About
RSS
<< October, 2009 >>
SMTWTFS
123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031
Categories
Archives
In The News
YouTube Videos
Google Ads
29 October 2009
Obama's Ol' Boys Club Keeping Women Out?
Apparently, the writers at the New York Times don’t read the front page of their own newspaper. Rather than delve into the hard hitting questions facing the nation such as what to do about the increasing instability in Afghanistan, the strategy to repair a still lackluster economy or how much debt we really are poised to pass onto future generations, one Times journo decided to explore the real hand-wringer of the day that’s keeping Americans awake at night: is there too much testosterone in the White House??
 
The article was sparked by recent outrage from women’s groups (and apparently one very isolated, out of touch, culturally delusional Times employee) over an all-male basketball game hosted by the President.  The author writes about how Obama is an “unabashed First Guy’s Guy” who boasts “encyclopedic knowledge of college hoops” (as if to imply that an impressive aptitude in sports trivia is somehow the measure of a man and that George Bush and Bill Clinton were somehow Presidential girlie men who, if spontaneously interrupted, could be caught painting their toe nails while listening to old Liza records). 
 
It continues:
 
“The technical foul over the all-male game has become a nagging concern for a White House that has battled an impression dating to the presidential campaign that Mr. Obama’s closest advisers form a boys’ club and that he is too frequently in the company of only men — not just when playing sports, but also when making big decisions.”
 
What impression? And who exactly is the President battling this faux “impression” against besides The National Organization for Women (NOW) who called basketball game “troubling”?
 
Isn’t the real concern that the President recoils when it comes to making any big decision?
 
As someone who is frequently critical of the President, a female, and a conservative, insinuating that a handicap of his is the fictional perception that he is operating an exclusive chest bumping, fraternity like good ol' boys club is mindboggling, even to me.
 
Obama has given women notable placement in his administration. While militant maniacs seek to destroy us abroad, Hillary Clinton is our Secretary of State and Susan Rice is a Senior Foreign Policy Advisor. As we face a global pandemic Kathleen Sebelius, the Secretary of Health and Human Services and Janet Napolitano, the Homeland Security Secretary, are faced with how to keep citizens safe.  From Valerie Jarrett to his wife Michelle, Obama has elevated females to positions of power seeking their leadership on some of the most serious and sensitive of issues.
 
Even the White House’s official Fox News basher, Anita Dunn, has been given a megaphone with which to whine (a bizarre one, but a megaphone nonetheless). Though I disagree with these women ideologically, it’s indisputable that they are, in fact, women.
 
Perhaps most importantly while these females try to do their important jobs, having a campaign for affirmative action in the White House in the midst of all the other problems we face seems misguided.  When I look at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue I don’t see Greek letters on the front and a keg in the back. I see a dark cloud overtop.
 
With unemployment on the brink of hitting 10 percent, escalating violence in the Middle East, and a ballooning national debt, the media should be focused on the President’s ability to put points on the only board that matters using the team he surrounds himself with off the courts.
 
Instead, the "Gray Lady" and those on ABC’s The View reliably and unsurprisingly lambasted the President for not letting Hillary suit up that day.  Elizabeth Hassleback insinuated that if Obama’s daughters looked out the window and saw an all male basketball game, the President had somehow failed them as a father.
 
“He presents himself as a feminist, so the hypocrisy is glaring,” insisted Joy Behar.
 
Girlfriends: how about discussing contradictions that count, such as Obama campaigning on balanced budgets but now breaking the bank? Or his crafting of ethics laws to keep lobbyists out of government but then changing course? Or his waffling on sending more troops to wage a war that he called a necessity?
 
It’s insulting to females everywhere to deduce that because our gender wasn’t represent to shoot three pointers that day, the President is somehow a misogynist “towel snapper,”  who puts us at a disadvantage, and is corrupting his children.
 
These types of temper tantrums undermine women, distract and reverse decades of progress.  As long as women and men view every issue through a prism of gender, females end up marginalized. Women have made tremendous progress. We should embrace it, not seek to disprove it. Real women don’t complain or pout, we play ball, whether the President invites us or not.
Posted by atantaros at 3:38 PM
13 October 2009
5 Things to Watch as We Get Closer to Healthcare Reform

The Senate Finance Committee is voting on health care today. After five months of vigorous and often acerbic debate, lawmakers in Congress are still managing to get it wrong. Not only that, they're leaving many concerns unaddressed and lots of problems unresolved. Here’s what you need to know as we watch Congress embark on a roller coaster ride that will last for weeks:

#1. Questions Still Remain -- What About Taxes?

