White House: Control the News, Ask the Questions

White House SetsGround Rules for Local Interviews

by Keith Koffler on August 21, 2012, 11:20 am

The White House is doing something with its local TV interviews that it could not easily get away with in encounters with the White House press corps, which President Obama has been studiously ignoring: choosing the topic about which President Obama and the reporter will talk.

In interviews with three local TV stations Monday, two from states critical to Obama’s reelection effort, Obama held forth on the possibility of “sequestration” if he and Congress fail to reach a budget deal, allowing him to make his favorite political point that Republicans are willing to cause grievous harm to the economy and jobs in order to protect the rich from tax increases.

Obama Monday threw the White House press corps a bone by suddenly appearing in the briefing room for 22 minutes and taking questions from a total of four reporters. It was his first press conference at the White House – albeit in miniature – since March, and only his second of the year. Obama before Monday had taken exactly one substantive question from White House reporters since June.

But the three other interviews Obama also held Monday pointed to the advantage he gets by focusing on local press, with whom he has been speaking more regularly.

Under sequestration, if a budget deal is not reached by the end of the year, harsh automatic spending cuts will occur. Each of the network reporters were from cities with major military facilities that could be unduly impacted if sequestration occurs.

Two of the reporters were from Norfolk, Virginia and Jacksonville, Florida, both presidential battleground states. The third was from San Diego.

The reporters mostly made no effort to hide the arrangement. “The president invited me to talk about sequestration,” NBC 7 San Diego’s reporter told her audience. In the interview, she set Obama up with a perfectly pitched softball the president couldn’t have been more eager to take a swing at:

“What do you want individual San Diegans to know about sequestration?” she asked.

Donna Deegan of FCN Jacksonville initially seemed to apologize for not broaching the appointed subject right away.

“Mr. President, I know we were asked to talk about sequestration today,” she said, but then added she wanted to talk about something else first. Finally, she got to it:

“Let’s talk a little bit about sequestration, because I know that’s why you invited us here,” she said.

Obama used an interview with WVEC Norfolk to specifically bash Republicans.

“The only thing that’s standing in the way of us getting this done right now is the unwillingess on the part of some members of Congress, and folks in in the Republican Party, to give up on some tax breaks for people like me who don’t need them,” he said.

The reporters were able to ask about other topics. But with their face time with the president limited to under ten minutes, and Obama well rehearsed to discuss at length his favored topic, there was little room for much else to come up.

obama

Obama: It's Money, Money, Money that they love.

Versus the evil Republicans who love money!

Former Dem. Congressman Kennedy Alleges 'Quid Pro Quo' for Access to White House

8:42 AM, Apr 15, 2012

By DANIEL HALPER

 

Alerts

Hide

Get alerts when there is a new article that might interest you.

Send me alerts for:

Bill Kristol
Fred Barnes
Jay Cost

Your e-mail address:

Confirm e-mail address:

Please sign me up for The Weekly Standard weekly newsletter.

The Weekly Standard reserves the right to use your email for internal use only. Occasionally, we may send you special offers or communications from carefully selected advertisers we believe may be of benefit to our subscribers. Click the box to be included in these third party offers. We respect your privacy and will never rent or sell your email.

Please include me in third party offers.

Access to the Obama White House is in direct correlation to the amount of money donated to the president's reelection effort and the Democratic party, the New York Times reports today.
The Times reports: "those who donated the most to Mr. Obama and the Democratic Party since he started running for president were far more likely to visit the White House than others. Among donors who gave $30,000 or less, about 20 percent visited the White House, according to a New York Times analysis that matched names in the visitor logs with donor records. But among those who donated $100,000 or more, the figure rises to about 75 percent. Approximately two-thirds of the president’s top fund-raisers in the 2008 campaign visited the White House at least once, some of them numerous times."
But the most explosive allegation in the news story comes from former Democratic congressman Patrick Kennedy, son of the late Ted Kenney, who calls what the Obama White House is doing "quid pro quo."

