SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Hope Praytochange who wrote (48837)2/6/2012 2:29:30 PM
From: Peter Dierks  Respond to of 71588
 
Reimagining Speaker Pelosi
John Boehner realizes, if many Republicans don't, that retaining the House is no sure thing
By KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL
FEBRUARY 2, 2012, 6:31 P.M. ET.

Conservatives are by nature optimists. They are intensely focused on retaking the White House and the Senate. But what if, in that optimism, they are missing a growing threat?

That threat is to the House of Representatives. Republicans claimed a sweeping victory there in 2010, a win that stopped President Obama's marauding legislative agenda. Yet that has led to a certain Republican nonchalance about the House in 2012.

What the optimists are missing is that the House remains the linchpin of all their future ambitions. A Republican presidency will mean little with Speaker Nancy Pelosi redux. Mr. Obama may well win re-election. What leverage will a Republican-run Senate have in the face of that, and a Democratic House? Or consider the possibility that Republicans botch both the Oval Office and the Senate.

True, the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC), under Texas Rep. Pete Sessions, is aware of the challenge and is energetically fund-raising and recruiting. True, the party is already coaching its newer members about the rigors of re-election. And true, John Boehner and Eric Cantor are going all out to collect money for their members. The speaker alone raised some $46 million in 2011—nearly double his take for the entire last election cycle.

What Messrs. Boehner and Cantor know is that they'll need all this, and more. The House is no sure thing.

For all the Republican wins in 2010, Mr. Boehner presides over a modest 25-seat majority. Redistricting has not turned out to be the giant boon some Republicans thought it might be, and the party is playing to beat about 20 sitting Democrats and to win about a half-dozen open seats. But here's the number that counts: An estimated 55 Republican seats are competitive—i.e., at risk—this year.

That includes many of the 89 freshmen who washed into the House in 2010. Those new members bring high enthusiasm, but over the past 30 years parties have lost on average 10% of their rookies in their first re-election effort. If Mr. Boehner bats the average, he's nine down at the start.

Then there's the map. All the talk is of super PACs and the money they will bring to the Republican cause. Yet those groups are looking to spend their dollars efficiently. Most are targeting the 16 states where the presidential race will be competitive, with a special focus on those with key Senate races.

Reince Priebus, the new chairman of the Republican National Committee, has done a remarkable job of rebuilding an outfit left in tatters by his predecessor. Yet he began with a mountain of debt, and what money he has raised will first go to a tight presidential race, including his get-out-the-vote effort. The eventual Republican nominee will not be spending a penny in states where he has no chance of victory—say, Illinois or California or New York.

That leaves a whopping stretch of land with no broad conservative ground game. By some estimates, House Republicans are playing for some three dozen races in these "orphan states." How much might this matter? Consider New York, which in 2010 was a case study in lost opportunity. House Republicans lost three crucial House races by a total of just 12,000 votes.

Nor should Republicans be lulled by reports of conservative enthusiasm. Democrats have their own enthusiasm, and it is disproportionately centered on the House.

All those liberals who are angry with Barack Obama have rechanneled their energy into putting the gavel back in the hands of their hero, Nancy Pelosi. That's why the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee out-raised its Republican counterpart by $7 million last year. And Mr. Obama will swell voter turnout. Republican seats that are safe in a midterm are not in a presidential election.

Conservatives have made the mistake of overlooking the House before—and recently. The 2010 election was long focused almost exclusively on flashy Senate races. It wasn't until the summer that the party realized the House potential and the money men scrambled to donate to campaigns. Had those dollars been directed to the House earlier in the year, for vital projects like voter registration, Mr. Boehner's victory would have been more impressive and provided more room for error today.

The super PAC and voter focus on big Senate races has helped deny money for the House this year too. Many House members who are in safe districts—those who might be counted on to transfer cash to the NRCC now—remain so nervous that the Club for Growth will whack them with a primary challenge that they are sitting on their own dollars.

There are plenty of reasons to remain optimistic about a GOP House. Then again, seats are not won on optimism alone. That takes planning. If conservatives really do want to reverse the Obama agenda, they'll start looking at the House as priority, not afterthought.

