February 25, 2010
— DrewM Late last night I blogged about the NY Times story charging that Paterson and the NY State Police contacted a woman who was seeking an order of protection from a top Paterson aid. Shortly after being "counseled" by the troopers (who had no jurisdiction in the case) she dropped her efforts, despite being adament in pursuing the case prior to that.
Now Paterson's top public safety aide, Denise O'Donnell, has resigned in protest over the matter.
The fact that the Governor and members of the State Police have acknowledged direct contact with a woman who had filed for an order of protection against a senior member of the Governor’s staff is a very serious matter. These actions are unacceptable regardless of their intent.It is particularly distressing that this could happen in an Administration that prides itself on its record of combating domestic violence. The behavior alleged here is the antithesis of what many of us have spent our entire careers working to build – a legal system that protects victims of domestic violence and brings offenders to justice.
In early January, following a breakfast meeting on another subject, State PoliceSuperintendent Harry Corbitt informed me that a senior Administration staff member had been involved in an incident months earlier where a Domestic Incident Report was filed. Superintendent Corbitt told me the staff member had an argument with his girlfriend, that a Domestic Incident Report had been filed, but that there was no arrest and that the matter was being handled as a local police matter by the New York Police Department.
My immediate concern was what role the State Police would take in the investigation and I was assured by Superintendent Corbitt that the State Police were not involved. It was only last night when I learned from press reports the contrary details, including the involvement of the State Police.
For these reasons, I am resigning my position as Commissioner of the Division of Criminal Justice Services and Deputy Secretary of Public Safety effective today.
Paterson, who has asked Attorney General and his opponent for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination Andrew Cuomo to investigate. Save the time and money, Paterson is done.
Who is next in line? From my post last night.
But wait, there's more! Should this get as far as Paterson having to leave office and I don't think it's a stretch to imagine it might (anyone really think a state trooper took this 'counseling' mission on his or her own initiative?), the Lieutenant Governor of NY is a guy named Richard Ravitch. Ravitch was named to the post during the summer power struggle in the state Senate. Paterson was the only person who thought he had the ability to name a new Lieutenant Governor and it took some willful blindness by the state's high court to agree.New York could wind up having a governor who was appointed to the position in a dubious way by a governor who only got the job because Eliot Spitzer wanted to keep his socks on.
Welcome To New York: America's Banana Republic On The Hudson...Making Louisiana Look Good Since 2008
So, that's awesome.
Posted by: DrewM at
10:49 AM
| Comments (35)
Post contains 538 words, total size 3 kb.
— Ace Surprised? I'm not.
Two highly placed and independent sources, speaking strictly on background, tell me that Gov. Charlie Crist is preparing to leave the Republican Party and run as an independent in the race for the U.S. Senate....
Another well-placed source tells me the reason several Crist campaign staffers left recently is because, being committed Republicans, they refused to take part in an independent Senate run by Crist. ThatÂ’s not confirmed by an independent second source, but it does ring true.
The Hill just rounded up a few recent Crist quotes indicating he's not really chasing conservative voters anymore.
From an appearance on Fox and Friends: “(Obama has) done some things that are good for our state; he’s done some things that are not good for our state. But what I have to do is make sure that I’m working with anybody who will do things that are good for our state and not just cast them aside because they have a different letter behind their name.”On supporting the stimulus: “I don't apologize for it at all. It was the right thing to do. We needed the money. It saved 87,000 jobs for our state.”
More: “I understand that different people view (the stimulus) in a different way. In the shoes that I stand in right now, I've got to look out for the people, and that's what I'm doing."
The problem here is that Democrats could wind up doing what we did in Connecticut when Lieberman went independent -- we abandoned the actual GOP candidate to get behind the non-Democrat with the best chance of winning. If Democrats did that, they'd have most of the Democrats plus a solid block of Crist RINOs and independents.
