Alaska AG: State employees won't honor
Posted By: subpoenas on 2008-09-17
In Reply to:
By STEVE QUINN
JUNEAU, Alaska (AP) - Alaska's investigation into whether Gov. Sarah Palin abused her power, a potentially damaging distraction for John McCain's presidential campaign, ran into intensified resistance Tuesday when the attorney general said state employees would refuse to honor subpoenas in the case.
In a letter to state Sen. Hollis French, the Democrat overseeing the investigation, Republican Attorney General Talis Colberg asked that the subpoenas be withdrawn. He also said the employees would refuse to appear unless either the full state Senate or the entire Legislature votes to compel their testimony.
Colberg, who was appointed by Palin, said the employees are caught between their respect for the Legislature and their loyalty to the governor, who initially agreed to cooperate with the inquiry but has increasingly opposed it since McCain chose her as his running mate.
"This is an untenable position for our clients because the governor has so strongly stated that the subpoenas issued by your committee are of questionable validity," Colberg wrote.
Last week, French's Senate Judiciary Committee subpoenaed 13 people. They include 10 employees of Palin's administration and three who are not: her husband, Todd Palin; John Bitney, Palin's former legislative liaison who now is chief of staff for Republican House Speaker John Harris; and Murlene Wilkes, a state contractor.
French did not immediately return a telephone call Tuesday for comment.
Earlier in the day, Harris, who two months ago supported the "Troopergate" investigation, openly questioned its impartiality and raised the possibility of delaying the findings.
Like Colberg's letter, the surprise maneuver by Harris reflected deepening resolve by Republicans to spare Palin embarrassment or worse in the final weeks of the presidential campaign.
And it marked a further fraying of a bipartisan consensus, formed by a unanimous panel before Palin became McCain's running mate, that her firing of the state's public safety commissioner justified the ethical investigation.
In a letter, Harris wrote that what "started as a bipartisan and impartial effort is becoming overshadowed by public comments from individuals at both ends of the political spectrum," and he urged lawmakers to meet quickly to decide on a course.
"What I may be in favor of is having the report delayed, but only if it becomes a blatant partisan issue," he told The Associated Press, while indicating he already believes it has become politically tainted.
Democratic state Sen. Kim Elton, chairman of the Legislative Council, the 14-member panel that authorized the probe, had no immediate comment on Harris' request. Under an unusual power-sharing agreement, the council is made up of 10 Republicans and 4 Democrats.
At issue is whether Palin abused her power by pressing the commissioner to remove her former brother-in-law as an Alaska state trooper, then firing the commissioner when he didn't.
The matter risks casting a shadow on Palin's reputation, central to her appeal in the campaign, that she is a clean-government advocate who takes on entrenched interests - not a governor who tried to use her authority behind the scenes to settle a personal score.
Palin has defended her behavior and said she welcomed the investigation. "Hold me accountable," she said. But she and the McCain campaign have taken actions that could slow the probe, possibly past Election Day.
Also Tuesday, five Republican state lawmakers filed a lawsuit against an investigation they called "unlawful, biased, partial and partisan." None serves on the bipartisan Legislative Council that unanimously approved the inquiry. They want it pushed past the election or top Democrats removed from the probe.
Making clear the dispute has ramifications beyond Alaska, Liberty Legal Institute, a Texas-based legal advocacy group, was working on the lawsuit. The institute has taken on a variety of cases in defense of conservative Christian positions.
Elton called the lawsuit "a distraction."
"The silver lining in this action initiated by the five lawmakers is that some of that debate now has been kicked to the judicial branch which, unlike the Legislature and the governor's office, is more insulated from the red-hot passion of presidential politics," he said.
Palin fired public safety commissioner Walt Monegan in July.
Weeks later, it emerged that Palin, her husband, Todd, and several high-level staffers had contacted Monegan about state trooper Mike Wooten, who had gone through a nasty divorce from Palin's sister before Palin became governor. While Monegan says no one from the administration ever told him directly to fire Wooten, he says their repeated contacts made it clear they wanted Wooten gone.
Palin maintains she fired Monegan over budget disagreements, not because he wouldn't dismiss her ex-brother-in-law. She has sought through her lawyer to have the matter investigated in a more favorable forum, the state personnel board.
LINK/URL: http://apnews1.iwon.com//article/20080917/D93875180.html
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
Alaska may be the largest state -
Unless they're counting the caribou. Oh wait... maybe she shot 'em all.
PS; The Alaska State Legislature is
x
Some honor
Hope his family is duly impressed. What a friggin' bunch of psychos.
You can't honor the flag and still think about those things? nm
x
GM employees
I will agree that I it is really hard to conceive the government bailing out the big 3 needing billions of dollars, ok so what happened to all the money the big 3 made in the past? They need a plan. Everywhere I look I see foreclosed houses in my area, it is very sad. For the person with the pharmacist dad in Flushing...Let me guess, Cherry Street Pharmacy?
Well the GM salaried retirees, which includes my father-in-law, are losing their health benefits come the first of the year. He is a colorectal survivor with a permanent colostomy and self catherization for the past 13 years, those are a lot of mandatory daily supplies, so I hope that Medicare kicks in on coverage. I don’t think that “working in the shop” was at all glamorous, my dad busted his butt for GM for 38 years plus worked on the farm with my grandparents and my brother went of to the fire pits of h3ll (100+ degrees every day) at Saginaw Grey Iron (which is a foundry) for the last ten years of his GM “career”. Back in the day, GM provided a good income to people, like my dad, who was a hard worker, but had no means of gaining an education. He married my mother, who was a widow with four children before they had me, without being a GM employee, he could have never provided for an instant family on the wages he made as a farmer. I think there are a lot of people in Michigan who forget how thankful they should be to GM. Another way to look at it is, every GM employee coming to your dad’s pharmacy had insurance to pay for their medicine, so he knew that he was going to get paid as well. Just another perspective. Thanks.
sam, do not even give this person the honor of a response. nm
.
