Blog @ MoreWhat.com

A stop at Google News to see what the MSM offers today starts out with US considers Goldman Sachs criminal charges. You have to ask yourself if that includes suspects like former employees of Fannie and Freddie as well as their co-conspirators in Congress, then and now? The push to place everyone in a home of their own whether they could afford it or not started the whole mess. It took years of quiet meddling by POLS and regulators as well as those who made a bundle in the market to lift regulations designed to avoid such problems. But the liberals need a villain to cover their tracks and apparently Goldman Sachs will suffice for their witch hunt and slight of hand redirection of blame.

And you have to wonder if BP is stepping up to pay for the spill in the Gulf of Mexico now that the slick is reaching shore and conspiracy theories abound? And it is reasonable that the Obama administration would postpone offshore drilling plans due to the incident. But that delay plays well into the liberal agenda in the first place. Another set of villains to be targeted by the left for political purposes rather than pursuit of justice.

Economic growth is slower than expected according to a report at WaPo. Again you have to wonder who really expected it to be above a 3.2% annual rate in the first quarter of 2010? The public opposition to continued fiscal irresponsibility likely includes business leaders and those who do the hiring and manage the risk of whether or not to expand. That is if they even have access to the resources (funding) to do so.

You would be hard pressed to find examples exhibiting effective leadership in government these days. When the taxpayer via government entities should be partnering with the private sector to improve the economy and resolve issues across the board little evidence exists that anyone is prepared to do just that.

That leads well into a sentiment expressed frequently on this blog. Come November, throw the bums out. Continue natural term limits through 2012. Repeat as necessary.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

crossposted at Maggies’s Notebook

Oh my, let’s get all indignant on the topic of Wall Street and the liberal pursuit of villains to take the blame for choices made by others. Maureen (Moron) Dowd does her level best to support the Democratic party’s attempt to shift blame. She pans ‘Las Vegas metaphors’ used by POLS in chastising Goldman Sachs while ignoring a basic rule designed to remind consumers of the pitfalls in the marketplace - caveat emptor, let the buyer beware.

According to Princeton’s Wordnet, caveat emptor is described as ‘a commercial principle that without a warranty the buyer takes upon himself the risk of quality.’ Does it get any simpler than that?

From Dowd’s op-ed….

As Americans lost homes and lined up for jobs, Goldman made $13 billion in 2009, and Blankfein got a bonus of, as he haltingly admitted to McCain, “um, um, nine million.”

“The idea that Wall Street came out of this thing just fine, thank you, is something that just grates on people,” Delaware Senator Ted Kaufman told Blankfein. “They think that you didn’t just come out fine because it was luck. They think that you guys just really gamed this thing real, real well.”

Sure, let’s talk about the greed of Wall Street and the bonuses received by Blankfein and others. Never mind the greed of those who were stung by real estate investments they would never have purchased had they performed the due diligence required.

This is no different than the wailing and gnashing of teeth coming from Enron employees who lost their jobs when that house of cards imploded as well as retirement accounts exclusively or largely built around Enron stock. Though one should never place all their investment eggs in one basket, the meteoric rise of Enron stock enticed the greedy to ignore another simple and common concept. If it seems to good to be true it probably is.

Conveniently, Dowd also ignores the role of many politicians steering Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, banking regulators and other government entities toward real estate disaster. A long history of accommodating the notion that everyone should own a home whether they can afford it or not led to ‘no docs’ loans and banking interests scurrying to unload bad mortgages they would not have produced on their own.

While POLS ‘grill’ Goldman Sachs in the US Senate and call for ‘Wall Street reforms’ take a look at Fannie and Freddie now and tell me anything has changed. As for those facing foreclosure since taking a mortgage they cannot afford or others lured by greed during the recent real estate ‘bubble’ POLS advocating more bailouts for bad decisions should be retired in November 2010.

It’s about time people begin taking responsibility for their own failures. Crying foul when you end up on the losing side of a transaction and expecting others to take the blame is childish. Some forget that transactions on Wall Street between buyers and sellers are a zero sum game. For each transaction there is a winner and a loser. Someone posts a gain and someone posts a loss. Get over it or get out.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Conservative talkers point to one of many subtle tactics used by liberals regarding their legislative reform proposals. That is beyond the point that they call their legislative agenda, ‘reform’. This week’s propaganda centers on what liberals refer to as ‘wall street reforms.’ They even have the media doing it.