Patrick J. Kennedy, the former representative from Rhode Island, who donated $35,800 to an Obama re-election fund last fall while seeking administration support for a nonprofit venture, said contributions were simply a part of “how this business works.”
“If you want to call it ‘quid pro quo,’ fine,” he said. “At the end of the day, I want to make sure I do my part.”
Mr. Kennedy visited the White House several times to win support for One Mind for Research, his initiative to help develop new treatments for brain disorders. While his family name and connections are clearly influential, he said, he knows White House officials are busy. And as a former chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, he said he was keenly aware of the political realities they face.
And Kennedy admits that folks in the White House are checking out the donor records:

“I know that they look at the reports,” he said, referring to records of campaign donations. “They’re my friends anyway, but it won’t hurt when I ask them for a favor if they don’t see me as a slouch.”

Literally translated, "quid pro quo" means "something for something." As in, if you want something from the Obama White House, then give something (e.g., cash).

obam,a 

Biden and Obama White House: Taliban not the enemy

Taliban is and never has been an enemy of the United States, but on the other hand - it has been and is still an enemy of the United States.  A column by Kerry Patton outlines the complications with the term and why it may be inaccurate to jump all over Biden for his statement (and the White House supporting what his position).

On the other hand - as soon as Obama was elected, he sent emissaries to Afghanoistan to begin negotiations with the Taliban.  He was not thinking, at that time, about the distinction between what the word means and those who perpetrated attacks upon the United States and or on Americans in Afghanistan.  His intent, his sole intent, was to extricate the United States as quickly as possible so he could claim victory and end our years in Afghanistan.  How do we know this?  He was just elected.  He had nearly na whole year experience as a US Senator, less than 8 years in his state as a legislator ... he knew nothing except his political ideology was opposed to our involvement in Afghanistan from the start.  His promise to the Left was to end that war.  Even if it meant negitiating with people who did nto attack us, but who aided and gave comfort to those who attacked us and did so knowingly and willfully.

They have not changed - any of them.  Those who never fought the US are still not fighting the US.  Those who did and have walked away have done so because we wore them down and they tired of being killed and blown up.  Did more arrive - yes, but unlike what we did in Iraq (eventually) where we used on the ground resources and sects opposed to other sects, against one another to eventually dominate - we did not begin this process in Afghanistan until much later, and under Obama, we have given up on that tact.  Instead, we have promised to send many prisoners from Guantanamo back to Afghanistan.  This is our expression of trust to those who destroyed 5,000 year old Buddhist monuments.

Send back to Afganistan men who are for the most part NOT Taliban, but rather, are al qaida - men who attacked or planned to attack and kill Americans and other allies.

Smart move.

White House Stands by Biden Statement That Taliban Isn't U.S. Enemy

Published December 19, 2011

 FoxNews.com

The White House on Monday defended Vice President Joe Biden for saying that the Taliban isn't an enemy of the United States despite the years spent fighting the militant Islamic group that gave a home to Al Qaeda and its leader Usama bin Laden while he plotted the Sept. 11 terror attacks.

"It's only regrettable when taken out of context," White House spokesman Jay Carney said of the vice president's remarks in an interview published Monday.

"It is a simple fact that we went into Afghanistan because of the attack on the United States on Sept. 11, 2001. We are there now to ultimately defeat Al Qaeda, to stabilize Afghanistan and stabilize it in part so that Al Qaeda or other terrorists who have as their aim attacks on the United States cannot establish a foothold again in that country," Carney continued.

During Biden's interview with Newsweek last week, the vice president said it's "good enough" for the U.S. if Afghanistan stops being a "haven for people who do damage and have as a target the United States of America" and its allies. He added that the U.S. is supportive of a reconciliation process between the Afghan government and the Taliban even if it's questionable whether a reconciliation is possible.

"Look, the Taliban per se is not our enemy. That's critical," Biden said. "There is not a single statement that the president has ever made in any of our policy assertions that the Taliban is our enemy, because it threatens U.S. interests. If, in fact, the Taliban is able to collapse the existing government, which is cooperating with us in keeping the bad guys from being able to do damage to us, then that becomes a problem for us."

….

obama

Navy SEALs Fear for Safety



SECURITY BOOSTED AS FORCES EXPRESS WORRY



By Mary Papenfuss, Newser Staff
May 13, 2011 3:25 AM CDT



(NEWSER) – New security precautions are being implemented as US Navy SEALs involved in Osama bin Laden's killing are expressing fears for their safety and the safety of their loved ones. The team communicated their worries to Defense Secretary Robert Gates at a meeting last week, he revealed. Al-Qaeda has vowed to avenge the death of their leader, and threats against US forces has increased, reports the BBC. "We are looking at what measures can be taken to pump up the security" for the team, Gates told Marines during an appearance at Camp Lejeune in North Carolina.

