Congressional Black Caucus Caught In Between

The Current CBC Chair is on a slippery slope. (HT Wikipedia)

The Congressional Black Caucus is in a bind. The high unemployment number in the black community, currently at about 17 percent, is forcing the CBC to make a choice: Be more vocal in their criticism of President Obama, giving ammunition to the Tea Party, or stay silent and support the President and see their constituents continue to suffer. From the Miami Herald:

As the debate over jobs turns into the latest political tug-of-war, Rep. Emanuel Cleaver of Missouri walks a careful but candid line.

As chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, he has been at odds with President Barack Obama over his administration's response to the soaring unemployment rate in the African-American community.

Nearing 17 percent, joblessness among blacks is at a three-decade high and almost twice the size of the overall unemployment rate. The black caucus wants the president to do more.

But the group's efforts are freighted with political sensitivities, given Obama's unique role as the first African-American occupant of the White House and the sometimes untethered animosity that his election has triggered.

"If (former President) Bill Clinton had been in the White House and had failed to address this problem, we probably would be marching on the White House," Cleaver said. "There is a less-volatile reaction in the CBC because nobody wants to do anything that would empower the people who hate the president."

Most folks don't hate the President personally. They don't support his policies because they are choking the economy. Zero job growth in August. People are hungry for jobs and income. Sadly, the CBC looks like they care more about President Obama's image than their constituents incomes. There's more:

As a former two-term mayor of Kansas City, the 66-year-old Cleaver knows something about the minefield of special interest politics. He also is a Methodist minister who still occasionally takes to the pulpit on Sundays when he is home.

In Congress since 2003, he has friends on both sides of the aisle and started the "Civility Caucus" several years ago to combat the deterioration of political etiquette in the House. It has nine members.

"He is a not a fire breather, that's not his style, and I don't think he is, or for that matter, the caucus is genuinely angry at Obama," said David Bositis, an expert on voting rights and black politics at the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies. "I think they know that Obama is doing everything he can."

Cleaver is a lifelong Democrat who prizes political loyalty, and the black unemployment dilemma has put him and the group he leads in the awkward position of criticizing the policies of a president they admire, but not the president himself.

"It's not personal," Cleaver said. "They're attacking his policies, or lack thereof, with regard to this gigantic unemployment problem among African-Americans. If we can't criticize a black president, then it's all over.

White House spokesman Kevin Lewis said that Obama shares the caucus's concerns and has pushed for programs to address them. He said that the unemployment insurance extension in the president's jobs bill, which caucus members have applauded, would help 1.4 million African-Americans, and his proposed payroll tax cut would help 20 million.

Lewis said Obama, who belonged to the caucus when he was a senator, has a good relationship with the group and will speak at its annual dinner next week.

Criticizing Obama's policies means criticizing Obama, Something the CBC is very reluctant to do. They should be angry about the High unemployment rate. Even Barbara Lee said it was unacceptable. Again, people want jobs more than unemployment benefits because those benefits just don't go far enough to cover monthly expenses. The Congressional Black Caucus will have to make a choice: Either be loyal to Obama and the Democrat Party, or their constituents who keep sending them back to Washington. They way things are going, they can't do both. Lastly, could the reason that Obama has done so little for the black community is because he feels he doesn't have to work for their votes?

Background Reading:

Miami Herald: Black caucus head treads line between criticizing, supporting Obama

Author Being Exposed As The Rogue

Palin Derangement Syndrome, an all to common mindset of the left, has resurfaced. (HT Michelle Malkin)

It seems there's another unauthorized book of fiction for sale. From BigGovernment.com:

After a week of universally scathing pans from the reflexively anti-Palin establishment media, McGinniss now faces the fight of his literary life: the accusation that he seems to have knowingly submitted a book to his publisher, Crown/Random House, that was filled with unproved “tawdry gossip” and rumors that lacked “factual evidence.”

