"14 Months", DNC's New Ad On Unemployment (Video)

Sources: DNC, Youtube

DNC Attacks Romney With New Business Ad: "People Are Corporations"

DNC ad pits Romney against himself

The Democratic National Committee turned Mitt Romney’s words against himself in Des Moines Saturday, with an ad targeting the former Massachusetts governor’s stance on deficit reduction.

Pouncing on the 2012 presidential candidate’s comment that “corporations are people,” the DNC ad groups Romney with the tea party movement when it comes to methods of battling the deficit.

“Mitt Romney stands with the tea party,” an announcer states. “Up to 35 percent cut from social security, but not one more dime from corporations.”

The 30-second spot opens to Romney’s comments at the Iowa State Fair soap box, where hecklers, one of whom was a Democrat, chastised the candidate for defending corporations.

Mentioning that one method of generating revenue by raising taxes on people was “not the way,” Romney is interrupted with a public shout of “Corporations!”

“Corporations are people, my friend,” he retorts. “Of course they are. Everything corporations earn ultimately goes to people."

The ad closes with the statement “Mitt Romney. Putting Corporations First” - and paints the 2012 hopeful as a defender of big companies at the expense of “people.”

The ad will run in the Des Moines market during Saturday’s influential straw poll in Ames and into the beginning of next week.

DNC spokesman Brad Woodhouse confirmed that Romney “could see this [ad] in other states.”


View Larger Map

Sources: CNN, DNC, Politico, Youtube, Google Maps

Perry Enters GOP's 2012 Presidential Circus; Its GOP Vs. Tea Party!

Perry announces presidential bid


Rick Perry aimed Saturday to shift the attention from Iowa's straw poll to South Carolina, where he told conservative activists he is seeking the 2012 Republican presidential nomination.

The Texas governor made the announcement at the RedState Gathering in Charleston, one day after meeting with Alabama Republicans.

"I came to South Carolina because I cannot accept the path the country is on," Perry said. "A renewed nation needs a new president. It's time to get America working again."

Perry recited a litany of issues facing America, including debt, high unemployment and hefty energy costs. Leadership under President Barack Obama, he said, is "rudderless."

"It's time to believe the promise of our future is better than the best days behind us," Perry said to applause.

He launched his presidential campaign website, rickperry.org, shortly before the announcement.

The timing of the announcement buttressed Perry's bid to get attention on a busy day in American politics: His speech started the same hour as those given by candidates making a pitch for straw poll votes in Iowa, where he was not on the ballot.

Merle Black, a political science professor at Emory University in Atlanta, said Perry's appeal to both social and fiscal conservatives could be crucial in the South Carolina Republican primary, which every GOP presidential nominee has won since 1980.

"He would appeal to tea party Republicans, he would appeal to the individuals who are interested in job creation in the state," Black told CNN. "He can also, I think, appeal to evangelical Christians, and the overlap between evangelical tea party Republicans, economic development Republicans -- those are a lot of voters in a South Carolina Republican primary."

Perry also was scheduled to attend a Saturday event in Greenland, New Hampshire, a state where he is expected to launch an aggressive campaign.

South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley helped kick off the RedState conference, saying Republicans will unite to defeat President Barack Obama.

Perry told the South Carolina crowd that he has helped cut taxes and government spending in Texas.

Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt said Perry "pledged to support the 'cut, cap and balance' plan that would preserve subsidies for oil and gas companies and tax cuts for the wealthiest while ending Medicare as we know it, eroding Social Security, eliminating hundreds of thousands of jobs and erasing investments in education and research and development."

In a statement, LaBolt claimed the governor "allowed special interests to write their own rules, hired corporate lobbyists to oversee corporations, and cut funding for programs that would create opportunity for middle-class families."

Perry, a Christian, succeeded George W. Bush in the Texas governor's office and has held that job longer than anyone in state history. Now he looks poised to attempt to follow his predecessor's lead a second time.

