You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Chicago-politics’ tag.

WaPo has the latest round in the embarrassing White House-SCOTUS kindergarten scuffle and what sounds like a good thing in Congress about earmarks.

Somehow I believe Washington Times headline on it more

Also in Washington Tomes – the House rejecting DK’s resolution to withdraw from Afghanistan, an interesting article on Obama/Democrats in Missouri and check that headline on Conyers wife – wasn’t she the one writing voters in Michigan to vote “uncommitted”? That’s cause for schadenfreude

The Examiner has the obligatory Rahm story which shockingly contains this paragraph

But if Obama is tempted to blame his current quagmire on his lieutenant — as many of his fellow Democrats are already doing — the president should remember that he bears the blame for picking the wrong person for the job.

Emanuel was Obama’s first hire. His elevation to chief of staff was heralded from the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal to the corridors of lefty think tanks as proof that Obama was going to get tough and be serious about governing.

“Obambi” would have backup from “Rahmbo.”

In NY, Obama Times is Paterson free today, but has a scary article on “uniform standards on education” –

The Daily News has a snarky retraction on Paterson (in lieu  of  “we lied about his tampering with witnesses” – you know, the one that started it all)

Long article ending in

“There is no evidence Paterson has done either of those things.”

How many covers did Daily News have on this? Ny Post? Obama Times? ….Bueller? Anyone?

AM NY is wondering about Elliott Spitzer’s political ambitions – and check the Bloomberg headline – no wonder he wanted to be Mayor – it agrees with him

while NY Post is on State Senate Politics

But it’s Metro that stays relevant, disclosing the banks greedy new overdraft regulations


WaPo is dumping on Massa as per Rahm’s instructions

The Examiner has some interesting healthcare headlines on the side, next to the feature which probably reflects the market they want to capture

Washington Times has 2 Massa headlines – one with the WH/Rahm reaction (besides having WaPo ramping up the smears)

Asked whether naked politicking is standard practice, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs chuckled and told a reporter to e-mail the query to Mr. Emanuel, saying he hadn’t discussed the matter with him. Mr. Gibbs then took aim at Mr. Massa, accusing him of changing his story numerous times.

“The notion that somehow the White House had anything to do with the series of events that have caused him to not seek re-election and ultimately leave the House, the notion that somehow we were involved in that I think is … silly and ridiculous,” Mr. Gibbs said.

.In New York the break is over. They must think Paterson is powerless enough to call a special election, as they are back (I hope he proves them wrong)

Obama Times writes about Paterson’s # 2 making policy now

The Daily News about the aqueduct contract being scrapped

and Metro rehashes the whole sorry with a bizarre graphic back from Spitzer .

(I just has a flash to the time they knocked Spitzer down and the B0bots were celebrating because a black man was succeeding him – and that meant – they assumed a loss of a delegate for Hillary – a win for Obama)

I have been surprised for the past few days by not finding Paterson’s name on page one anymore.

What changed?

Here’s a clue I got:

“Republicans in the district outnumber Democrats by more than 45,000. Gov. David A. Paterson could call a special election for the seat as soon as next month, although he could also let it remain vacant until the November election.”

Wow! One or two votes for healthcare in Paterson’s hands today. And it’s important enough for Democrats to have strted the whole scandal thinghie.

Another clue – in a commentary by 1539 days at The Confluence

If I have the timeline correct, I guess the Democrats were letting Massa slide so he could get re-elected to his House seat. When he said he wouldn’t run again, they must have figured it was worth more to force him out than keep a lame duck in a district that a Republican would get in November.

What will happen next? Will Paterson set a close date for a special election? Will he instead buy himself a moratorium from his Chicago-politics vendetta?

Stay tune for the next episode of “as the Chicago Politics blows back”

Eric Massa – the value of loyalty

This is Eric Massa speaking at the Count the vote rally – during the infamous RBC hijacking of the primaries, May 31, 2008.

He spoke of loyalty then and he was loyal to his constituents since – standing up for progressives – including the single payer issue.

That led to a number of “no” votes against the Jr.jr administration agenda and I guess, in the tight vote count for HCR, gave someone the idea to Paterson him.