Citigroup to cut another 53,000 employees
Citigroup Inc. is shedding approximately 53,000 more employees in the coming quarters as the banking giant struggles to steady itself after suffering massive losses from deteriorating debt.
The New York-based bank, which has already reduced its assets by about 20 percent since the first quarter of the year, also plans to trim expenses by 19 percent in 2009 from third-quarter levels, to $50 billion.
The plans, posted on the company’s Web site, were discussed by CEO Vikram Pandit at the company’s town hall meeting in New York Monday with employees.
The company said it is shrinking its work force by 20 percent from its 2007 peak of 375,000. The company had already announced in October that it was eliminating about 22,000 jobs from that level.
About half of the expected work force reductions will come from business sales; Citigroup already announced that it was selling Citi Global Services and its German retail banking business, accounting for about 18,000 jobs. Citi is planning to sell other businesses, too, but has not announced them yet, a spokesman said.
The other half of the work force reductions will come from layoffs and attrition, the spokesman said.
The New York-based bank has posted four straight quarterly losses, including a loss of $2.8 billion during the third quarter.
In an effort to instill confidence in the company, Citigroup emphasized in its presentation Monday that its Tier 1 capital ratio, a measure of financial strength, is 10.4 percent after a $25 billion investment from the government — part of the $700 billion financial rescue package passed by Congress last month. That ratio is higher than peers Bank of America Corp. and Wells Fargo & Co., after their purchases of Merrill Lynch and Wachovia Corp., respectively.
Citigroup also stressed that it has doubled reserves in a year to $24 billion; that its revenues are stable; and that Citigroup has lower exposure to U.S. consumer mortgages than JPMorgan Chase & Co., Bank of America and Wells Fargo.
But the announcements were not met with enthusiasm from investors. Citi shares fell 46 cents, or 4.8 percent, to $9.06 in morning trading. The company’s shares have been trading at 13-year lows.
Shortly before the town hall meeting in New York, Citigroup Chairman Win Bischoff said at a business forum in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, that it would be irresponsible for Citi and other companies not to look at staffing in the event of a prolonged economic downturn.
“What all of us have done — and perhaps injudiciously — we’ve added a lot of people over ... this very benign period,” Bischoff said.
“If there is a reversion to the mean ... those job losses will obviously fall particularly heavily on the financial sector,” he added. “Certainly they will fall particularly heavily on London and New York.”
A Citigroup spokesman said that while certain regions and businesses might have higher concentrations of job cuts, they would generally be across the entire company and around the world.
In his comments to The Associated Press, Bischoff did not rule out the likelihood that Citi’s leaders would go without bonuses this year — a move that would effectively amount to a substantial pay cut for the company’s executives.
“Watch this space,” he said when asked about lost bonuses.
On Sunday, Goldman Sachs Group Inc. said seven top executives, including Chief Executive Lloyd Blankfein, opted out of receiving cash or stock bonuses for 2008 amid the ongoing credit crisis.
Letter to my employees...
Not sure who wrote this letter, but its quite a good read..
To All My Valued Employees,
There have been some rumblings around the office about the future of this company, and more specifically, your job. As you know, the economy has changed for the worse and presents many challenges. However, the good news is this: The economy doesn't pose a threat to your job. What does threaten your job however, is the changing political landscape in this country.
However, let me tell you some little tidbits of fact which might help you decide what is in your best interests.
First, while it is easy to spew rhetoric that casts employers against employees, you have to understand that for every business owner there is a back story. This back story is often neglected and overshadowed by what you see and hear. Sure, you see me park my Mercedes outside. You've seen my big home at last years Christmas party. I'm sure; all these flashy icons of luxury conjure up some idealized thoughts about my life.
However, what you don't see is the back story.
I started this company 28 years ago. At that time, I lived in a 300 square foot studio apartment for 3 years. My entire living apartment was converted into an office so I could put forth 100% effort into building a company, which by the way, would eventually employ you.
My diet consisted of Ramen Pride noodles because every dollar I spent went back into this company. I drove a rusty Toyota Corolla with a defective transmission. I didn't have time to date. Often times, I stayed home on weekends, while my friends went out drinking and partying. In fact, I was married to my business -- hard work, discipline, and sacrifice.
Meanwhile, my friends got jobs. They worked 40 hours a week and made a modest $50K a year and spent every dime they earned. They drove flashy cars and lived in expensive homes and wore fancy designer clothes. Instead of hitting the Nordstrom's for the latest hot fashion item, I was trolling through the Goodwill store extracting any clothing item that didn't look like it was birthed in the 70's. My friends refinanced their mortgages and lived a life of luxury. I, however, did not. I put my time, my money, and my life into a business with a vision that eventually, some day, I too, will be able to afford these luxuries my friends supposedly had.
So, while you physically arrive at the office at 9am, mentally check in at about noon, and then leave at 5pm, I don't. There is no "off" button for me. When you leave the office, you are done and you have a weekend all to yourself. I unfortunately do not have the freedom. I eat, and breathe this company every minute of the day. There is no rest. There is no weekend. There is no happy hour. Every day this business is attached to my hip like a 1 year old special-needs child. You, of course, only see the fruits of that garden -- the nice house, the Mercedes, the vacations... You never realize the back story and the sacrifices I've made.
Now, the economy is falling apart and I, the guy that made all the right decisions and saved his money, have to bail-out all the people who didn't. The people that overspent their paychecks suddenly feel entitled to the same luxuries that I earned and sacrificed a decade of my life for.
Yes, business ownership has is benefits but the price I've paid is steep and not without wounds.