Write to kim@wsj.com

online.wsj.com



To: Hope Praytochange who wrote (48837)2/28/2012 9:20:56 AM
From: Peter Dierks  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 71588
 
Iran Is Becoming Election Wild Card
By GERALD F. SEIB
FEBRUARY 28, 2012.

The calendar says the next big events in the presidential campaign are primaries Tuesday in Michigan and Arizona, followed by the Super Tuesday contests in 10 states a week later.

Which is true enough. But here are some equally important political markers just ahead: the arrival of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Washington next week; his crucial meeting with President Barack Obama, where Iran's nuclear program will be the prime topic of discussion; the American Israel Public Affairs Committee conference starting next weekend, at which the president and some of his Republican foes will speak; and a possible springtime meeting between Iran and world powers to discuss its nuclear program.

As that suggests, Iran and its nuclear intentions are rapidly emerging as the ultimate wild card in this year's presidential race.

Obama campaign aides probably worry more about an Iranian-induced economic crisis than any other potential threat to their re-election strategy. Tensions with Iran already are contributing to a march of gasoline prices toward $4 a gallon, which have become a cudgel in the hands of Republicans critiquing Obama energy policies.

Meanwhile, the Republican presidential candidates—with the notable exception of Rep. Ron Paul—have made getting tougher with Iran their principal point of departure from Obama foreign policy.


The Republican critique of the president on this issue is almost certainly off base in one regard. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney at the last debate declared that "this president should have placed crippling sanctions against Iran. He did not." Actually, the U.S. has succeeded well beyond most expectations in ratcheting up international economic sanctions, including a European Union embargo against Iranian oil, which would have been unthinkable a couple of years ago. Most analysts agree the sanctions are inflicting pain.

The question is, to what end?

The answer figures to become clearer in coming weeks. The flurry of activity will determine whether there will be a new round of international diplomacy with Tehran, and whether Messrs. Obama and Netanyahu, whose relations are famously tense, can agree on the threat of military action against Iran.

The Iranians are sending their usual wildly mixed signals. They rebuffed United Nations inspectors trying to visit a facility last week that might be used to develop atomic weapons. Meantime, the International Atomic Energy Agency reported that Iran has stepped up its production of a purer form of enriched uranium closer to weapons grade at a fortified mountain site.

But the Iranians also sent a message to the West sounding eager to talk about their nuclear program. U.S. officials say a letter sent tothe European Union's foreign-policy chief represents one of the least equivocal offers to negotiate Iran has ever made—a declaration that it is ready to talk with the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council plus Germany, the group the outside world has designated to handle talks.


So are Iranians feeling the pressure, or feeling their oats? The answer is never clear. Obama administration officials see the letter as a sign that Iran is feeling the strain of sustained economic pressure, and they suspect the recent bluster may be designed to create the impression that Tehran is entering a new round of diplomacy from a position of strength rather than weakness.

On the other hand, administration aides are painfully aware of the Iranian ability to play the world for time.

Allies who have been surprisingly cooperative in economic sanctions likely will insist on trying the diplomatic track as their price for continued cooperation on sanctions. "When we eschew dialogue, our international partners find pretexts to eschew pressure," says Karim Sadjadpour, an Iran analyst at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

But entering talks opens up Mr. Obama to charges he's allowing Iranians to use diplomacy to distract attention from their march toward nuclear-weapons capability.

One thing that would be nice is if the relevant players—Mr. Netanyahu, Mr. Obama and his Republican foes—could figure out a way to emerge from the coming talks with a signal to Iran that they stand together and won't allow Tehran to play them off, one against another.

Write to Gerald F. Seib at jerry.seib@wsj.com

online.wsj.com



To: Hope Praytochange who wrote (48837)3/6/2012 9:18:19 AM
From: Peter Dierks  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 71588
 
Holder, Blago, Richardson: Triangle of Sleaze
A rough week for the Obama administration’s corruptocracy.
By Michelle Malkin
December 9, 2011 12:00 A.M.