"There has been a consistent and effective effort to protect the identities of those who participated in the raid. I think that has to continue," he added. Security has also been beefed up to protect President Obama's grandmother in Africa, who has also been the target of threats


**********************************************

Not interested in the grandmother.  That would be unmanly for them to go after her, and that alone might prevent that.  As for Kenyan police protecting her... she would be better off giving up now and sparing the policemen their lives.

What is interesting, I think, is the comment section of the paper - nutters tend to read this as if the SEALS have a fear for their lives.  Please.  These men have no fear of anyone at anytime.  The writing was done poorly and worse, the readers were less than able to make any large steps in reading a few paragraphs without falling asleep.

They are afraid for their families.  Al Qaida will spend considerable time combing all research available to find out who is in the SEALS, they will locate their families, and will strike. 

The media in this country are not jumping around - this is even worse than that foolish twit who worked at CIA.  These assassins will slaughter the entire family, as many as they can find - all because one or two people at the White House or an idiot in Congress released the unit and name.  Rather than simply saying - US Special Forces ... they were specific to a unit.  Wrong and now it will impact every future action by this unit - the men will be thinking of their families when they need to be thinking about their job - all thanks to the idiot in the White House or Congress.

Talk about investigations - this one needs a thorough investigation to find the first two people who opened their mouths, and have them fired, whoever they might be.

If any family member is harmed it will be their personal responsibility.
























idiots

Biden and Obama's Schedule for Today

The Official White House Schedule for The President and Vice-President
Tuesday Jun. 1, 2010All Times Eastern 9:00 AM


9:30 AM Obama and Biden receive the presidential daily briefing.
10:00 AM Obama and Biden receive the economic daily briefing.

11:00 AM

11:15 AM Obama meets with BP Oil Spill Commission co-chairs.

12:00 PM

12:15 PM Obama delivers a statement to the press.

12:30 PM Biden attends an event for Rep. John Hall in Bedford, N.Y.

1:00 PM Adm. Thad Allen briefs members of the press.

2:00 PM Gibbs briefs members of the press.

2:30 PM Obama meets with senior advisers.

3:00 PM

4:00 PM

5:00 PM

6:00 PM Obama meets with President Alan Garcia of Peru.

6:30 PM Biden attends an event for the campaign of Delaware Attorney General Beau Biden in New York City.
 
*************************************************
 
So I have some questions.  If these two men work for us, and they do, and we pay them, and we do - what are they doing for all the hours unaccounted for.
 
Biden goes from a lunch at 12:30 until 6:30 doing nothing we know of.  Perhaps it is 6 hours of helping out an endangered congressman.  I am curious what else these people do given their White House Schedules are so ... open.  I remember viewing (although this is only memory and not a specific day) Bush and Cheney's schedule for a couple days and they seemed to be filled in doing stuff.  These two seem to be open more than busy.  I have to wonder.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
biden

Obama: Change? Attack our Allies and Coddle our Enemies - The Obama Years.

Robert Gibbs should apologise to the British press for his sneering rant

Nile Gardiner
May 29, 2009
The Telegraph


Politico has an extraordinary report on Robert Gibbs, the White House Press Secretary, launching a furious broadside against the British press. Here are Gibbs' sneering and condescending remarks:

"I want to speak generally about some reports I've witnessed over the past few years in the British media," Gibbs said. "In some ways, I'm surprised it filtered down."

"Let's just say if I wanted to look up, if I wanted to read a write-up of how Manchester United fared last night in the Champions League Cup, I'd might open up a British newspaper," he continued. "If I was looking for something that bordered on truthful news, I'm not entirely sure it'd be the first pack of clips I'd pick up."

Gibbs' juvenile comments followed an article in The Daily Telegraph relating to the President's decision not to release new photos reportedly showing appalling prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib by a tiny minority of military personnel. The straightforward news piece, hotly disputed by the White House, is based upon an interview with Major General Antonio Taguba, who oversaw the inquiry into the Abu Ghraib abuse scandal.