In the email below, sent in January of 2011, McGinniss reveals that his manuscript, then under legal review at Crown/Random House, could not prove its most headline-grabbing allegations. And yet, many of these “salacious stories” that lacked “proof” (in McGinniss’s own words) ended up in the book, and on televisions everywhere during the author’s current media tour … without proper sourcing, and without any apparent new evidence to support them.

Was Random House aware that its prized author was making a desperate overtime bid to save face? And if so, why did it allow him to come forth with most of those tawdry accusations without proof or proper sourcing?

This would not be the first time McGinniss has found himself in trouble over accusations of unethical journalism. In 1987, McGinniss agreed to pay $325,000 to settle a lawsuit brought by the convicted murderer who was the subject of McGinniss’s book Fatal Vision. He has also admitted to having surreptitiously distributed a competitor’s manuscript about Palin that was handed to him by his own publisher. The leak allegedly damaged the commercial viability of that book.

In 2003, Random House released a larger-than-life, massive bestseller by James Frey entitled A Million Little Pieces. Later, it was revealed that the book was a fantastical literary hoax that made its way past some of the highest-paid and most respected editors and lawyers in the literary world. Doubleday/Random House felt compelled to offer full refunds to those who had bought the book.

Has history repeated itself?

From: Joe McGinniss
To: Jesse Griffin
Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2011 6:15 PM
Subject: I have to ask you for help

Jesse–

Legal review of my manuscript is underway and here’s my problem: no one has ever offered documentation of any of the lurid stories about the Palins. Shailey Tripp is the latest example.

APD and Sarah have denied that Todd had any involvement with her. To my knowledge, no one has provided any evidence that he did. TheEnquirer cites AlaskaWTF, which in turn cites the Enquirer: what good is that? I’m also told that the Enquirer is preparing to back off this story and save face by denouncing Ms. Tripp as an unreliable source who promised documentation she couldn’t provide.

She may be mentally unstable and prone to fabrication, delusion, or both. Her joint may be called Blue Hands Massage (brrrrr!), but she’s no Monica Lewinsky with a blue dress with a semen stain, that’s for sure.

Do you believe that Todd paid her for sex? If so, why do you believe that, other than that you wish it were true?

A lurid, sensational, defamatory story about Todd, based only on the account of a woman charged with prostitution, who is no doubt desperate for money, and who sold her story to the Enquirer, is a gift from heaven for Sarah.

Jesse, you can ridicule Sarah for calling in to the execrable Bob & Mark, but the fact is that as far as this story goes, there’s no there there. And rumors about what might come in weeks ahead are not facts. In fact, they’re garbage.

I’ve neither seen nor heard anything that indicates that Ms. Tripp’s story has any basis in fact. None of the endless crap Patrick posted about her before getting the boot from Palingates.com offers any substantiation.

And even you write frequently that you know things you can’t yet post, but that soon “all will be revealed.” This has been going on since I first became aware of your blog, but as far as I know you haven’t substantiated a single claim or provided verification for a single rumor that you’ve posted about Sarah’s personal life, or the personal lives of any Palin family members. Thus, she gets to denounce what she calls “lies.”

Neither from you, the Enquirer, AlaskaWTF, palingates.com or anyone else, have I seen a credible, identified source backing any of the salacious stories about the Palin family.

Thus–as Random House lawyers are already pointing out to me–nothing I can cite other than my own reporting rises above the level of tawdry gossip. The proof is always just around the corner, but that’s a corner nobody has been able to turn. Maybe Jeff Dunn has, in which case I’ll be the first to congratulate him. But frankly, at this point, I’m tired of it, and I’ve run out of time.

No one has ever provided factual evidence that:

a) Todd had sex with a hooker, or with anyone else outside his marriage.

b) Sarah had an affair with Brad Hanson, or anyone else.

c) Track was a druggie who enlisted in the army to avoid a jail term. Or that he vandalized Wasilla school buses.

d) Willow was involved in the vandalism of the empty house in Meadow Lakes. Or that Sarah rushed back from Hawaii to put the lid on that.

e) Trig is not Sarah’s natural born child.

f) Bristol was promiscuous as a high schooler and drank and used drugs, or became pregnant again after Tripp’s birth.