It was a rough week for the corruptocracy. White House officials better ho-ho-hold on tight because the sleigh ride isn’t going to get any smoother.

On Wednesday, disgraced former governor Rod Blagojevich (D., Ill.) received a 14-year prison sentence for scheming to sell Pres. Barack Obama’s Senate seat, along with several other pay-to-play schemes. Blago played the distressed daddy for the federal judge, invoking his young daughters and wife (who held her notoriously foul tongue in check) to bemoan how his “life is in ruins.”

How far Blago’s fallen from the glory days of 2008, when he was gloating at the prospect of naming a candidate to fill then-President-elect Obama’s seat. “I’ve got this thing, and it’s f**king golden,” he crowed. All that glitters now, though, are the paparazzi flash bulbs that Blago faces on his perp walks.

Earlier this week, Bill Richardson, former Democratic governor of New Mexico, disgraced former presidential candidate, and failed Obama Commerce Secretary nominee, faced new reports of a federal grand jury looking into his possible violations of campaign-finance laws. The funny-money business is tied to an alleged mistress payoff a la disgraced former presidential candidate and senator John Edwards (D., N.C.).

Additionally, the Wall Street Journal reports, investigators are probing how “Richardson’s close allies steered more than $2 billion of public money into investment funds run by money managers who in turn agreed to pay millions of dollars in consulting fees to high-profile Democratic fundraisers and other supporters of Richardson.”

The star that joined together this little constellation of sleaze? Disgraced U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder.

Holder and Blago go way back. Holder himself suffered selective amnesia about the relationship during his confirmation hearing. He somehow “forgot” to mention that Blagojevich had appointed him to probe corruption in Illinois casino-licensing decisions. State officials had objected to Blago’s crony appointment of fundraiser Christopher Kelly to the state gaming board. Kelly’s business partner was now-convicted felon and shakedown artist Tony Rezko, Obama’s former bagman and real-estate fixer.

Holder pocketed $300,000 from Blago to “investigate” and — surprise, surprise — concluded that no corruption existed. They stood shoulder to shoulder at a 2004 news conference to make the announcement. But Holder failed to disclose it on his Senate Judiciary Committee questionnaire, which he signed five days after Blagojevich’s arrest in December 2008 for putting Obama’s U.S. Senate seat up for sale.

After duping a Senate majority (including 19 Senate Republicans) into approving his AG nomination despite multiple admissions of failure, neglect, and sabotage of the rule of law, Holder moved up to perform more cover-ups for Obama’s pals. In August 2009, Holder’s DOJ announced it was dropping federal corruption charges against Richardson after a year-long federal probe into pay-to-play allegations involving one of his large political donors and state-bond deals.

“It’s over. There’s nothing. It was killed in Washington,” a source close to the investigation told the Associated Press. Even as they tapped Richardson to serve as Obama’s first Commerce Secretary, the White House transition team knew about Richardson’s pay-to-play scandal involving a California company, CDR Financial Products. FBI and federal prosecutors had launched their probe of CDR’s activities in New Mexico in the summer of 2008.

The feds had been digging into a nationwide web of favor-trading between financial firms and politicians overseeing local-government-bond markets. CDR was tied to a doomed bond deal in Alabama, which, according to Bloomberg News, threatened to cause the biggest municipal bankruptcy in U.S. history. CDR raked in nearly $1.5 million in fees from a New Mexico state financial agency after donating more than $100,000 to Richardson’s efforts to register Hispanic and Native American voters and to pay for expenses at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, the news service reported.

The state agency that awarded the money consisted of five Richardson appointees and five members of his gubernatorial cabinet. CDR made contributions both shortly before and after securing consultant work with the state of New Mexico. CDR’s president also contributed $29,000 to Obama’s presidential campaign. After Holder dropped the case, New Mexico Republicans blasted the lack of transparency in the decisions and the refusal to heed the advice of experienced, non-political prosecutors and FBI investigators.