Unfortunately, the cost of running this business, and employing you, is starting to eclipse the threshold of marginal benefit and let me tell you why:
I am being taxed to death and the government thinks I don't pay enough. I have state taxes. Federal taxes. Property taxes. Sales and use taxes. Payroll taxes. Workers compensation taxes. Unemployment taxes. Taxes on taxes. I have to hire a tax man to manage all these taxes and then guess what? I have to pay taxes for employing him. Government mandates and regulations and all the accounting that goes with it, now occupy most of my time. On Oct 15th, I wrote a check to the US Treasury for $288,000 for quarterly taxes. You know what my "stimulus" check was? Zero. Nada. Zilch.
The question I have is this: Who is stimulating the economy? Me, the guy who has provided 14 people good paying jobs and serves over 2,200,000 people per year with a flourishing business? Or, the single mother sitting at home pregnant with her fourth child waiting for her next welfare check? Obviously, government feels the latter is the economic stimulus of this country.
The fact is, if I deducted (Read: Stole) 50% of your paycheck you'd quit and you wouldn't work here. I mean, why should you? That's nuts. Who wants to get rewarded only 50% of their hard work? Well, I agree which is why your job is in jeopardy.
Here is what many of you don't understand ... to stimulate the economy you need to stimulate what runs the economy. Had suddenly government mandated to me that I didn't need to pay taxes, guess what? Instead of depositing that $288,000 into the Washington black-hole, I would have spent it, hired more employees, and generated substantial economic growth. My employees would have enjoyed the wealth of that tax cut in the form of promotions and better salaries. But you can forget it now.
When you have a comatose man on the verge of death, you don't defibrillate and shock his thumb thinking that will bring him back to life, do you? Or, do you defibrillate his heart? Business is at the heart of America and always has been. To restart it, you must stimulate it, not kill it. Suddenly, the power brokers in Washington believe the poor of America are the essential drivers of the American economic engine. Nothing could be further from the truth and this is the type of change you can keep.
So where am I going with all this?
It's quite simple.
If any new taxes are levied on me, or my company, my reaction will be swift and simple. I fire you. I fire your co-workers. You can then plead with the government to pay for your mortgage, your SUV, and your child's future. Frankly, it isn't my problem any more.
Then, I will close this company down, move to another country, and retire. You see, I'm done. I'm done with a country that penalizes the productive and gives to the unproductive. My motivation to work and to provide jobs will be destroyed, and with it, will be my citizenship.
If you lose your job, it won't be at the hands of the economy; it will be at the hands of a political hurricane that swept through this country, steamrolled the constitution, and will have changed its landscape forever. If that happens, you can find me sitting on a beach, retired, and with no employees to worry about....
Signed,
Your boss
Obama Blows Off Medal of Honor Recipients
Obama Blows Off Medal of Honor Recipients... Not Exactly
Scott Isaacs on Fri Jan 23, 2009 9:10 AM EST
According to TSO who was at the “Salute to Heroes Inaugural Ball”, this newly sworn-in President for the first time in 56 years blew off the ball (that’s 14 Inaugurations).
Some background on the ball;
The American Legion sponsors the ball, which recognizes recipients of Medal of Honor, the nation’s highest military award. It started in 1953 for President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s first inauguration.
Event co-sponsors include 13 other veterans service organizations, among them the Military Order of the Purple Heart and the Paralyzed Veterans of America.
So where was our new President instead of honoring Medal of Honor recipients who by some miracle are still alive? According to Huffington Post, this was his schedule for Inaugural celebrations;
Later that day, the Presidential Inaugural Committee will host 10 official inaugural balls:
— Neighborhood Inaugural Ball at the Washington Convention Center.
— Obama Home States (Illinois and Hawaii) Inaugural Ball at the Washington Convention Center.
— Biden Home States (Pennsylvania and Delaware) Inaugural Ball at the Washington Convention Center.
— Midwest Inaugural Ball at the Washington Convention Center.
— Mid-Atlantic Inaugural Ball at the Washington Convention Center.
— Western Inaugural Ball at the Washington Convention Center.
— Commander in Chief’s Ball at the National Building Museum.
— Southern Inaugural Ball at the National Guard Armory.
— Eastern Inaugural Ball at Union Station.
— Youth Inaugural Ball at the Washington Hilton.
Unofficial balls include:
— Congressional Black Caucus Inaugural Ball at the Capitol Hilton.
— Creative Coalition Inaugural Ball at the Harman Center for the Arts.
— Recording Industry Association of America’s ball for Feeding America.
— BET’s Inaugural Ball at the Mandarin Oriental Hotel.
— Africa on the Potomac inaugural celebration at Crystal Gateway Marriott in Arlington, Va.
— American Music Inaugural Ball at the Marriott Wardman Park Hotel.
— Inaugural Purple Ball at the Fairmont Hotel.
— Human Rights Campaign’s Equality Ball at the Renaissance Mayflower Hotel.
— Inaugural Peace Ball at the Smithsonian National Postal Museum.
— Impact Film Fund ball.
Mr. Wolf from Blackfive sends along this link to which Inaugural Balls Obama actually attended last night.
Source
Blackfive, which I read occasionally for military pieces, confirmed that President Obama did not come to the inaugural ball. So I became curious because the only two sources were two blogs and one source that consisted of initials. Therefore, I did what any rational person would do: I contacted the American Legion to get the straight story from the people who would know. I was put in contact with a very pleasant gentleman named Craig Roberts who is the American Legion's Media Relations Manager and after our conversation he e-mailed me this statement which I will include in its entirety:
In answer to your inquiry:
The American Legion, as it has on every inauguration evening since 1953, hosted the Salute to Heroes Inaugural Banquet & Ball on January 20th. The quadrennial event is co-sponsored with fourteen veterans service and military service organizations and honors recipients of the Medal of Honor. Forty-seven of these heroes attended this year’s event which was held in the Renaissance Washington DC Hotel.