According to a new interview with Time magazine, Perry described himself as "very calm in my heart that this is what I'm supposed to be doing."

His entry into the race will shake up the Republican field, putting Perry into direct competition with Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota for core right-wing support. Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, if she runs, also would vie for that backing.

A CNN/ORC International poll released Thursday showed 15% of Republican and independent voters who lean toward the GOP picked Perry as their choice for the Republican nomination.

That put Perry, still a noncandidate at the time, just 2 percentage points behind former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, considered the front-runner in the nominating process. Romney's advantage over Perry is within the survey's sampling error.

Working the crowd in Iowa, Romney on Friday said he expects a "more interesting contest" with Perry in the field.

Bachmann, former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty and Texas Rep. Ron Paul are expected to take the top three positions in the nonbinding vote in Iowa.


View Larger Map

Sources: CNN, C-Span, DNC, Politico, Youtube, Google Maps

12 Reasons Why Obama's Re-election Is A Yes In 2012!

12 Reasons Obama Wins in 2012

The economy’s rebounding, his approval ratings are ticking up, and the GOP field is a mess. Mark McKinnon and Myra Adams on the president’s odds of a return ticket to the White House.

President Obama’s poll ratings are climbing. And the online prediction market Intrade has Obama at a 58.9 percent chance of winning a second term. Though November 2012 is light years away in political time, as Team Obama regroups in Chicago, they should be optimistic about their reelection prospects.

Here are 12 reasons why:

1.) Power of Incumbency

In the last 56 U.S. presidential elections, 31 have involved incumbents; 21 of those candidates have won more than one term. Based on these historical odds, Obama has a better-than-67-percent chance of winning reelection. In 2004, voters were not happy with the economy, the Iraq War or President Bush generally, and still he was reelected.

2.) Love Story Continues

Though the mainstream media is now sometimes critical of President Obama, he has never faced the extreme 24-hour-a-day derangement that has plagued other recent presidents and potential candidates-to-be. This gentle treatment is worth millions to a campaign.

3.) Billion-Dollar Campaign

According to Chris Cillizza of The Washington Post, President Obama’s 2012 reelection effort could be the first campaign to raise $1 billion. Not an unreasonable assumption because he raised $750 million in 2008. Look for the coming campaign to break all fundraising and spending records on both sides.

4.) Experienced Campaign Organization

In 2008, the junior senator from Illinois assembled a team of outsiders that defeated the Clinton machine and won the presidency with 365 electoral votes to Sen. John McCain’s 173. With the same Chicago campaign team in place, Obama will benefit from experience and memory; mistakes won’t be repeated.

5.) Obama’s Charm Offensive

Let’s face it, Obama knows how to turn it on and win crowds with his oratory. He is personally likable, has an attractive family, and his favorables are climbing. His Real Clear Politics average is at 49.9 percent. That’s comfortably within the zone of the last three presidents to win reelection. At 752 days into the first term, according to Gallup, President Reagan’s approval rating fell to 37 percent. Clinton’s was at 47 percent, and George W. Bush’s was 61 percent. If history is any guide, Obama has nothing to fear at this point from Mr. Gallup.

6.) Economy is Improving

As the economy goes, so goes Obama's reelection prospects. Yes, this is a potential weakness, but there are signs of hope. And what is most important is not what voters think about the economy at this hour, but rather whether they think it is improving. The stock market is rising, and unemployment is trending downward, albeit too slowly. Consumer spending is up, and 40 percent of Americans say the economy will improve over the next year. The campaign theme may be: He brought us back from the brink.

7.) They’ll Be Back

The 2010 midterm voters that swept Republicans into control of the U.S. House, governorships and state legislatures were older, whiter, and more conservative than those who went to the polls in 2008. Despite this “white flight” from the Democratic Party, young voters, more minorities, more women, and generally more liberals will be back in 2012. Though some of the liberal base may hold their nose, they’re not likely to desert the Democratic incumbent in November. And there is no doubt that Obama’s billion-dollar campaign fund will find some way to get his core constituents to the polls.