For the record I firmly believe the President was right to refuse to release the photos in the face of pressure from the ACLU, which would only further inflame anti-American sentiment across the Muslim world. However I cannot recall an instance like this where the President's official spokesman has blasted the press of a key ally - in this case America's closest friend, Great Britain.

This kind of attack would normally be made against the likes of the North Korean or Iranian state media, but in the current climate of "engagement" with America's enemies the White House is far more likely to attack its own allies. Gibbs' remarks have echoes of a senior State Department official's anti-British statements to The Sunday Telegraph after the appalling handling of the Prime Minister's visit in March.

Can you imagine Gibbs making these remarks about The New York Times or The Washington Post, or NBC, ABC or CBS? This would never happen. The British press, especially the Telegraph, has been singled out because they frequently publish articles critical of the Obama administration and are not afraid to take on the status quo in Washington. Increasingly, millions of Americans are turning to online UK news websites for cutting edge reports on American politics and U.S. foreign policy that the mainstream media refuses to cover in the States, especially if it is unflattering to the Obama White House.

Robert Gibbs' completely unwarranted rant against the British press is an absolute disgrace, and the President should disown his views. An unreserved apology by Gibbs is also in order.

For all its talk of "raising America's standing" in the world after the Bush years, the Obama administration is doing a spectacularly bad job of reaching out to its allies. Unfortunately this is the new face of America's public diplomacy, which will only serve to alienate public opinion across the Atlantic. Congratulations Gibbs - you've just made an enemy out of the entire British media, quite an achievement for the man in charge of selling the President's message.




Obama

Obama goes to the White House 2

Obama Meets With Bush as He Weighs Policy Reversals

By Holly Rosenkrantz and Kristin Jensen


Nov. 10 (Bloomberg) -- President-elect Barack Obama met with President George W. Bush at the White House as his aides consider ways to undo many of the policies put in place by the U.S. leader during the past eight years.

Obama and his wife, Michelle, arrived at the White House for a tour of their future home hosted by the president and first lady Laura Bush. Bush and Obama also had a private meeting in the Oval Office, a session that had the potential for awkward moments after Obama spent much of the past two years criticizing the Republican president while he campaigned.

White House press secretary Dana Perino described the meeting as ``constructive, relaxed and friendly.'' Obama's transition spokeswoman, Stephanie Cutter, said the two men had ``a broad discussion about the importance of working together throughout the transition of government in light of the nation's many critical economic and security challenges.''

No details of their talks were released.

The Oval Office meeting lasted a little less than an hour. Neither man made a public statement. The visit took place 71 days before the formal transfer of power. Bush has promised to make this the fastest and most cordial transfer of power in modern history.

The meeting with Bush marked Obama's visit first to the Oval Office, spokeswoman Jen Psaki said. Obama also held a private meeting at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport before leaving town. Psaki refused to provide any details about who was in the meeting or the subject.
Historic Occasion

Hundreds of people were lined up along Pennsylvania Avenue near the White House as Obama's motorcade arrived.

``I wanted to see something historical in the works,'' said Pamela Sumah, a 24-year-old law student from Laurel, Maryland, who said she voted for Obama. ``If they can come together, it gives hope for our future.''

Obama will take office on Jan. 20 with majorities for his party in the House and Senate and a mandate to make changes. He's already considering ways to use executive orders to overturn policies put in place by Republican Bush, reviewing ``virtually every agency,'' according to John Podesta, a leader of Obama's transition effort.

``There's a lot that the president can do using his executive authority without waiting for congressional action,'' Podesta said on ``Fox News Sunday'' yesterday. As the team looks at agencies, it's considering moves on ``energy transformation, on improving health care, on stem-cell research,'' he said.

Policy Changes

Podesta, a former chief of staff in the Clinton White House, said some of Bush's policy moves are ``probably not in interest of the country.''

Susan F. Wood, co-chairman of Obama's advisory committee for women's health, said the president-elect also plans on reversing a policy that linked assistance for combating AIDS in the developing world to requirements that health workers emphasize monogamy and abstinence from sex over condom use.

On climate change and pollution, Obama previously has stated his opposition to the administration's action that blocked California from setting its own regulations for carbon dioxide emissions from vehicles.

