POLITICALPYRO CONTRIBUTORS

It took me a few minutes to get through this piece. Its nicely put together and does not miss anything.

Here is the Link: Barack Obama: The Naked Emperor

They say… Whats good for the goose, is good for its gander… or if you like, If you can’t beat them join them.

As they blame Bush, ‘W’, GW… Which ever you prefer, for everything that is wrong with the world, I thought a bit of turn about, tongue and cheek was way over due. Hence the reason for the title of this post. Now, lets get to the meat.

Congress Needs to Beware of Growing Populist Anger

By Norman J. Ornstein | Roll Call
Wednesday, June 10, 2009

One of the main reasons why the Democratic Party lost control of the House in 1994 was that House Democrats responded too late to growing public dissatisfaction with their actions. The 111th Congress, though very active in its passage of legislation, needs to pay attention to the current rise in populist sentiment in the electorate. In order to effectively curb these feelings, Congress should implement reforms to increase transparency in government.

Why did the Democrats lose the House in 1994 after 40 years of rule?

One can make a case that the early stumbles of the Clinton White House, including the excruciating delay in enacting an economic plan along with the failure to get health care through, created a backlash against ineffective one-party government. One can make a case that former Speaker Newt Gingrich’s (R-Ga.) long-term plan to nationalize the Congressional elections, culminating in the “Contract with America,” finally provided a coherent and attractive alternative. But a critical element in the public backlash against the status quo in Congress was the populist anger at the elitism and corruption that the public saw engulfing Washington, D.C.

The first eruption of that populist anger came in 1989, with a pay raise for federal officials that had been endorsed by outgoing President Ronald Reagan, incoming President George H. W. Bush and all Democratic and Republican Congressional leaders from Speaker Jim Wright (D-Texas) to the aforementioned Gingrich. But that broad bipartisan support meant nothing to average voters struggling with a sluggish economy and stagnant wages.

remember vividly going to board the train at Union Station to attend the House Democrats’ retreat at the Greenbrier resort–the location itself was a public relations nightmare akin to auto executives flying private jets to D.C. to beg for public money. We had to run a gauntlet of angry protesters holding signs and hurling epithets.

The leadership needs to avoid any sense that it is protecting Members because of their personal ties to them.

That was followed in 1992 by the House Bank brouhaha, revealed by Roll Call, which showed that a slew of House Members had overdrawn their accounts at the House Bank. It did not matter that the “bank” was not a bank in the traditional sense, but a repository for Members’ paychecks until they could be deposited in other accounts, and that the only money in the bank was from the lawmakers themselves; the story created a firestorm emphasizing that Members of Congress played by a different set of rules than the rest of us, exempt from the constraints or fines that we face. Many superb lawmakers lost their next elections (or retired prematurely) as a direct consequence.

The next train wreck was predictable. For some good reasons related to separation of powers issues, Congress exempted itself from regulation by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency and other executive agencies. But to the public (and to the minority party), this was another clear case of an imperial, insulated, pampered and arrogant Congress applying onerous laws to others while exempting itself.

Throughout 1993 and 1994, I went regularly to the leaders in the House importuning them to act to solve this problem. The answer was easy: create an independent office within the legislative branch to enforce the laws where applicable to Congress, avoiding separation of powers issues. Tom Mann and I worked with Reps. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.) and Dick Swett (D-N.H.) to come up with a bill creating an Office of Compliance. Early passage would signal a Congress ahead of the curve, moving to reform itself.

But the leaders did not think it was that big a deal and waited until the last days of the 103rd Congress to pass the bill–too late to avoid the surge in anger or to defend the indefensible, and they went into the 1994 election looking like they acted only after getting caught red-handed.

I raise all this history because it is déjà vu all over again. The populist anger is back, and not just in the United States–the reaction in Britain to parliamentary expense abuses is directly reminiscent of the reaction to the House Bank. So far, it has not been directed at Congress, in part because the 111th Congress has been so remarkably productive, in part because of the popularity of President Barack Obama, in part because of the ineptitude of the minority party leadership. But one can see the train wreck coming.

Some of the seeds go back to former Rep. William Jefferson (D-La.), preceded by Jack Abramoff and former Reps. Duke Cunningham (R-Calif.), Tom DeLay (R-Texas), Bob Ney (R-Ohio), Jim Traficant (D-Ohio), et al. Of course, some of the cases contributed mightily to the Republican loss of Congress after 12 years of rule, but all underscored a continuing public sense that Congress was more concerned with feathering its own nest than with the problems facing average Americans in their everyday lives.