8.) Obama, “The Moderate”

Forty percent of Americans now see the president as a moderate. That’s up 10 percentage points from a year ago. More importantly, 44 percent of independents now call Obama a moderate, up from 28 percent a year ago. If congressional Republicans are viewed as strident and over-reaching, Obama will be well positioned as a moderating force—with or without any Clintonian triangulation.

9.) Republican Sparring Match

With no obvious frontrunner at this point, the Republican primary season may drag on and could be very messy. Tea Party support may be torn. And while Republicans debate which candidate is more Reaganesque, Obama will stay above the fray, looking presidential.

10.) Neverending Campaign

Organizing for America never stopped working since 2008 and continuously sends targeted emails to its 13 million members. Supporters are asked to volunteer for service projects or call Congress to object to the vote on repealing health care. It’s the presidential campaign that never ended.

11.) Hispanic Vote Growing

Obama earned 67 percent of the Hispanic vote in 2008 compared to McCain’s 31 percent. The Five State Voter Project, sponsored by The Hispanic Institute, is under way to increase Hispanic voter participation in five states: New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, Florida, and Colorado. Winning all of these states could seal the deal for Obama.

12.) Several Paths to 270

There were five key red states that Obama won in 2008—Florida, Virginia, Ohio, Indiana, and North Carolina. Obama could lose every one of them in 2012 and still win reelection with 272 electoral votes.


View Larger Map

Sources: Daily Beast, Youtube, Google Maps

Obama Reconnects With Black, Hispanic & Women Voters...Vote 2010

Obama Seeks To Reconnect With Young people, African-Americans, Latinos, and Women Voters for 2010



The Democratic National Committee this morning released this clip of the president rallying the troops, if rather coolly, for 2010. Obama's express goal: "reconnecting" with the voters who voted for the first time in 2008, but who may not plan to vote in the lower-profile Congressional elections this year.

Obama speaks with unusual demographic frankness about his coalition in his appeal to "young people, African-Americans, Latinos, and women who powered our victory in 2008 [to] stand together once again."

Turning out those so-called "surge" voters -- who turned out for the first time to back Obama, but who sat out gubernatorial races in New Jersey and Virginia last year -- has become the Democrats' central pre-occupation for the midterm elections, and the new Democratic effort to nationalize the election around Obama and his agenda mark an attempt to energize those voters.


Sources: DNC, Politico, Youtube

Democrats "Party Of No" GOP Attacks No Longer Effective...Decision 2009

Democrats Revive "Party of No" Attack


Democrats are retooling and reprising their “Party of No” attack on Republicans in Congress after they unanimously rejected financial reform and health care bills in votes this month.

But already, analysts are questioning whether charges of GOP obstructionism will be enough to keep voters from taking out their angst over the economy on Democrats next fall.

Last week, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee began making robocalls against Republicans in four districts in Florida, Michigan and Pennsylvania for opposing a Democratic plan to tighten regulation of banks and financial services firms widely blamed for last year’s economic meltdown.

“Remember? We said it can’t happen again. But did you know Congressman [Mario] Diaz-Balart (R-Fla.) voted to let Wall Street continue the same risky practices that crippled retirement accounts and cost taxpayers $700 billion, including unchecked bonuses and salaries for executives?” says the call, which was first reported by the Miami Herald. “Maybe the $81,204 he got from financial special interests mattered more than taxpayers.”

The recorded messages come on the heels of 60-second radio ads the DCCC rolled out in five districts in California, Nebraska and Pennsylvania highlighting the same Dec. 11 vote in which no Republican backed the regulation package.

The salvos come as other Democrats say they plan to paint Republicans as obstructionist for their down-the-line opposition to Senate health care legislation Thursday.

“History will judge harshly those who have chosen the simple path of obstruction over the hard work of making change. It always does,” said Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), an architect on the Senate financial reform bill.