President Obama was invited but did not attend. Vice-President Joe Biden did appear, however, and was very warmly received. The new President’s absence was understandable considering the unprecedented logistical challenges presented by the vastly increased number of visitors to this inauguration and the necessary attendant security measures. The American Legion, as an organization, does not feel offended or “snubbed.”
Thank you,
Craig Roberts
Media Relations Manager
The American Legion
1608 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006
202.263.2982 (direct)
First of all, I would like to thank Mr. Roberts for taking my call and taking the time to compose this statement so that I can share it on behalf of the American Legion. So to those fellow Obama supporters that think this ball did not happen, it did. It was omitted from the media outlets it was omitted from because of logistical challenges due to the extraordinary number of people that flooded Washington D.C. to see Barack Obama be inaugurated as the 44th president and it is not yet on the American Legion's website (as I type this at 8:30 A.M. on 1-23-09) because of some difficulties in updating the website. However, there will be media coverage of the event forthcoming.
I have found out also that the likely reason that Barack Obama attended the auxiliary balls that he did is because six of the balls that he attended were held in the same building. Therefore, attending those balls and the others that he attended were the most efficient with regards to security. It is no secret that President Obama has had questions surrounding his security, that is evident by observing that he was the earliest presidential candidate ever to get a security detail. If the Secret Service felt it prudent to guard him so early in the campaign can the reader imagine what the Secret Service feels is prudent now that he is the President of the United States?
The most likely reason that President Obama did not go to the "Salute to Heroes" inaugural ball is because it was held in the Renaissance Hotel which consists of 16 floors. There was an event called the "Illinois Party - Presidential Event" held at the Renaissance the night before that the then-President-elect did not attend either (I have a call in to the President's press office asking for confirmation of this information which was given to me by one of my sources for this story). Given the amount of time and resources it would have taken to clear a 16 floor hotel as well as protect it while President Obama was inside, I can only guess that he was advised by his Presidential Protection Detail not to attend either inaugural ball because of the building and the inherent problems in securing and then protecting it. The sheer number of people crowding the streets and staying in the hotel surely presented a formidable screening problem as well. But, there's your story... it's not as sexy as "Barack Obama Hates The Military" but it is the truth as best I can tell after talking to the organization responsible for hosting the event and doing some research and educated guesswork about why a security team wouldn't want to protect a principal in the Renaissance with more than 2 million extra people in Washington D.C.
Update: It would appear that, according to Stars & Stripes that Obama had some Medal of Honor recipients at an inaugural ball that he attended. This gives the number of living Medal of Honor recipients as 99, but I believe that two have passed away since that number was compiled leaving 97. There are 7 in this picture and there were 47 at the American Legion inaugural event. I'm curious if there were more at the event this photo was taken at.
Further update: I received an e-mail from Mr. Roberts today (which I would have gotten yesterday if I had not miscommunicated my e-mail address to him) with his original statement along with a new statement. I will include both statements in their entirety:
My statement on behalf of our National Adjutant, Dan Wheeler:
"The American Legion, as it has on every inauguration evening since 1953, hosted the Salute to Heroes Inaugural Banquet & Ball on January 20th . The quadrennial event is co-sponsored by fourteen veterans service and military service organizations and honors recipients of the Medal of Honor. Forty-seven of these heroes attended this year's event. President Obama was invited but did not attend. Vice-President Joe Biden did appear, however, and was very warmly received. From The American Legion's point of view, the new President's absence was understandable considering the unprecedented logistical challenges presented by the vastly increased number of visitors to this inauguration and the necessary attendant security measures. The National Adjutant of The American Legion states that, as an organization, The Legion does not feel offended or "snubbed" by the President's failure to appear."
Mr. Wheeler's message as of noon today (January 26):
"We extended an invitation as we always do. There are numerous Balls and we know he can't attend them all. Of course, we would have loved for him to make an appearance, but he didn't. It's a logisticalnightmare. He did meet with the troops at the Commander In Chief's Ball, and we are grateful for that. Our Ball wasn't about the President; it was about the Medal of Honor recipients and the veterans and families who were there. We are grateful that the Vice President appeared, and our guests were very appreciative.
"That having been said, there are much more important issues to dwell on, which we intend to do. We look forward to working with the new administration on ensuring full and guaranteed funding for VA health care services, and the very best treatment for our service people who have been wounded, and on the quality of life of all members of the Armed Forces and their families, as well as the maintenance of a national security force that will deter any enemy from considering an attack on America."
Michelle Malkin has it right.."no honor among thieves" and
x
Two Border State Governors Declare Illegal Immigration State of Emergency
Two Border State Governors Declare Illegal Immigration State of Emergency
SIGN THE PETITION!
CLICK HERE!
THANK YOU!
The money from employees and their families...
is called "bundling." Lobbyists use "bundling" to get around finance limits.
The donkey in the room here, that you seem content to ignore, is that the Democrats, including Barack Obama, created this mess. They had a chance to stop it in 2005-2006 and did not. That is a fact. McCain tried to get legislation passed, they balked. If they did not do it for mnoney, I don't know why they did it...but the fact is, they did it, and WE are left holding the bag. And now, when Obama has a chance to help fix it, he is refusing again. Said "call me if you need me." Well I want a President I don't have to call. I expect when he is "multitasking" that he prioritizes, and the looming economic failure and the $700 billion it is going to take to get us out of it, is more important than a debate. What difference does 3 days make in the face of that?
Would you like the employees to work for free?
The union already made major concessions in their contract whereas new hires make 50% of what longer term employees make plus they do not receive the same benefits. I don't know it to be fact but I expect they have already got rid of a lot of the higher paid workers and replaced them with lower cost new hires. Sorta like what has been going on in the MT industry!!!! They'll probably end up filing bankruptcy, using that to void the union contracts and workers will probably be paid $10 an hour with no benefits...if they're lucky. Of course they'll likely get rid of all union workers as they won't want any union organizers around to rock their corporate boat.