Jesse, you were going on and on about Bristol being pregnant while doing Dancing With The Stars. And, if I recall correctly, at the time of her brief glossy-magazine-payday “reunion” with Levi, you surmised that she was pregnant by Ben Barber, or at least by someone who wasn’t Levi. You’ve recently suggested she’s had an abortion, publishing photographs that show her chubby then and thin now. But doesn’t that seem a little “thin” to you, based on nothing besides magazine pictures?

So much has bubbled at the salacious rumor stage for more than two years, but no one has been able to take even one story further.

Jesse, if you can put me in touch with people who are willing and able to substantiate any of the above, now is the time to do so. Otherwise, I hope you won’t complain that there are no startling new revelations in my book. My publisher and I think it’s damning enough without airing the family’s dirty laundry, but because Sarah’s hypocrisy about her family is one of the things that galls me most, I’d like to be able to publish facts in regard to a) through f) above, but I emphasize facts.

Not malicious speculation or third-hand rumors relayed by those who hold a grudge.

For any or all of those who’ve told you they’ll speak out, but not yet, now is the time. My book represents the last best chance to put the truth about Sarah in front of the American people in a documented, verifiable way. But I need facts that I can rely on. I didn’t live this long and work this hard over so many decades to wind up as AlaskaWTF between hard covers.

as always, and looking forward to seeing you in spring or summer,
Joe

There could be very nice lawsuit settlements for Sarah Palin. Libel and slander from Joe McGinniss, slander against Crown/Random House, libel against any newspaper who jumped on board, slander against any TV show that aired unsupported rumors. Any TV show that gave McGinniss time to dish on the book is vulnerable to a lawsuit. This proves that the fear and loathing for Sarah Palin has not gone away.

Background Reading:

BigGovernment.com: Explosive Email Shows Anti-Palin Author McGinniss, Random House Likely Published Literary Hoax (Updated)

BigJournalism.com: Caught: Random House Published Palin Smears After Lawyers Allegedly Told McGinniss No Proof Existed

The Obamacare Cat Escapes The Bag Once Again

The Evidence for repeal continues to roll in. (HT Michelle Malkin)

More ammunition has been given to conservative who want Obamacare repealed. Here's what happened during a conversation between Howard Dean and former New York Gov. George Pataki on Morning Joe:

DEAN: The fact is, it is very good for small business. There was a McKinsey study, which the Democrats don't like, but I do, and I think it's true. Most small businesses are not going to be in the health insurance business anymore after this thing goes into effect. I think Obamacare is a huge help to small business.

PATAKI: The only way it's a help is if they dump coverage.

DEAN: That's right. That's what they should do.

PATAKI: And employees all of a sudden have to go on the government exchanges. Which is what, of course the president promised wouldn't happen.

DEAN: It is going to happen.

This is very significant. The Washington Examiner reveals why:

The reason Democrats fought so hard to dismiss the McKinsey survey when it was released is because its conclusion undermines two major claims Obama made during health care debate: "If you like your health plan, you can keep it" and "It will not add one penny to the deficit."

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) premised their Obamacare score on the assumption that only 7 percent of employers would drop their employee health plans. If the percentage is closer to the 30 percent, as the McKinsey survey results predict, Obamacare's price tag would rise by almost $1 trillion.

Bottom Line: Conservatives were proven right and President Obama was proven wrong. Elections matter. If America doesn't put a conservative in the White House, and send enough conservatives to congress to repeal this monstrosity, then the worse is yet to come regarding the implementation of Obamacare, or what I prefer to call socialized medicine.