Crist's Credit Card Attack on Rubio: That first link also rebuts Crist's recent attack on Rubio, claiming that Rubio used his party-provided American Express card to cover a lot of personal expenses. Rubio has already responded 1) he didn't use it for that purpose much and 2) he reimbursed the party for all those expenses. Using it as currency of convenience, I guess.
But it turns out Rubio was pretty thrifty with the card, too:
According to published reports, the former RPOF chair, the bovine bully-boy buffoon Jim Greer, spent more in a month than Rubio did in his entire two years as state House speaker. If all the Crist campaign has on Rubio is $53.49 at Winn-Dixie in Miami for ``food” and a couple of plane tickets for his wife, then it's game, set and match, as far as the Republican primary for Senate is concerned.From what's been made public, Rubio's credit card expenses make him the most frugal of the Republican leaders with RPOF credit cards.
Posted by: Ace at
10:38 AM
| Comments (75)
Post contains 477 words, total size 3 kb.
— Ace Pretty funny stuff right here.
Even if you don't like Beck, give it a chance for a bit. Had me chuckling.
Posted by: Ace at
10:03 AM
| Comments (86)
Post contains 55 words, total size 1 kb.
— Ace
(More vids at Storyballoon, including Lamar Alexander's call for Obama to swear off any intent to use reconciliation to jam the bill through.)
Pretty good moment. After mentioning the Louisiana Purchase and the Cornhusker Kickback, McCain noted, to Obama's grimacing face, the deal with Phrma, in which Phrma agreed to cut costs $80 billion and run $150 million in ads supporting ObamaCare in exchange for an agreement to limit competition on prices in Medicare and opposition to drug re-importation from Canada.
Obama's answer? "We're not in campaign mode anymore."
He doesn't answer the charges. He just claims that to talk about how corrupt the process is would be unhelpful.
Unhelpful for him, he means.
Obama's Rules of Order: As noted in an update to an earlier thread, Gabe has been keeping track of "rules" Obama keeps setting down in order to secure a rhetorical advantage for himself:
1. Democrats get more time because "I'm the President."
2. Republicans may not criticise my bill. They can only talk about things on which we agree.
3. Republicans may not use the word "Washington" because it tips the scales.
4. Republicans may not use or reference an actual copy of the Senate bill. That's a "prop" and it's unfair.
And add to that 5:
5. We're not in "campaign mode anymore," by which he means McCain cannot mention his dirty dealings.
On the other hand, Democrats are allowed to introduce props -- some guy just showed a three-page Blue Cross pre-existing-condition-exclusion list -- and of course can use their favorite rhetorical tactic of telling a story of, say, Sally Mae Hirshberg, a spry, elfin great-grandmother, 104 years young, recently forced to eat cat food because her health care provider refused to cover her for the 60 cubic centimeter breast implants she so desperately needed.
Cantor... ...is definitely in campaign mode. He's talking up all the increased taxes and how that will cause people to lose their coverage.
Obama just has to sit there and take it with that pissed-off grimace.
Posted by: Ace at
08:47 AM
| Comments (446)
Post contains 355 words, total size 3 kb.
— Ace As mentioned before, Cantor says the bill is effectively dead.
In a pre-summit talk, House Republican Whip Eric Cantor says Democrats are trying to create a sense of "false momentum" about their national health care bill -- a bill Cantor says is dead and losing more support every day. "We have to continue the fight to make sure [it is dead]," Cantor says, "but all signs indicate now they cannot pass this in the House."...
"It's been interesting the radio silence on the other side about the vote count at this point," Cantor says. "Clyburn is walking it back, and Hoyer is certainly being very cautious in everything he is saying. There's nothing coming from the Speaker's office. They've got real problems."
...
Cantor sees no change coming from today's summit. The Democratic belief that President Obama can revive the bill by the power of his presence is misplaced, he says. "It's the policy that people are opposed to," Cantor says. "It's not Obama. It's what his policies are. To try and have him use personality to convince the public to support a bad bill -- the time for that is over. The public has decided that this bill is a nonstarter."
He cites pro-life forces as being instrumental in defeating the bill.