Throw in Illinois’ former Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D) and Sen. Roland Burris (D), a case getting more and more putrid. Add the Congressional bailouts of banks and their executives and the auto industry, amplified especially by the American International Group bonuses. The scapegoats now are AIG and auto and bank executives, but that can switch in an instant to politicians.

Now throw in the PMA Group and Reps. John Murtha (D-Pa.) and Peter Visclosky (D-Ind.). The Murtha case, of course, goes well beyond PMA, to include throwing sensitive national security-related earmarks with abandon to companies in his district that were inept or corrupt and to rewarding or punishing companies that used the right lobbying firm or did the right business with Murtha’s relatives. Include also executive officials in the Defense Department and elsewhere giving no-bid contracts to companies with ties to Murtha and his family members to curry favor with the powerful lawmaker. I can’t sort out from this vantage point what is illegal or not, but it all stinks to high heaven.

Simply asking whether the ethics committee is investigating the issue is not enough. I hope the committee is acting, and I believe that the leadership of the panel, under Chairwoman Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) and ranking member Jo Bonner (R-Ala.), is finally functional. I also am truly encouraged by the start of the new Office of Congressional Ethics, also with top-flight leadership.

But if Congress wants to avoid the kind of public anger that engulfed the political process in 1994 and 2006, it needs to go much further. The leadership needs to avoid any sense that it is protecting Members because of their personal ties to them. And Congress needs to enact further reforms to make the earmarking and contracting process work better.

The House might start with Rep. Jeff Flake’s (R-Ariz.) idea to delink earmarks from campaign contributions. My own idea to create independent commissions to rank needs and projects in Congressional districts akin to Senators’ judicial selection panels would help. And addressing the issue of contracting–which is what Cunningham did, getting bribes in return for steering sensitive defense and intelligence contracts to the corrupt companies offering the bribes–is critical for reform.

Every contract issued by the federal government needs to be put online before the contract takes effect, with a special scrutiny for every no-bid contract. There must be guidelines for making sure the process is above-board and sanctions for those who award contracts that do not meet the guidelines.

The current Democratic Congress is comparatively well-regarded by the public for its performance. Democrats are certainly in no immediate danger of losing their majority or even losing many seats in 2010. But public opinion is fragile here, and it would not take much to ignite that populist outrage. Acting now is smart politics–and very good policy.

Norman J. Ornstein is a resident scholar at AEI.

This offering was written and posted by the ‘Political Pyro‘ ~Jay Jaxxon~ a year ago… I wonder where he is today?

Who Will Police the Media?

Posted by Political Pyro in Media Firestorm May 25, 2008

In the consumer age of federally mandated regulation and transparency, no product can be released to the public without a series of intense evaluations, tests, labels, and warnings.

Make that: Almost no product.

Look on the back of a soda can, or a box of Twinkies, and you will find a federally mandated list of ingredients. In music, check out the latest releases by Lupe Fiasco or Ghostface Killah and you will see a parental advisory warning on the cover. In movies and television, look for a rating flashed before the credits. Video games are rated. Bags come with a suffocation warning. Small items are choking hazards. Coffee is hot. Don’t eat the lead paint. Not intended to be a cure…

So where is the list of ingredients for the television news media? Conservative talk radio is filled with hosts who proudly admit they are entertainers or commentators. They never pretend to be journalists. In fact, they are usually the ones screaming about the likes of CNN and MSNBC hiding behind a journalistic banner.

Almost no unbiased journalism is left in television news today. Political opinions and commentaries literally overwhelm the “news” airwaves 24 hours a day. What little journalism actually gets reported is highly filtered by network CEOs with a political agenda.

What is not reported is even more disturbing. “News networks” chose to ignore the Reverend Wright story until their hand was forced sometime after the Texas and Ohio primaries and the Barack Obama-William Ayers connection was completely ignored until George Stephanopoulos brought Ayers’ name up during a debate — and the media silence is perfectly legal.

Why has the news media been given a regulatory pass?

Another question: What is the standard journalism-to-opinion ratio that a network must live up to in order to call themselves a “news network”? Arguably, the History and Discovery Channels present far more unbiased information than CNN or MSNBC, and yet they do not purport to be “news”.