This points to an old and trusted tactic by liberals to manufacture a villain right after creating a crisis. Rahm Emanuel has been quoted as saying, ‘never let a crisis go to waste’ or something similar. That would be especially true if you create the crisis. You might want to ask the Obama Chief of Staff where he acrrued most of his net worth. You can add the Senator from Countrywide, Chris Dodd, to that list. Follow the money, the committees and other congressional career paths to understand what caused the so-called financial crisis.

President Obama and other Democrats would like you to believe that Wall Street is the villain for economic turmoil around the planet over the last few years. Nothing is that simple. But it is a simple idea to create a crisis, invent the villain and pursue the rest of your liberal agenda by convincing the public you are gettin’ the bad guys.

Try this for a simple explanation. Changes were made after the Crash of ‘29′ to ensure what led to the Great Depression never happened again. You might want to study something called Glass-Steagall which was passed in 1932 and repealed in 1999 by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and President Clinton.

You might also consider the Community Reinvestment Act as well as other actions by Congress and the FDIC and Fannie and Freddie, etc. over time. The list can get quite long and like any whodunnit it takes some effort to sort out the mess. Nothing is as simple as Wall Street did it. But President Obama would like you to believe that. So would his cronies who share the blame for much of what happened. And the GOP is certainly not without fault in this. Neither is the general public.

“After a recession that stole eight million jobs, this is going to take some time,” he said. “And this will require that we continue to tackle the underlying problems that caused this turmoil in the first place. In short, it is essential that we learn the lessons of this crisis, or we risk repeating it.”

Barry from DC sounds pretty good in that quote. But then he fails.

Mr. Obama says it is necessary to end taxpayer bailouts of private companies and make financial deals more transparent. “That is how we will restore trust and confidence in our markets,” he said. “That is how we will help to put an end to the cycles of boom and bust that we have seen. And that is how, after two very difficult years, we will not only revive the economy, but help to rebuild it stronger than ever before.”

Look for the phrase ‘help to put an end’ when referring to ‘cycles of boom and bust.’ That’s right Mr President. You may help but it won’t eliminate up and down cycles. And some say your legislation will make things worse not better. One of these days POLS may get the message that when you muddy the waters with politics you have to slow down to prove what you’re saying.

While the GOP may be opposing Dems on general principle if only by accident they have been correct lately.

“It is time for Democrats to put away the political playbook and simply say publicly what they are suggesting privately: that this bill still needs some work, that both parties should come together to do that work on behalf of the American people,” she said.

A little too much political fluff in that statement but we get the point. And the larger point is legislators need to bring proof of concept to the table not just political or any other kind of rhetoric.

As a final note for this post, if Chris Dodd had anything to do with it, throw it out.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

There’s more to the story than these videos.

This video exposes more than its producers may realize. Do you see what it is?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

A recent post on this blog expressed disdain for the two US Senators from the state of Arizona. The primary reason for the post AND the expression of discontent for John Kyl and John McCain was none other than the issue of illegal immigration. Their call for 3000 troops to Arizona to deal with the result of ignoring the enforcement of US immigration law highlights their pathetic records on the issue.

Now Arizona State Senator Russell Pearce and Arizona Governor Jan Brewer have become targets of liberals for doing what Kyl, McCain and so many others in Washington including George Walker Bush and Barack Hussein Obama have failed to do. That is of course to respond appropriately to illegal immigration.

What many fail to understand is in fact a very simple concept. There are laws. Laws are necessary to assist the orderly flow of human interaction within a society. To ignore the laws places the society at risk of failure e.g., anarchy. Immigration law is no exception.

Rather than criticize the state of Arizona for its passage of SB 1070 to address illegal immigration President Obama and others would do well to follow their lead. In her remarks about the passage of the law Governor Jan Brewer stated repeated attempts (five or more) to get the federal government to act on illegal immigration. She further states they had no choice but to do what ‘leaders’ at the national level refuse to do. Enforce the rule of law.