Podesta also met with White House chief of staff Josh Bolten and Deputy Chief of Staff Joel Kaplan. About 100 of Obama's transition people have obtained security clearances, Podesta said yesterday on CNN's ``Late Edition.''

The Obamas also are shopping for a school for their daughters, Malia, 10, and Sasha, 7. They now attend the private University of Chicago Laboratory School. The couple hasn't indicated which schools they are looking at.











Obama

Obama goes to the White House

Obama makes historic White House visit

Mon Nov 10, 2008 1:50pm EST

WASHINGTON, Nov 10 (Reuters) - President-elect Barack Obama visited the White House on Monday for his first post-election meeting with President George W. Bush, a strikingly symbolic moment in the historic transition of power in Washington.

The outgoing president and first lady Laura Bush greeted Obama and his wife Michelle with smiles and handshakes as they stepped from their limousine to begin a tour of what will be their new home after Obama is sworn in on Jan. 20.

The two men were headed to the Oval Office where they were expected to discuss the global financial crisis, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and other challenges the Republican president will bequeath to his Democratic successor.

It was their first face-to-face encounter -- a visit steeped in symbolism -- following Obama's resounding victory over Republican John McCain in Tuesday's election, which will make him America's first black chief executive.

Obama, 47, had repeatedly attacked Bush's "failed policies" on the campaign trail and once said he had a lot to answer for after eight years in office. The Illinois senator swept to power campaigning on a theme of change -- specifically, change from the unpopular president's approach to economics and foreign affairs.

Obama's aides say after taking office he will likely move quickly to roll back Bush's executive orders that limit stem cell research and expand oil and gas drilling in some areas.

There was no outward sign of tension, however, as the Obamas began their White House visit.

Presidents-in-waiting traditionally make a trip to the White House between Election Day and inauguration but usually wait longer than Obama did.

He came calling after only six days, underscoring a sense of urgency in the transition process. It will be the first wartime transfer of presidential power in four decades and also comes as economic turmoil is shaking world markets.


*********************************

It is relevant - Bush invited HIM to the White House. Obama did not invite himself. Bush reached out. Bush recognized how important it is. NOT Obama.








Obama

The Difference in Parties

Democrats Shrug Off Edwards' Affair, Paternity Questions
Sunday,
August 10, 2008

WASHINGTON — While many questions remain unanswered regarding John Edwards' affair with a woman he hired to produce videos of him, some Democrats are already writing off the impact of the news.

Edwards, who admitted on Friday that he had an affair with Reille Hunter after meeting her in a New York bar, insists he is not the father of Hunter's baby, Frances Quinn. A former Edwards staffer, Andrew Young, took responsibility for the child though no name for the father appears on the birth certificate.

The Edwards-Hunter affair was busted open by tabloid reports two weeks ago after Edwards was caught visiting Hunter and the baby at the Beverly hilton hotel.

A hotel security guard confirmed to FOXNews.com that he had helped Edwards leave the property after he barricaded himself in a bathroom to elude reporters who had been chasing him at 2:40 in the morning.

Edwards and his wife, Elizabeth, who still backed her husband's presidential bid after announcing in March 2007 that her breast cancer had returned, have canceled plans to attend the Democratic convention in Denver on Aug. 25-28.

But Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin, a strong supporter of presumptive Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, said he didn't know whether Edwards' shot at getting a slot in an Obama administration has been dashed by the revelations.

"I have no idea. I've not spoken to him about that. As you're aware, I'm sure, Senator Edwards announced through one of his staffers he would not be attending the convention in Denver," Durbin said on "FOX News Sunday."

Durbin said this type of news is no longer difficult for Washington to swallow.

"Let's be very honest. There's weakness when it comes to both political parties. ... I feel very badly for John and Elizabeth, who are friends. I know them and I know their families. They're going through a very difficult time. I hope they can resolve this between them," Durbin said.

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, who also was a presidential candidate this year, said he was not going to "pile on" to Edwards.

"Obviously, he let a lot of people down. I feel for Elizabeth. But, you know, the public is forgiving. Obviously, this is something between himself and his family and voters. You know, I feel for that family. I still believe that John Edwards is committed to reducing poverty. I think his concern in the campaign was genuine," he told ABC's "This Week."