It makes me angry to hear supposedly American worker brothers and sisters trying to lay the blame at the feet of the workers. Complaining about workers pay while not mentioning a word about the corporate jets that flew these A-hole CEOs to Washington to beg for money is sort of like, as one person said, "going to a soup kitchen in a tuxedo." Makes me furious.
Who do you think hires employees? It AINT the
nm
You can have our federal money along with a new state motto: "Michigan - The Slave State". n
NM
Not the worst...Jimmy Carter holds that dubious honor....
Mr. Democat Jimmy Carter. Check out the economy while he was in office...and what Obama is doing will make that look like a walk in the park. Oh, but the rest of the world will love us....LOL. Ya kill me. LOL.
10 federal employees and 1 w/ criminal charges
over improper relationships between interior dept officials who oversee offshore drilling and oil executives...............Big oil? Offshore drilling? Run afoul of the law?Nahhhhh
Bush memo instructs officials: "Say I had honor and dignity."
I don't know whether to laugh or cry at this! "Honor" and "dignity" are NOT words that would come to mind to describe Bush.
What is INCREDIBLE to me is that Bush's "memoir," "A Charge to Keep" is referenced here. The original ghostwriter (and long-time Bush family friend) for that memoir was fired and his reputation tarnished (in usual Bush fashion) because Bush talked TOO much during his interviews with the writer, including how he wanted to invade Iraq back in 1999 -- 2 years before 9/11. I've posted that link on here before, but here it is again:
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/20050620/why_george_went_to_war.php
For Bush's staff, upbeat talking points on his tenure
Administration officials get a memo from the White House suggesting what to say about the last eight years: President Bush upheld 'the honor and the dignity of his office,' for one.
By Peter Nicholas
December 9, 2008
Reporting from Washington -- In case any Bush administration officials have trouble summing up the boss' record, the White House is providing a few helpful suggestions.
A two-page memo that has been sent to Cabinet members and other high-ranking officials offers a guide for discussing Bush's eight-year tenure during their public speeches.
Titled "Speech Topper on the Bush Record," the talking points state that Bush "kept the American people safe" after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, lifted the economy after 2001 through tax cuts, curbed AIDS in Africa and maintained "the honor and the dignity of his office."
The document presents the Bush record as an unalloyed success.
It mentions none of the episodes that detractors say have marred his presidency: the collapse of the housing market and major financial services companies, the flawed intelligence in the run-up to the Iraq war, the federal response to Hurricane Katrina or the abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib.
In a section on the economy, speakers are invited to say that Bush cut taxes after 2001, setting the stage for years of job growth.
As for the current economic crisis, the memo says that Bush "responded with bold measures to prevent an economic meltdown."
The document is otherwise silent on the recession, which claimed 533,000 jobs in November, the highest number in 34 years.
A copy of the memo was obtained by The Times' Washington bureau. A spokesman for Bush said Monday that the White House routinely sends out suggestions to officials and allies on ways to talk about the administration's record.
"What we have in mind with these documents is we feel the president's many accomplishments haven't been given the attention they deserve and in some cases have been purposely ignored," said Carlton Carroll, a White House spokesman.
No one is required to recite the talking points laid out by the White House, Carroll said.
The memo closes with a reference to Bush's 1999 memoir, "A Charge to Keep":
"Above all, George W. Bush promised to uphold the honor and the dignity of his office. And through all the challenges and trials of his time in office, that is a charge that our president has kept."
One accomplishment cited is passage of the No Child Left Behind law, Bush's attempt to improve education. "He promised to raise standards and accountability in public schools -- and delivered the No Child Left Behind Act," the talking points read.
On the presidential campaign trail this year, Democratic candidates found that any criticism of No Child Left Behind was a surefire applause line.
President-elect Barack Obama promised to revamp the program, contending that it elevated test-taking at the expense of a well-rounded education.
Nicholas is a writer in our Washington bureau.
peter.nicholas@latimes.com
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/washingtondc/la-na-bush9-2008dec09,0,4145069.story
Not in time for Chrysler, its employees, downstream businesses
x
AIG Employees Starting to Give Back Bonuses
WASHINGTON -- The chief executive officer of failed insurance conglomerate AIG told lawmakers Wednesday that he has asked executives to give back at least half of their bonuses.
Edward Libby, chairman and CEO of the American International Group, said that some workers there already have volunteered to return the money.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/18/aig-chairman-faces-congressional-grilling-bonuses/
Laws vary state-to-state
Many people were confined against their will just because someone wanted them "out of the way." These were normal people with no mental illness - that is why it is so difficult - don't blame the liberals. Blame your state.
CONFINING THE MENTALLY ILL
In the legal space between what a society should and should not do, taking action to restrict the liberty of people who are mentally ill sits in the grayest of gray areas.
Our notions about civil and constitutional rights flow from an assumption of "normalcy." Step beyond the boundaries and arrest and prison may legally follow. Short of that, government's ability to hold people against their will is severely and properly limited. Unusual behavior on the part of someone who is mentally ill is not illegal behavior. Freedom can't be snatched away on a whim, or on the thought that a person is hard to look at, hard to hear, hard to smell.
It was only a few decades ago that the promise of new medications and a change in attitude opened the doors of the mental hospitals and sent many patients into society. There, they would somehow "normalize" and join everyone else, supported by networks of out-patient facilities, job training, special living arrangements and regular, appropriate medication. But the transition has been imperfect, long and difficult.
In some parts of urban America there is little professional support for those with mental health problems. A new generation of drug and alcohol-fueled mental illness has come on the scene. People frequently end up on the street, un-medicated and exhibiting a full range of behaviors that are discomforting at the very least and threatening at their worst.