“I think it’s a good argument for the Democrats. I just don’t think it will work,” said Stu Rothenberg of the non-partisan Rothenberg Political Report. “It is a good message if the fundamentals change. …The problem is, if the economy is not in good shape and people still don’t feel [a recovery], it’s going to be about Obama and about the Democrats. With Democrats controlling everything, and how active the administration has been on all these fronts, I just don’t think the Democrats are going to make it about the Republicans.”

Republican lawmakers insist they’re not worried about being slapped with a do-nothing label.

“Nobody's been an obstructionist. All we wanted to do was participate in the process,” Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) said on CNN during a back-and-forth over the health care bill. “I think [Democrats] deserve some credit for getting it done, as bad as it is. But it's going to wreck our country, I have to tell you. And people out there know that.”

A spokesman for the DCCC, Ryan Rudominer, said his committee’s message is not so much about Republican inertia as about the GOP siding with the very banks and financial institutions that many Americans blame for tanking the economy last fall.

“We’re hitting Republicans who are standing with Wall Street’s special interests instead of folks on Main Street,” Rudominer said. “While Democrats are standing up for the middle class, Republicans are standing up for the special interests…. Republicans have zero credibility when it comes to the economy considering it’s the very same Bush policies that created the economic mess in the first place that their party is trying to return to.”

There is little doubt the Democratic ads are intended to play on the mood of an angry electorate.

“Doesn’t that just make you mad?” the Democratic radio spots ask, after recounting the GOPer’s vote against regulatory reform.

“People are angry and what Democrats are trying to do is channel that anger,” said Democratic pollster Doug Schoen. “You’ve got to displace the anger onto the Republicans. If they can do that, Democrats have some hope but right now things are looking increasingly bleak every day.”

Schoen was blunt about the challenge Democrats are facing next fall. “The Democrats are trying to stem the bleeding,” the former pollster for President Bill Clinton said. “Obama’s in a free fall and, unless they stem the bleeding, they’re going to face unprecedented losses.”

One Democratic official said the party thinks its increasingly populist message will even resonate with some of the Tea Party activists steamed over government bailouts.

“Republicans are going to be hit from the right and the left on this. The Tea Party folks don’t like Obama or the Republican establishment. They don’t like Wall Street. And they don’t like Republicans standing with Wall Street,” said the official, who asked not to be named.

One prominent political analyst said the Democrats might get some traction with their latest message.

“With an angry electorate out there, populism could make a comeback in 2010. This kind of attack is made-to-order Democratic populism, targeting the big boys on Wall Street,” said Larry Sabato, the director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia. “This is a two-fer for Democrats. Swing voters are overwhelmingly anti-Wall Street, but the foremost task of the Democratic Party in 2010 is to re-motivate its 2008 Obama voters—the ones who didn’t show up in November 2009 in New Jersey and Virginia. Every issue that can stoke the emotions of core Democrats can help the party to reduce the enthusiasm gap that has opened up with the Republicans.”

However, GOP pollster Ed Goeas said he doesn’t think the Democrats’ strategy will peel off many potential Republican voters. Rather, Goeas said, it’s intended to buck up Democratic voters disenchanted with bickering over health care and other issues. “Most of that they’re trying to do is not dig the hole deeper for us, but raise the intensity of their base, which is very disenchanted at this point,” the GOP pollster said. He called anti-Bush appeals “fools’ gold,” which may excite some hardcore Democrats but will have increasingly little impact as time passes.

Rothenberg said the Democratic ads' references to “October 2008” and “the last months of the Bush presidency” already seem a bit old and may be all but irrelevant by next fall. “Ten percent unemployment will be of greater significance and greater salience. That’s the problem for Democrats,” the analyst said.

GOP strategist Scott Reed said, “I’m pretty upbeat about where things are at the end of the year for Republicans. I think it’s wishful thinking that the party-of-no is going to stick right now.”