"This is a difficult period. You know, but I'm just not going to be one of those that pile on,' Richardson continued.

Edwards said he hired Hunter before ever having an affair with her, but doubt is being cast on that claim. According to Sunday's New York Post, Hunter was e-mailing pals in April 2006 about visiting her married boyfriend "down South." The Post also reports that sources say the two met t a bar in late 2005 or early 2006.

Hunter's company, Midline Groove Productions, was first paid to produce the videos for Edwards' One America Committee PAC in July 2006, months after she was e-mailing friends about him.

Edwards said he told his wife everything about the affair after it ended in 2006. He described her as "furious" but able to forgive him. Still, Hunter was photographed with Edwards on Dec. 29 2006. The final payment to Midline Groove was made on April 1, 2007.

National Review writer Byron York said the fallout from Edwards' affair may not hurt Obama, but it leaves Edwards' future in doubt.

"Barack Obama has such a squeaky-clean family image. But it's not over. I don't think anybody in political circles, including Democrats, believes ... Edwards' claim that he is not the father of this child," York told "FOX News Sunday".

"And then you — additionally, you have the money angle, which is Fred Baron, big trial lawyer, big supporter of John Edwards, paying millions of dollars to relocate Rielle Hunter and Andrew Young and his family, the man who has claimed paternity for the child, to California, supposedly just out of the goodness of his heart and without telling John Edwards," he said.

Washington Post reporter Ruth Marcus said the impact on Democrats overall has been limited by the decision by John and Elizabeth Edwards to stay out of Denver.

"It's not good to be talking — especially when we're going to see a certain former president speaking at the convention, to be reminding people of people's marital missteps. On the other hand ... sexual misconduct and adultery is something of a bipartisan failing in Washington and elsewhere. So I think it's not great for Democrats, but not terrible," she said.

*******************************************

Do people make mistakes? Yes. Was it a mistake? Edwards says it was.

What does that say? Actions he took, planned, thought through, were not thought through? He planned to see the woman days and weeks in advance. In that time, he was unable to change his mind and realize he made a mistake? And how dare Edwards supporters criticize Bush on his unapologetic stand on Iraq. How dare you. Edwards could not admit to a mistake and stop or change his behavior and it impacted a dozen or so people. Imagine the catastrophe that could have befallen us had he won in 2004.

Interesting that while this issue is personal, it isn't personal. It is in that it goes to the heart of human behavior, need, want, and desire. Yet, when candidates for the highest offices in the world, show themselves weaker than the average man, and lie - then it is a public issue. And we know the common man, the average guy, is not afflicted to the same degree/ratio as politicians or every two people would be having affairs, or very nearly. And do not say they lie to save their marriage or family - that requires forethought, that these people seem to be missing. Had they any ability to make decisions, they would not have engaged in the activity, stopped the action, given the many hours and days between visits, or would have admitted they had fallen in love with the other person, and would leave public office in order to spend the rest of their life with that person.

Would you. But then, not doing so denies any emotion but for lust and or sex. It takes a rational human being and turns them into nothing more than an animal. That should bother people.

Setting aside the personal - it also shows a lapse in judgment, an intent, and a lack of moral turpitude. Had any of them simply said that they loved the other person, and would separate from their spouse and .... it would be easier and less problematic. Leaving someone is always difficult, but Edwards could have claimed he had fallen in love with Hunter ... could have.

He didn't. It was a mistake.

Republicans and Democrats seem equally afflicted with this, but that does not mean that Republicans let it pass, as the article suggests Democrats are doing. In each case where a Republican member of Congress buggered anyone, or had an affair - they resigned, or were shunned by the party until they quit, or did not stand for re-election the next time.

For the Democrats, the outcome is not as clear. For Democrats, the case of Edwards, should not be just another day at the office, or boys will be boys. It is not the norm or usual, common, typical. HE ran for President of the United States, and his wife has terminal cancer.

Does the fact his wife has cancer make this any different - slightly. It shows an absolute callusness toward a woman who he has said a hundred times, stood by him, and he was not doing the same thing. If Elizabeth Edwards did not have cancer, would it be different? Slightly. Edwards has also run on a platform of family - his family and his driving passion for all families, to help and raise up our families. Unless it happens to be his bastard child, in which case, he isn't interested in lifting her up, at least publicly.