Many lawmakers remain unconvinced that most of the plans that Congress will mandate will be affordable. The Senate and the House are also at odds on how to pay for the legislation, with the Senate preferring a tax on high-value insurance policies as the primary source of revenue, and House leaders favoring a surcharge on millionaires. Democrats on the far left want to impose fines on companies that do not provide coverage to their employees and middle of the road Democrats favoring a more toned down model.

#2. This Is Just the Beginning

Keep in mind that despite the hype over today’s Finance Committee hearing, the Baucus bill is not the final product. After the vote, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will summon both Senators Baucus and Dodd -- the author of another piece of legislation that moved through the Senate Health Committee in July -- to his office discuss options about how to reach a compromise.

#3. Keep Your Eye On These Lawmakers 

Senator Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) and liberal Republican Senator Olympia Snowe (Maine) are the two women to watch. It’s likely they will vote for the Baucus bill, and when they do it will send a message that the principles included in the bill will likely be the ones that Democrats will be forced to defend in the 2010 midterm elections to their constituents. With 13 Democrats and 10 Republicans on the committee, Baucus can only afford to lose one member of his party if Republicans vote to block his bill.

#4. Speaker Pelosi's Role

Typically the House votes first on legislation and then sends a bill to the Senate. But this time it was different. The House needed to go second because it was unlikely that House moderates and Blue Dog Democrats would cast their vote on controversial legislation that might never make it through the Senate, let alone become law.

There’s no question Speaker Nancy Pelosi wanted to go first. Her liberal penchant is for the House to lead (in other words, for her to lead the charge) and set the marker by which every piece of policy is judged going forward. But the legislative reality was different. The Speaker simply didn’t have the votes. And she decided early on in the health care fight to cut the vote pool in half by making this a partisan bill, winnable only with Democratic votes (we knew that was the endgame at the beginning, but she sure went there quickly).

She still believes this is a "message win" for her party. That’s why she’s gone gangbusters. Watch her misstep on the public option since she’s so blind to public opinion on this point in particular.

#5. Plenty of Doubts Persist

Despite a public outcry for smart health care reform and less government control, the bill in consideration still reflects a move to give the government more control of one sixth of our economy and our health care decisions, along with original concerns like ballooning costs, mandates and subsidies. And guess what else awaits? Every bill put forth on health care would result in higher taxes.

While there is a manufactured sense of extreme urgency to get something done, it’s crucial that our lawmakers in both houses get it done correctly. Keep in mind that even if the Baucus bill passes the Finance Committee today, the fight is far from over, and Congress is still far from getting it right.

Andrea Tantaros is the former Press Secretary to House Republican Leadership and a FoxNews.com contributor. Follow her on Twitter @AndreaTantaros.

Posted by atantaros at 3:14 PM
09 October 2009
Pelosi's Sinking in the Swamp

Upon assuming her Speakership, Nancy Pelosi assured Americans she would “drain the swamp” and still to this day boasts of that notion as an accomplishment. Sadly, the swamp is winning.
 
In perhaps the most appalling display of “cronyism,” a word Pelosi herself used almost incessantly when Republicans were in power, she has allowed her good friend and political ally, Charlie Rangel to retain his powerful post as the Ways and Means Committee Chairman, despite calls for him to step down on both sides of the aisle and a litany of unethical transgressions, including:

- Evading taxes on $1.3 million in income derived from multiple properties and failing to disclose hundreds of thousands of dollars of assets and income.

- Accusations of taking a $1 million contribution to the Rangel Center at City College from a wealthy businessman who later got a lucrative tax break for his company.

-Accepting a Citigroup-funded trip to the Caribbean in November 2008, when the bank was bleeding the bailout funds dry.

- Unreported rental income from a vacation villa in the Dominican Republic that Rangel failed to acknowledge when filling out financial disclosure forms.

Instead of applying the same guidelines on impropriety that she did for the GOP, Pelosi has largely remained mum, opting instead to duck, deny, and ignore the gravity of the situation in front of her.  Not surprising as this isn’t the first instance of her favoritism.