Red state, blue state?
Written last Thanksgiving: "Some would argue that two different nations actually celebrated: upright, moral, traditional red America and the dissolute, liberal blue states clustered on the periphery of the heartland. The truth, however, is much more complicated and interesting than that.
Take two iconic states: Texas and Massachusetts. In some ways, they were the two states competing in the last election. In the world's imagination, you couldn't have two starker opposites. One is the homeplace of Harvard, gay marriage, high taxes, and social permissiveness. The other is Bush country, solidly Republican, traditional, and gun-toting. Massachusetts voted for Kerry over Bush 62 to 37 percent; Texas voted for Bush over Kerry 61 to 38 percent.
So ask yourself a simple question: which state has the highest divorce rate? Marriage was a key issue in the last election, with Massachusetts' gay marriages becoming a symbol of alleged blue state decadence and moral decay. But in actual fact, Massachusetts has the lowest divorce rate in the country at 2.4 divorces per 1,000 inhabitants. Texas - which until recently made private gay sex a criminal offence - has a divorce rate of 4.1. A fluke? Not at all. The states with the highest divorce rates in the U.S. are Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Texas. And the states with the lowest divorce rates are: Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont. Every single one of the high divorce rate states went for Bush. Every single one of the low divorce rate states went for Kerry. The Bible Belt divorce rate, in fact, is roughly 50 percent higher than the national average.
Some of this discrepancy can be accounted for by the fact that couples tend to marry younger in the Bible Belt - and many clearly don't have the maturity to know what they're getting into. There's some correlation too between rates of college education and stable marriages, with the Bible Belt lagging a highly educated state like Massachusetts. But the irony still holds. Those parts of America that most fiercely uphold what they believe are traditional values are not those parts where traditional values are healthiest. Hypocrisy? Perhaps. A more insightful explanation is that these socially troubled communities cling onto absolutes in the abstract because they cannot live up to them in practice.
But doesn't being born again help bring down divorce rates? Jesus, after all, was mum on the subject of homosexuality, but was very clear about divorce, declaring it a sin unless adultery was involved. A recent study, however, found no measurable difference in divorce rates between those who are "born again" and those who are not. 29 percent of Baptists have been divorced, compared to 21 percent of Catholics. Moreover, a staggering 23 percent of married born-agains have been divorced twice or more. Teen births? Again, the contrast is striking. In a state like Texas, where the religious right is extremely strong and the rhetoric against teenage sex is gale-force strong, the teen births as a percentage of all births is 16.1 percent. In liberal, secular, gay-friendly Massachusetts, it's 7.4, almost half. Marriage itself is less popular in Texas than in Massachusetts. In Texas, the percent of people unmarried is 32.4 percent; in Massachusetts, it's 26.8 percent. So even with a higher marriage rate, Massachusetts manages a divorce rate almost half of its "conservative" rival.
Or take abortion. America is one of the few Western countries where the legality of abortion is still ferociously disputed. It's a country where the religious right is arguably the strongest single voting bloc, and in which abortion is a constant feature of cultural politics. Compare it to a country like Holland, perhaps the epitome of socially liberal, relativist liberalism. So which country has the highest rate of abortion? It's not even close. America has an abortion rate of 21 abortions per 1,000 women aged between 15 and 44. Holland has a rate of 6.8. Americans, in other words, have three times as many abortions as the Dutch. Remind me again: which country is the most socially conservative?
Even a cursory look at the leading members of the forces of social conservatism in America reveals the same pattern. The top conservative talk-radio host, Rush Limbaugh, has had three divorces and an addiction to pain-killers. The most popular conservative television personality, Bill O'Reilly, just settled a sex harassment suit that indicated a highly active adulterous sex life. Bill Bennett, the guru of the social right, was for many years a gambling addict. Karl Rove's chief outreach manager to conservative Catholics for the last four years, Deal Hudson, also turned out to be a man with a history of sexual harassment. Bob Barr, the conservative Georgian congressman who wrote the "Defense of Marriage Act," has had three wives so far. The states which register the highest ratings for the hot new television show, "Desperate Housewives," are all Bush-states.
The complicated truth is that America truly is a divided and conflicted country. But it's a grotesque exaggeration to say that the split is geographical, or correlated with blue and red states. Many of America's biggest "sinners" are those most intent on upholding virtue. In fact, it may be partly because they know sin so close-up that they want to prevent its occurrence among others. And some of those states which have the most liberal legal climate - the Northeast and parts of the upper MidWest - are also, in practice, among the most socially conservative. To ascribe all this to "hypocrisy" seems to me too crude an explanation. America is simply a far more complicated and diverse place than crude red and blue divisions can explain.
I don't know what state you live in but in my state
they are adding police and only in the big cities do they have paid firemen. The rest are volunteers.
I look at it this way: If a state can't stay in the black, then they have to cut spending some place that wouldn't jeopardize the safety of the citizens. Threats of cutting essential services like Barney Fife stated today are unjustified. Cut the non-essential services first.
Our governor talks about cutting back on services, laying off government workers, which I think is a good idea because government is too big anyway, but then he turns around and spends more money on non-essential items. Doesn't make sense.
80% x 683,478(Alaska) = 546,782 / 300,000,000(US) =
Obviously, in the grand scheme of things, maybe there are a lot of Americans who do agree.
Alaska..
Incumbent republican Senator Stevens. Convicted of 7 counts. He hasn't won yet, but the last I heard had about a 2-3 point lead. Below is a link for the whole story. Pretty much all news stations are saying the same thing.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/06/us/politics/06alaska.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
The really bad thing about this is that they are waiting for counts from early voting and absentee votes, both of which may have been cast before his conviction. We may yet see another first in history.