Background Reading:

Washington Examiner: Dean: Employers will drop coverage under Obamacare

Rush Limbaugh: Howard Dean Admits: Obamacare Will Kill Private Health Insurance

Yet another tax increase to push back against. (HT AR15.com)

Once again President Obama has shown his true leftist colors. From the Associated Press:

In a sharp challenge to the GOP, President Barack Obama proposed paying for his costly new jobs plan Monday with tax hikes that Republicans have already emphatically rejected. The reception to his new proposal was no more welcoming, setting the stage for a likely new fight with Congress.

Flanked at the White House by workers he said the legislation would help, Obama declared, "This is the bill that Congress needs to pass. No games. No politics. No delays." He sent it to Capitol Hill saying, "The only thing that's stopping it is politics."

The president's proposal drew criticism from House Speaker John Boehner, who'd previously responded in cautious but somewhat receptive tones to the $447 billion jobs plan made up of tax cuts and new spending that Obama first proposed in an address to Congress last Thursday.The biggest piece of the payment plan would raise about $400 billion by eliminating certain deductions, including on charitable contributions, that can be claimed by wealthy taxpayers. Obama has proposed that in the past — to help pay for his health care overhaul, for example — and it's been shot down by Republican lawmakers along with some Democrats.

Yet by daring Republicans anew to reject tax hikes on the rich Obama could gain a talking point as the 2012 presidential campaign moves forward, if not a legislative victory.

At a Rose Garden event Monday, Obama brandished his jobs bill and surrounded himself with police officers, firefighters, teachers, construction workers and others he said would be helped by it. Adopting a newly combative tone that's been welcomed by dispirited Democrats, Obama demanded immediate action on the legislation, which the White House sent to Capitol Hill Monday afternoon.

"Instead of just talking about America's job creators, let's actually do something for America's job creators," he said.

Even the AP knows that this plan is costly. Obama wants more new spending, something Americans are sick of. He's not listening to the majority of voters, and the lamestream media can't figure out why his approval numbers are so low. Eliminating deductions means he wants to raise taxes. Again, Democrat = Tax Increase.

Then there's the people he surrounded himself with, "police officers, firefighters, teachers, construction workers". These are mostly public sector workers. Their union bosses would be the primary beneficiaries of this plan. This doesn't help job creators because the job creators are in the private sector. They're being hampered by heavy regulations from the EPA, Dept. of Agriculture, and the Interior Dept. among others. Again, the more people who have private sector jobs, the more people who can pay taxes, which increase treasury revenues.

If he's serious about helping job creators, then unleash the private sector. Lose the heavy handed regulations, lower corporate taxes and capital gains, especially for small businesses. That will allow companies to hire and expand. More people working means more people engaging in commerce which makes the economy grow. Zero job growth in August should tell you his economic policy is a disaster, and we have to reverse course.

Background Reading:

AP: Obama would raise taxes to pay for his jobs bill

IFT Digging In On School Day Issue

Their battle line is drawn. (HT IFT)

Illinois Federation of Teachers President Daniel Montgomery is disturbed about the way the Chicago Public Schools is seeking waivers that would approve longer school days. He feels that the "waiver provision in the contract “was not intended” to be used in the way CPS is trying to use it". Meanwhile, "Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel say waivers are allowed under the contract, and teachers at five schools have approved them by large margins."

Both Rahm Emanuel and the IFT are use to getting their way. It will be interesting to see who wins out. As usual, a big labor boss cries foul whenever they're asked to give more. It really makes me believe that they care more about their contract as opposed to the kids that they're paid to educate.

Something else caught my eye: "CTU President Karen Lewis also serves as executive vice president of the IFT." Looks like another case of a high ranking big labor official double dipping on the public dole. This is also a point of contention that taxpayers have with union bureaucrats. It makes them look like fat cats who are only out for themselves. I wonder what the CTU rank and file feels about that?

Background reading:


Chicago Sun-Times: Illinois teachers union official blasts CPS longer-day tactics