“Clearly, Republicans want to be on the side of Main Street, not Wall Street,” Reed said, but he said voters are more likely to be focused on the economy generally and on widespread fears about government overspending. “I think the jury is still out on whether Democrats have overshot the runway….Next year is going to be a very long year.”



View Larger Map


Sources: Politico, DNC, Youtube, Zimbio, Huffington Post, MSNBC, Google Maps

"Remember", New DCCC Ads & Robocalls For 2010 Elections

DCCC Out With Robocalls, Ads On Wall Street Reform


The latest Democratic Robocalls may be a peek into the 2010 strategy for Democrats — painting Republicans as cozy with Wall Street and unwilling to overhaul the financial system that led to last year's economic meltdown.

The DCCC is launching the robocalls to Republican districts, blasting the GOP for voting en masse last week against the financial reform. The calls are going to four congressional districts in swing states Florida, Michigan and Pennsylvania. The DCCC is also buying ads on Wall Street reform in five other districts.

This strategy also sends a message that the Democrats see opportunity next year in attacking Wall Street and big banks rather than in defending votes on health care, climate change or the stimulus.

Here's a sample of one of the Robocalls, reported first by the Miami Herald, focusing on local congressman Mario Diaz Balart:

"I'm calling from the DCCC (Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee about last year's Wall Street crisis. Remember? We said it can't happen again. But did you know Congressman Diaz-Balart voted to let Wall Street continue the same risky practices that crippled retirement accounts and cost taxpayers $700 billion dollars, including unchecked bonuses and salaries for executives?"


"Maybe the $81,204 dollars he got from financial special interests mattered more than taxpayers. Call Congressman Diaz-Balart, tell it's time to stand up for us, not big banks."


Sources: DCCC, Politico, Youtube

Obama's Czars Are Constitutional, Bush Had 47...Gitmo Blame Game

(The DNC's ad titled: "Dancing with the Czars" pokes fun at Political Entertainers like kooky Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh. Watch)




(The Obama Admin "Blame Game". Should Greg Craig be the only White House staffer taking the fall for Gitmo?)





Constitutional Experts: Obama's "Czars" Are Perfectly Legal

In Senate testimony, constitutional experts say the president has the right to appoint independent advisors as long as the distinction between practical and legal authority is rigorously maintained.

Reporting from Washington - Five constitutional experts testified at a Senate hearing Tuesday that President Obama's extensive use of policy "czars" is legal -- as long as the officials do not overstep their authority.

In a city where power is carefully hoarded and monitored, Obama has drawn complaints from Congress about his use of the so-called czars, officials he has appointed to coordinate environmental, health and other policy areas among various departments.

Lawmakers in both parties have sent letters to the White House saying the czar appointments skirt Congress' authority to confirm top executive branch officials and subject them to oversight hearings.

But the panel of constitutional experts testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee's subcommittee on the Constitution did not support the complaints.

Called together by Sen. Russell D. Feingold (D-Wis.), who had written to Obama asking for more information about the czars, the panel concluded that Obama had the right to appoint independent advisors. The experts said the principle had been established by President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

"The president's personal staff are independently responsible only to the president -- and in the end he is the only czar that is," said Bradley H. Patterson, a presidential scholar. "And he is accountable to the American electorate."

John Harrison, a University of Virginia law professor, compared the czars to the position of White House chief of staff, saying both hold great influence and can speak for the president, but their legal powers are limited.

Their "practical authority . . . is not legal authority, and as long as the distinction is rigorously maintained there will be no legal problem," Harrison said in his written testimony.

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), who had also written Obama questioning the czars, said in a statement the issue was not dead. The Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, where she is the ranking member, will hold a similar hearing next week.

"The appointments of so many czars have muddied the waters, causing confusion and risking miscommunication going forward," Collins said.

Obama's czars include Nancy-Ann DeParle, who coordinates healthcare issues within the White House; Carol Browner, who coordinates energy and environmental issues; Adolfo Carrion Jr., who works on urban affairs; and Lynn Rosenthal, who works on domestic violence and sexual assault issues.

Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), ranking member of the Constitution subcommittee, said at the hearing that he was worried in particular about the actions of Obama's "pay czar," Kenneth Feinberg, who has been criticized by lawmakers for taking the lead on crafting executive pay limits without enough oversight. The expert panel, however, said it found no constitutional violation.

White House Counsel Gregory Craig defended the Obama administration's appointments in a letter to Feingold.

"Neither the purpose nor the effect of these new positions is to supplant or replace existing federal agencies or departments," Craig wrote.

The experts also agreed that Congress had limited options if it chooses to rein in these positions.

T.J. Halstead of the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service testified that the most effective answer for Congress is persistent oversight.



Obama's Gitmo blame game


Greg Craig, the top in-house lawyer for President Barack Obama, is getting the blame for botching the strategy to shut down Guantanamo Bay prison by January — so much so that he’s expected to leave the White House in short order.

But sources familiar with the process believe Craig is being set-up as the fall guy and say the blame for missing the deadline extends well beyond him.

Instead, it was a widespread breakdown on the political, legislative, policy and planning fronts that contributed to what is shaping up as one of Obama’s most high-profile setbacks, these people say.

The White House misread the congressional mood – as it found out abruptly in May, when the Senate voted 90-6 against funds for closing the base after Republicans stoked fears about bringing prisoners to the U.S. The House also went on record last week opposing bringing Gitmo detainees here.

The White House misread the public mood – as roughly half of Americans surveyed say they disagree with Obama’s approach. A strong element of NIMBY-ism permeates those results, as Americans say they don’t want the prisoners in their backyards.

But most of all Obama’s aides mistook that political consensus from the campaign trail for a deep commitment in Washington to do whatever it takes to close the prison.

“The administration came in reading there to be wide support for closing Guantanamo at home and abroad, and I think it misread that attitude,” said Matthew Waxman, a Columbia law professor who held Defense and State Department positions on detainee policy. “In general, they were right….but there was very little willingness to accept the costs and risks of getting it done.”

The White House declined to make Craig available for an interview, or discuss the Gitmo deliberations in detail, but several allies and even some critics scoffed at suggestions that Craig bears the main responsibility for the missteps.

“This clearly was a decision that had the full support of the entire national security team,” said Ken Gude, who tracks Guantanamo issues for the liberal Center for American Progress think tank. “It’s typical Washington that someone has their head on the chopping block, but it’s ridiculous that it’s Craig.”

“The implication that this was the brainchild of the White House counsel is not really credible,” said Elisa Massimino of Human Rights First.

When Obama signed a series of executive orders on Guantanamo during his second full day in office, what grabbed attention was not his promise to close the prison but his pledge to do it within one year.

During the presidential campaign, Obama talked almost daily about closing Guantanamo, but he rarely offered a timeline. His Republican rival, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), spoke in a far greater specificity, proposing to move the Gitmo prisoners to Ft. Leavenworth in Kansas.

However, back in July 2007, Obama co-sponsored an amendment offered by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) that called for Guantanamo to close within a year. Obama’s primary rival, Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) was also a co-sponsor.

Some Bush administration officials contend that the one-year timeline was driven by a naïveté on the part of Obama’s aides.

“To a certain extent, they had drunk a lot of the far-left Kool-aid: that everybody, or most people, at Guantanamo were innocent and shouldn’t be there, and the Bush administration was not working very hard to resolve these issues, and that the issues were fairly easy to resolve once adults who were really committed to doing something about it in charge,” said one Bush official who met with Obama’s aides during the transition on Gitmo. “It became clear to me they had not really done their homework on the details.”

But even back on Jan. 22, 2009, the same day Obama signed the orders, Craig acknowledged some of the difficulties involved – including that some of the detainees can never be tried, a problem Craig called “difficult” and “most controversial.”