Mother Jones writer James Ridgeway’s comment on the day of Richardson’s Commerce Secretary nomination withdrawal proved quite prescient: “It may be premature to say that Obama and his team have too high a tolerance for corruption. But this first self-destruct among his cabinet picks could well prove all the more damaging because it’s something they should have seen coming from miles away.”

The same applies, of course, to Holder himself — who admitted at a House hearing that the Operation Fast and Furious scandal under his watch was “flawed,” “reckless,” “tragic,” and “deadly.” How much longer will America tolerate this reign of error and terror?

— Michelle Malkin is the author of Culture of Corruption: Obama and His Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks & Cronies. © 2011 Creators Syndicate, Inc.

nationalreview.com



To: Hope Praytochange who wrote (48837)3/19/2012 10:51:10 PM
From: greatplains_guy  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 71588
 
Media Matters for America linked with anti-American, anti-Israel Al-Jazeera network
Published: 10:09 PM 03/18/2012
By Jamie Weinstein - The Daily Caller

Media Matters for America is linked with Al-Jazeera, the anti-American and anti-Israeli cable news channel, The Daily Caller has learned.

Media Matters Action Network senior foreign policy fellow MJ Rosenberg’s column for the liberal organization regularly appears on Al-Jazeera’s website and, in 2010, Rosenberg represented Media Matters at a forum hosted by Al-Jazeera in Doha, Qatar where he praised the news outlet as “mainstream.”

Media Matters Action Network is part of the organization’s political arm.

According to two Daily Caller sources, the then-director general of Al-Jazeera, Wadah Khanfar, also visited Media Matters’ offices in Washington in 2010 and met with the organization’s two top leaders, David Brock and Eric Burns.

Representing Media Matters at the first Al-Jazeera “Unplugged” forum on social media at the Sheraton Hotel & Resort in Doha on May 22, 2010, Rosenberg explained that Khanfar invited him to the forum during a meeting in Washington earlier that year.

In his stunning speech at the forum, Rosenberg praised Al-Jazeera as a “mainstream network,” bashed Fox News, suggested that the U.S. government intentionally bombed an Al-Jazeera bureau and expressed unreserved joy that President Obama was treating Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu so poorly.

“Bush has been replaced by Obama,” Rosenberg said.


“Yes, I applaud too. Which means people from the United States government go on Al-Jazeera. This is very significant. Under the Bush administration, Al-Jazeera was boycotted by the United — it was worse than boycotted: As you well know, it was bombed by orders of the United States government.”

Rosenberg was presumably referring to either the U.S. bombing of Al-Jazeera’s Baghdad bureau in 2003, which killed one journalist, or the bombing of an Al-Jazeera office in Kabul in 2001. The U.S. government maintains both were accidental, not intentional.

While Rosenberg called Fox News “a very, very dangerous force in the United States” and Fox News host Sean Hannity “one of the biggest right wing liars on Fox News” during the speech, he praised Al-Jazeera as “mainstream” and “factual.”

“It just shows that everywhere in the world people are watching Al-Jazeera because people know it’s going to be — one, it’s factual,” he said.

“It has footage, it has pictures which we are essentially not allowed to see in the United States, that the networks don’t allow of what is going on in Iraq, what’s going on in Afghanistan.”

Bizarrely, Rosenberg also claimed the left-of-center New Republic magazine, which regularly defends President Obama, was “very much of a right wing, Jewish publication.”

In his speech, Rosenberg also praised Obama for treating Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu worse than any American president has ever treated an Israeli prime minister.

“When Netanyahu came to Washington, no president has ever treated an Israeli prime minister as coldly as Netanyahu was treated by Obama,” Rosenberg said, with obvious joy, to what was presumably a largely Arab audience.

“Suddenly Israel today is, even though it gets what it wants to a certain extent, Israel is treated as another country, a foreign country, which makes it no different than all the other foreign countries. That is what Obama is trying to do: take Israel away from being the 51st state and make it a foreign country like Lebanon or France or any normal foreign country.”

“He has done that,” Rosenberg added. “You know, he has sent the Arab world signals from day one of where his heart is.”