The WSJ reports Obama is preparing a Plan B-- well, a Plan C. Plan B was reconciliation. Plan C is a greatly scaled back program,
costing $250 billion, which will be despised by liberals for spending too little and conservatives for spending too much.
[Obama's] leading alternate approach would provide health insurance to perhaps 15 million Americans, about half what the comprehensive bill would cover, according to two people familiar with the planning.It would do that by requiring insurance companies to allow people up to 26 years old to stay on their parents' health plans, and by modestly expanding two federal-state health programs, Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program, one person said. The cost to the federal government would be about one-fourth the price tag for the broader effort, which the White House has said would cost about $950 billion over 10 years.
Officials cautioned that no final decisions had been made but said the smaller plan's outlines are in place in case the larger plan fails.
Such a move would disappoint many Democrats, including Mr. Obama. They have worked for more than a year to pass comprehensive legislation like the plan the president unveiled Monday, which would cover the bulk of the 46 million uninsured people in the U.S., set new rules for health insurers and try to control spiraling health-care costs.
Liberal Democrats in particular would be dismayed by any ratcheting back of ambitions. But more-conservative Democrats nervous about the fall elections could be more comfortable with a scaled-back measure.
The White House is vigorously denying the story, through its toady Ezra Klein at the Washington Post. But Steny Hoyer says it's a possibility.
Posted by: Ace at
08:06 AM
| Comments (120)
Post contains 497 words, total size 3 kb.
— Dave in Texas I'm just following some Twitter tracking of this thing. Here's a link to RNC Research Live Response To Health Care Summit via LorieByrd.
Geraghty comments on Pelosi's idiotic claim that the bill will create 4 million jobs (no mention of jobs saved, likely for a very good reason). Also several comments about Pelosi's inane argument that the American people don't have time for us to restart on health care, even though we have years for the thing to actually be implemented.
Nice that others are actually watching this crap so we don't have to.
Full Speed Ahead! [Slublog] - Politico outlines what the Democrats are planning to do after the summit:
After a brief period of consultation following the White House health-reform summit, Congressional Democrats plan to begin making the case next week for a massive, Democrats-only health-care, party strategists told POLITICO.So basically, no change at all.A Democratic official said the six-hour summit was expected to “give a face to gridlock, in the form of House and Senate Republicans.”
Democrats plan to begin rhetorical, and perhaps legislative, steps toward the Democrats-only, or reconciliation, process early next week, the strategists said.
Obama just pledged this morning that this will not be political theater. Could this be the fastest Obama Expiration Date™ ever?
DrewM: One of the first conflicts was between Obama and Lamar Alexander. Lamar said the bills would raise premiums, Obama said kind of because people would "choose" to buy better and more expensive policies.
Alexander is right and Obama is wrong. Premiums would go up because people would be forced to buy, not given the choice to buy, more expensive plans.
This is a key point...does this plan raise or lower cost for people who have insurance now. Obama is wrong and/or lying.
This thing is a joke and not a funny one.
UPDATE from Gabe [DiT]: He's identified Obama's ground rules for discussion.
1. Democrats get more time because "I'm the President."
2. Republicans may not criticise my bill. They can only talk about things on which we agree.
3. Republicans may not use the word "Washington" because it tips the scales.
Posted by: Dave in Texas at
06:59 AM
| Comments (351)
Post contains 359 words, total size 3 kb.
— Gabriel Malor Thursday. So close.
Posted by: Gabriel Malor at
05:22 AM
| Comments (207)
Post contains 11 words, total size 1 kb.
February 24, 2010
— Maetenloch Good evening and happy Hump Day all. And no that's not an invitation for a certain co-blogess who shall go unmentioned.
Drunken Argument: Epic Beard Guy vs. Techno Viking
Okay I hadn't even heard of Techno Viking Guy before but he definitely looks fierce. Given his build and the fact that he worships Thor, I think I'll have to give TVG the edge when it comes to hand-to-hand bus combat. On the other hand I'm pretty sure EBG is better with firearms and man traps.