Now Obama’s decision to set a one-year deadline is being widely second-guessed. Craig supported the idea – and Craig’s allies say that a deadline was needed to persuade foreign governments that Obama was serious. They note that President George W. Bush talked on at least eight occasions about his desire to close Guantanamo – and left office with 250 prisoners there.

“Simply reasserting the intention to close Guantanamo would not have been sufficient in the international community,” Gude said. “They had to have a firm date and they had to have a timeline.”

Gude had advocated an 18-month timeline to “build in a cushion” but he said the only real mistakes the White House made involved failing to anticipate the resistance in Congress – particularly surrounding the Senate’s sharp rejection of Obama’s $80 million request to close Gitmo.

“They made that request without much supporting information and opened the door for Republicans in Congress to make it a Congressional issue and they did it very successfully,” Gude said. “The White House didn’t have a plan to support Democrats who were willing to back up their proposal and it all fell apart.”

Craig’s backers contend that, if that was the White House’s key misjudgment, other top officials share responsibility for the breakdown.

“It seems very unlikely to me that Greg Craig, by himself, engineered a DOD appropriations request,” one lawyer close to Craig said.

In retrospect, there were early signs of possible trouble ahead. Within hours of Obama signing the orders, McCain warned of a backlash and said the time frame the president set out would be “very difficult” to achieve.

A McCain adviser said the Obama team should have known. “I don’t think they realized how much heat McCain took from conservatives” during the GOP primary, said the aide, who asked not to be named. “Had they been aware of that I don’t think they would have handled it this way…..It shouldn’t have surprised anybody.”

Today, the National Security Council and Obama senior adviser Pete Rouse are effectively in charge of closing Gitmo, though Press Secretary Robert Gibbs denied Craig had been stripped of his responsibilities on the prison. “There are number of people that are working on it, Greg being one of them,” Gibbs said.

A review of Guantanamo prisoners is also nearly complete, with about 80 detainees up for release and State Department envoy Dan Fried lining up places to receive them.

“Our friends and allies have accepted or agreed to accept more than 30 of the remaining detainees at Guantanamo who cannot be sent home due to humane treatment concerns, and are seriously considering taking others,” said a White House official who asked not to be named.

But it’s been slow. Obama’s administration has transferred 17 Guantanamo prisoners to other countries so far – compared to 19 by the Bush administration in the first nine months of 2008.

Obama aides have blamed the delays on disarray in government files about the detainees, but several former officials said that is not directly linked to the thorniest questions such as where to locate detainees in the U.S. “Those issues that have been kicked down the road are by far the hardest,” Waxman said.


Sources: Politico, Huffington Post, LA Times, DNC, Youtube

"Dancing With The Czars" ....Bush Had 47 & No One Complained

"Dancing With The Czars": Dems Mock GOP, Glenn Beck Over Czar Obsession

(The DNC's new ad entitled: "Dancing with the Czars" pokes fun at Political Entertainers like kooky Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh. Watch)



(The "Czar Wars" heats up.)

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

(I wonder why Rep. Issa was so quiet when former Pres. Bush was hiring his 47 Czars? No one heard much of a peep about Czars during Bush's reign. While we're on subject, I wonder what Bush's Czar vetting process was. Inquiring minds would like to know.)





Over the past few days, I've written about the wildly outsized claims of Czars in the Obama administration undermining the government. Republican Senators are sending letters and GOP House members are holding up posters and attempting to pass thoroughly baffling bills to prevent the Obama White House from appointing advisers.

These elected officials seem to be unaware of some basic facts. Many of the people they insist need to be confirmed by the Senate already have been confirmed. Many of the people they consider to be holding unprecedented appointments are merely filling well-established positions. In some cases, these lawmakers seem to have forgotten that they themselves passed laws that mandated the appointments. And in a few cases, they just select some established functionary at random -- like a State Department envoy or the Deputy Secretary of the Interior -- and call that guy a "czar" just for fun!

All of these fears and complaints are indicative of either a powerful desire to mislead or an advanced mental disease that hopefully Dr. Charles Boustany will be able to treat, with some sort of Louisiana voodoo poultice.