Maureen Dowd writes for the New York Times underneath the banner ‘Opinion’. There is nothing wrong or deceptive about that. I am not in favor of censorship. However, there is no ‘Opinion’ banner that flashes across the screen before Keith Olbermann launches into his pro-Obama tirade — or before Chris Matthews informs the world of some chills running up his leg. Why not? Are viewers expected to assume these men are merely offering an opinion, yet NOT expected to assume their cup of coffee is hot?

Americans hold the “fourth branch of government” up to a high standard. For decades, the words of Walter Cronkite or Peter Jennings were as sacred as the gospel. However, today’s news media is clearly different. Manipulation of public opinion — under the false banner of journalism — should be monitored by strict FCC guidelines with hefty penalties. Networks should never be allowed to have this amount of power again. Those who refuse to comply with these proposed new FCC standards should be forced to call themselves ‘Opinion’ networks…

In other words, CNN should be forced to call themselves what they really are… CON.

Now… Comments the post received.

11 Comments »

1.

FOX = FAUX

Comment by CHANGE — May 25, 2008 @ 6:20 pm

2.

Well stated! In essence we have no FREE media left - and this is a very dangerous place for our Country.

Comment by Typewriter — May 25, 2008 @ 9:20 pm

3.

Thank you for this articulate discussion of this very real problem with the media’s calculated and biased manipulation of the news. I fully support your suggestion of new FCC standards. Until that happens, I will continue to boycott CNN, NBC and MSNBC. I have switched to FOX news for more fair and balanced coverage. I would have never believed that the network I avoided for the last 8 years has been the most unbiased in their reporting.

Comment by dwilson — May 25, 2008 @ 11:52 pm

4.

I, too, have switched to Fox for the same reason. I avoided it for many years also…but am finding out that it is the only network where one can get real news and not just biased drama!

Comment by maggie — May 26, 2008 @ 12:47 am

5.

Wow, I too switched to Fox News, they should run a poll to track this phenonmenon.
Just finished watching Recount on HBO, eerily similar to our current situation with Florida and Michigan, I hope Clinton doesn’t back down.

Comment by Joe — May 26, 2008 @ 2:09 am

6.

“Manipulation of public opinion — under the false banner of journalism — should be monitored by strict FCC guidelines with hefty penalties. Networks should never be allowed to have this amount of power again. Those who refuse to comply with these proposed new FCC standards should be forced to call themselves ‘Opinion’ networks…”

If this would apply equally to Fox and CNN and MSNBC and all the rest, that would be fine. I don’t think you really want that - you have singled out only the so-called “liberal” media for criticism, but the same can be said about Fox et al.?

***[Yes, equality for all. Not censorship, just accurate labelling. I omitted Fox because they have the best track record so far this year, but things change, so everyone should be included. — Political Pyro]

Comment by Mark In Irvine — May 26, 2008 @ 2:30 am

7.

Excellent perspective. The media’s spite this weekend over the 1968 analogy was illogical and ludicrous. They clearly got ‘played’ by Senator Obama who needed a headline this weekend. The media now looks baited and foolish.
I too have stopped most mainstream TV and their associated internet activity with the exception of foxnews.com. I’m bored by NBC /Newsweek / MSNBC / CNN, I already know what is going to be said. My main source for substantive information now is smaller journals and investigative blogs.

Comment by EyesOpen — May 26, 2008 @ 5:22 am

8.

If you’re interested in policing the public airwaves through making accountable the federal agency responsible for regulating such things, you will support Senator Clinton’s run for the White House. Because she will win in the general election. And that will be her job.

Comment by jbjd — May 26, 2008 @ 7:41 am

9.

What we have is a bunch of socialists media sucm bags who are ruining this country.

Comment by Waldo Smith — May 26, 2008 @ 10:58 am

10.

The elites in the media, DNC and elsewhere DECIDED who they wanted WITHOUT (public) vetting of THEIR nomineee by the press. The media has thus reduced itself to functioning as propaganda zealots of their owm making for their own agendas of radical leftism and diguised it in a person who is a perfect example of the meaning of the word charalatan; Barack Obama.

CHARLATAN: A flamboyant deceiver; one who attracks sutomers with TRICKS (deception) or (jokes.