Reports indicate Arizona State Senator Russell Pearce is the ‘prime sponsor’ and the ‘most ardent supporter’ of SB 1070. What the reports do not tell you is he is his family’s fifth generation in Arizona. His resume’ includes law enforcement in Maricopa County that is the home of another controversial figure, Sherriff Joe Arpaio. One of Pearce’s sons was critically wounded by an illegal while performing his duties in law enforcement in 2004. Some media accounts portray Russell Pearce as a villain when it is more likely he is a patriotic American merely trying to protect the nation as well as Arizona.

Governor Jan Brewer has done what few other government executives have done. Signed a bill designed to address illegal immigration. Given immigration enforcement and national security are tasks for federal entities it should not have been necessary for her to do so. Yet here we are. A state doing what the federal government refuses to do….. its job. And leaders in that state being criticized by some for the courage to act.

This blog supports the actions of Arizona State Senator Russell Pearce and Arizona Governor Jan Brewer regarding illegal immigration and SB 1070. That extends to all those who contributed and will continue to support the effort. It’s about time.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Cleaning up our trashed border

This post is dedicated to those who serve.

The Doolittle Tokyo Raiders Association Reunion was held Friday through Saturday, April 16-18, at the U.S. Air Force Museum abeam Wright Patterson AFB, Dayton, Ohio. There are eight surviving crew members of the 80 who flew on the mission and four attended the reunion, including 88-year-old MSgt. David Thatcher (engineer/gunner - aircraft #7); 90-year-old Lt. Col. Robert Hite (co-pilot of aircraft #16 - the last one off the USS Hornet); 92-year-old Maj. Thomas Griffin (navigator and mission planner - aircraft #9); and 94-year-old Lt. Col. Richard Cole (co-pilot of aircraft #1 - Jimmy Doolittle’s plane).

All four men had numerous public autograph sessions, with hundreds of people in a line snaking through the museum, waiting for every two-hour session. We attended a 45-minute media conference to ask questions and hear their stories on Friday afternoon.

Sixteen B-25B Mitchell bombers were launched from the aircraft carrier USS Hornet deep within enemy waters. The plan called for them to hit military targets in Japan, and land in China. All of the aircraft involved in the bombing were lost and 11 crewmen were either killed or captured. One of these B-25s landed in Soviet territory where its crew remained interned for more than a year. The entire crews of 13 of the 16 aircraft, and all but one of a 14th, returned to the United States or to Allied control. The raid caused little material damage to Japan, but succeeded in its goal of helping American morale. It also caused Japan to withdraw a carrier group from the Indian Ocean to defend their homeland and contributed to Japan’s decision to attack Midway. Up to 250,000 Chinese were killed by Japanese retaliatory measures.

related:

The Official Website of The Doolittle Tokyo Raiders

from the site:
This web site is dedicated to my father, Richard O. Joyce and the other 79 Brave Men whom were in the Doolittle Tokyo Raid.

Looks like T Woods can take a short break as there is never a shortage of bad behavior in professional sports. A dominant feature in the news this past week has been the ‘exploits’ of Pittsburgh Steelers Quarterback Ben Roethlisberger. Reports indicate Big Ben has two sexual assault allegations against him. One is recent and one is from 2009.

On July 17, 2009, a civil suit was filed in Washoe County, Nevada District Court accusing Roethlisberger of sexually assaulting Andrea McNulty, 31, in June 2008 in his hotel room while he was in Lake Tahoe for a celebrity golf tournament.[89] Roethlisberger is one of nine defendants listed in the docket report. McNulty did not file a criminal complaint and no physical evidence was collected.

Since it is not uncommon for celebs to be targets of, shall we say, shakedowns one may have wondered if the first case was such an event given the absence of a criminal complaint and collected evidence. That suspicion is weakened by the second allegation. And being skeptical is only fair when information is limited.

The second allegation has been taken more seriously by others. Roethlisberger faces a six game suspension and rumors of a trade, etc. One of his former teammates weighed in on a morning network television program.