Posted by: Maetenloch at
06:37 PM
| Comments (470)
Post contains 366 words, total size 4 kb.
— DrewM NY's accidental Governor continues to prove he has no business holding the position.
Seems David Paterson and a member of his state police detail took a very personal interest in the woman who was trying to get an order of protection from David Johnson, one of Paterson's top aides.
Last fall, a woman went to court in the Bronx to testify that she had been violently assaulted by a top aide to Gov. David A. Paterson, and to seek a protective order against the man.In the ensuing months, she returned to court twice to press her case, complaining that the State Police had been harassing her to drop it. The State Police, which had no jurisdiction in the matter, confirmed that the woman was visited by a member of the governorÂ’s personal security detail.
Then, just before she was due to return to court to seek a final protective order, the woman got a phone call from the governor, according to her lawyer. She failed to appear for her next hearing on Feb. 8, and as a result her case was dismissed.
According to the story the woman was rather adament about persuing the order of protection until Paterson's call and the "counseling" of the State Police.
The head of the state police actually claims this a service they often offer people in cases they have nothing to do with. No word on whether he managed to keep a straight face while saying this.
The State Police superintendent, Harry J. Corbitt, said he was told of the episode within 24 hours after it occurred. He confirmed that a state police officer had met with the woman, even though the episode occurred in the jurisdiction of the New York Police Department. He said the visit was made only to tell the woman of her options, including seeking counseling.“We never pressured her, at least what I was advised; we never pressured her not to press charges,” said Mr. Corbitt, whom the governor appointed. “We just gave her options.”
He said that such an inquiry was customary for the department if an episode involved a high-profile person, and that it was done in the 24 hours afterward.
“It’s typical if it involves anything that might involve a media event; it doesn’t have to be a senior official to the governor,” Mr. Corbitt said. “It could be a politician or a high-profile physician, anything that might pique interest in the press, because it’s a special circumstance.”
And if you believe that, Superintendent Corbitt has a bridge in Brooklyn he'd like to sell you. Personally, I'd like to see records documenting what Corbitt seems to claim is a fairly routine actioin. Not all of them, say 5. No 3 will do, actually how about one other case where this happened.
Keep in mind the NY State Police has a bit of a history of serving as something of a Praetorian Guard for NY Governors.
To add to the circus atmosphere, Paterson has asked the state Attorney General to investigate the matter including his own involvement. Here's the fun thing...the Attorney General is Andrew Cuomo. Cuomo has all but officially said he's going to challenge Paterson in a primary this year.
But wait, there's more! Should this get as far as Paterson having to leave office and I don't think it's a stretch to imagine it might (anyone really think a state trooper took this 'counseling' mission on his or her own initiative?), the Lieutenant Governor of NY is a guy named Richard Ravitch. Ravitch was named to the post during the summer power struggle in the state Senate. Paterson was the only person who thought he had the ability to name a new Lieutenant Governor and it took some willful blindness by the state's high court to agree.
New York could wind up having a governor who was appointed to the position in a dubious way by a governor who only got the job because Eliot Spitzer wanted to keep his socks on.
Welcome To New York: America's Banana Republic On The Hudson...Making Louisiana Look Good Since 2008
Posted by: DrewM at
06:33 PM
| Comments (49)
Post contains 715 words, total size 4 kb.
— Purple Avenger Ouch.
"Starbucks does not have a corporate policy regarding customers and weapons; we defer to federal, state and local laws and regulations regarding this issue."Maybe Starbucks realized that an anti-gun policy is essentially worthless for a coffee shop and possibly more dangerous? Its not like we're talking 2:00am drunken bar fights at Starbucks. Can anyone honestly say crazed killers or armed robbers respect such anti-gun policies after reading the little notice on the front door? Yea right. Those little signs? Just another way of saying "rob us, we're unarmed".
Posted by: Purple Avenger at
05:38 PM
| Comments (134)
Post contains 121 words, total size 1 kb.
43 queries taking 0.3759 seconds, 151 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.