Drilling in Alaska?
Whats up with liberals making a huge deal about Bush going to Iraq for oil and then they complain about Bush wanting to drill in Alaska.
Doesn't that controdict itself??!!
drilling in Alaska
They just want to argue with everything. Doesn't matter if nothing gets done, in fact, that is probably what they are trying to do, so they can say the Bush Whitehouse didn't do a thing. They (liberals) block everything, or try to, just because.
Truth about oil in Alaska
The facts below have been corroborated in many studies:
1. Will drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge do anything to solve our current gasoline and heating oil supply problems and reduce prices?
No. Most experts predict that oil production from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge could not begin for 7 - 12 years and the Congressional Research Service estimates it would take at least 15 years. A new study by the US Energy Information Agency (March 2004) entitled Analysis of Oil and Gas Production in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge shows that even if oil were being pumped today, it would only reduce our oil imports from about 70% to about 66%, having no real effect on overall prices or supply.
2. Are estimated oil supplies in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge expected to significantly change our long term energy prospects?
No. It is estimated that the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge contains no more than a six month supply of oil at our current consumption rates.
3. Given the current war against terrorism, shouldn’t we do absolutely everything we can to maximize our oil supply to be self sufficient?
No, it's not possible to be self sufficient given the amount of oil we consume as a nation. We use more oil than we could ever find domestically, even if we were to drill on all public lands, in all of our national parks and monuments, national forests, etc. The United States uses 25% to 30% of all of the oil produced in the world, yet we only have less than 3% of known oil reserves. These numbers are well known. The amount we could recover from the Arctic Refuge is literally a drop in the bucket by comparison. Also, any oil that is produced, regardless of its source, is bought and sold on the world market. That's how major commodities like this work. Even now, oil from Prudhoe Bay, Alaska, often is exported to Asia. The only way to really enhance national security is to develop alternatives that reduce oil consuption. Our current usage as well as archaic public policy that encourages more oil development and consumption is actually what puts our nation at risk. And why destroy a unique treasure for something that will make no difference in our reliance on foreign oil?
is cindy from alaska?
x
Residents of Alaska
last night on CNN said she was absolutely vicious to those who opposed her or believed differently and was very vindicative. Come on Joe, bring this personality trait to light in the debates.
80% x 683,424 (Alaska) = 54,7892 / 300,000,000 (US) =
nm
I have family in Alaska and they
think very highly of S. Palin. FYI, people don't like her JUST because she is likeable. She's smart, courageous, well-grounded with good morals for starters. She doesn't flip-flop to appease the public (like Obama/now for drilling), and she is NOT self-serving (gave up her plane, personal chef, etc etc that came with the job). She is and has been SERVING THE PEOPLE, not playing politics; McCain has the same history, and together they ARE the party of change. p.s. when was the last time Obama had any part in giving money BACK TO THE PEOPLE like Palin did in Alaska? Look at the facts. You have 2 track records of standing up for the people on the McCain/Palin ticket and pretty talk along with old party politics on the Obama/Biden side. It really scares me to think of Obama winning, with his demonstrated lack of judgment and lack of record, poor associations, etc. p.s., if there is a revolution/take-over of the USA it could only be under Obama. notice too, that now his future position in the white house is challenged, he keeps changing his tune to sound more middle-ground. He's a wolf in sheep's clothing; beware.
Blacks in Alaska.......
Well, I have several long-time very close friends who have lived in Alaska for 28+ years. My best friend married a native Alaskan. That conversation did come up one time and you know what her husband told me (this is a man who worked on the north slope for dozens of years). He said the blacks in Alaska are some of the most hard working people he has ever met. Blacks and whites work alongside one another on the slope and other hard jobs. He said many blacks came to Alaska to get higher paying jobs. The comments he would hear would be how they detested their black relatives/friends who sat on their butts and took government (taxpayer)handouts and used their color as an excuse not to better themselves. Their children all went to school together, played together, and helped one another. He also told us that a close friend of his who was from black/Alaskan heritage had told him he couldn't understand with all the advantages his generation and those still to come have, why they don't take advantage of them and why they continue to kill one another in gangs and spend so much time hating one another and "whites", blaming whites for all their problems. Now, this comes from a black man in Alaska. He said many of his friends came up after he suggested they could find higher paying jobs. They were hard working people who just wanted a better life and they refused to raise their children thinking they had to have handouts and they didn't want them "around" other blacks who were drug pushing and calling each other the "n" word in their schools. It wasn't the Republican whites they were trying to get away from. By the way, he thought social programs were a joke!! He felt social programs were one of the biggest problems in black society and that they encouraged handouts and free rides without offering a solution.
I have several black neighbors and we are in the south, that will not hesitate to tell you they "hate" social programs, they are sick and tired of paying for them, and suggest those that like them so much be the only ones who pay for them. They are hard working people like us who want to actually keep their money. One couple put two of their daughters through medical school without a single social program in their lives. They detest being taxed to pay for all these social programs when we can see in our own communities they are just unjustified, just throwing more money into a big pit.
Now, I'm not sure where you get your info from, but all republicans are not white...matter of fact the above mentioned blacks vote republican and think the democrats are the problem for the plight of the black man. Keep giving them handouts and making them believe they "need" help, can't do without the government, can't make their own decisions, and you will have nothing but a welfare state before long.
Rich republicans don't pay taxes? Who in the h*ll do you think pay for all those social programs now.....you? The 1% of rich republicans as you put it are the ones in the highest tax brackets, pay the most taxes, and fund the greatest majority of your social programs. Taxation is relevant to your income, not your political party. You make more, you pay more in taxes. How do you think they made more money....it fell from the skies? Yes, there are those who inherit a lot of money and have done nothing to deserve it (even though those they inherited it from worked their butts off for it), but in a free country, they are free to inherit it if it is given to them. I don't feel negative towards them for that. And there are those who have made fortunes from hard work, not coming home at 5, and have pretty much given up any life of their own to succeed to the level they feel they want to be. You say rich like it's a bad word. Should we fault people for being hard working and succeeding financially in life and making more than us? I know people who have lots of money and they have sacrificed a LOT to get there.