Bettis told CBS News Correspondent Jeff Glor on “The Early Show” Friday the accusations against Roethlisberger “came as a shock” and are out of character. They’re not the Roethlisberger he’s known, Bettis said.

He added that a two-game suspension would serve notice on Roethlisberger and the rest of the National Football League that these types of actions are unacceptable, adding that Roethlisberger “understands” that now - and may not have before.

Roethlisberger’s accuser in the second allegation describes part of the incident below.

In her statement, the accuser said Roethlisberger encouraged her and her friends to have numerous alcoholic drinks before she was escorted by one of Roethlisberger’s bodyguards — identified by the Georgia Bureau of Investigation as Coraopolis, Pa., police officer Anthony Barravecchio — into a hallway, where Roethlisberger later exposed himself to her.

Unlike the throngs anticipating the return of T Woods after exposure of his sexual lifestyle Steeler fans exhibit a contrast in reaction to the story. Granted, T Woods’ ‘exploits’ appear to have been bad choices between consenting adults whereas that is not the case with these allegations.

23% of people identifying themselves as Steelers fans said they wanted the quarterback traded.

Also, 61% said he should be fined or traded, according to the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.

Only 9% favored no disciplinary action, and the rest were undecided or refused to answer.

Nonetheless, bad behavior, sexual or otherwise should not be tolerated in public or in private. Token consequences combined with a muted public response reflect the conditions in society suggesting a decline in moral standards. And if your response is ’so what’ you serve as the case in point. We should be better than this.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Senators Kyl and McCain, both with less than admirable performances during the illegal immigration debate in the summer of 2007, now want US troops on the border in Arizona. If they expect anyone to take them seriously now they should have taken illegal immigration seriously in 2007 and anytime before now.

The call from Sens. John McCain and Jon Kyl, both Republicans, was made the same day Arizona’s Legislature approved a bill to make it a state crime to be an illegal immigrant. The measure now goes to Gov. Jan Brewer, who has not taken a position on the measure.

“It’s a very important step forward,” said Mr. McCain, who in the past had fought for a broad bill legalizing illegal immigrants but who on Monday said illegal immigration has led to deteriorating security in Arizona.

During the 2008 presidential campaign McCain stated his support for shamnesty was a mistake and he had learned his lesson. Not exactly. And the other Senator in this story, Jon Kyl, is equally misguided on the topic. And calling for troops to protect Arizona borders obviously ignores other states along the US southern border and the rest of this nation. These are US Senators, Kyl and McCain. How about thinking NATIONAL SECURITY!!!

And of course, the Democratic party has nothing to brag about on the matter either.

Last year, Ms. Napolitano, who was governor of Arizona until joining the Obama administration, said the U.S. border was secure enough that Congress should enact a bill to legalize the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants already in the U.S. and provide a way for more foreign workers.

Do voters in Arizona really need another reason to support J D Hayworth?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Given recent GOP victories in governor’s races as well as at least a temporary setback for Democrats in the land of Kennedy with Scott Brown becoming a US Senator a conservative could get the idea things are turning around. This is supported by polling data suggesting America is once again moving to the right politically and the Democratic majority in Washington is in the tank. President Obama is not having a good year despite the passage of ‘health insurance reform’ that is panned by nearly everyone.

So what does this mean for politicians? Reports about Charlie Crist versus Marco Rubio suggest some of the answers. Senate performance by Arlen Specter compared with Scott Brown illuminate other aspects of party politics. Then there is the Tea Party trend ‘demonstrating’ an awakening of the public across the country.

Debate about a third political party has touched on all the typical talking points with folks like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin and others reinforcing the argument of a third party hurting the GOP and helping the Democrats. The dominant point being a third party cannot work and only serves to make things worse politically in America.

Democratic party resources are being deployed to sabotage the Tea Party movement. GOP resources are being deployed to attract Tea Partiers to the Republican party. Or so it would seem given stories that abound in the mainstream media and alternative sources. So how does that square with the argument(s) advanced by leading conservative talkers and others?