Obama=CHARLATAN

Comment by Denny — May 26, 2008 @ 1:37 pm

11.

the sickening way the media has promoted obama 24/7 is proof that political campaign reforms need to include the media too. even if clinton raised $2 billion if the media still endorsed obama 24/7 and ignored clinton that money would not help her much.

even when the media said it was all over for clinton she still had stunning wins in kentucky and west virginia proving how disconnected and manipulative the media is.

they have too much power and they have abused this power and used it against hillary. there needs to be more federal regulation of the media.

the dnc wants to roll the dice and run a black man at the expense of a more electable woman since everyone is disgusted with the bush years but i will vote for mccain if clinton isn’t running and if mccain wins i will call the dnc and laugh at them for running obama.

mccain’s hands will be tied with a democratic congress and he won’t be able to do anything unless the democrats let him. don’t be fooled into thinking you have ot vote for obama. that is more manipulation by obama and the dnc. punish the DNC by voting for mccain and ridiculing them when obama loses.

Comment by d-guy — May 29, 2008 @ 7:22 am

Cheney on Colin Powell: “I didn’t know he was still a Republican”

Former Vice President Dick Cheney took an extraordinary public swipe at Colin Powell Sunday, questioning in a TV interview whether the former Bush administration secretary of state was even a Republican anymore.

Cheney, appearing on CBS’s Face the Nation, said he was taking the side of Rush Limbaugh over Powell in the ongoing dispute in the GOP between the conservative talk show host and moderate retired general.

“Well if I had to choose in terms of being a Republican, I’d go with Rush Limbaugh,” Cheney told moderator Bob Schieffer. “My take on it was Colin had already left the party — I didn’t know he was still a Republican.”

A somewhat taken-aback Schieffer asked: “You think he’s not a Republican?”

Cheney responded by pointing out that Powell had endorsed President Barack Obama last fall.

“I assume that that’s some indication of his loyalty and his interest,” Cheney said.

Cheney, a longstanding friend and ally of former Defense Secretary and Powell rival Donald Rumsfeld, butted heads with Powell during the Bush years but usually kept his criticism private.

The comments reflect not just the the former vice president’s lingering dislike for Powell, but his strong preference for keeping the GOP moored to conservatism.

“I think we win elections when we have good, solid conservative principles to run upon and based our policies on those principles,” Cheney said.

And lets not forget what Pastor Manning had to say about all this…

Two Faces Two Colons

Thanks 2 Jonathan Martin @ Politico Live ~ Blog

Related Posts on Other Sites:

Cheney Backs Limbaugh Over Powell on GOP Future

Cheney: As a Republican, I choose Rush Limbaugh over Colin Powell.

This a very funny video that chronicle’s all those thrown under the Obama Bus.

PajamasTV hasn’t really been in the news since it hired Sam “Joe the Plumber” Wurzelbacher to report on the war in Gaza, but it’s still kicking. Some of its most popular content is coming from black conservative comic Alphonzo Rachel, who sometimes appears as “President Zobama.” He’s put together a music video that is mostly notable for the way it captures the little memes and stories that have been forgotten outside of the deep conservative base.

A little decoding: it is considered noteworthy, and hilarious, that President Obama dispatches political allies who become a problem to him. Indeed, this is pretty strange and no politician has done it before. But since the cliche “throwing [person or thing] under the bus” took hold, conservatives have applied it to anyone that Obama apparently distanced him from, ever.

• The video begins with Rachel running over a TV image of “my white grandmama,” whom conservatives believe was “thrown under the bus” in Obama’s speech on race when he talked about her admitted uneasiness among black men.

• The reference to the “brother in a shack” is to George Obama, the president’s half brother, who lives in Nairobi.

• The lyric about the “magic negro” story is sort of garbled — Rachel says the “New York Times called” Obama that, but it was black critic David Edelstein in The Los Angeles Times. Rachel jokes that Rush Limbaugh was pilloried for citing the comment, but it didn’t really become an issue until Republican National Committee chairman candidate Chip Saltsman sent around a CD of parody songs including “Barack the Magic Negro,” sung by an Al Sharpton impersonator.

Anyway, that’s the state of PajamasTV at the moment.

Thanks 2 David Weigel and The Washington Independent

Over the past few days I have watch as the Democratic Party has lead us around by our noses. Limbaugh, Steele, Leader, Defacto Leader, Echo Beliefs, Entertainer, Want Obamas Economic Plan To Fail… It is like the Republican Party does not know who they are any longer.

I have said here that here that we need to say, Hell Yeah!… you tell them Rush, but we also need to remember that he is an entertainer and not any thing more until he throws his hat into the ring. Steele on the other hand is a leader, and must remember that. The more that the Republican Party continues to break Reagan’s #1 rule (Thy Shalt Not Eat Their Own) the more the liberal media feeding frenzy will gain momentum with many of the populace.

