Month: December 2009
Golf Digest Obama/Tiger Cover: Fail
Nothing quite sums up the differences between print and new media like the January 2010 cover of Golf Digest. Print — despite the likely fervent wishes to the contrary of the editors who came up with, “10 Tips Obama Can Take From Tiger” — is forever.
The story is not available online but promises, “Writers and players share what they think the president can learn from the world’s best golfer — and vice versa.” The mind reels at the possibilities of what Obama could learn from Tiger, but let’s face it, there’s only one thing we can think of that Tiger might learn in return: “Keep it in your pants, son!”
Verbatim
I will not leave until my friends in the Senate have completed their work. My attitude is if they are making these sacrifices to provide health care to all Americans, the least I can do is be around and provide them any encouragement and last-minute help.
— President Obama, on delaying his planned Hawaii vacation until the Senate passes the health care reform bill.
RPOF’s Greer Invokes the ’11th Commandment’ and Breaks It
The Republican Party of Florida has a problem on its hands and it’s called Chairman Jim “Big Jim” Greer. Of course, Greer has his own problems and they’re called disaffected party dissidents who want him gone.
The thing is, when it comes to knocking off your opponent, Greer has proved much more adept at marginalizing problems than his cantankerous constituents — he kicks them out of the party and bars them from party events. So if you’re not in lock-step with the Charlie Crist appointee, you’re locked out of your political party.
For the gory details, check out the Palm Beach Post’s political blog.
Like a mad dog under attack, Greer lashed out at his enemies in a sharply worded letter that included this not-so veiled threat:
Finally, I would offer a gentle but firm warning. Several of my opponents have told me that they will continue this attack on my character until I acquiesce to their demands. I would tell them that a person’s reputation is precious, and that I will use every resource in my command to actively protect mine. Hateful lies intended to hurt my family are certainly not part of Reagan’s 11th commandment, I will not stoop to their disgraceful level instead I will stay focused on winning elections.
The commandment Greer refers to was actually not Reagan’s but California State Republican Chair Gaylord Parkinson, who coined it in 1966 during Ronald Reagan’s gubernatorial campaign: “Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican.”
Man, people in that party have broken that commandment more times than the ones about adultery, covetousness and stealing combined.
Greer broke it before he actually invoked it by calling his fellow Repugs libelers and such all:
What has transpired in the last week has been nothing short of slander and libel by a group of people bent on the destruction of the Republican Party. A coordinated campaign of misinformation, complete with late night phone calls and e-mails filled with rumors and innuendo, all in attempt to create the appearance of chaos at a time when the party is laser-focused on defeating Democrats.
The trouble for Greer is that he’s a Crist man through and through, which begs the question of whether a sitting state party chairman should take sides in what is shaping up to be a nasty primary fight between Crist and Marco Rubio, the golden child of the far right base of the party.
At least that’s the question the wingnuts have been asking ever since last summer when Greer tried to get Rubio’s name tossed from the primary ballot using the mysterious “Rule 11,” which states that the state party can drop a candidate from the ballot if there’s no chance of him winning. Of course, that’s not the case for Rubio, who has surged in the polls and fundraising while Good-Time Charlie’s campaign has become mired in treacle.
Meanwhile the state party is out of money and big-time fundraisers are refusing to pony up until Greer is gone from the scene. See, a lot of Florida Republicans wonder what happened t all the money that was in party coffers when Greer took over, but has since evaporated.
I wouldn’t have thought so a year ago, but with the Republicans at each other’s throats, the race for Florida’s Senate seat might actually be interesting after all.
RNC Chair Steele Working That Speaker Gravy Train
The Washington Times, in an exclusive, reports that Michael Steele, chairman of the Republican National Committee, has four agencies booking him speaking engagements for which he receives between $8,000 to $20,000 plus first-class travel and accommodations.
Nice work, if you can get it — especially on top of a $223,500 salary.
Steele’s shilling for shekels is not sitting well with former RNC chairs:
“Holy mackerel, I never heard of a chairman of either party ever taking money for speeches,” said Frank J. Fahrenkopf Jr., RNC chairman under President Reagan and CEO of the American Gaming Association.
“The job of a national chairman is to give speeches. That’s what the national party pays him for. We didn’t have a rule book back then, but being national chairman was and is a full-time job,” Mr. Fahrenkopf said.
Former Republican National Committee Chairman Jim Nicholson, who served in that position from 1997 to 2000 and was President George W. Bush’s Veterans Affairs secretary from 2005 to 2007, said the job “demands so much of your time that you can work 24/7 and not get everything done, so taking time out to speak for the benefit of one’s own bank account is not appropriate.”
Steele’s response was typically flippant when confronted with the evidence:
“This is silly. Many Democrat and Republican national chairmen have regularly received outside income,” said RNC spokeswoman Gail Gitcho.
“Michael Steele has been giving inspirational speeches based on his personal story long before he was elected RNC chairman and will long after,” Ms. Gitcho said.
Well, I mean it’s not like it’s not Republican-like behavior, after all ….
Sotomayor Was Only the Beginning: Obama Appoints Historic Numbers of Latinos
That Pres. Obama has nominated more Hispanic or Latino appointees than any of his predecessors might indicate more about how well and broadly this group has assimilated in American society than about his commitment to diversity. Not that he’s not committed to diversity, mind you, just that it might be an easy thing to be committed to.
Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor is by far Obama’s most famous Hispanic appointee. In less than a year in office, the president has also tapped at least 48 other Hispanics to positions senior enough to require Senate confirmation. So far, 35 have been approved.
That compares with a total of 30 approved under Bill Clinton and 34 under George W. Bush during their first 20 months in office, according to U.S. Office of Personnel Management data…
The officials cover a wide swath of policy areas and include:
— [Labor Secretary Hilda] Solis, [first female Latina cabinet member], a California native and former congresswoman whose parents hail from Mexico and Nicaragua.
— Thomas Perez, the assistant attorney general for civil rights, an Ivy Leauger from New York whose parents fled the Dominican Republic dictatorship of Rafael Trujillo.
— Jose Riojas, assistant secretary for veterans affairs, a retired brigadier general and Mexican-American from Missouri.
George Bush, whose sister-in-law, Columba (wife of Jeb), is Mexican, and whose father, Bush 41, famously referred to his “little brown” grandchildren, was seen as friendlier to Hispanics than any other president.
But in one way, Obama’s picks are the opposite of diverse and reveal something else about the president’s comfort level.
More than half of the appointees hold an Ivy League degree, and more than a quarter, like the president, have a diploma from Harvard, an Associated Press review found.
Poll: 50% Agree 2000s Worst Decade in 50 Years
Face it — the “Aughts” as this first decade of the 21st century is being called, sucked. At least a majority of Americans (50 percent) think so, as opposed to a 27 percent minority who have positive thoughts about the decade. This is according to a Pew survey that assesses how we as a nation feel about this decade versus, say, the ’70s or even the ’90s.
Actually, we think pretty fondly of the 1980s (56 percent positive) and the 1990s (57 percent positive). But the ’60s (34 percent positive) and the ’70s (40 percent positive) fared poorly.
When asked what the most important event of the decade was, 53 percent cited the 9/11 attacks, while 16 percent said Barack Obama’s election and 12 percent said the financial meltdown of 2008. Only 5 percent said the Iraq War and only 3 percent cited Hurricane Katrina.
Looking ahead, 59 percent of us think the 2010s will be better for the United States, while 32 percent expect them to be worse. Of course, the only honest answer was from the 5 percent who said they don’t know what the next decade holds in store for us.
