ drops a bomb, reporting that Tiger Woods' wounds came from the hands of his wife, not a car accident:
We're told he said his wife had confronted him about reports that he was seeing another woman. The argument got heated and, according to our source, she scratched his face up. We're told it was then Woods beat a hasty retreat for his SUV -- but according to our source, Woods says his wife followed behind with a golf club. As Tiger drove away, she struck the vehicle several times with the club.
We're told Woods became "distracted," thought the vehicle was stopped, and looked to see what had happened. At that point the SUV hit the fire hydrant and then hit a tree.
Read their full report here.
UPDATE, 11:32 PM: Florida Highway Patrol spokeswoman Kim Montes says "we don't believe [the incident] is a domestic issue."
"Right now we believe this is a traffic crash. We don't believe it is a domestic issue," Montes said, replying to reporters' questions. "I don't know where that is coming from. That has not been told to us."
UPDATE, 10:59 PM: Scroll down for photos of the accident scene.
UPDATE, 7:14 PM: TMZ reports that "multiple law enforcement officials" say Woods and his wife fought before the car crash. Days earlier, rumors surfaced that Woods was having an affair.
UPDATE, 6:13 PM: Windermere Police Chief Daniel Saylor says that Woods' wife, Elin Nordegren Woods, smashed the SUV open with a golf club to get Woods out of the vehicle. Click here for more.
| | | |
UPDATE, 4:12 PM: Additional details in an AP update:
(AP) Tiger Woods was injured in a car accident early Friday when his car struck a tree near his mansion in a gated waterfront community, authorities said.The Florida Highway Patrol said the 33-year-old PGA star hit the hydrant and a tree after pulling out of his driveway in his 2009 Cadillac sports utility vehicle.
The patrol reported Woods' injuries as serious, though Woods spokesman Glenn Greenspan said the golfer was treated at a hospital and released in good condition.
The patrol said alcohol was not involved, though the accident remains under investigation and charges could be filed. No one else was in the car, patrol spokeswoman Kim Montes said.
Woods' $2.4 million home is part of the exclusive Isleworth subdivision near Orlando, a community set on an Arnold Palmer-designed golf course and a chain of small lakes. The neighborhood, which is fortified with high brick walls and has its own security force, is home to CEOs and other sports stars such as the NBA's Shaquille O'Neal.
The accident happened at 2:25 a.m., though the FHP did not release the accident report until nearly 12 hours later.
Gary Bruhn, mayor of the adjacent community of Windermere, said police from that village were among the first on the accident scene and saw Woods with cuts on his face. Montes said troopers consider the injuries serious if they require more than minor medical attention.
Woods, who has won 82 times around the world and 14 majors, attended the Stanford-Cal football game, where he tossed the coin at the start of the game and was inducted into Stanford's sports Hall of Fame at halftime.
He had traveled to China and Australia earlier in the month, winning the Australian Masters on Nov. 15.
Woods was to host his tournament, the Chevron World Challenge, on Monday at Sherwood Country Club in Thousand Oaks, Calif.
He won six times this year after missing eight months recovering from reconstructive surgery on his left knee. Even though he failed to win a major, Woods said he considered this a successful year because he did not know how his knee would respond.
UPDATE, 3:31 PM: CNN is reporting that according to the mayor of Windermere, Florida, Woods has been released from the hospital. A CNN affiliate reports that Woods suffered facial lacerations.
UPDATE, 3:08 PM: MarketWatch reports that Florida's highway patrol says alcohol was not involved.
UPDATE, 3:05 PM: CNBC's Darren Rovell tweets that Woods' agent says Woods "is fine."
EARLIER:
(AP) ORLANDO, Fla. -- Tiger Woods was seriously injured early Friday when he hit a fire hydrant and a tree near his Florida home, authorities said.
The Florida Highway Patrol said the PGA star hit the fire hydrant and tree as he pulled out of his driveway in his 2009 Cadillac sport utility vehicle.
Woods was taken to Health Central Hospital. Officials there did not have record of him as a patient, though the news release said Woods' injuries were serious.
The highway patrol said the crash is still under investigation, and charges are pending. However, the highway patrol said the crash was not alcohol-related.
Woods, 33, owns a home in the exclusive subdivision of Isleworth near Orlando. Orange County property records indicate his home is valued at $2.4 million.
Related News On Huffington Post:
Read more from Huffington Post bloggers:
| ||
| ||
| ||
|
Dave Zirin: Tiger Woods Deserves Your Scrutiny
Now that Woods appears to have been involved in a domestic dispute, the media is wondering if there is "another Tiger." It would be more appropriate if they scrutinized him for making deals that benefit dictatorships.
David Wild: "Boys Keep Swinging": My Special Bunker Playlist For Tiger Woods
I'm a tremendous fan of Tiger Woods. This man has done so much to make golf more interesting. Also driveways. Here then is my playlist for Tiger to listen to as he recovers from . . . whatever the hell happened.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)