Could the reverse of that argument be valid? Meaning, does the thought of a new conservative third party cause a panic in both the DNC and GOP? Or are conservative talkers correct when they predict such a third party would only serve the liberal cause by splitting the vote to the DNC’s advantage? If so, why are liberal forces opposing the Tea Party trend with such enthusiasm?

And how do the major political parties explain people like Arlen Specter, Scott Brown, Charlie Crist and Marco Rubio? Specter’s RINO tendencies were so obvious he felt compelled to switch from Republican to Democrat to have a chance at re-election this fall. You may remember Joe Lieberman sided with the GOP more often than the DNC would like and had to run as an Independent to have a chance to keep his Senate seat. Now Charlie Crist is reported to be considering a similar strategy in his campaign. And Marco Rubio is riding the current conservative wave to a large lead in the polls against Crist by supporting basic American values and conservative principles.

One report headlines Mitt Romney advising Crist to stay in the GOP and back Rubio. And everyone should know by now that ‘going rogue’ Sarah Palin is supporting John McCain. Which leads to this blogger’s opinion for this post.

Could it be we need the Tea Party movement to lead us to a third party in American politics? The DNC and GOP are working the tea party trend to their respective advantages. Perhaps the prevailing sentiment within conservative circles that dismiss the birth of a ‘tea party’ centers on political party strategy. Many who did not vote for Barack Obama in 2008 held their noses and voted for John McCain. After all, those were the only two choices having a chance to win. The GOP may expect to ride the Tea Party movement to victory in November for a simple reason. Faced with similar choices in upcoming elections they may expect many voters to do the same. Hold their nose and vote for the GOP candidate.

Not only are POLS beholding to lobbyists and the interests they represent but much of what they do is driven by party politics. Maybe it is time to have a ‘tea party’ with enough voting strength to support candidates with basic American values and conservative principles. The back and forth between the DNC and GOP has had little to do with representing ordinary American citizens not to mention preserving the founding principles of our nation.

Once again, this blogger supports the notion to throw the bums out. It is still true that a couple of election cycles of removing incumbents from office would do more to correct politics as usual than any fix current POLS can suggest. This exercise in natural term limits attacks the root cause of leadership failure in Washington DC and around the country. Politicians represent themselves before anyone else. It’s time to show them the door via the ballot box.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

The development of public opposition to big government and the Democratic Party agenda known as the Tea Party protests was characterized in one report today as moving ‘from punchline to powerhouse.’ Other media items like the San ‘liberal’ Mercury News focused on the ‘diversity’ angle apparently used to keep the race card alive while trying to act like an objective news service.

If the MSM wants to push the race card how about this for a debating point? If the Tea Party theme of public opposition to big government and a liberal agenda is viewed by some as a single demographic perhaps those not in attendance favor big government, entitlements and the nanny state mindset.

Based on a limited review of the MSM coverage of tax day tea parties this may be one of those times when the ‘established press’ (whatever that means) provided a rather tame assessment of the day’s events.

The NYT fish wrap has a headline that merely mentions the tax day theme of Tea Party rallies along with the word ‘demonstrate.’ The Miami Herald announces the Tea Party anniversary that ‘activists mark’ with ‘more rallies.’ Other news outlets echo similar descriptions in an almost polite and uncharacteristic fashion.

Few seem interested in dismissing or insulting the growing trend this time around. Could it be they have finally realized that most Americans are fed up with the fed? Do they now understand most people oppose Obamacare, the Porkulus package, Ben Nelson’s Cornhusker Cash and Mary Landrieu’s Louisiana Purchase? Not to mention the monumental fall from grace of the GOP during their last stint as the majority party in Washington.

That would be expecting too much. It’s a nice thought and would benefit the move to return this country to its founding principles. But one day is not a trend and as mentioned earlier the news review was limited. Your basic quick glance at headlines and excerpts like the following one.

Obama also credited his signature economic recovery package with putting more than two million Americans back to work and with cutting taxes for families, small businesses and students. And he singled out the anti-tax tea party movement that fanned out across the country Thursday to hold demonstrations and rallies marking Tax Day.

“I’ve been a little amused over the last couple of days where people have been having these rallies about taxes,” the president said, noting the numerous tax cuts pushed by his administration. “You would think they’d be saying thank you.”