And of course, it's always worth pointing out that "Czars" (the term itself being nothing more than a media shorthand standing in for long government titles and/or complex portfolios) have been a fact of life in American politics since the Nixon administration. And it's equally worth pointing out that the Bush administration itself deployed a veritable flotilla of czars.

The latter point is being made abundantly clear in a new Democratic National Committee ad entitled "Dancing With The Czars," which employs the services of Fox News's own Glenn Beck to elucidate some of the 47 Bush czars that walked the face of the earth before the Obama administration came to the White House.

"With apologies to Tom DeLay, and despite the railing you're hearing from the Republican caucus room and Fox News, the GOP has been "dancing with Czars" for a very long time. The unmitigated hypocrisy of these attacks not only speaks to the credibility of this manufactured controversy, but to the inability of the Republican party to say no to the marching orders doled out by Glenn Beck and the far right's noise machine," said DNC National Press Secretary Hari Sevugan.


Sources: DNC, Huffington Post, Politico, The Hill, MSNBC, TIME, Creepygif.com, Youtube

DNC Releases Health Care Reform Ad Targeting Markets Of 11 Centrists..."Its Time Representatives" (Charlotte, North Carolina)

Huffington Post, Politico, CNN----



("Its Time Representatives")




(President Obama announces the launch of "Organizing For America". A Grassroots level organization established to help bring about effective Change in this country.)




Ignoring criticism - namely from Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid - that inter-party targeting was ineffective, Barack Obama's campaign arm is expanding its health care ad buy into the districts of key conservative House Democrats.

Late Friday night Organizing for America and the Democratic National Committee announced the expansion of the "It's Time" ad purchase, which uses personal stories of health care struggles to drive home the need for reform. The initial purchase was on national cable and in eight states with critical Democratic and moderate Republican Senators.

Now the scope of the campaign is expanding. The ad will appear in the media markets that overlap with the congressional districts of 15 members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

Eleven of those districts belong to Democrats, including Rep. Zack Space (Ohio), Rep. John Barrow (Georgia), Rep. Jay Inslee (Washington), Rep. Mike Ross (Arkansas), Rep. Bart Gordon (Tennessee), Rep. Baron Hill (Indiana), Rep. Charlie Melancon (Louisiana), Rep. Mike Doyle (Pennsylvania), Rep. Jim Matheson (Utah), Rep. Bart Stupak (Michigan), Rep. Jerry McNerney (California).

The four Republican districts belong to Rep. Fred Upton (Michigan), Rep. Mary Bono Mack (California), and Rep. Greg Walden (Oregon), Rep. Sue Myrick (North Carolina)

For reform advocates, the Energy and Commerce Committee remains the toughest venue of the three committees handling health care in the House of Representatives, in large part because of the Blue Dog and moderate Democrats that make up its ranks. In making this purchase, Organizing for America either is worried about the committee's progress or -- much more likely -- sending a message that it has no problem applying pressure on fellow party members.

No representative is named in the ad. But every one of the aforementioned members will know that the spots are airing in their districts. The markets where the ad will run, according to the OFA/DNC press release, are: Savannah, Palm Springs, Seattle, Nashville, Bloomington, Sacramento, Salt Lake City, New Orleans, Pittsburgh, Charlotte, Little Rock, Columbus, Marquette, Grand Rapids and Medford.



View Larger Map

Sources: Huffington Post, DNC, Politico, CNN, Youtube, Google Maps

DNC Releases New Health Care Reform Ad: "Its Time"

Join the fight: healthcare.barackobama.com




Sources: DNC, Youtube

DNC Attacks G.O.P.'s Leadership With New Ads

"Meet new G.O.P., same as old G.O.P."



100 Days of Saying No



Party of Hypocrisy



G.O.P. fully supports Rush Limbaugh's ideas. Why?



Sources: DNC, Daylife, Youtube