Rosenberg has recently become a lightning rod for questioning the loyalty of American supporters of Israel by calling them “Israel firsters” and for taking other radical positions. Alan Dershowitz, the liberal Harvard Law School professor, has denounced him in a series of recent interviews and articles, suggesting that Rosenberg’s rhetoric and ideas are similar to what neo-Nazi and pro-Hezbollah websites offer.

Absent from Rosenberg’s speech at the May 2010 forum was any criticism of Arab authoritarianism or any recognition of the threats Israel faces from Palestinian terrorism and Iranian nuclear proliferation. Rosenberg also didn’t offer any criticism of the anti-American, anti-Israeli biases of Al-Jazeera.

Rosenberg’s writings for the Media Matters Action Network are also regularly published on Al-Jazeera’s website. Some of those writings include outlandish conspiracy theories.

For instance, in a column entitled “Will AIPAC and Bibi get their war?” that appeared on Al-Jazeera’s website, Rosenberg suggested that American officials were mere puppets of the Israelis.

“So here’s a theory: Netanyahu and his camp followers here do not really want a war now,” he wrote.

“They just want it understood that they can dictate whether there is one or not. And when. In other words, they want to show who is boss (it’s not like we don’t know).”

In the same article, Rosenberg suggested Israel is trying to manipulate America into fighting its battles for it.

“Only, it’s not an illusion,” he wrote. “And it certainly won’t be if Netanyahu gets the president he wants in November — a Republican who will fight the war Netanyahu wants but isn’t eager to fight himself. Surely Mitt or Rick or Newt will do it for him.”

Rosenberg tweeted his latest Al-Jazeera piece, published March 15, titled “Not blindly, not arbitrarily.” Al-Jazeera English also tweeted it out, summing up the article, “Op-ed: The #ArabLeague wants peace. Israel wants power. #Palestine just wants the occupation to end.”


Joel Mowbray, an adjunct fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, told TheDC that Rosenberg’s Jewish heritage provides Al-Jazeera cover.

“Here’s what Al-Jazeera probably does like — is if they can get less heat for anti-Semitic comments from having them come from a Jew,” said Mowbray.

“And that’s where I think someone like MJ Rosenberg does real damage,” he added, “because Al-Jazeera is actually sensitive about how it is viewed in the West, even in respect to anti-Semitism.”

“They have a number of Jews, by the way, on staff or people who write for them, it’s not just MJ Rosenberg,” Mowbray added. “And many of them are actually in the mainstream. But MJ Rosenberg, you have to wonder, if he satisfies a certain closet desire from at least some people at Al-Jazeera to have a Jew who can be so savage and frankly inaccurate and untruthful in his criticisms of Israel or America.”

Founded by the Emir of Qatar in the mid-1990s, Al-Jazeera first came to prominence as the go-to media outlet of al-Qaida.

“We all do know the history of Al-Jazeera of really coming to prominence, at least to the West and frankly even in the Arab world, as being the outlet of choice for al-Qaida and Osama bin Laden,” Mowbray explained.

David Pollock, the Kaufmann Fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, told TheDC that the Al-Jazeera network rarely frames America in a positive light, and that it is “definitely anti-Israel.” He also said criticism of Qatar or the other Gulf countries on the channel was nonexistent.

“Of course there is never any criticism of anything in sort of traditional Islamic countries in the Gulf, Arab countries — Saudi Arabia, Qatar — you know, their sponsor,” said Pollock.

“Or I would say sort of mainstream Islamic movements in other places like Turkey or Egypt … Very, very rare to see anything like that.”

Josh Block, senior fellow at the Progressive Policy Institute and a former spokesman for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, said he is not surprised by Media Matters’ or MJ Rosenberg’s association with Al-Jazeera.

“For Al-Jazeera, Media Matter’s MJ Rosenberg is a dream come true,” Block told TheDC.

“What better than a Jew who uses anti-Semitic rhetoric and conspiracy theories to confirm Al-Jazeera’s own version of the same. As the old saying goes, birds of a feather flock together.”

Neither MJ Rosenberg nor Media Matters returned TheDC’s requests for comment.

Tucker Carlson contributed to this report.


dailycaller.com