Mr President, either you are not paying attention or you think we are not. Perhaps like most in Congress you did not read your so-called health insurance reform bill either. Even your lap dog Harry Reid stated the bill ‘is not perfect’ but ‘we can fix it’ along with other nonsense he did not utter during the reconciliation scam. The misuse of the procedure known as reconciliation demonstrated lack of support for Obamacare. And the Tea Party movement is a reminder that Americans have not forgotten and will remember it well in November 2010.

Just think of all the votes represented by the Tea Party participants. Add to that the people who did not attend rallies but share the values of those who did. That makes November 2010 all the more interesting. Perhaps Barry from DC won’t be so amused then.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Yes, it’s early yet. But you can always count on an abundance of opinion, speculation and concern when it comes to judicial nominations especially for SCOTUS. This time out is no exception. So where are we at rignt now? Who knows?

Here’s a recap of recent predictions or at least a not so short list with some, shall we say, historical notes.

It appears the replacement for Justice John Paul Stevens may come from a list of ten candidates.

elena kagan
merrick b garland
diane wood (of chicago)
sidney thomas
janet napolitano
martha minow
elizabeth warren
leah ward sears
jennifer granholm
hillary clinton (now, reportedly, off the list)

Ah, the speculation….

…since Justice John Paul Stevens announced his retirement from the court, speculation has centered on three contenders from the last round, including Solicitor General Elena Kagan, U.S. Appeals Court Judge Merrick B. Garland of Washington, D.C., and U.S. Appeals Court Judge Diane Wood of Chicago.

Let’s start with Wiki on Elena Kagan.

Kagen ‘is the Solicitor General of the United States. She is the first woman to hold that office, having been nominated by President Barack Obama on January 26, 2009, and confirmed by the U.S. Senate on March 19, 2009. Kagan was formerly dean of Harvard Law School and Charles Hamilton Houston Professor of Law at Harvard University. She was previously a professor of law at the University of Chicago Law School. She served as Associate White House Counsel under President Bill Clinton.’

Imagine that. Clinton and Chicago in her history.

How about Merrick B Garland being on the ’short list’? The Wiki data will be skipped. Why? Clinton and Chicago in this potential nominee’s resume’ as well.

Diane Wood is another Chicago connection. Go figure, the University of Chicago is in her resume’. At least she was born in New Jersey rather than Illinois. But this one also is a Clinton nominee from 1995. And these three figure as top nominees to replace Stevens. BTW, you might want to check Wiki for Wood’s ‘noteworthy rulings.’ There is more than one of interest.

As for the remainder of this list, a humble opinion from this blog author. Judge Sidney Thomas is another Clinton nominee from 1995. This criteria for Steven’s replacement is laughable. Can Obama not draw on something other than political considerations? Oh, excuse me, we’re talking about a community organizer here.

Martha Minow gets no pan on this blog…. yet. A brief review of the Wiki data suggests this potential nominee may not have the typical resume’ of other Chicago or Clinton tainted cnadidates. Nonetheless there is reason to be concerned. A later post will be needed to expand on this list member.

Leah Ward Sears presents another unknown quantity and her ‘decisions’ may provide some troubling analysis. Like Minow, another post will be required to explore this candidate.

Hillary Clinton appears to have been dropped from the list if she in fact was ever on it. As for Granholm, Napolitano and Warren only the last name presents an interesting choice. Some information related to Elizabeth Warren is promising. But then, if she is on the Obama ’short list’ one has to be suspicious. But there are acceptable choices in Obama’s list. Given you cannot expect the Messiah to nominate a conservative.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

BTW, here’s an interesting opinion from the WaPo report…..

When the openings on the court come in consecutive years, said David Yalof, a political scientist at the University of Connecticut, the nominee is almost always drawn from the previous pool.

Especially when the president otherwise has a full agenda, they’re going to rely on the research done the previous year, for better or worse,” Yalof said.

WH Press Secretary Robert Gibbs has taken plenty of criticism. Whether you view him as incompetent or an astute barrier between the press and the Obama administration his performance could fairly be described as less than stellar. How does that play with WH plans for his career suggested in a WaPo article?