I feel pretty certain if you had lots of money you would certainly lavish it on your children. That would be your right. And you probably wouldn't want it taken from you to give to everyone else when you can make the decision to donate/give as you see fit.
Our government, however, feels they have the right to have death taxes, which by the way, Whoopie Goldberg, detests and thinks that is wrong (she's black and rich)and why does she think that's wrong? Because she wants to give her wealth to her family when she dies and that's how it should be, without government interference. They have no right to take it....they didn't make it. I don't hear her jumping on the bandwagon saying TAKE MY MONEY, PLEASE, and give it to anyone you want and pay for hundreds of social programs with it. After all, she made it and should give to those as she sees fit, not as our government sees fit. Matter of fact, I don't hear any rich blacks screaming take my money. I hear some of them backing Obama and say they believe in what he wants for this country, but they just don't want to pay for what he wants. Make up your mind...can't have it both ways!
You sure are an expert on Alaska!
()
Please see the post below from the Alaska...
Fish and Game site. No one is shooting wolves for the fun of it, and I have seen nothing to indicate that she personally participates on a regular basis. As to giving a hoot for the peoples' well being, 85% of Alaskans disagree with you, as do I.
If Alaska ceceded from the US, and
I know what Sarah would say: 'I saw the Russian tanks approaching from my house!'
hahahahahahahahahahaha
Then why is she hated in Alaska?
.
She has an 80% approval rating in Alaska...
to me that indicates that the voters who put her there are very happy they put her there. THat includes Democrats, Republicans, and Independents.
The man was corrupt. She got rid of corruption. Most Presidents when they go into the job, as well as most governors, "clean house" when they go into office, whether they are corrupt or not. You act like that is something that is "not done." Good grief.
My bias is showing? Now THAT is rich. LOL.
Okay...first, what an elitist comment. A tiny Alaska community? Those people don't count? Well you certainly relegated them to the back back back burner didn't you? Tell me again how important the "little" people are! She has 12 months of actual executive experience. Obama has none. She is going to be second chair, not first. She has an 80% approval rating...Obama never HAS had that, except from NARAL, who gave him 100%. I would say that her constituents are happier with her than Obama's were with him.
I think she is ready for the "big boys." Let's see how she does in the debates with Biden.
Why is it that Democrats laud democratic whistleblowers and diss Republican ones??
Unless McCain dies or incapacitated, she won't be getting that 3:00 call. But since you brought it up...this little person has a question about that 3:00 call. Is Obama going to call Joe Biden on the other line???
She is governor of Alaska. Oil and Gas is a big part of...
that state's economy. She said the science presented that the polar bears were in danger was faulty. I cannot say, because I have not seen the study. The only things about this I have seen is on environmental sites. I would like to see something less slanted. She is also for alternative forms of energy, but she is a realist. It is going to take a long time for that to be a viable option. Yes, we should work on it. But in the mean time, we need to drill here and drill now. That is the road to getting off foreign oil. I think anyone's energy plan has to include that.
Yes, she is pro life. And she believes that abortion in any case is wrong. I believe that also. We are entitled to that opinion. Yes, the morning after pill is issued to all women who report a rape. Women who do not report a rape can obtain it a health departments, hospitals, and from a physician. As far as incest...I still believe abortion is wrong; however, an abortion law with those exclusions, and add the exclusion to save the life of the mother, would save many thousands of babies every year. This country aborts in excess of 1.2 million babies every year. We could save over 80% of those babies if we had a law like that, instead of an abortion on demand oops law. Just because she is pro life in all cases does not mean she would not be a good VP...and the law will never be changed unless the supreme court overturns its decision on Roe v. Wade. As VP she would have no input into that...even McCain as pres has no input other than appointing judges, and those judges have to get past the Congress.
Just my opinion...so you know where conservative persons stand on it.
You post something like that and call Alaska
skanky? Hmmm.
She has an 80% approval rating in Alaska...
so obviously "most" of the people in Alaska do not agree.
lol....you act like Alaska is at the ends of the earth....
and they are "poor Alaskans." I think they have all incomes levels. Hey...a few thousand dollars is a lot of money to ME. lol.
Anyway...the amount of land drilled on in Alaska is extremely small in contrast to the size of the state. Proposed drilling in ANWR encompasses about 2000 acres at the most far north part of Alaska. ANWR in total is 19 MILLION acres.
Hoping she gets to go back to Alaska
Nov. 4 so that she can keep getting her tans....or therapy for depression, whichever.
Women of Alaska - another view.
http://bigshow.bigfolio.com/?s=000011662&t=0e6a8ae03101be65098418ccb735e4a1
Definitely worth the watch
Well, there are liberal women in Alaska....
no kiddin! Geez. They borrowed the signs from the lower 48; heck, they may BE from the lower 48. Did anybody really think there were not liberal Democratic women in Alaska? This is news?
I too have close friends in Alaska and they
@@
Did you see the big rally against Palin in Alaska? sm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNlcYaEOLRM
Regarding Alaska...I would suggest you read up on....sm
The Alaska Permanent Fund
http://www.apfc.org/home/Content/permFund/aboutPermFund.cfm
Are you taking about Stevens in Alaska?
Their thought is if he's voted in and goes to prison, they'll be able to hold a special election and put someone else in or something like that.
I thought it was ridiculous.
So, the 2 million dollars went back to Alaska.
nm
Gonna go to Alaska if McPain wins and
let a polar bear have me as his last meal.....
|