I wrote an entry about strange occurrences in this story. It disappeared over night – only a “c” remains where my entry was.

I am still wondering what the letter “C” left behind in my blog – instead of my entry could mean (shades of T-shirts from the 2008 elections?)

Here’s my reconstituted entry.

The ethics committee leaked their secret investigation to the media on March 4. Whomever was in charge of the actual leaking it contained statements from Steny Hoyer

Mr. Hoyer instructed his staff that if Mr. Massa or his staff did not bring the matter to the attention of the bipartisan Ethics Committee within 48 hours, Mr. Hoyer would do so.

Then Hoyer inappropriately dropped Foley’s name.

“I don’t think it helps anybody in the institution, any one of us on either side of the aisle. It certainly didn’t help Mr. Foley,” Hoyer said, referring to former Rep. Mark Foley (R-Fla.), who resigned from Congress in 2006 amid allegations that he sent sexually explicit instant messages to an underage male page.

“When there were allegations about Mr. Foley or others, I think the institution suffers,”

much as none of the facts warranted such an association.
Now Hoyer is trying to rebut the accusation that they leaked it to the media on purpose but didn’t attempt to contradict the accusation that they were investigating Massa in secret

Massa said Sunday that Hoyer had not spoken directly to him about the complaint, nor had the ethics committee contacted him at that time. Hoyer’s office confirmed the Maryland lawmaker had not personally spoken with Massa.

In other words, as Massa announced he would not run for reelection, they sprung the secret investigation on him (complete with Foley references) to make it all look ugly

The original post has an upshot about a potential candidate for Massa’s seat dropping out because of the toxic atmosphere. I shall post it as soon as I find it.

Going to the link Pips provided, I got the best credentials for Massa I could get. This is from Michelle Malkin

Don’t trust Democrat Rep. Eric Massa any further than you can throw him.

He’s been a progressive zealot and political opportunist his entire career. He’s claimed conspiracy before, is intimately bonded with the nutroots, and climbed the political ladder with backing from the odious, anti-war-hoaxer-embracing Gen. Wesley Clark. What Massa dismissively calls his “salty old sailor” talk should raise bright red flags about possible longstanding predatory behavior.

He’s the jerk who gave the figurative middle finger to his own constituents as he proclaimed last year that he would ram single-payer down their throats no matter what they thought:

Michelle is right. he is not one of “them”. He is not one of the Chicago clan either. Hence his predicament.


Yesterday I saw the hypocritical directive

President Obama warns staff: Ignore palace intrigue

(a bit hard when your Chicago politics create it and use the media as enforcer)

I see Chris Bowers is one of the bloggers dispatched on the Massa department of this. Of the top of my head, after perusing it here’s the problem with his drivel

Massa mentions Steny Hoyer:

“Steny Hoyer has never said a single word to me at all, never, not once,” Massa said. “Never before in the history of the House of Representatives has a sitting leader of the Democratic Party discussed allegations of House investigations publicly, before findings of fact. Ever.”

Hoyer’s office denies the charge.

Except that, when you go to the link, you get the same fact I exposed earlier: Hoyer may protest the charge but doesn’t have the facts to deny it. he publicly smeared Massa without giving him a chance to tell his side.

“Hoyer never talked to Massa”. With defenders like this, no wonder Rahm and Axelrod snap towels at each  others ass all over the media.


At The Confluence, Dormaphaea posted an excellent timeline that explains it all

Day one: Eric announces he’s stepping down, not running, health issues.
Day two: Someone mentions ethics investigation; Eric is fully aware of an investigation involving a fund-raising letter which had his name attached. Not informed of anything else.
Day three: Eric finds out about the alleged “sexual harassment” charge on, of all places, the internet. Figures it was his language. Cause sometimes, working in Congress can piss you off.
Day four: Gets more detail, remembers the wedding. Where in he (via Janicen’s adroit analysis) “[…calls attention] to the other guy’s boorish behavior in a very direct manner.”

Also, that other single payer supporter who was supposed to vote “No” got the message. He is now going on talk shows blabbing such pathetic propaganda as

The President gave his personal commitment that he would work on (the public option) later..

All righty, then!

Not Your Sweetie

January 2020
« Dec