People want handouts, that come with no string, not hand ups. Many are hurting and though Rush and his rhetoric resonate with rich among the republican base, many that are trapped in the middle are feeling the pinch of this economy.

I do too want the socialist ideas of the Obama Administration to fail… but that is not the message that will be heard… It will be said that I want Obamas Economic plan to fail and this is not what I said and neither did Rush. Its like Newt and his “Whither on the vine” sound bit that was pulled out of a 15 minute speech that was taken totally out of context… if any of you remember that.

I have said all along that we need to let these folk do what they want, as this slow, methodically heating of the proverbial frog in the pot is what these socialists want. The heat needs to be turned up high, and soon, so that frog knows its time to jump.

Otherwise it wont matter what Limbaugh, Steele or anyone else for that matter says… The Obama administration has to poison Limbaugh’s use by republican representatives in the US congress so in turn Rush and his 20 million a week faithful will become just as big as a liability as Limbaugh. Only then can the Obama administration get any real traction when it time to ratchet up the reach of the Fairness Doctrine.

“I Do Want Obama to Fail” - Rush Limbaugh 02/28/09 at CPAC

“America Is Under Assault from Within” - Rush Limbaugh @ CPAC 02/28/09

RNC’s Michael Steele calls Limbaugh’s Comments “Incendiary and Ugly”


GOP Convention Compared to Nazi Germany - RNC’s Michael Steele Agrees?

I do not see what the problem is here. Maybe I am thick, but I never forget that Rush Limbaugh is an Entertainer -Until he throws his hat into the political ring- and the atrocities inflicted by Nazi Germany are not something to throw around like party jokes.

As to this idea that Limbaugh is the “defacto leader” of the Republican Party… Rush is and has always been the the leader in talk radio entertainment and the leader of his back pocket political intolerance. He may echo our thoughts like George Carlin uniquely did throughout his career as an entertainer… but just like Carlins “Seven Dirty Words’ were meant to wake up our social awareness, so has Limbaugh though skits like the “Caller Abortion”.

What Steele and all of us need to remember is… It is not unusual for us as humans to root against the other team. These are desperate times for MANY. Lets not loose perspective. I do too want socialism to fail but no one is going to call me the defacto leader of anything, anytime soon.

Rush Limbaugh Gives Speech To CPAC (part 1)

Rush Limbaugh Gives Speech To CPAC (Part 2)

Rush Limbaugh Gives Speech To CPAC (Part 3)

Rush Limbaugh Gives Speech To CPAC (part4)

Rush Limbaugh Gives Speech To CPAC (Part 5)

Rush Limbaugh Gives Speech To CPAC (Part 6)

Rush Limbaugh Gives Speech To CPAC (Part 7)

Rush Limbaugh Gives Speech To CPAC (Part

Rush Limbaugh Gives Speech To CPAC (Part 9)

Rush Limbaugh Gives Speech To CPAC (Part 10)

The act of putting your head between your legs and kissing Rush’s ass. Watch Below…

0:18 ~GINGREY: Rush, thank you so much. I thank you for the opportunity, of course this is not exactly the way to I wanted to come on. … Mainly, I want to express to you and all your listeners my very sincere regret for those comments I made yesterday to Politico. … I clearly ended up putting my foot in my mouth on some of those comments. … I regret those stupid comments.

LIMBAUGH: Well, look, I appreciate that. … I’m glad that you called.

Gingrey concluded by saying, “[T]he best possible message for this country would be for every single republican to vote against [the economy recover package].”

One of Rush’s things has always been that he would like to reside over the extinction of liberalism and keep just a couple around so we can remember what they were… Seems to me if the republicans don’t get their act together soon, he just may see that happen in reverse.

Republican leaders better start to understand that their party is a whisper from becoming irrelevant… What we need is Mike Steele as RNC chairman.

In a related story… on eating your own…

Lesbian to Be Iceland’s First Female PM…

REYKJAVIK, Iceland (Jan. 28) - Iceland’s next leader will be an openly gay former flight attendant who parlayed her experience as a union organizer into a decades-long political career.

Both parties forming Iceland’s new coalition government support the appointment of Johanna Sigurdardottir, the island nation’s 66-year-old social affairs minister, as Iceland’s interim prime minister.

I wounder if the other party is going to starteasting their own like here in America with the republicans?