Set the political office he sought aside, along with the fact his wife has been battling cancer. Instead, consider what Democrats must accept to ignore Edwards' actions: that his behavior is tolerable (women should just accept what men do), boys will be boys (women should just accept what men do), it is the norm (everyone should just accept what men do), and while we don't like it, we understand we are all weak (men will be men).

How very woman friendly. I understand why there is absolute silence from the femnazi groups. They are not interested in raising women up, they just want their candidate elected and do not care what it takes to get that accomplished, including supporting people who do not care about women, They are nothing more than prostitutes for Democratic candidates - just as long as the candidate cares about supporting women's organizations, and professes support for the cause of women's equality. Petty and pathetic. NOW shows itself for what it is. Then again, it showed itself for what it was when Monica appeared on the world stage. They were quiet as church mice then, and now, and when Chandra levy disappeared and Gary Condit fought it out to stay. In the end, it was the criminal issues that sent him out of Congress, and that no one could look at him without thinking about Chandra missing. They do not care about how women are treated, they care about winning elections and making money (prostitutes).

The evidence on Edwards, has been around for quite some time (many weeks before he pulled out of the primary for the nomination) and NO ONE PAID ANY ATTENTION. Shame.

The evidence is available to show he was having an affair BEFORE HIS WIFE'S cancer went into remission. Tacky and shameful.

It is quite possible the child is his.

It is also possible Hunter has been paid off.

Others have paid Hunter.

That would constitute a conspiracy, for those nut jobs out there worried about 9/11, and while it is a personal conspiracy, extrapolate a bit: Edwards had won the nomination and was elected President ... he has a problem, his mistress comes forward and ... he gets his friends to pay off the woman ... now it is less personal and becomes a crime and misdemeanor - impeachable.

In my recounting of Republican Presidents in the last 80+ years, NONE have had affairs while President.

We cannot say the same about the Democrats - Roosevelt, Kennedy, Johnson, Clinton. Every one of them but Carter, and he said he had lusted in his heart.

While it is true that Republicans and Democrats are equally afflicted with this weakness in Congress, they hold themselves to higher standards as President. The Democrats use the higher office as an indication that they have gotten away with their indiscretions and to go full throttle using the office and its perks as protection.

We, the People, Deserve Better.


Goodbye Edwards. Never come back. Stay home with your wife, and care for her as she dies.






Stupid fuck

John Kerry and Scott McClellan

Kerry: On September 11, we were at peace

Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) believes that on September 11 "we were basically at peace."
Asked to clarify his remarks, specifically asking about the attacks on the U.S.S. Cole during Barack Obama campaign conference call, Kerry said, "well, we hadn't declared war," The Hill's Sam Youngman reports.

Asked if al Qaeda was a threat at the time, the 2004 Democratic presidential nominee said, "well yes, obviously they were a threat. But, fundamentally we were not at war at that point in time."
Kerry also called John McCain "out of step with history and facts."

*************************************************

Maybe he was at peace. maybe he was thinking of his own life - at peace with Theresa. At peace - perhaps he had reconciled himself to the fact he would run in 2004 and was at peace with that decision. But as for the US at peace - what a clumsy, foolish, moronic, idiot.

1993 - attack on the World Trade Center

1994-1998 - Attacks on US embassy's and government personnel from Saudi Arabia to Africa to Pakistan and Afghanistan where bin Laden went in to hiding. Bin Laden declared war on the US long before 2001 and he made it public, and said it many times.

The USS Cole.

By 2001, the United States had been under attack for years by bin Laden and his band of evil doers.

Kerry was so clueless, and remains clueless.

Fool.

Dangerous fool.

_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________

DNC Uses McClellan to Attack McCain

The Democratic National Committee (DNC) is asking "Where was John McCain" while the White House was spreading war propaganda, as former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan has alleged.

A new DNC web ad shows McClellan accusing the White House of spreading propaganda leading up to the U.S. invasion of Iraq, then shows McCain speaking in 2002 in support of the invasion.

*********************************************
What is curious about this is - when Scott McClellan was the spokesman, no one believed him anyway. In fact, he was the least sought after person in the White House - NO ONE BELIEVED A WORD HE SAID ... now suddenly the Democrats believe every word he has 'written'.

Interesting.

.