Robert Gibbs does not seem particularly attached to his office.

Is his post as Press guru simply a waypoint for a larger mission?

Robert Gibbs ‘is considered, along with Obama’s presidential campaign manager, David Plouffe, a top candidate to take the place of senior strategist David Axelrod when the Washington-weary keeper of the Obama message leaves to focus on the 2012 reelection. That isn’t happening anytime soon, which means Gibbs is stuck on double duty.

AS 2012 approaches Axelrod will focus on re-election while Plouffe gets top strategist and Gibbs gets what, exactly? Like you would want to accept the take of a failed communications director.

“Robert is far more of a strategist and plays more of a strategic role than people realize,” said Anita Dunn, the Obama administration’s former communications director. “He is one of the very few people who can sit in on anything he wants to sit in on.”

And it is always a waste of time to accept information from an undisclosed source without the stones to go on record to protect against looking the fool later.

“The idea of Gibbs taking on a senior adviser role was under discussion as a possible arrangement even before the current arrangement,” said one Democratic official with knowledge of staffing decisions during the transition, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private conversations.

And it gets better. In the quote below it would be more fun to know why the pair left the Kerry campaign ‘abruptly.’

“He’s definitely got the chops for a broader political portfolio,” said Jim Jordan, the Democratic operative who brought Gibbs onto the 2004 Kerry campaign, before they both left abruptly. “He understands campaigns and Washington and the way that politics and policy and communications mesh.”

Number one, if you’re such a hot strategic commodity why would you be burdened and embarrassed by a stint as a press secretary? And why would you be referred to as a ‘confidant’ to a US President when two others are in line for the top strategy posts? Is this just a not so subtle attempt to repair Gibbs’ sad history to date?

Number two, Barack Obama is not a stranger to throwing people under the bus. His approval ratings continue to slide. More and more Americans are expressing their displeasure and disappointment with Obama and the liberal majority in Congress. If Axelrod is point for 2012 and Plouffe is his replacement what does that forecast for Gibbs? When it all collapses he will be turned out as the failure’s scapegoat. Or just one of many who will see the underside of the bus.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Here’s a headline that might get your attention.

Calif. to investigate group behind Palin speech

Specifically, California Attorney General, former Governor and current candidate for Governor (among other titles held) Jerry Brown is the point man on this.

California Attorney General Jerry Brown said Tuesday his office had launched an investigation into the finances of a state university foundation and the alleged dumping of documents related to Sarah Palin’s upcoming speech at the school.

And you gotta love a Joe Biden-like quote from one of Linda Ronstadt’s former boyfriends.

“This is not about Sarah Palin,” Brown said in a prepared statement. “The issues are public disclosure and financial accountability in organizations embedded in state-run universities.”

If this is not about Sarah Palin or partisan politics someone should explain the following:

The WaPo piece indicates the Stanislaus Foundation and a spokesman for Palin did not ‘immediately’ respond to inquiries. Does that mean they responded later? And why is there no mention of any inquiry into actions of the two students involved in the story?

Does this sound suspicious to you?

“I was informed that there was suspicious activity taking place at the administration building, which I found very alarming,” said 23-year-old Ashli Briggs, a junior at the school.

Along with other students including Ashley Lewis documents were retrieved from ‘trash bins’ near the CSU administration building. Who informed the students?

State Sen. Leland Yee, D-San Francisco, who has been seeking details of Palin’s compensation package for several weeks, released copies of the paperwork earlier in the day.

Does anyone else wonder if CA State Senator Leland Yee was the one who informed students to seek out the docs since he was unsuccessful in getting them? That would easily explain why the students handed them over to AG Brown.

And when it comes right down to it, who the hell cares what anyone receives as compensation for speaking engagements? Well known individuals who attract large audiences can command lucrative payment and perks for their ability to do so. What’s the big surprise? Why do you suppose they are often referred to as rock stars? It’s a big payday.

Wow, liberals are upset that Sarah Palin is to speak at a ’state run’ campus in California? So they seek to expose her contract for the event and cover their intent by saying it is a financial disclosure issue with a school foundation?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com