She’s stuck by her closest congressional cohort, John Murtha, who now faces an investigation for misdeeds including no-bid contracts awarded to a nephew’s company and $38.1 million in earmarked appropriations for clients of the PMA Group, which employ former Murtha staff members and contributed to his campaign.
 
When asked about attempts to strengthen congressional standards, the Pennslyvania Democrat responded that he thinks it's “crap.” Apparently his buddy Pelosi agrees.
 
Despite finding photos of $90,000 in cash tucked inside containers of pie crust and Boca Burger from an FBI raid of Louisiana Congressman William Jefferson’s house, Pelosi tried to gift him (ironically) with a Homeland Security committee assignment. He would later be convicted of 11 counts of racketeering and bribery.
 
Someone call Joe the Plumber. The drain on the swamp is awfully clogged.
 
Some Democrats agree. Two of her members broke with ranks and voted against Mr. Rangel, a sign that the Speaker will soon have to answer for her actions, or lack thereof. Many are calling for him to resign, realizing that not only is this hypocrisy in its most audacious form, but also that Republicans will make hay of this issue until the leadership on the left, mainly Pelosi, call for him to step down.
 
When the ultra liberal New York Times editorial page wags its finger in disgust for one of their own and a hometown son, one can measure the severity of this mistake. The NYT writes:
 
“It is time for Democrats in Congress — who once justifiably complained about the corruption of the Republican majority — to demonstrate to Americans that someone in that august body has ethical standards.
 
“Speaker Nancy Pelosi, maintaining her tunnel vision on behalf of a powerful colleague, led the majority to defeat the Republicans’ latest call to depose the New York lawmaker. She does the nation no favor.”
 
But many still refuse to see what damage it is doing to their credibility because he’s “a likeable guy.”  Mark Foley was also a likeable guy. But he had to go. More obviously, a chilly demeanor isn’t the charge.
 
Mr. Rangel is the big cheese when it comes to writing federal legislation that impacts our tax code.  To not only shield a member of her caucus as political payback for Rangel’s past support of Pelosi -- but also reward that member -- displays that she is willing to risk losing her entire caucus, and what’s left of her almost non-existent credibility, for the sake of a few. That’s not just bad politics. That’s bad judgement.
 
 
If she hopes to survive a bloody battle in 2010, one where her own words and actions will be used against her, she must insist Rangel resign immediately.
 
To The New York Times who concluded their scathing rebuke by assuring that the protection of Mr. Rangel as chairman “is a grave misstep” that can only hand the ethics issue back to Pelosi’s political opponents, I would argue that it’s far too late. The issue has already been returned to Republicans. We can only hope control of the U.S. House is next.

Posted by atantaros at 9:46 AM
02 October 2009
Why Did He Do It?

President Obama has finally drawn a line in the sand. Not on whether or not to prosecute former Bush administration officials, not on the public option, or whether or not to send more troops into Afghanistan. He’s finally taken a firm stand on…the 2016 Olympics?

President Obama traveled to Copenhagen, Denmark on Friday, on a different plane from his wife Michelle and talk show queen Oprah Winfrey, to try to secure Chicago’s bid for the games (can someone do a carbon emission calculation on that?). While he was in Denmark he did meet the Danish Royal Family and also his top commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal.

Besides the fact that he has bigger fish to fry than assuming the duties typically reserved for a metropolitan mayor, this is the only time we’ve actually seen the president appear so absolute.Well, except for when he picked a dog.

While his trip is certainly within the province of presidential duty, it begs the question, why did he do it?

As the Brazilians celebrate, he looks foolish, not to mention weak to the world. If the president had been able to peddle his influence and bring the games to Illinois, he would have looked effective now, and not coincidentally, effective at the end of his second term (provided he wins one) when the games would take place.-- Talk about historic grandeur and a sure way to memorialize one’s legacy!

If the economy was healthy, and Obama had brought home a win for Chicago today, he would have looked presidential. Republicans still would have shouted the converse but they would have looked petty. 

Now, with unemployment bordering on double digits, an economy still in need of rescue, and the games headed for Rio, Obama looks a like a president all right -- one with his priorities out of wack and his purported influence on the world stage non existent. Guess what? Obama's missed his first basket at small ball.

Posted by atantaros at 12:00 AM
Designed and Maintained by Strategic Solutions